Reserve Bank guns for Mkhwebane

Public protector accused of bias in affidavit filed yesterday.

In a new affidavit filed in the High Court in Pretoria, Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, pictured, is accused of being biased and undermining the independence of the South African Reserve Bank (Sarb), it emerged yesterday.

The affidavit by legal counsel for the Sarb highlights Mkhwebane’s meetings with President Jacob Zuma’s legal advisors and the state security agency just weeks before her final report on her probe into the Reserve Bank’s 1985 bailout of Bankorp, now Absa bank, was released. The affidavit points to possible collusion.

The affidavit describes the meeting with the presidency’s legal team as “highly irregular”.

“The meeting traversed the public protector’s proposed remedial action to amend the constitution to deprive the Reserve Bank of its role in protecting the value of the currency.

“This is an aspect of the remedial action that had nothing to do with the presidency,” the affidavit stated.

The Sarb contends Mkhwebane altered “substantially her remedial action” in her preliminary report without allowing right of reply to the Reserve Bank and others.

In the affidavit, the Sarb took strong exception to the bank’s mandate being discussed with the presidency as she is constitutionally obliged to conduct her probes independently and without bias.

“Discussing these aspects of the report with the presidency destroys that independence.”

Mkhwebane also did not provide a transcript of the interviews with the president’s legal advisors or with the state security agency.

A few handwritten notes from the public protector are provided, including one that deals with the “vulnerability” of the Sarb.

“It is unclear on what possible basis the vulnerability [and vulnerability to whom] of the Reserve Bank was relevant to the public protector’s investigation into the CIEX report,” the affidavit said.

The Sarb called on Mkhwebane to provide a transcript of meetings with the state security agency and the president’s legal advisors and to explain the omissions from her record and defend herself against the central bank’s allegations.

Failure to do so would result in the central bank submitting new grounds for review, including that the public protector’s recommendations were made for “an ulterior motive”, that Mkhwebane was “biased or reasonably suspected of bias”, and that the probe was “procedurally unfair”.