President Cyril Ramaphosa Officially Removes Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane from Public Protector’s Office

Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane, the former Public Protector of South Africa, has been officially notified by President Cyril Ramaphosa of her removal from office. Mkhwebane shared a letter on her social media platform, revealing that she received the communication from the president on Tuesday.

Expressing her dissatisfaction with the decision, Mkhwebane stated that she intends to legally challenge the perceived injustice through review proceedings. While the details of her challenge were not specified in the post, she made her intent clear.

In the letter shared by Mkhwebane, President Ramaphosa referenced a previous communication where he informed her of her suspension on June 9 of the previous year. The suspension was pending the completion of an inquiry initiated by a section 194 committee of the National Assembly.

According to the president’s letter, the committee concluded its inquiry and submitted a report to the National Assembly, which found Mkhwebane guilty of misconduct and incompetence. Subsequently, on Monday, the National Assembly voted in support of a recommendation for Mkhwebane’s removal from office, with 318 Members of Parliament (79.5%) supporting the resolution.

President Ramaphosa explained that, in accordance with the Constitution, when the National Assembly adopts a resolution for the removal of the Public Protector, the president is obligated to carry out the removal. As a result, he officially informed Mkhwebane of her removal from the office of the Public Protector based on the grounds of misconduct and incompetence.

The president’s letter referred to an attached copy of the President Act, which recorded his decision regarding Mkhwebane’s removal from office (Annexure “B”). The content of this attached document was not disclosed in Mkhwebane’s social media post.

The removal of Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane from the position of Public Protector marks a significant development in South Africa’s political landscape. The decision to legally challenge her removal indicates her determination to contest the process and outcome, highlighting the potential for further legal proceedings in the future. As the situation unfolds, it will be interesting to observe the implications of this decision and its impact on the broader political and legal discourse in the country.

Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fate far from sealed, says Ralph Mathekga

An independent political analyst believes suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fate is not sealed just yet.

This is despite the Section 194 inquiry into her fitness to hold office adopting its final report recommending her permanent removal from office.

But political analyst Ralph Mathekga said it’s far from over and the committee can expect more legal challenges which could drag on beyond the end of her tenure.

“The reason being that she’s even indicated explicitly that she’s going to challenge the report in court, and she will not go straight to the apex court. What that means is that you can already anticipate a lifeline on the matter through the court litigation process until it perhaps lands at the apex court.”

The Section 194 inquiry said the matter is no longer in the committee’s hands and it’s now up to the National Assembly to make the final decision.

Meanwhile, Democratic Alliance deputy chief whip Dr Annelie Lotriet said it’s “scandalous” that from the start of the process, Mkhwebane has employed various delaying tactics to avoid impeachment before her term ends in mid-October.

MPs accuse Busisiwe Mkhwebane of absconding from Section 194 inquiry

Members of Parliament’s (MPs) have accused Busisiwe Mkhwebane of “absconding” from the Section 194 inquiry into her fitness to hold office.

They’ve also slammed the suspended Public Protector for still saying that the late African National Congress (ANC) MP Tina Joemat Pettersson was part of a plot to bribe her to quash the inquiry calling it insensitive and inhumane.

The committee met again on Friday saying this is now the “beginning of the end” in the lengthy process as it meets to compile its draft report.

Friday’s meeting of the inquiry dealt with two matters, Mkhwebane’s recusal application to remove the chairperson and to work on its draft report.

But members slammed Mkhwebane for failing to meet deadlines and respond to questions from MPs and evidence leaders.

“This is nothing less than a dereliction of duty and an abscondment. It must be on the record that the Public Protector is staging an abscondment on the inquiry,” said ANC MP Xola Nqola.

Chairperson Richard Dyantyi said Mkhwebane’s recusal application also had no merit.

“I found the recusal application without any merit and have, therefore, declined to recuse myself as you know by now.”

The inquiry is continuing to go through evidence before it collates a draft report that will be sent to Mkhwebane for her response.

Suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane to brief media

Suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane will give clarity on her impeachment inquiry. It comes as the Section 194 Committee says she has missed several deadlines to respond to questions. It changed processes after Mkhwebane ran out of funds for legal representation.

Members resolved to send written questions for response, but those have been ignored.

Mkhwebane, however, claims political aspirations are behind delays in the hearings which began a year ago. She’s made allegations against chairperson Richard Dyantyi and others.

Busisiwe Mkhwebane fails to reverse her suspension as ConCourt rules in favour of Ramaphosa

Suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s latest bid to return to office has failed, with her term set to end in less than four months.

