ANC slams public protector inquiry

THE portfolio committee on justice and correctional services appears to be softening its stance on the inquiry against Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane.

This followed a ferocious attack on the committee by the ANC in Parliament and Luthuli House yesterday after committee chairperson Mathole Motshekga agreed to the inquiry.

However, hours after the ANC attacked the committee and called the inquiry a frivolous undertaking by the DA, Motshekga said the committee had not discussed the merits of the matter.

He said the committee decided to deal with the matter after it was referred to them by Speaker Baleka Mbete.

He said they could not ignore such a referral from the Speaker.

“Yesterday we didn’t look at the merits of the matter. So we couldn’t come to a determination whether or not it’s frivolous,” he said.

He added that they could only discuss the appropriate forum to handle the inquiry.

ANC chief whip Jackson Mthembu described the inquiry against Mkhwebane as a malicious campaign by the DA.

He was backed by ANC spokesperson Zizi Kodwa, who said it was a witch-hunt and that they took a dim view of it.

But Motshekga said the committee had not discussed the merits of the case.

“It’s only after we have looked at it that we could come to a determination. But the ANC and the chief whip have looked at the matter and they are entitled to their own opinions,” said Motshekga.

“The ANC respects the rules of Parliament and they know when the matter is before us we will deal with it,” he said.

ANC caucus spokesperson Nonceba Mhlauli said they were disturbed by the DA’s malicious campaign against Mkhwebane.

“The DA’s request for the institution of removal proceedings against the public protector have absolutely no grounds,” said Mhlauli.

She said the constitution was clear that the public protector could be removed only if there was a finding of misconduct against her.

Kodwa said this was an opportunistic exercise by the DA.

He said the fact that there were people who were not happy with some of her investigations did not mean she should be removed from office.

He advised parties that were not happy with her findings to take them on review as provided for by the constitution.