The Parliamentary listening to into the suitability of suspended Public Protector Busiswe Mkhwebane to carry workplace resumed on Monday. The first witness was the Public Protector of Zambia Caroline Zulu-Sokoni.
Advocate Dali Mpofu showing on behalf of Mkhwebane, began by asking her concerning the position of the Public Protector, also referred to as Ombudsman in different international locations.
Zulu-Sokoni was requested why it can be crucial for the workplace of the Public Protector to be protected. She stated in lots of situations these protections are missing and the workplace can not examine the executive freely.
Zulu-Sokoni has been the Public Protector in Zambia since 2004.
Under the steering of Mpofu, she outlined some of the work of comparable places of work in different elements of the continent and all over the world.
Public Protector of Zambia, Caroline Zulu-Sokoni was quizzed by Advocate Dali Mpofu:
She emphasised the significance of making certain that the workplace of the Public Protector has satisfactory safety from interference by the executive.
Zulu-Sokoni defined, “There are a lot of underlying problems in order for the ombudsman to be able to operate independently. If you look at all the principles… the very office that created it, the very office that funds it and the very office which is supposed to pay the salaries of the members of staff and the ombudsman himself.”
‘Disgruntled employees’
From the beginning of the hearings, Advocate Mpofu has maintained that many of the employees of the Public Protector’s workplace who’ve testified in opposition to her have been disgruntled staff.
He requested Zulu-Sokoni whether or not it was acceptable that parliament entertained such complaints.
In the context of the query, she replied that this was not acceptable: “Each of these people, if they have a grudge against the office of the ombudsman they have a right to go to any court of law of tribunal… through the one institution which the office of the ombuds is accountable to. It seems odd.”
In actuality, nonetheless, Mkhwebane is showing earlier than the committee charged with incompetence and misconduct.
The proof by employees and former employees is to assist the cost that she failed to guard the employees in opposition to harassment.
“If SA is bound by the Venice principles and we have shown so many areas in which this process flouts those Venice principles… and you can come back and say maybe this is the right route that I have to take. All of us are on the same journey,” the Public Protector of Zambia added.
