‘Threat to axe public protector criminal’
Protector fights for her survival
Public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has warned parliament against instituting a process to have her removed from office.
Mkhwebane said threats to dismiss her on the basis of what was reflected in her reports constituted interference with the functioning of her office and was tantamount to a criminal offence.
In a hard-hitting 25-page submission to the National Assembly’s justice and correctional services portfolio committee‚ to which her office accounts‚ Mkhwebane instead urges the committee to apologise to her for “unseemly attacks”.
If the process goes ahead‚ she wants the “overzealous” MPs who have previously made utterances and adopted firm positions against her to recuse themselves from taking a decision in the matter. She is concerned that otherwise a fair hearing before those MPs may not be possible.
Mkhwebane seemed to suggest it was undermining and threatening the constitutionally guaranteed independence of her office to probe her based on her decisions‚ while the committee did not do the same with the decisions of judges.
“It is apposite that I highlight at this stage the unfair treatment offered to the office of the public protector as compared to the treatment offered to judges [two offices with constitutional independence].”
DA chief whip John Steenhuisen lodged a complaint with National Assembly speaker Baleka Mbete‚ requesting that the house initiate procedures to remove Mkhwebane from office.
This followed a high court judgment that she had grossly over-reached her powers‚ had shown poor understanding of the law and of her own powers, and had sacrificed her independence and impartiality with regards to the Absa/Bankorp report.
Steenhuisen had argued that sufficient grounds existed to‚ at the very least‚ warrant an inquiry into Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office.
In her submission‚ Mkhwebane argued that fitness to hold office is not grounds for removal of the public protector, as alleged by Steenhuisen and that the committee “must go beyond proving displeasure with my performance”.
“My performance must be gauged against objective standards‚ which Steenhuisen must establish.”
Mkhwebane highlighted her performance‚ saying in the 20 months since she took office‚ she has published 50 reports‚ that only 12 of them were taken on judicial review and that none has been reviewed and set aside by a court.
“Only some remedial actions in my report [the Absa/CIEX report] were reviewed and set aside by the court of law.”
Mkhwebane also took issue with the committee proceeding with Steenhuisen’s complaint while she was appealing against the high court judgment.
She characterised the invitation to appear before the committee and answer Steenhuisen’s allegations as a gross violation of her rights.
She also questioned why Steenhuisen did not disclose to Mbete and the justice committee that appeals were pending and that a Supreme Court of Appeals judgment “undermined” a major part of the “narrative” against her.
The committee met on Wednesday morning but it could not consider Mkhwebane’s submission‚ as MPs only received it after 11pm on Tuesday night. –