Mkhwebane’s legal team cites unfair treatment in Dyantyi recusal bid
PUBLIC Protector advocate Busisiwe Mkwebane's legal team believes Qubudile Dyantyi – the chairperson of the committee which will decide on the impeachment proceedings against their client – should recuse himself, citing unfairness and manifest bias towards Mkhwebane.
They want DA MP Kevin Mileham removed from the Section 194 committee due to the “countless examples” of unfair treatment of the public protector and/or her legal representatives.
Among the examples which advocate Dali Mpofu, for Mkhwebane, argued prejudiced his client's case included the refusal to subpoena President Cyril Ramaphosa, favouring evidence leaders and abuse of powers by Dyantyi, among others.
“In response to the objection raised by the Public Protector on July 11 and subsequently reduced to writing, the chairperson unfairly and unreasonably exhibited bias and/or substantial prejudice against the public protector by ruling that the enquiry would proceed on the basis of the original motion of Mazzone and/or the DA dated February 21, 2020.
“In spite of the substantial and effective amendment of the motion in the Independent Panel Report released on February 21, 2021. This ruling will cause(d) material prejudice in that the public protector will be called upon to produce evidence to rebut charges in respect of which the Independent Panel has ruled that no prima facie evidence or case exists.”
He referred to the amendment directive made by the chairperson about recalling witnesses: “Having agreed that witnesses in respect of whom cross-examination was not concluded would be recalled, the chairperson has unfairly shifted the goalposts by imposing a ‘new' rule requiring a complicated application for recall. This was clearly intended to and/or had the predictable effect of rendering such recalls difficult and subjectively determined.”
On the decision pertaining to testimony by Ramaphosa, Mpofu said: “In August 2022 the chairperson refused the request of the Public Protector to be assisted in securing the relevant evidence of Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, who had made certain scatting remarks against the Public Protector which form part of the impeachment motion, with particular reference to the so-called CR17/ BOSASA litigation.
“In the process, the chairperson unfairly
and unreasonably rejected the proposal made by (Good party MP Brett) Herron to seek further information from the public protector regarding the relevance of Ramaphosa’s evidence.
“In so doing the chairperson acted unreasonably, unfairly and in a manner which exhibited manifest bias against the public protector and in favour of Ramaphosa who is also the president of the ANC, of which the chairperson is a loyal member.”
On Mileham, Mpofu referred to a string of tweets about himself in which he felt attacked: “Honourable Mileham puts up these tweets about me. He is calling me undignified, incompetent and disrespectful.
“To be judged by someone like Mileham is something I don’t worry much about but it’s the implication it has on the process.
“I have been tortured by him by insulting me, (he) tortured me emotionally.”
Mileham interjected, saying: “Chairperson, he said he has been tortured by someone like me, I never tortured anyone in my life and I take grave exception by Mpofu making statements like that.”
Mpofu concluded: “It would be both untenable and undesirable to simply brush off these grave concerns. That would mount to a serious violation of the rights conferred by the directives, the rules of the National Assembly, the applicable legislation and more importantly, the rights and values enshrined in the South African Constitution.”
ANC deputy chief whip Doris Dlakude noted the “seriousness” of the application, saying: “As a committee, we would therefore request we be given enough time to go and look into this matter.”
Mpofu’s recusal application will be deliberated on tomorrow.