High Court rules Ramaphosa’s decision to suspend Mkhwebane invalid

The Western Cape High Court has ruled that President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to suspend Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane was invalid.

This was revealed by Advocate Dali Mpofu during Mkhwebane’s impeachment hearing on Friday.

The ruling, however, will not affect her suspension until it is confirmed by the Constitutional Court.

News24 reports that section 172(2)(a) of the Constitution provides that while a High Court “may make an order concerning the constitutional validity of … any conduct of the President”, such “an order of constitutional invalidity has no force unless it is confirmed by the Constitutional Court.”

The Western Cape High Court ruled that “the decision of [Mkhwebane] to investigate the president and to put 31 questions to him, prompted the president not to wait a day more and to immediately suspend her”. 

“Clearly, when the events that unfolded between the 7-10 June 2022 are objectively examined, it is irresistible to conclude that the decision of the president was improper.”

Mkhwebane’s suspension

In June, Ramaphosa suspended Mkhwebane from office with immediate effect.

At the time, the president said it was in line with the Constitution.

“Section 194(3) (a) of the Constitution provides that the president may suspend the public protector or any member of a Chapter 9 institution ‘at any time after the start of proceedings by a committee of the National Assembly for [their] removal’,” the Presidency said in a statement.

ALSO READ: Ramaphosa suspends Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane with immediate effect

The suspension came shortly after Mkhwebane sent Ramaphosa questions about the robbery at his Phala Phala farm.

Public protector claims suspension ‘invalid’

Mkhwebane then wrote a letter to Ramaphosa demanding to be reinstated. She argued that her suspension was illegal and invalid.

“Your decision to suspend me, as you put it, ‘pending the finalisation of the process taking place in the National Assembly’ is decidedly unlawful and invalid in that, to your knowledge, your power to do so in terms of section 194(3)(a) is not lawfully triggered by the taking place of the process but only arises ‘at any time after the start of the proceedings of a committee of the National Assembly for the removal of that person’.

“Alternatively, I hereby squarely challenge you to pronounce when and on what occasion you may allege that the proceedings envisaged in the section had indeed started. Your conduct is ultra vires and illegal,” she said.

Mkhwebane accused Ramaphosa of suspending her shortly after her office had opened an investigation into the president’s office.

NOW READ: Mkhwebane remains suspended as Ramaphosa stands by his decision