Public Protector, Busisiwe Mkhwebane at the Pretoria Magistrates Court appearing on charges of Perjury, 21 January 2021 . Picture: Neil McCartney
Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s review of the rules for her removal from office will no longer be going ahead this week as planned.
The review had been expected to start in the Western Cape High Court on Monday and to run for the entire week. But Mkhwebane’s spokesman, Oupa Segwale, confirmed it was now off.
He said an administrative issue at court had resulted in the hearing not being set down and that new dates had not yet been
confirmed.
The Citizen understands, though, that it could now be set down for June.
Successfully reviewing the rules would represent an out for Mkhwebane, who is facing potential impeachment proceedings – rooted in the rules – in parliament.
But with those proceedings having recently begun gathering speed, time is of the essence.
Last year, the public protector launched an urgent application for an interdict to stop National Assembly Speaker Thandi Modise
from forging ahead with the process.
She was, however, unsuccessful and has since also been refused leave to appeal the court’s decision.
She has since turned to the Constitutional Court and has another application for leave to appeal pending there at present.
But in the meantime, Modise has already appointed an independent panel – headed up by retired Constitutional Court Judge
Bess Nkabinde – to probe the merit of the motion calling for her removal.
Nkabinde is joined on the panel by Dumisa Ntsebeza and Johan de Waal.
The motion to remove Mkhwebane on gross misconduct, or incompetence, was brought by the Democratic Alliance (DA) last
February.
It centres on her investigations into the bailout the SA Reserve Bank provided for what was then Bankorp during the late 1980s and early 1990s; as well as into the Vrede Dairy Farm scandal and into the Financial Sector Conduct Authority.
All the reports that she wrote on the back of these investigations have – at least in part – been set aside by the courts, which
have also often been scathing of Mkhwebane and even slapped her with personal costs orders.
She has accused the DA of having a “vendetta” against her.
Her challenge to the rules, when it eventually come before court, is expected to focus in part at least on the limitations they
contain on legal representation.
She previously said there could be “no conceivable reason” that full representation was guaranteed for presidents during impeachment proceedings, but not for heads of Chapter 9 institutions – labelling the situation a “classic case of irrational differentiation or unfair discrimination”.
– bernadettew@citizen.co.za
For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.
Download our app and read this and other great stories on the move. Available for Android and iOS.
