Cape Town – The Section 194 committee into the fitness of Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane to hold office heard on Thursday that her office incurred R146 million in legal fees since she ascended to the office in 2016.
Briefing the committee on court judgments and orders arising from the reports, evidence leader advocate Nazreen Bawa said 412 reports were produced by the office from the inception of Mkhwebane’s term up until the end of the 2022 financial year.
She said the number excluded the six-month period that advocate Thuli Madonsela was in office in the first financial year of Mkhwebane.
Bawa said 37 reports have been reviewed and set aside and 47 were pending before the high courts.
She told the committee that R158m in professional and legal fees was incurred from 2016-17 financial year to the end of 2022.
Of the amount, R146 998 077 was in legal fees.
A breakdown of the legal fees was as follows:
* R5.6m legal costs in 2015-16;
* R6.4m incurred in 2016-17;
* R20.5m legal fees in 2017-18;
* R16.4m incurred in 2018-19
* R48.3m in 2019-20;
* R31m in legal fees in 2020-21; and
* R24.1m incurred in 2021-22.
Giving a breakdown on some of the biggest cost drivers, Bawa said the Absa-CIEX litigation cost R14.5m.
The high court matter involving the DA and Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (Casac) came to R5.6m and the litigation involving Parliament came at the cost of R15m.
DA MP Kevin Mileham asked that there should be a list of firms of attorneys and advocates that “benefited” in each case.
But GOOD party MP Brett Herron said it was wrong to say the law firms benefited “as if they did not do any work”.
Advocate Dali Mpofu, counsel for Mkhwebane said the evidence was skirting on invading people’s privacy unnecessarily and wrong.
“There seems to be zeal to invade people’s financial and personal issues, particularly professionals whose names have been listed,” he said.
“Apart from sensationalism, there is no value to be derived from it by this committee unless one is to drill down to what happened in a particular case,” Mpofu said.
“To just flight the numbers like this can only be directed at the appetite of those who just want sensationalism,” he added.
Mpofu charged that the entire exercise was unwarranted because there was no prima facie evidence according to the independent panel of experts regarding the charge related to expenditure in legal affairs.
“You are just invading people’s privacy for no gain at all.
“This is completely irrelevant to any charges before you.
“The only matter in respect of which there was any reference to that charge is GEMS, which has not been dealt with.”
Committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi said he took note of the concerns raised by Mpofu.
These related to invasion of privacy and the need not to abuse the immunity that Parliament enjoyed.
Dyantyi said what was placed before the committee was to benefit all of them.
“I will ensure there is no narrative that begins to demonstrate a certain narrative, which is not part of what we are here for,” he said.
