Parliament’s section 194 committee inquiry into suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office has sent two sets of written questions for Mkhwebane to answer by July 6.
CAPE TOWN – Parliament’s section 194 committee inquiry into suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office has sent two sets of written questions for Mkhwebane to answer by July 6 as per its strict timetable released early this month.
Committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi said: “As previously indicated, if she does not respond to the questions, the committee reserves the right to continue with its remaining programme.”
Looking at the questions sent, and by whom, the committee appears to be split, with only 12 of its 26 members having sent questions to Mkhwebane.
The 12 committee members who sent their questions represent the ANC, the DA, GOOD, Freedom Front Plus and the ACDP. The EFF, UDM, ATM, IFP and Al-Jamah, did not send questions.
Dyantyi said: “While all members were invited to submit questions, not all members availed themselves of the opportunity to do so.
“Written questions by members of the committee were due by June 21. The deadline for evidence leaders to provide questions was yesterday, which they met,” he said.
The MP’s questions, contained in a 57-page document, concern both Part A and Part B of Mkhwebane’s statement to the committee about the charges in the motion.
The evidence leaders’ questions are contained in a 119-page document.
In their introduction to the questions the evidence leaders said there were two general sections for questions with the first requiring Mkhwebane to either agree/disagree with the statements.
The evidence leaders said: “Agreement can be amplified at her discretion. Where she disagrees with a statement, this should be explained to assist the committee, reasons provided, and supported by any evidence or reference to the record.”
They said the second lot of questions were direct questions and that to further assist, statements and quotations were set out as a precursor to these questions.
“While we tried to group questions together with reference to the main cases there is an overlap when the subject matter overlaps, for example, in relation to the Executive Ethics Code that arises in relation to both CR17 and Sars Unit matters.”
Meanwhile Mkhwebane’s attorney previously indicated to the committee that the time lines were “irrelevant, meaningless and of no legal force and effect”.
