Court slams reckless Busisiwe
MKHWEBANE ‘HURT THE ECONOMY, HER AND HER OFFICE’S REPUTATION’
The High Court in Pretoria has criticised Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane for her recklessness and fundamental lack of understanding of the monetary system and the operations of banking institutions.
Judge Hans Fabricius added his voice to Reserve Bank Governor Lesetja Kganyago and Speaker of parliament Baleka Mbete’s trenchant criticism of Mkhwebane’s order that the constitution must be amended to remove the SA Reserve Bank’s mandate to keep inflation in check.
The judge set aside the remedial action Mkhwebane ordered in her June 2017 report about government’s alleged failure to recover misappropriated funds paid by the Reserve Bank in the apartheid years to bail out Absa Bank’s predecessor Bankorp. An application to set aside her report is pending.
Mkhwebane conceded her remedial action was unlawful, that she could not dictate to parliament and that only parliament had the power to amend the constitution, but defended her belief that the Reserve Bank’s mandate should be changed as “reasonable and rational”.
Kganyago accused Mkhwebane of being ill-informed, reckless and threatening to undermine the critical contribution of the Reserve Bank to the stability of South Africa's financial system.
The release of her report had consequences for the economy and investor confidence, with Standard & Poor Global Ratings warning South Africa’s credit rating could be downgraded further. Fabricius said Mkhwebane’s attempt to pass off the remedial action as a mere recommendation was disingenuous.
She not only ignored much of Kganyago and Mbete’s criticism, but was heedless of its likely impact. Her superficial reasoning and erroneous findings did not provide a rational basis for the remedial action.
He found Mkhwebane had failed in her duty by amending the scope of her investigation without notice to the Reserve Bank with consequences that were damaging not only to the economy, but to the reputation of her own office.
He said Mkhwebane’s begrudging concession of unconstitutionality offered no defence to the charges of illegality, irrationality and procedural unfairness. It was disconcerting that she seemed impervious to the criticism.
The public protector was the constitutionally appointed custodian of legality and due process in the public administration. She risked the charge of hypocrisy and incompetence if she did not hold herself to an equal for higher standard than that to which she held those subjected to her writ.
“Her dismissive and procedurally unfair approach to important matters placed before her by prominent role players in the affairs of state would tarnish her reputation and damage the legitimacy of the office”, he added. –
She risked the charge of hypocrisy and incompetence.