Public protector fights back
Public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has warned parliament against instituting a process to have her removed from office.
She said threats to dismiss her on the basis of what is reflected in her reports constituted interference with the functioning of her office and was tantamount to a criminal offence punishable in terms of the law.
In a hard-hitting 25-page submission to the National Assembly’s justice and correctional services portfolio committee‚ Mkhwebane instead urges the committee to apologise to her for “unseemly attacks” which have been directed at her office for alleged incompetence and for the accompanying threats of removal.
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.
She argued that two former chief justices had on occasion had to remind parliament about respect for the independence of judges‚ and by extension adjudicators charged with constitutional responsibility such as herself.
DA chief whip John Steenhuisen lodged a complaint with National Assembly speaker Baleka Mbete‚ requesting that parliament initiate procedures to remove Mkhwebane from office.
This followed a high court judgment that she had grossly overreached her powers‚ shown poor understanding of the law and of her own powers, and sacrificed her independence and impartiality with regards to her report on the Absa/Bankorp bailout.
When Steenhuisen appeared before the committee in June‚ he 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 a ground for removal of the public protector as maintained by Steenhuisen, and that the committee “must go beyond proving displeasure with my performance”.
“This committee’s displeasure at my performance is not enough to warrant a removal.
“My performance must be gauged against objective standards‚ which Steenhuisen must establish.”