Daily Dispatch

The new (private) public protector

WHEN public protector advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane was appointed to replace Thuli Madonsela, the public was divided over her suitability to hold such an important position in our body politic.

Many felt that she ought to be given a chance to prove herself, while others felt that she was President Jacob Zuma’s lackey who had been appointed to do his bidding. Even worse – so the latter view went – Mkhwebane had been appointed to the office to undo the good work that Madonsela had achieved in her seven years at the crucial Chapter 9 institution.

Given Madonsela’s public profile and her prolific track record it was always going to be a difficult job following in Thuli’s illustrious foot steps.

It also did not help Mkhwebane that she had a history in the Department of State Security – with the Democratic Alliance going as far as accusing her of having been a spy in China, a charge Mkhwebane vehemently denied.

But as soon as she took office Mkhwebane did nothing to prove her detractors wrong. In fact she seemed determined to unravel whatever gains her predecessor had managed to achieve.

Besides criticising Madonsela’s famed report-naming activities and and accusing her predecessor of playing to the gallery, Mkhwebane raised a few eyebrows when, as soon as she assumed office she indicated she would not oppose Zuma’s bid to stop the release of Madonsela's State of Capture report.

Even with that, some still felt that Mkhwebane could still redeem herself and prove that she was a worthy candidate for the office.

But her decision to lay criminal charges against Madonsela – following a complaint from Zuma about the release of the recording of his interview with Madonsela – has removed any doubt that our public protector may be serving the private interests of a certain individual.

Yesterday Mkhwebane confirmed opening a case at the Brooklyn Police Station in Pretoria two weeks ago in relation to the “leaking” of the recording.

However what is interesting is that Madonsela has publicly admitted to releasing the tape to broadcaster, eNCA. This was after Zuma had misled parliament, telling the National Council of Provinces that he had not been offered an opportunity by Madonsela to answer to the accusations against him in relation to his dodgy relationship with the Gupta family.

Interestingly though, the law allows for a public protector to release any information or evidence presented to her. Therefore nothing stopped Madonsela from releasing the audio recording.

Speaking to the Sunday Times, Mkhwebane said: “A case has been opened with the Brooklyn police station because there is an investigation that needs to happen whether the leakage happened in violation of section 7(2) of the Public Protector Act because any information which is relevant to the investigation can only be made public with the permission of the public protector”.

The crux of the matter will be whether Madonsela was still in office when she released the tape to eNCA.

That the broadcaster decided to flight the recording a few days after Mkhwebane had taken over – as it did – is neither here nor there.

What makes the case seem even more frivolous, though, is that Mkhwebane herself had attached the transcript of the same Zuma recording when she released the report to the public as per the high court ruling. It has now become clear that Mkhwebane is just another pawn in Zuma’s political survival game.

Fortunately though, our independent courts will see right through her desperate attempts to besmirch Madonsela’s name.