Section 194: Rushed or justified? Busisiwe Mkhwebane could lose millions

The Section 194 inquiry’s recommendation for suspended public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s removal from office is clearly a “not so subtle” plan to hurry up the process in a bid to remove her before the end of term, according to experts.

On Tuesday, the parliamentary committee probing Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office, adopted its final report which recommended her permanent removal – without Mkhwebane’s response to the guilty findings of incompetence and misconduct.

Political analyst Arthur Shopola said it was already clear Mkhwebane would lose the R10 million end-of-term golden handshake among many other benefits, “and hurrying it up is more or less a punishment because she only has a month left”.

“They want her to lose the benefits which come with the office,” he said.

“I can say it is also an act of vengeance from people like the committee chair, Qubudile Dyantyi, especially following the recent revelations by Mkhwebane’s husband (David Skosana).

“They mentioned the chair and other members of the committee have been conniving to get rid of her, the bribery issues and so on.

“And, honestly speaking, they are kicking the dog while it is down.”

Shopola said the committee was not subtle with its intentions especially following the already underway process of finding a replacement for Mkhwebane.

MPs have until the end of this month to recommend a suitable candidate to the National Assembly to be selected for appointment after it received a briefing on Tuesday on the results of the screening process of the eight candidates shortlisted for interviews, who were all cleared.

However, addressing the media yesterday Dyantyi disputed claims the process was rushed. “Everybody else was there, we were led by evidence. We followed the evidence and even the outcome we had made as a committee is based on evidence,” he said.

“So, if there’s anything that I can speak about with confidence is the fact that we’ve been very patient and we were tested almost beyond our limits around the issues of patience.

“So, fairness is not one of the things you can have a problem with in terms of this process. And, it’s exactly what we needed to give her. We needed to be rational.”

When asked about Mkhwebane losing her benefits due to leaving office before the end of her term, Dyantyi said it was “a question just like the suspension question, it doesn’t belong to us”.

“Because for us it’s irrelevant. All we’re doing, we’re doing our work. Those who must deal with pension issues must deal with that,” he said.

“It’s not us but those who needed to suspend her. It was not us. We did not feature into that space.

“Our mandate was very clear. We tried to stick to the mandate despite having so many challenges.”

Political analyst Prof Ntsikelelo Breakfast, director of the Centre for Security, Peace and Conflict Resolution at Nelson Mandela University, said Mkhwebane’s issue was very complex.

“The timing in which the investigation was undertaken, begs the question about what is the real motivation behind the investigation,” he said.

“It’s good to uncover the truth about what had happened, but there was evidence she was not fit and proper to execute her duties, but didn’t the president suspend her on the spot at the time?” he asked.

“Why did he wait until the release of the report on Phala Phala? This just looks like political meddling gone wrong, because it looks like he’s clearly suspending her in order to avoid finding anything that might be against him.”

Breakfast also said there was a very big chance Mkhwebane would fight the report “at least until her term is over. I think she will try to hold on long enough and take a legal review”.