Public protector hits back at ‘hostile’ MPs
PUBLIC Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has hit back at “hostile” MPs and demanded they recuse themselves to afford her a fair hearing.
This was contained in a written response to Parliament’s portfolio committee on justice and correctional services.
“I am greatly concerned (about) the utterances and firm positions adopted by some members of the committee in their earlier deliberations regarding myself, which clearly shows that a fair hearing before some of these committee members may not be possible,” said Mkhwebane.
“Accordingly, I request that some of these members should recuse themselves from taking a decision on this matter.”
DA chief whip John Steenhuisen laid a formal complaint against Mkhwebane, casting doubt on her fitness to hold office, and demanded that she be removed.
The reasons included adverse court rulings against her such as the finding that she had overstepped her mandate when she recommended the Constitution be changed to amend the Reserve Bank’s mandate.
The committee agreed it would afford Mkhwebane an opportunity to respond to the complaint before instituting an inquiry into her fitness to hold office.
Mkhwebane also demanded a public apology in a 25-page written response in which she said constant attacks on her office threatened her functions as public protector.
“The committee owes me a public apology for the unseemly public attacks which have been directed at my office for alleged incompetence and for the accompanying threats of removal.
“What would happen if the committee were to heed Steenhuisen’s unwise or unlawful importunings, hold hearings and remove me, only to have the SCA or Constitutional Court vindicate me after the fact?” said Mkhwebane.
The DA has alleged that “through her conduct she has demonstrated that she is unable to act lawfully, she consistently acts without regard to procedural fairness and that her findings are patently unreasonable”.
Mkhwebane said the reasons submitted by the committee for her removal were not sufficient to remove a public protector from office.
“The ground relied upon in the letter of Mr Steenhuisen, is incompetence. ‘Incompetence’ means that the employee is incapable of performing the job, or, that the employee is possibly capable of doing so, but consistently failing to meet a reasonable standard of performance.”