Twitter storm as protector changes tune
Mkhwebane will not defend Reserve Bank report
PUBLIC protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s decision to back down on defending her recommendation that the Reserve Bank do much more than focus on keeping the currency stable has infuriated South Africans, who say it shows she does not know what she is doing. Mkhwebane recommended that parliament enact laws to change the mandate of the Reserve Bank‚ moving it from managing the currency to focusing on economic growth.
Her recommendation had to be implemented or be reviewed and set aside by a court. It led to the rand plummeting.
The Reserve Bank‚ Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba and parliament filed papers, arguing that she had overstepped her mandate.
Yesterday, Mkhwebane conceded that she did not know she did not have the power to order a mandatory review by parliament to change the constitution.
She admitted that while the constitution gave parliament the right to change laws with a majority‚ it did not give institutions like hers the right to dictate to parliament.
According to comments on Twitter by angry citizens, she had damaged investor perceptions and weakened the rand – all for naught.
Nomura financial analyst Peter Attard Montalto said: “She was probably [told] by higher powers to order changes to the Reserve Bank’s mandate.
“It is quite simply bizarre that so much damage can be done and then not even backed up with the decency to defend the report. While we will likely end up with the same outcome [that the remedial action is dismissed], it hints further that the action around the South African Reserve Bank was not the decision of the public protector but placed there by others.
“It shows the public protector did not understand the full scope of what she was suggesting or its implications.”
DA justice spokeswoman Glynnis Breytenbach said: “There seems to be only one of two possible explanations for this travesty.
“Either Mkhwebane’s understanding of the constitution and the law is so inadequate that she could make such a blatantly flawed recommendation‚ or she consciously did so to further the interests of outside parties.
“While the first explanation is gravely concerning‚ the second explanation is [far more sinister].”
Financial analyst Karin Richards said ignorance of the law was no defence.
“How did we end up with a public protector who issues irresponsible rulings‚ wrecks markets‚ backs down‚ but still defends her own stupidity?”
While the rand depreciated over her initial announcement, it did not move when it emerged that she would not defend her decision. She has said she would pay the costs.
But this means the taxpayer is ultimately paying for court action‚ in which the finance minister‚ parliament and Reserve Bank all went to have her report reviewed by the court and set aside.
Breytenbach said she should pay them out of her own pocket.