Parliament mulls probe into fitness of PP

PARLIAMENT is considering putting in place a process to be used in handling the inquiry into the fitness of Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane to hold office.

This emerged yesterday when the programming committee was briefed on the matter involving the National Prosecuting Authority’s Nomgcobo Jiba and Lawrence Mrwebi.

This week, Jiba approached the Western Cape High Court to seek an interdict against Parliament from going ahead with considering her removal while she sought to review the decision of President Cyril Ramaphosa and the Mokgoro Commision.

She is set to challenge the NPA Act which provides for a simple majority in Parliament for her removal instead of a two-thirds majority.

Speaking at the programming committee meeting, DA chief whip John Steenhuisen said there was a need for the national legislature to make a firewall for similar pitfalls that could fall into their way in the Mkhwebane saga.

Steenhuisen told the committee that he would write to National Assembly Speaker Thandi Modise to make recommendations for a procedure that should be followed for that process to be unequivocal and clear from the beginning.

“What we don’t want to do is for the justice and correctional services portfolio committee to start the process and end up in a similar pitfall and be interdicted,” Steenhuisen said.

“I hope this matter is given more urgency… so that we don’t start and further down the way are stopped,” said Steenhuisen, who has already written another letter to Modise.

His comments were prompted by reports last month that Mkhwebane wrote to Modise threatening legal action if Parliament went ahead with the process to remove her from office.

She was quoted as saying the national legislature had no rules on the procedure to follow to effect her removal like it has for judicial officers or the president.

Modise said they started the process of looking into the handling of the Mkhwebane inquiry.

She said Steenhuisen’s letter had awoken them to the fact that there was no mechanism to deal with issues of all Chapter 9 institutions.

“We referred your correspondence to the committee. We wrote and instructed them to start the process,” Modise said.

“In fact, they are moving a little bit too slowly. We had thought that by now they would have reported whether the committee is capable to work on the mechanism or refer it to the Rules Committee.”

Chair of chairs Cedric Frolick confirmed there was no process in place for that committee to embark on a process of dealing with the matter now. “It is a matter the Rules Committee will have to urgently pay attention to,” Frolick said.

Modise said she expected a report soon on the matter so that they move to the next stage.

She, however, said where it was within the powers of Parliament to do certain things, they would not be swayed.

“Where we think there is a need to put mechanisms and processes in place, we shall do so. We shall not agree to be stopped when we know the process will be open, will be fair and we will not take sides,”Modise said.

Steenhuisen said research he did on Section 89 on removal of the president provided background to arrive at a fair process.

“It might not be the last Chapter 9 to deal with,” he said.