Cape Town - Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane stuck by her recommendation in the CR17-Bosasa report that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) should probe President Cyril Ramaphosa for possible money laundering.
Continuing with her testimony, Mkhwebane said on Tuesday the complaint from former DA leader Mmusi Maimane had suspected money was transferred from one bank account to another.
“During the investigation evidence before us was showing that indeed there was a lot of money from one account to another,” she said.
Mkhwebane also said the Public Protector Act has provision that during or after completion of an investigation her office could refer a matter to another authority for investigation.
“We referred the allegation that there might be an issue of money laundering and referred it to the relevant institution responsible for prosecution – the NPA.”
Asked by her legal counsel, advocate Dali Mpofu, whether in her recommendation she was finding anyone guilty or prescribing to the NPA, Mkhwebane said she did not because she did not have a mandate to investigate criminal conduct.
“When I say prima facie, it was based on evidence before me, which is bank statements and how the money moved from one account to another.
“We could not ignore the fact that the money was paid into accounts and moved from one to the other.”
Mkhwebane also likened her recommendation to that of her predecessor Thuli Madonsela, who recommended that then Chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng appoint a judge for the state capture commission.
“I was not finding anyone guilty. I was just saying there is this evidence.
This is your constitutional mandate; can you look into the matter,” she said, adding that a court judgment by Judge Dunstan Mlambo said there was nothing wrong with referring matters to other organs of state.
However, she decried that the court had made an adverse finding on her similar recommendation in the CR17-Bosasa report.
“That creates a lot of confusion in how we operate as an institution.” Mkhwebane said the inquiry into her fitness was an opportunity for her and those that cared to listen to understand that the court had found during Madonsela’s term that there was nothing wrong in referring matters to the NPA.
“Under my term of office, using the same provision, I am being criticised and (accused of) encroaching on the independence of the NPA.
“Now this puts us in a predicament. Maybe the next Public Protector will be lucky enough, and will possibly not be treated the way I was treated,” she said.
“I don’t know what to say about the provision when I do a hand over to that person,” Mkhwebane said, in reference to the Public Protector Act that allows her office to refer matters for investigation by other authorities.
Asked to comment on findings by the independent panel that there was prima facie evidence that she had doubted the bona fides of Ramaphosa and made findings of money laundering, Mkhwebane said there was no basis to the panel’s findings.
“It was not doubting.
“It was evidence based on a complaint lodged by Mr (Mmusi) Maimane, the investigation by the investigators and finalisation of the matter.
“Indeed, that prima facie finding has no basis. We were basing our investigation on evidence, which is still out there, and the judgement of chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng.”
Mkhwebane said she felt she was targeted and victimised for honestly doing her work.
Cape Times