Cape Town - The Section 194 Committee gave a glimpse of the response to be made to correspondence received from suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s legal counsel.
This after advocate Dali Mpofu earlier this week raised fundamental issues regarding the inquiry into the fitness of Mkhwebane to hold office.
Briefing the committee, parliamentary legal adviser Fatima Ebrahim said they were in the process of preparing a response.
“Much of what is raised was canvassed in court. It is rehashing some of those issues. When we respond we will touch on everything raised,” Ebrahim said.
She told the committee that Mkhwebane’s legal team was still of the view that the Section 194 Committee was not a removal committee.
Mkhwebane feels following the committee’s proceedings, there will be another process before the Houses make a determination.
“This is not our understanding and is not supported by the rules as crafted and the outcomes of litigation processes to date.”
Ebrahim also said Mkhwebane’s legal team was arguing that the continuation of the inquiry was in breach of fairness, but she said the committee was free to proceed in the absence of an interdict.
There was also an issue raised that Mkhwebane was denied access to material and persons to exercise her right to defend herself and that the committee continued with the process as if nothing happened.
“It has been our understanding that the Office of the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector have offered support. We understand access to email has been restored,” Ebrahim said.
Mkhwebane was fully legally represented as per court ruling, she said, adding if Mkhwebane was having difficulty securing any person, the committee could summon such persons.
Ebrahim also told the committee that Mpofu’s letter raised the so-called suspension of Mkhwebane, “as we always indicated that was the prerogative of the president”.
The issue of marriage of DA chief whip Natasha Mazzone, sponsor of the motion, to Kevin Mileham, who serves on the committee, has also been raised in the letter.
The EFF has raised conflict of interest by the couple in the inquiry to Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula.
“We prepared a legal opinion and it will be dispatched to the Secretary of the National Assembly to deal with that issue.”
Mkhwebane’s team also wants none of DA MPs to serve on the committee because the party was a complainant.
“In this matter, there are parties that expressed strong views for and against the removal of the public protector. The point is in this process members need to apply their mind rationally to facts and evidence to find whether pubic protector misconducted herself or is incompetent as alleged,” Ebrahim said, adding that it was not a policy choice.
Committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi was accused of being biased and the double jeopardy rule was also raised.
Ebrahim said there was also an allegation that the inquiry’s directives were not fair and that submissions by Mpofu were rejected.
“That is an inaccurate representation. There are directives we agreed on and there were certain things we did not agree on.”
The committee will reconvene to allow Mkhwebane prepare and argue her Part B application in the Western Cape High Court.
Ebrahim said they would work in the committee programme to have flexibility regarding the request by Mkhwebane’s legal team to extend the court hearing to Wednesday.
Dyantyi said they initially agreed that the end of September was the end of their time, but they were likely to review and amend their programme.
“It is to take sacrifice and additional focus to achieve this. We are on track in terms of the process. Yes, there are challenges,” he said.
Dyantyi also said whatever they relooked at the committee programme and directives, it was important to enforce the rules of the National Assembly and adhere to the terms of reference.
”It is important to enforce the directives that were issued. There are a lot of areas of improvement,” he said.
Cape Times