Key evidence leader in suspended public protector advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane‘s impeachment inquiry, Nazreen Bawa, today refused to recuse herself.

The Section 194 committee heard a defiant response to the recusal application from her.

‘Forced’ recusal attempts

Bawa had become the third target of forced recusal attempts as the United Democratic Movement (UDM) leader Bantu Holomisa and #FeesMustFall activist Chumani Maxwele wanted Bawa to be recused amid accusations by Judge President John Hlophe’s lawyer Barnabas Xulu.

The complaints from Holomisa and Maxwele relied solely on Xulu’s affidavit, which included claims Bawa placed false evidence before the court and interfered in the National Prosecuting Authority’s (NPA) investigations.

False evidence

Bawa said they had a similar turn of phrase. “I have not interfered in any NPA prosecution, nor any investigation into criminal conduct, nor sought to frustrate any criminal investigations, nor sought to shield any person from criminal investigations,” she said.

She said it was an ongoing matter, and her clients indicated they do not intend to withdraw her brief.

Bawa added she had yet to work out exactly what criminality she was implicated in.

“I am also not a decision-maker, nor a member of the committee,” she said.

“The complainants have not pointed to anything done during this inquiry that warrants my removal.”

As Bawa represented the department of environment, forestry and fisheries (DFFE) in a matter in which Xulu has been ordered to repay R20 million to the department, she said the allegations against her were put before the committee in a “mischievous way”.

She said: “I do not require any space to deal with vexatious allegations – which are based on supposition and have before this committee been mischievously and erroneously elevated to prima facie evidence, despite constituting substantial misrepresentations.”

Bawa said the allegations against her by Xulu – who himself was under investigation by the Legal Practice Council for alleged dishonesty – showed he is a “disgruntled litigant”.

It is understood Xulu had also lost or abandoned 13 court appearances against DFFE.

“Instead of paying back the more than R20 million that several courts have found BXI/Xulu to have unlawfully removed from departmental bank accounts, BXI/Xulu have embarked on a vendetta – and indications are that he is aided by his erstwhile clients, Maxwele and Paul Ngobeni – against the legal team engaged by DFFE.

“This involves from time to time making scurrilous, vexatious and unsubstantiated allegations through supposition and inferences in a manner which defies logic, and in this instance, on the part of Xulu making material misrepresentations to a court under oath. This behaviour is unbecoming an officer of a court.”

BXI is Xulu’s law firm.

Bawa should not be investigated

Democratic Alliance MP Kevin Mileham said Bawa was not the person of interest to the committee.

“She is not a person who we should be investigating or taking further action against. Other issues she might be dealing with outside this committee are absolutely irrelevant.”

Holomisa said the committee had a duty to hear both sides of the story and should invite “both complainants”.

ALSO READ: R140 million in legal fees spent on defending Mkhwebane over 5 years