Inquiry rejects Public Protector’s extension plea

The Section 194 Committee has refused to grant an extension to Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane to submit her affidavit 11 days after the set deadline and then testify seven days later.

The Section 194 Committee has refused to grant an extension to Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane to submit her affidavit 11 days after the set deadline and then testify seven days later.

Published Mar 8, 2023

Share

Cape Town - The Section 194 Committee has refused to grant an extension to Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane to submit her affidavit 11 days after the set deadline and then testify seven days later.

The committee is looking into Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office.

The committee said it would also not be involved in the matter in which the Public Protector South Africa (PPSA) indicated it would not fund Mkhwebane’s legal fees beyond March 30 due to lack of funds. This emerged when the committee discussed correspondence from Mkhwebane and PPSA on Tuesday.

The committee on Tuesday concluded the testimony of former public protector Thuli Madonsela, and is scheduled to hear evidence from Mkhwebane from March 15 to March 31. In one letter to the committee, Mkhwebane’s legal team said it was impossible to expect Mkhwebane to submit her statement on March 9, just two days after the testimony of Madonsela.

They said they would prepare for the hearing of the application they launched in the Western Cape High Court on March 13.

“It will only be fair and reasonable to defer the submission of the Public Protector’s statement to a date not earlier than March 20 2023 and the commencement of her evidence to March 27 2023,” the letter said.

Mkhwebane also asked the committee to schedule the calling of new witnesses, Build One South Africa leader Mmusi Maimane and NPA Advocate Sello Maema.

They said Maimane had agreed to testify on the CR17 and Vrede Dairy investigations, while Maema agreed in principle to testify on the so-called “Rogue-Unit” report subject to NPA permission.

Deputy Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka wrote to Mkhwebane saying the inquiry had exceeded its initial scheduled period and was still ongoing.

“The PPSA has already been billed and paid an amount in excess of R10 million, which is more than double the amount it had originally committed, without the fee agreement being revised as per the undertaking between the parties.

This amount excludes the costs for the period of October 2022 to date, for which the PPSA has not yet been billed,” Gcaleka said.

She said Mkhwebane’s team had approached her office for additional mandates and instructions to provide her with legal services in other matters, which were declined.

During a discussion by the committee, DA MP Kevin Mileham said he was concerned that Mkhwebane’s witness list was “never ending”.

“We need to put a stop to this,” Mileham said.

ANC MP Bhekizwe Nkosi noted that should the inquiry continue beyond March 30, the PPSA would not fund Mkhwebane’s legal fees.

He said affidavits should be obtained from Maimane and Maepa and then a decision be taken whether to call them for oral evidence.

ACDP MP Marie Sukers said Mkhwebane should be allowed to submit her affidavit before her testimony and that her new witnesses should make written statements.

In summing up the deliberations, committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi said they granted an extension for submission of the affidavit from March 9 to March 14.

“Members are of the firm view that we have a standing programme... the time we have is not open-ended,” he said.

Dyantyi said they were all in agreement that Mkhwebane should testify as planned on March 15. He added that statements of the witnesses Mkhwebane wished to testify be submitted and read into the inquiry’s record.

“We will look into the relevance of what is submitted and decide whether to do oral hearings.”

Dyantyi said after receiving Gcaleka’s letter that PPSA had run out of funds, the committee could not force the institution to operate unlawfully, only for Parliament to question them about “why they spent money they did not have”.

Cape Times