Parliament welcomes ConCourt ruling on impeachment of Busisiwe Mkhwebane

The Constitutional Court has ruled that Parliament can go ahead with the impeachment of Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane. Picture: Jeffrey Abrahams/African News Agency (ANA) Archives

The Constitutional Court has ruled that Parliament can go ahead with the impeachment of Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane. Picture: Jeffrey Abrahams/African News Agency (ANA) Archives

Published Feb 4, 2022

Share

Cape Town - Parliament has welcomed the decision of the Constitutional Court that allowed it to go-ahead with the impeachment of the public protector.

Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula said the judgment removed any hurdles for the process to be allowed to continue.

The process began months ago after MPs decided to impeach Busisiwe Mkhwebane.

This came after then Speaker Thandi Modise had appointed a panel chaired by retired Constitutional Court Judge Bess Nkabinde to determine if there was a prima facie case against Mkhwebane.

The panel found that she had a case to answer.

Mkhwebane took the matter to the Western Cape High Court.

In a statement on Friday, Parliament said it welcomed the decision of the apex court to allow for the impeachment process to go ahead.

“The Speaker appreciates the clarification and guidance provided by the Constitutional Court in relation to the judgment of the high court, which removes any hurdle to the continuation of the process by the section 194 committee which is tasked with considering the motion,” said Parliament.

“The court has provided clear guidance on the correct phrasing of the rule regarding the participation of a legal representative in the removal process, ruling that the rule be amended to read that the ‘holder of a public office must be afforded the right to be heard in his or her defence and to be assisted by a legal practitioner or other expert of his or her choice’.

“The court made it clear that this does not imply that the section 194 committee cannot ask the public protector to personally respond to questions put to her. This was contrary to the public protector’s contention for the rules to be declared unlawful. We agree with the judgment that this was a clear tactic to delay the proceedings of the section 194 committee.

“We also concur with the judgment that the Speaker’s inclusion of a judge in the panel of experts did not offend the doctrine of separation of powers. Contrary to the public protector’s argument, the inclusion of a judge was not tantamount to the undue appropriation of the presidential powers in the Constitution to appoint a judge. The Speaker in making an appointment to the panel contemplated in Assembly Rule 129U is not making a judicial appointment,” it said.

[email protected]

Political Bureau