Cape Town – The inquiry into the fitness of Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane to hold office has been postponed pending finalisation of matters around the funding of her legal team.
The MPs were sitting in a committee session to receive a presentation from evidence leader advocate Nazreen Bawa on the highlights of evidence Mkhwebane gave in her testimony the MPs should engage her on.
But, the EFF, ATM and UDM are opposed to Bawa giving a presentation in the absence of Mkhwebane’s legal team.
At the start of the hearing on Thursday, inquiry chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi indicated they were to ensure the relevant role-players took up the issue of the stoppage of the funding of Mkhwebane’s legal costs.
“The report is that work is seriously under way. I am not in a position to give any detail. It is not our space,” Dyantyi said.
He then invited Mkhebane and her legal team to indicate if they were ready to resume with her Part B of testimony.
Mkhwebane said her deputy Kholeka Gcaleka had placed her in a position where she could not give instruction to her legal team.
“The legal team was hoping by the weekend you will be giving them a solution to the problem,” she said.
“I could not give further instruction unless I receive something which would be saying in writing here are the resources, then I can proceed with the inquiry,” Mkhwebane said.
She said she was at the inquiry to account to Parliament, but the accounting included the process to determine her fitness to hold office.
Her plea that her legal counsel advocate Dali Mpofu be allowed to make any clarity was refused with Dyantyi saying he did not want to burden him as there was nothing new on the matter since Friday.
UDM leader Bantu Holomisa asked for postponement of the inquiry until Mkhwebane had state funded legal representation.
“I would suggest that we postpone this and iron out this problem which has popped up,” Holomisa said.
Aljama-ah leader Ganief Hendricks said the inquiry should proceed and that there was enough evidence before the committee to make a determination on the fitness of the incumbent.
“It is my view that the committee has enough evidence to proceed to make a finding seeing that the Public Protector does not have legal resources,” he said.
EFF MP Ompile Maotwe raised concern about confusion regarding proceeding with inquiry when Mkhwebane has no legal representation.
In response, Dyantyi said the evidence leaders would take MPs through certain aspects of the evidence presented to the inquiry over the last six days.
“Remember evidence leaders are an extension of this committee. They have been designed to unpack all issues and how to follow the entire process,” he said, adding that the move would save time.
Mkhwebane complained she had no legal representation and the inquiry was obliged to respect the findings of the Concourt.
“How do I sit here without my legal team?” she asked.
She also said her team was supposed to take notes so that when she continued with her evidence, they knew issues that had been raised.
“I don’t think that would be proper and fair, chairperson, if you do that because that will be violating your own directive and it will be a totally unfair process, if you do that,” Mkhwebane said.
She said the best way to navigate the situation was to postpone the inquiry until issues around her funding were resolved.
“This is not a proper way to go about, but then it is in your hands. I have put on record whatever you do is unfair. What would be fair is all hands on deck to find resources so that we can proceed in the proper manner,” Mkhwebane added.
GOOD party MP Brett Herron said it raised concern if they were to proceed with any part of the inquiry if Mkhwebane was not represented.
“I can’t see how we can proceed with Public Protector unrepresented and I don’t understand what happened over the weekend. I don’t understand the role of the committee to resolve it, but the Public Protector is entitled to legal representation throughout the process,” Herron said.
His sentiments were echoed by ATM leader Vuyo Zungula and Maotwe.
“We can’t expect the Public Protector to fund her legal team from her own pockets. We have seen in the Zondo Commission when there were plans made to avail funds so that inquiry reaches its conclusion,” Zungula said.
Maotwe said: “If we continue, we are bordering on unfairness of the process we started last year, which has already spent a lot of public money only to be overturned by courts. The rule is that she must be represented.”
Even ANC MP Boyce Maneli came to Mkhwebane’s defence saying it would be premature for evidence leaders to make a presentation while the matter of legal representation was not resolved.
“This may be a different situation if the committee convened as a committee for matters focused on the committee,” Maneli said.
Dyantyi later ruled that “we will step from continuing with inquiry. We (will) get into a committee session.”
The meeting is continuing and the parliamentary legal services were due to give advice on whether it was legal for evidence leaders to make the presentation on important parts of Mkwebane’s testimony.
Cape Times
