Not even a king is as immune to the law as Ramaphosa, says defiant Mkhwebane

Suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane says she is being unfairly treated by the judiciary, the media as well as the Section 194 Committee investigating her fitness to hold office.

Mkhwebane briefed the media on Tuesday to dispel what she labelled a “propaganda campaign” against her.

This follows the ruling of the Constitutional Court (ConCourt), which dismissed Mkhwebane’s application to reverse her suspension.

ALSO READ: Mkhwebane: ‘I am one of the best ever, unfortunately they’re blinded by hatred’

In a unanimous judgment delivered last week, the ConCourt found that there were “rational reasons” for President Cyril Ramaphosa to suspend the public protector, partly because her absence in office did not block the Phala Phala investigation from continuing.

Mkhwebane had argued that Ramaphosa had a bias towards her due to the investigation, but the apex court ruled that the public protector was not prejudiced as she continued to receive her salary and did not suffer reputational harm since the issues leading to her suspension were being dealt with in an inquiry in Parliament.

‘In deep trouble’

Reacting to the judgment, Mkhwebane maintained that her suspension was triggered by the Phala Phala investigation and that there was a conflict of interest on the president’s part.

“The fact that the suspension took place a day before even the court judgment to determine the legality of the suspension also did not seem to bother the court,” she said on Tuesday.

The suspended public protector said it was “remarkable” that Ramaphosa was exonerated twice by the ConCourt and Acting Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka, who cleared the president of wrongdoing in relation to Phala Phala, within a space of one week.

She suggested that the country was “in deep trouble” because court judgments seem to favour the president.

“Not even an absolute monarchy can be so immune from the law,” Mkhwebane added.

Section 194 chair recusal

Mkwebane also addressed the latest developments in the Section 194 Inquiry having missed several deadlines to respond to questions after she brought her second application for the committee’s chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi’s recusal last week.

The public protector wants Dyantyi removed from the inquiry due to allegations by her husband, David Skosana, that the late ANC MP Tina Joemat-Pettersson – whose death is the subject of an inquest – tried to solicit bribes for herself, Dyantyi and ANC chief whip Pemmy Majodina in exchange for making Mkhwebane’s impeachment inquiry “go away”.

Skosana has also opened a complaint with the police while Mkhwebane did so with Parliament’s ethics committee.

READ MORE: Mkhwebane extortion claims could open final committee report to legal challenge

On Tuesday, Mkhwebane slammed the inquiry for continuing with its work despite the allegations against Dyantyi.

“What is most puzzling is that I am now expected to appear before the very same chairperson who is specifically named in the recordings as the solicitor of the bribe from me and my husband,” she said.

The suspended public protector said she failed to understand why she was expected to comply with “madness”.

“So I must accept to be trialed by a suspect in a serious criminal investigation by the Hawks, another serious investigation for breaching his oath of office by Parliament… even a suspect in conspiracy to murder as the outcome of the inquest may well has shown.

“A whole human being has died in very strange circumstances and the country must just pretend that nothing out of the ordinary has happened, it must be business as usual.”

Watch the briefing below:

‘Plainly illegal

Mkhwebane said she has asked the inquiry to call her husband to give evidence before the inquiry, but “Dyantyi has refused to say whether there will be any open or public representation of the application”.

“As we speak, we are in the dark whether Mr Dyantyi finally considered that I do not have legal representation until my attorneys feel professionally comfortable to brief counsel on the merits of the charge and whether he will recuse himself or even allow me an opportunity to present my application orally and publicly.”

According to a statement from Parliament, Dyantyi has noted the recusal application and informed Mkhwebane’s attorneys that he would respond in writing by Friday.

RELATED: Mkhwebane must answer 630 questions, but ‘can she read’ them?

“Mr Dyantyi indicated that he will apply his mind to the content of the application. The committee awaits the summation of evidence from the evidence leaders. The committee has noted that Advocate Mkhwebane did not indicate her intention to make a closing argument or submit a written closing statement,” the statement reads.

Furthermore, Mkhwebane accused National Assembly speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula of allowing Dyantyi to violate the law.

“He has so far been allowed to ignore both issues and carry on as if the issues are not there. For a committee which is duty bound to follow the Constitution and the rules of the National Assembly which prescribes fairness… the attitude of the chairperson, the committee and Parliament as a whole is plainly illegal and cannot be rationally defended.”