Parliament’s committee considering advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office will on Friday invite members of the public to submit statements for or against her ousting.
The committee, which met in a hybrid sitting on Wednesday, considered a provisional schedule with a working deadline of September 28 for its final report. That deadline follows three weeks set down for Mkhwebane to assess draft findings.
This week parliament’s legal advisers updated the Section 194 committee on Mkhwebane’s legal machinations after a controversial SMS delayed her case in the Western Cape. She hopes to interdict the committee and the president. Proceedings resume on May 18.
Section 194 of the Constitution of SA stipulates the process for removing a public protector.
According to Section 194(3)(a), the president “may” suspend her “any time after the start” of the committee’s proceedings.
Senior parliamentary legal adviser Siviwe Njikela was adamant the committee could proceed unimpeded by litigation in the high court and Constitutional Court.
“There is a different application, which is a rescission of a rescission, which is a bit of a curveball for all of us,” Njikela said.
Mkhwebane wants the apex court to rescind its decision against rescinding a previous ruling against her. Its determination of May 6, purportedly foreshadowed in an SMS, is under attack.
United Democratic Movement leader Bantu Holomisa and African Transformation Movement head Vuyo Zungula were anxious to pause proceedings until the office of the chief justice finalised an investigation on an alleged tip-off.
The ANC’s Doris Dlakude and the GOOD party’s Brett Herron were among a majority who supported moving ahead, insisting the purported “leak” from the top court allegedly reflected in the offending SMS had no bearing on the committee’s work.
Herron accused some of trying to “contaminate” the committee’s proceedings. “If there is any misconduct related to that SMS I think it’s really ... irrelevant to our proceedings,” he said. Dlakude agreed: “It’s not our baby,” she said.
The DA’s Leon Schreiber was caustic about Mkhwebane’s latest approach to the court of last instance. “We’re going down the rabbit hole here. What prevents a third or a fourth or a fifth application rescission? It becomes a bit of a farce,” he said.
The National Assembly has tasked the committee with investigating whether Mkhwebane should be removed for misconduct or incompetence.
The working deadline in under five months could be pushed out, depending on the public response to calls for evidence.
Parliamentary legal adviser Fatima Ebrahim outlined a provisional schedule, including upcoming deadlines for Mkhwebane. She must say by May 18 if a legal adviser or other expert will help her in hearings. Mkhwebane has until May 22 to submit written representations.
Ebrahim said the evidence leaders, senior advocate Nazreen Bawa and advocate Ncumisa Mayosi, had already begun preparing for the hearings and analysing evidence.
“In the coming weeks we will continue the process of identifying witnesses. We have finalised a public call for evidence and this invitation will be advertised by Friday,” she said.
There were provisions for members of the public who needed help submitting a sworn statement and handling evidence by the deadline of midday on June 3.
The preliminary schedule for witness testimony runs from July 3 until July 25. Members will deliberate in mid-August and finalise a draft report by early September.
Mkhwebane will, per the provisional roster, have three weeks in September to consider the draft. The committee is provisionally due to adopt its final report in late September.
Dlakude welcomed the presentation. “We are on a fact-finding mission. We don’t have any preconceived outcome,” she said.
The ANC’s Manketsi Tlhape expected Mkhwebane’s feedback within a fortnight. “A principle of fairness has been applied and I am happy that this committee has also invited submission of the legal advice of the public protector,” she said.
Several members considered the plan a “working document” subject to revision based on how many witnesses testified, among other things.
“The reason we are here is a motion that was adopted by the National Assembly, and that motion stands until such time as it is overturned through a decision of the assembly or there is some kind of ruling or finding from a court that prevents that motion from proceeding,” said Schreiber.
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.