Mkhwebane digs in, will not go without a fight

Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has no intention of backing down, but her arguments against the National Assembly’s rules which could be used to remove her were “absolute nonsense”, according to a constitutional law expert.

Mkhwebane yesterday in Pretoria released findings into investigations her office had concluded, but as expected she also addressed the looming parliamentary action aimed at her removal, proposed by the DA.

National Assembly Speaker Thandi Modise last week approved the motion to initiate proceedings to remove her.

Mkhwebane said Modise never alerted her of the process to remove her.

“I learned about this from the media. Till today, I haven’t heard from her,” she said yesterday.

Should Modise not respond to her letter, she would take the necessary steps as she believed she was being targeted for releasing previous reports against high-profile officials.

“I am not against any scrutiny. All I ask is fairness.”

While the National Assembly adopted rules in December 2019 to remove heads of all Chapter 9 institutions including the public protector, this was unconstitutional and unlawful, she said.

Mkhwebane listed what she believed were “many deficiencies” in the rules and called for the parliamentary process into her removal to be temporarily halted.

These deficiencies include remarks by the portfolio committee on justice and correctional services on several of her findings being challenged in court and the proposal for her to resign from office.

“I am advised that the rules … amount to a violation of the constitutionally prescribed duty imposed on organs of state to protect the independence of Chapter 9 institutions,” she said. “The rules also do not adequately provide (the principle of listening to both sides of the story) at all in their application and implementation.”

But according to constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos, Mkhwebane’s interpretation of the processes was “absolute nonsense”.

There was no need for her to be consulted on adopting the rules as she was not the sole target.

“These are parliamentary rules that apply to all Chapter 9 institutions. It is bizarre to declare there is a duty for parliament to consult her on rules that are general rules.

“When the process starts to have her removed, she must, of course, be given an opportunity to give her version. But the passing of the rules has nothing to do with her. The [rules] are not making any findings against her so she has no right in this regard,” De Vos said.

Mkhwebane however believed she could be targeted by political leaders as she had previously received threats when conducting investigations into the SA Revenue Service rogue unit.

“I wouldn’t be surprised that this would be a process of utilising state institutions to settle scores. We are here as an institution and these investigations are conducted by investigators who are competent and experienced.”

Through her lawyers, Mkhwebane wrote to Modise to highlight deficiencies in the rules. Should Modise fail to respond, Mkhwebane said she would consult her legal team.

“I won’t resign. I am here to serve. If the process leads to my removal, it will be God’s will.

“I am in this position to serve and change the lives of the people of South Africa.”

– rorisangk@citizen.co.za

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