Cape Town - President Cyril Ramaphosa has been accused of being biased against suspended public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane and of having rushed to suspend her before exhausting all other channels.
The accusation was made by Dali Mpofu SC, Mkhwebane’s advocate, on the first day of Parliament’s Committee for Section 194 Inquiry’s historic impeachment hearings against her.
The committee was established by the National Assembly on March 16 last year to conduct a constitutional inquiry into Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office.
Mpofu argued that the case against Mkhwebane had a political angle to it and told the proceedings into Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office that the president had been against her ever since her report on the CR17 ANC presidential campaign which swept him to office.
Mpofu argued that the bias came through when Ramaphosa suspended Mkhwebane a day after she posed 31 questions about the 2020 burglary at his Phala Phala farm.
The accusations divided committee members, with UDM leader Bantu Holomisa and EFF leader Julius Malema arguing on one side that the committee should seek a legal opinion about the president’s suspension of Mkhwebane.
Freedom Front Plus chief whip Corné Mulder, however, argued that the president had the legal power to suspend the public protector, while Al Jamah-ah MP Ganief Hendrick urged Ramaphosa to reinstate Mkhwebane.
Although Mpofu agreed that the president had the power to suspend the public protector, he argued that the suspension was unlawful and the process had been rushed in order to humiliate her.
Mpofu said: “We are here to participate in this process, but our participation is however under protest because of the many constitutional violations that brought us to this point.”
He said on the one hand with the impeachment process the country was entering a novel area and uncharted constitutional waters.
On the other hand the Constitution, which should have been the guiding light of the process, had been “serially violated” by zealots who wanted the process to happen by hook or by crook, but mainly by crook.
Earlier, during his opening remarks, committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi (ANC) said: “What we have is a constitutional process of the National Assembly. This is a process that we do with no predetermined outcomes. We are only going to be influenced by evidence and facts in front of us.”
Dyantyi said the committee would be an exercise in accountability and all they were there to do was to take part in an exercise that would examine Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office.
He said the committee was determined to hear evidence from witnesses that would assist in either exonerating Mkhwebane or evidence and facts that would guide it to make adverse findings.
He said the committee would hold hearings every weekday until August 3.
In her opening. evidence leader and advocate Nazreen Bawa SC said the impeachment process was an historic one.
“It is important for us to all have a common understanding as to what this committee is and what it is not. It is not a court of law. It is not a quasi judicial process.”
Bawa said the committee was not sitting as a committee of judges and there was no one that had to plead guilt or innocence.
She said the committee had no power to rewrite previous judgments, but could take note of them; and that as evidence leaders and not prosecutors, appointed by the committee, her team which is made up of her and advocate Ncumisa Mayosi, aimed to be neutral and fair.
Bawa listed the charges against Mkhwebane but said: “It has to be clear that the use of the word charge is not to be understood in a criminal context. Rather, the charge is to be understood as the grounds for removal from office of the holder of a public office.”
Yesterday had been set aside for opening remarks by the evidence leaders and Mkhwebane’s legal representative.
Today there will be testimony from an expert witness, to outline the role of the Office of the Public Protector.
The inquiry can be followed live on Parliament’s media platforms.