Johannesburg - The selection of a new public protector has been hit by controversy about the intervention of the State Security Agency (SSA), which says Deputy Public Protector Kevin Malunga doesn’t qualify for a “top secret” security clearance.
A letter from the agency, addressed to the acting head of Parliament’s protection services, was circulated to MPs on the ad hoc committee as it interviewed shortlisted candidates.
The letter said Malunga, who had been born in Zimbabwe but was a South African citizen, did not qualify for the “top secret” security clearance “required for the post”.
However, the requirements listed in the constitution and the Public Protector Act say nothing about the need for security clearance, nor did those given in advertisements for the job.
Public Protector spokesman Oupa Segalwe confirmed it had not previously been a requirement, nor had Thuli Madonsela, whose term expires in October, been required to obtain a top secret security clearance.
The chairwoman of the committee, Makhosi Khoza (ANC), was accused by the EFF’s Floyd Shivambu of having been irresponsible in circulating the letter on Thursday morning. This had been “extremely prejudicial” to Malunga’s chances.
But Khoza said there had been no “sinister” motive. She had merely been sharing all the information submitted to her about the candidates, as she had done with public comments.
The interviews ended at 3am.
Khoza said on Friday the SSA had been asked by Parliament to vet all the candidates and the information it had provided had been used in questioning them.
“We received a lot of objections, comments and other information regarding all candidates, but we could not take this information at face value.
“We needed to verify the information with the candidates concerned.”
Lawson Naidoo, executive director of the Council for the Advancement of the SA Constitution, asked on which grounds the SSA had been allowed to introduce a new criterion for the post.
The letter was dated August 4, yet it had been circulated to members of the committee only on the morning of the interviews.
Naidoo said the committee should have deliberated on the contents of the letter before the interviews had begun and it should, “at the very least”, have been referred for a legal opinion. Malunga had clearly been rattled by the information and given a poor interview, Naidoo said.
While it was too early to talk of a legal challenge to the process, the latest controversy added to concerns about its integrity and the “haphazard” way in which candidates had been selected. “We’ll have to watch very carefully how the committee resolves this issue in its deliberations at its next meeting,” Naidoo added.
The Open Democracy Advice Centre said in its comment that Malunga had stood in for Madonsela at least 30 times and had presumably had sight of all relevant documents.
He had also been privy to conversations relating to the work of the office. “If he has no clearance, and this is necessary, which we think it is not, then why has he been allowed to continue in his position?” Odac asked.
The committee could not consider a requirement which was outside the law and had not been made known to applicants and the public before the opening of applications. “We ask the committee to consider this before proceeding,” Odac said. As the interviews stretched into early on Friday Khoza told MPs the legal status of the letter was unclear and the SSA would have to explain its reasoning before the committee could decide what to do with the information. Malunga was peppered with questions, including by Khoza, about when he arrived in the country and when he obtained his qualifications. The SSA letter said he had arrived only in 2010, while he had stated he had been studying in South Africa before this. Malunga said it was “not true” he had arrived in 2010.
Political Bureau