The Constitutional Court (ConCourt) dismissed Mkhwebane’s application to reverse her suspension on Thursday, eight months after the full bench heard arguments from all parties involved in the matter.

Mkhwebane was suspended by President Cyril Ramaphosa in June last year, a day after she announced that her office would investigate the president’s conduct regarding the Phala Phala farm scandal.

‘Rational reason’
In a unanimous judgment, Deputy Chief Justice Mandisa Maya said the apex court found that there was a rational reason for the precautionary suspension of Mkhwebane.

Maya said the court was of the view that the Mkhwebane’s suspension would have allowed her to focus on her defence in the Section 194 Inquiry into her fitness to hold office.

“It cannot be said that the president’s decision to suspend her was irrational even if there were other rational causes open to him,” Maya said in delivering the judgment.

The Deputy Chief Justice said among other factors, the court took into account the findings of an independent panel led by Justice Bess Nkabinde, which found that there was prima facie evidence of incompetence on the Public Protector’s part based on a number of repeated instances.

She highlighted that the full bench also considered the various court cases in which Mkhwebane’s capacity to hold office was under scrutiny.

“This court itself has made gravely adverse credibility findings against her.”

ad
‘Mkhwebane remains on full pay’

The court also rejected Mkhwebane’s argument that her suspension was triggered by the Phala Phala investigation and that there was a conflict of interest on the president’s part.

“On the facts of this matter, this court holds the mere fact that the Public Protector investigating the president could not expose him to a risk of conflict between his official responsibilities and private interests.

“This is so because the power to suspend the Public Protector is not a power that the president can exercise without safeguards… it is a tightly constrained power which cannot be exercised on a whim or for flimsy reasons. The president can only exercise this power after a committee of the National Assembly commences proceedings for her removal,” Maya continued.

The Deputy Chief Justice further said it was not up to the president to determine the duration of Mkhwebane’s suspension nor decide whether the allegations against her were credible.

“That depends on the National Assembly and it’s processes,” said Maya.

The president “stood to gain nothing” from suspending Mkhwebane as the move did not hamper her office’s investigation into Phala Phala.

ad
“The Acting Public Protector had to and did continue with the investigation. Moreover, the president has no power to choose who will replace the Public Protector or to influence them.”

Maya added that Ramaphosa did not suspend Mkhwebane to prejudice her.

“The suspension is only a precautionary one and does no harm to her as she remains on full pay, has time to properly attend to her defence in the Section 194 Inquiry and suffers no reputational harm as she is already subjected to a public inquiry in which the allegations leading to her suspension have been ventilated.”

The court dismissed Mkhwebane’s application to return to office as well as her application to have her impeachment declared unconstitutional.

Costs

Mkhwebane was ordered to pay a part of the costs in her personal capacity.

“Regarding costs, this court holds the view that the Public Protector has not conducted herself in a manner that would justify mounting here with costs in respect of the appeals and cross-appeals.

ad
“The nature of this proceedings warrants the application of the Biowatch principle and the court has decided not to award costs.

“In relation to the costs of the section 18 application leave to appeal, however, the Public Protector must pay the costs in her personal capacity as there was no indication that the section 18 application was authorised by the office of the Public Protector, which had undertaken to settle her legal costs in respect of the appeals,” the Deputy Chief Justice said.

As expected the Concourt did not ‘disappoint’.
RIP Hon. Tina Joemat-Pettersson #ByAnyMeansNecessary by Malcom X pic.twitter.com/LsFUsm21e5

— Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane (@AdvBMkhwebane) July 13, 2023

ConCourt to rule on Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s illegal suspension by President Ramaphosa

The Constitutional Court will on Thursday rule on Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s illegal suspension by President Cyril Ramaphosa.

Last September, the Western Cape High Court ruled that her suspension was invalid and set it aside.

But the court did not agree with Mkhwebane’s contention that she be allowed to return to work immediately.

Mkhwebane was suspended in June last year, soon after she announced she would probe a complaint against the president related to the theft of US dollars from his Phala Phala farm.

A full bench of the Western Cape High Court found Ramaphosa’s decision had been hurried, retaliatory and biased.

Mkhwebane then returned to court, arguing that the order overturning her suspension should take effect immediately and that she should be allowed to return to work.

But The Presidency and the Democratic Alliance maintained the ruling was subject to confirmation by the Constitutional Court because it involves the conduct of the president.

