Hated in the absence of evidence

This week, we found out that our public protector has been accused of deliberately hiding and panel beating evidence in at least two of her reports. I should mention that she has gone on to deny these claims (and in a bizarre way) but that denial does not seem to matter to many in the face of the allegations.

The evidence we have for the allegations thus far: an affidavit from a senior staffer. The affidavit was made in the light of what has become known as the Whistleblowers Act.

Even on her best day, I wouldn’t contend that Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane is a solid public protector, but that is not my gripe with how this matter has been unravelling. If she is guilty in the face of these charges, I’d like to see more than an affidavit before I start sharing it as if her guilt is secured. I’d like to at least read the affidavit or, better yet, the provisions that it alleges were taken out/manipulated in the reports. However, commentators opposed to her are sharing this information with a victorious sense of: “See? We told you she sucks.”

Whether you agree that Mkhwebane sucks or not is up to you. I’m way beyond passing my opinion on her performance in office. What I would say now though is that many who are unleashing a barrage of political gunfire at her on the basis of this affidavit may suffer from an illness I refer to as PI, or Philosophical Inconsistency.

I’ve known some instances where people lie in affidavits. One cannot readily cross-reference them, least of all cross-examine them. Moreover, their value is based on whether the author feels bound by their own conscience … and even if one does feel so bound, it’s not like morality is universally understood. Even if it were, it’s not like we harbour a good track record of high moral rectitude in South Africa.

Thus it’s safe to say that there is little evidentiary value in an affidavit. That doesn’t mean there is no evidentiary value at all, but I would argue that whatever value there is, it is too little to automatically convict a person, be it formally, socially or otherwise.

Now I know that I need not really tell the people coming at Mkhwebane any of this because, if the tables were turned, as in some instances they have been, they themselves would employ the above analysis to discount the allegations. In fact, that’s exactly what Mkhwebane did! Not only did she outright deny the claims, she attempted to discredit the source by throwing in a little stab when referring to her allegedly disgruntled employees and accusers, “some of whom are facing disciplinary action”.

She’s playing with their own medicine, trying to discredit them with no finding, as they are still facing the action if we understand her statement to mean what it says objectively. They’re no more guilty than she is on the basis of the evidence presented but, hey, let time tell.

It’s simply astonishing that we get worked up over such accusations without them really being tested. It’s not surprising, though, because, seemingly, it is the only hope we ever get, since accusations (even those followed with hard evidence) hardly ever turn into convictions, especially for senior government officials. So if we’ve got to take what we can get, it’s always exciting to see somebody we don’t like get nailed. But we do need to raise the bar in terms of when the nails should come out and be less trigger happy with our desire to bring down those we don’t like.

Even those not in the commentary field should question their Philosophical Consistency here. By way of example, if you’re going to take an assault accuser on their word, you cannot come to Busi’s defence here … and if you’re going to respond to an assault accuser with a “why should we believe you?” then you cannot claim that Busi is guilty on the strength of this accusation. At least weigh in the denial, though that too I find wanting.

Were I a betting man, I’d believe that the harder evidence, should it exist, was deliberately held back in anticipation of Mkhwebane’s denial so that a release of it can later further paint her as a liar … or perhaps it hasn’t been released because it doesn’t exist.

We won’t know until it gets to that point, and since she has since denied it, that point should be soon.

Until then, it’s time to be more desirous of better-quality evidence before getting excited about taking down those we don’t like.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.