Cautious advocate or ‘Gupta puppet’?
An attempt to ambush the public protector falls flat, but sometimes Mkhwebane is her own worst enemy
Shortly before public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane was to address the media on her first 100 days in office, news leaked that the chief investigator on her predecessor’s State of Capture report had resigned.
Word that Nkebe Kanyane, one of the most senior officials on the investigative staff, had quit came from several sources at once, and was published even as Mkhwebane was speaking — without comment from either.
The leak reinforced rumours that a number of public protector staffers were unhappy, following the departure of her predecessor Thuli Madonsela. If the leak was planned to discredit her, she handled it with unexpected aplomb.
“Yes, she has resigned,” Mkhwebane said. “You know, we have a good quality and skilled employees at the institution, so any organisation would like to employ them. She voluntarily resigned and she is being offered a better offer somewhere else.”
A close family member of Kanyane confirmed her resignation but would not answer other questions.
Mkhwebane gave every appearance of being a boss happy for an employee to be moving on to better things. But this will not dispel the considerable suspicion of the public that there are deep divisions in her office. Nor will her phlegmatic stance on the State of Capture report reassure a public primed to believe her independence is compromised.
Mkhwebane’s first major decision in office — not to oppose attempts to interdict the release of the report by other government ministers implicated in it — raised many eyebrows. Her release of the report after those interdicts fell apart did little to offset the initial suspicions that, crudely put, she was a plant of the Zuma administration, expertly slipped past Parliament.
Although she has now filed notice that she intends to oppose President Jacob Zuma’s attempt to have the report reviewed by a court, Mkhwebane said it is only a formality for now.
“Yes, I have lodged an intention to oppose,” Mkhwebane said. But she immediately qualified the statement, saying she had done so “just to comply to the court rules” on timing.
Zuma wants the court to review Madonsela’s report, which made no findings but contained much evidence and damning allegations that various parts of the state had acted in a most peculiar manner, largely to the benefit of the Gupta family.
Mkhwebane said: “I have indicated that this is a complex matter and there is no legal precedent on it, therefore I will be getting a comprehensive legal opinion and I will assess the information, and I will decide whether to continue opposing or to then change course.”
She said she would not waste public money on opposing an application if it was bound to fail.
“The complexity comes in the sense of saying we don’t have precedents over this matter, so it is checking whether institutions like the public protector can instruct the president to perform his duties in terms of the provisions of the Constitution,” she said.
On the surface, her approach appears to be one of a cautious advocate but it is open to a more cynical interpretation: that she is laying the groundwork to let Zuma off the hook, even as she was arguing that she could not do so.
“I don’t have a problem with the report. The report is there, the report is binding. I won’t change the report,” she said.
The suspicion that underpins many uncharitable interpretations of Mkhwebane’s actions is at least in part her own fault. For 100 turbulent days, she was largely invisible, failing to respond even to formal questions as her communications team was shaken up and provided no reassurances to the public.
That, she said on Thursday, will change, with more media and public engagements.
It may also change — for better or for worse — depending on how she approaches the allegations that she was a South African spy in China. Although there is no evidence that
“I don’t have a problem with the report. The report is there, the report is binding. I won’t change the report”