The Constitutional Court will rule on this point.

It will also make a decision on whether the suspension of a court order pending appeal, is applicable to the High Court’s order in the Mkhwebane matter.

Busisiwe Mkhwebane reportedly wants ConCourt to award her unlimited money

On Wednesday, the Public Protector’s office told Parliament it would make an extra R4 million available for Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s defence in her impeachment hearing. She, however, wants unlimited funds.

Mkhwebane approached the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) on Friday to force the Public Protector’s office to supply more money to pay for her team of lawyers.

Section 194 hearing at impasse over funding

In February, Mkhwebane’s lawyers did not appear at her Section 194 hearing because of non-payment of fees.

The impeachment hearing will resume on Monday, with the suspended public protector expected to once again give evidence in her own defense.

Mkhwebane, however, feels she should be given more funds after the ConCourt had previously ruled that she has a right “to be assisted by a legal practitioner or another expert of [my] choice”, News24 reports.

She added that if the money is not made available, it would be a “malicious breach of the said binding court order” and “contempt of court”.

Mkhwebane legal fees

The Public Protector’s office has already spent R30 million on Mkhwebane’s legal fees for the impeachment inquiry.

The R4 million that it agreed to pay her legal team was taken from surplus funds from the 2021/2022 financial year, and after getting approval from National Treasury.

ad
“We looked at the budget for the current financial year and we realized that it is not affordable because, while we are paying for the Public Protector’s legal fees, we had to suspend some of the payments that we had to pay.

“There were court orders that were issued against us, the office itself, so we couldn’t even settle those bills. So, we had to postpone them to this financial year,” she said.

“So, we still had some leftover money of about R4 million that we can make available, just to support the process because we don’t want anything to disturb the process. That is all that is available, and that money should cater for everything to do with the Section 194 process.”

National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula has previously said that she did not think it was required to fund Mkhwebane’s defence.

Mapisa-Nqakula said the ConCourt’s earlier ruling did not extend to payment for Mkhwebane’s legal representation.

I want to serve South Africans, says Busisiwe Mkhwebane

I want to serve South Africans. That’s the word from Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane, who’s taken her fight to remain in office to the Constitutional Court.

In September, a full Bench of the High Court ruled that President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to suspend the Public Protector – after she sent him questions about the Phala Phala break-in – was improper.

Mkhwebane wants the Constitutional Court to uphold the high court ruling while the Democratic Alliance and the Presidency are appealing it.

Mkhwebane’s defense believes she’s being kept out of office by any means necessary.

The inquiry into Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office will resume next week.

Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s bodyguard was allegedly poisoned, but cops say he ate too much KFC

More revelations have emerged at the Section 194 committee, including how suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane received threats relating to her investigation into the South African Revenue Service (Sars) “rogue unit”.

Proceedings into Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office resumed after her latest bid to postpone the inquiry was rejected on Tuesday.

This paved the way for the committee to hear the evidence of Neels van der Merwe, who was appointed as head of the Public Protector’s legal services department in August this year.

Threats

During his testimony, Van der Merwe was quizzed about Mkhwebane’s email – dated 15 June 2019 – in which she alleged there were threats to her life, and that one of her bodyguards was poisoned.

“There is proof of threats to arrest for money laundering, threats to poison me and actually my protector has been poisoned (we have proof from the doctors). My car tampered with. Witnesses who fear for their lives confirmed two people who died mysteriously when they spoke about the rogue unit,” the email reads.

But Van der Merwe told the committee that police found no poison in the protector’s body.

“It [was] related to an issue of overindulgence in some food, Kentucky [Fried Chicken] or something like that. [It was] not related to an incident of actual poisoning or threat. That was the police’s report on the matter… they interviewed the protector and that was his explanation,” he said.

Watch the proceedings below:

Busisiwe Mkhwebane says her rights are being violated

Suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane says the Section 194 Committee looking into her fitness to hold office violated her rights. Mkhwebane appeared before the committee without her legal representatives on Tuesday.

Last week, her legal team led by Advocate Dali Mpofu staged a walkout. Despite this, Mkhwebane insists she’s still being represented by them.

“I was forced today to sit. I asked to be excused, I can’t sit in proceedings when my legal representatives are not there,” she said.

“I gave an example, now it’s like I am sitting in an abusive relationship and being told that just because we have decided that you must sit.
I feel my rights are being violated by the committee. Even now I asked the chairperson to be excused but they continued to violate my rights and proceeded without my legal representation.