Madonsela locks horns with MPs over her powers
CAPE TOWN — Public Protector Thuli Madonsela has clashed again with MPs on Parliament’s justice committee over her powers and mandate and the degree to which her investigations can be interrogated by MPs.
Previous altercations have led Ms Madonsela to make claims of a political plot against her and have caused African National Congress (ANC) MPs to make public declarations that they were not out “to get her”.
The intensified row over jurisdiction comes as another parliamentary committee is preparing to deal with Ms Madonsela’s damning report on the role played by Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) chairwoman Pansy Tlakula in the procurement of headquarters for the commission. Ms Tlakula has lodged a 55-page rebuttal with the committee.
At yesterday’s meeting Ms Madonsela enraged MPs by beginning a briefing on her annual report with a quote that seemed to indicate she felt MPs could not discuss her investigations.
She also triggered the furious debate on her mandate by calling for a discussion with MPs on section 182 of the constitution, which details her powers.
Democratic Alliance MP Dene Smuts welcomed the call for the discussion, but insisted MPs could discuss the public protector’s investigations and demanded to know why Ms Madonsela had used a quote that said investigations could not be discussed. She described it as “bizarre” that Ms Madonsela had seen fit to intrude in the work of another parliamentary committee.
ANC MP Mathole Motshekga said he was taken aback that after almost 20 years of democracy and 18 years since the establishment of the public protector’s office, there was still confusion over her powers. “I am amazed that at this stage we need a discussion on section 182.”
Mr Motshekga said that until the scope of the public protector’s mandate had been settled there was no question that the committee could consider supporting her plea for more money. He argued that better co-ordination with other oversight bodies could improve Ms
I am amazed that after 18 years since the establishment of the public protector’s office we need a discussion on section 182
Madonsela’s priorities and “then maybe you don’t need more money”.
Congress of the People MP Luzelle Adams asked why the auditor-general had found that R13m spent on a case flow system was wasteful expenditure, and wanted to know who was responsible.
Ms Madonsela responded that the system was bought by her predecessor in 2008 before she was appointed and had been declared wasteful only now that it was found the system did not work.
She also rejected the argument that one chapter nine institution could not investigate another. Both the public protector and the IEC were created in terms of chapter nine of the constitution and were audited by the auditor-general, which is also a chapter nine institution.
At one stage the exchanges between Ms Madonsela and Ms Smuts became so heated that Ms Madonsela appealed to committee chairman Luwellyn Landers for protection from Ms Smuts’s interjections.
Clearly unamused when Ms Madonsela offered to supply the committee with an information booklet, Ms Smuts said she knew what the issues were and did not need a booklet.
Mr Landers told Ms Madonsela that while he would protect her from interjections, some of the things she had said, such as references to booklets and quotations, “border on the insulting”.
He reminded Ms Madonsela that he also had a duty to protect the members of the committee.
Ms Madonsela has argued in the past that the justice committee, acting on behalf of Parliament, has the authority to oversee the way in which her office spends its money, but that it could not question the investigations her office undertook as this would infringe on its constitutionally enshrined independence.