Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has angered MPs who have accused her of "disrespecting" Parliament by questioning the value of an inquiry into the SABC board.
Members of the ad hoc committee set up to conduct the inquiry said Mkhwebane turned down an invitation to make representations on the matter and offered to send other staff.
However, public protector spokesman Oupa Segalwe disputed this, saying Mkhwebane had asked for different dates and she has requested clarity on whether or not the inquiry was still going ahead even though there was one SABC board member remaining.
She had written to the committee and asked that her staff give evidence in camera.
EFF MP Mbuyiseni Ndlozi said: "The new public protector must be told that this [Parliament] is the institution she reports to. It is part of her job description to appear. Parliament is her boss … her response is very disrespectful."
Committee chairman Vincent Smith said they would not entertain Mkhwebane’s request that her team answer questions in camera. The committee would consider such requests from individuals, but not from state institutions, Smith said.
The office of the public protector produced a report in 2014, When Governance and Ethics Fail, detailing the extent of the rot at the broadcaster. Thuli Madonsela was also invited but indicated she would not be available in December because of prior travel commitments. MPs have suggested alternative dates, but she has yet to respond.
Former SABC CEO Jimi Matthews and erstwhile board members Thembinkosi Bonakele and Nomvuyo Mhlakaza are also unavailable.
Communications Minister Faith Muthambi and the SABC Eight are among 30 witnesses the committee is looking to interview as part of the inquiry.
SABC chairman Mbulaheni Maguvhe’s application to the High Court in Cape Town to have the inquiry interdicted will be heard on Friday.
He wants the inquiry halted because of the "bias and prejudice" he feels he will face from MPs such as the DA’s Phumzile van Damme, the
EFF’s Floyd Shivambu and the Inkatha Freedom Party’s Liesl van der Merwe.
Maguvhe also wants the court to set aside the summons to produce documents to the ad hoc committee.
Smith said they would oppose the application.
Zuraya Adhikari, Parliament’s legal adviser, said Maguvhe’s arguments did not hold water. "There is, in fact, precedent [in which the courts have dealt with a similar matter] … everyone has [a] predisposition or views about issues, but this should not preclude them from an inquiry."
Segalwe said it was incorrect to say that Mkhwebane had declined to appear before the ad hoc committee. "A letter was received from Parliament inviting the public protector to appear before the committee on November 29. [She] indicated that, due to prior commitments, she would not be available on the suggested date. She indicated that she would be available to assist the committee on December 1 or 7. She further requested that she be assisted with questions beforehand so that she could prepare and be helpful to the committee," said Segalwe.
He said it was incorrect to suggest the public protector said she did not see the value of the inquiry. She requested clarity on whether the inquiry would go ahead in light of the resignations of several board members.
"The request for officials to give evidence in camera was informed by issues of security as the officials concerned do not have protectors," he said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.