Inquiry committee at ‘beginning of the end’: Mkhwebane charges are stacking up

CAPE TOWN - Parliament’s Section 194 inquiry into suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office has said she failed the “Gogo Dlaminis” and the vulnerable.

The inquiry committee held two marathon extended weekend sessions on Friday and Sunday in a bid to complete deliberations on its draft report.

Committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi referred to the weekend deliberations as “the beginning of the end of our process”.

He said the final sign-off of the report should be this Friday, or the following Monday.

After that meeting, the committee will send the report to Mkhwebane for her comment, before it is tabled in Parliament.

On Sunday night, as it wrapped up deliberations, the committee voted on the charges in the motion against Mkhwebane.

The charges were misconduct in the SA Reserve Bank matter, also known as the CIEX report; the Vrede Dairy Matter; incompetence in relation to the SA Reserve Bank matter and the Vrede Dairy; and a mixed charge of misconduct and/or incompetence.

This last charge contained two sub-charges, including misconduct in relation to the alleged intimidation, harassment and/or victimisation of staff, generally referred to in the inquiry as the “HR” issues, and the failure to prevent fruitless and wasteful expenditure in legal costs.

Regarding the charge of misconduct relating to the Reserve Bank/CIEX matter, several members of the committee concluded that Mkhwebane held “secret meetings” with the Presidency and the State Security Agency, although no records of such meetings were made available.

The committee agreed that Mkhwebane displayed “misconduct and incompetence” with the CR17/Bosasa matter and sustained the charge.

Committee members also sustained the charge relating to the Sars unit, and agreed that the charge of misconduct in the Vrede matter was sustained.

The committee said the charges of misconduct in the SARB/CIEX matter were sustained, as were the charges of misconduct and incompetence relating to the HR issue or victimisation of staff members.

Dyantyi said: “From the start, the committee said it would conduct an investigation, not just rubber stamp the independent panel’s finding that there was prima facie evidence of misconduct and incompetence against the public protector.

“We don’t work in dark, smoke-filled rooms where we produce reports. This is a transparent process, it’s a parliamentary process. Every step of the way you are going to follow, you’re going to understand why particular arguments were made.”

Committee member Brett Herron (GOOD Party) asked for clarity on whether Mkhwebane was asked to comment on the summation of evidence by evidence leaders.

The committee’s legal adviser, Fatima Ebrahim, said the summation was shared but Mkhwebane had not been invited to comment.

Ebrahim reminded members that Mkhwebane had been given the option to make closing arguments, but said she did not have legal representation.

She said this was despite the availability of Chaane Attorneys appointed as attorneys of record for purposes of briefing counsel.

Ebrahim said: “To date, Chaane Attorneys have indicated they cannot brief counsel until they familiarise themselves with the record.

“However, counsel was briefed for the limited purpose of bringing the recusal application, but not to deal with the merits of the Section 194 Inquiry.”

Meanwhile, the committee, on Friday, supported chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi’s decision not to recuse himself. This support followed Dyantyi’s detailed response earlier last week to Mkhwebane’s second recusal application, which he said held no merit.

Mkhwebane alleges that Dyantyi and two other ANC MPs were involved in a plot to extort money from her husband.

Committee member and ANC deputy chief whip Doris Dlakude said the basis of the allegations made in the recusal application did not form part of the motion before the committee, and the allegations were already being investigated by other bodies.

For the IFP, Zandile Majozi said It was not within the committee’s mandate for members to remove each other, and urged it to move on from the recusal issue.