DA counsel trashes public protector Mkhwebane’s claim of victimisation

Counsel for the DA has rejected public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s claim that she is being victimised “by the most powerful forces in the country ever to be imagined”.

Advocate Steven Budlender, acting for the DA, sought to discredit this argument, saying: “It demonstrates the lengths to which the public protector and her lawyers will now go in an effort to prevent the impeachment proceedings.”

Mkhwebane’s actions are under scrutiny in a parliamentary investigation into her fitness to hold office. The Section 194 committee tasked with this heard from parliamentary legal advisers it could continue its work, despite the court cases involving the public protector.

In the high court in Cape Town on Thursday, Budlender tackled submissions from senior advocate Dali Mpofu, who said Mkhwebane was being “in a co-ordinated fashion victimised by the most powerful forces in this country”. Budlender raised the “foundation for the charge of impeachment” from three years ago.

In July 2019, the Constitutional Court ruled on Mkhwebane’s investigation into the SA Reserve Bank and made scathing remarks about her conduct. The court decided she acted “in bad faith and in a grossly unreasonable manner” and “put forward a number of falsehoods in the course of litigation” and had “not been honest about her engagement during the investigation” and “exhibited conduct which falls far short of the high standards required of her office”.

STARTING POINT

These findings from the apex court, Budlender submitted, should be the starting point when the three judges assess whether “there is some witch hunt or conspiracy” against Mkhwebane. He later noted that Mkhwebane had retained her job for three years since that adverse finding. This was due, he submitted, to “a concerted campaign” to thwart her impeachment proceedings.

Acting for President Cyril Ramaphosa, Kameshni Pillay told the inquiry that Ramaphosa did not prejudice Mkhwebane when he wrote to her in March advising she should give reasons why she should not be suspended pending the outcome of an inquiry tasked by the National Assembly with investigating her conduct. Ramaphosa, Pillay said, was taking care to ensure fairness and due process in considering her suspension, contrary to Mkhwebane’s claim he was being punitive. Mpofu called the suspension a “draconian” measure that harmed one’s selfworth and reputation.

Mpofu maintained that Mkhwebane was a “lonesome woman who’s just trying to do her job” against a claimed conspiracy involving the president, speaker of parliament, chief justice and the press.

Mpofu claimed the committee had erred in continuing its work last week. “That decision is so flawed, so fundamentally, legally flawed, but it stands because there are many. The law doesn’t work like that in a constitutional democracy,” he said on Wednesday.

Counsel for the African Transformation Movement and the UDM urged the high court to prevent parliament from using the public protector as a “football for political opponents”.

The parties told the court the committee’s work must halt until the court cases are closed.

Judgment was reserved.