By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has rejected calls by UDM MP Bantu Holomisa that he should be called to testify at the Public Protector’s impeachment inquiry.
Ramaphosa has been accused of being biased against suspended Busisiwe Mkhwebane and of having rushed to suspend her before exhausting all other channels.
The accusation was made by Mkhwebane’s legal counsel Dali Mpofu SC, on the first day of Parliament’s Committee for Section 194 Inquiry’s historic impeachment hearings against her.
In a statement presidency says “the National Assembly initiated a section 194 inquiry to investigate grounds of misconduct and incompetence against Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane who occupied the office of the Public Protector.
Mpofu argued that the case against Mkhwebane had a political angle to it and told the proceedings into Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office that the president had been against her ever since her report on the CR17 ANC presidential campaign which swept him to office.
He has also accused Ramaphosa that he made certain accusations against the public protector, saying she’s guilty of perjury and all sorts of things, which would be impeachable if they’re true, Mpofu said.
Ramaphosa did not make any allegations against Mkhwebane. Therefore, the President cannot be compelled to provide evidence proving or disproving these accusations, said presidency.
The inquiry on Tuesday continued its hearings with evidence from a legal expert on the constitution and the role of the head of a chapter nine institution.
Mpofu SC spent most of his time advancing his case that the process was unlawful, and railing against Mkhwebane’s suspension.
“Ramaphosa had in accordance with the section 194(3)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, decided to suspend Mkhwebane from the office of the Public Protector effective 9 June 2022.Section 194(3)(a) of the Constitution provides that the President may suspend the Public Protector(or any member of a Chapter 9 institution) “at any time after the start of proceedings by a committee of the National Assembly for [their] removal”.
Holomisa has suggested that Ramaphosa should be called to testify at Mkhwebane’s impeachment inquiry.
Accordingly, Ramaphosa rejects the suggestion by Holomisa that he should give evidence on his 2017 party political campaign during the section 194 inquiry, added presidency.
“Holomisa’s speculation that the CR17 campaign “may have” used public funds is baseless, misdirected and vindictive. It is an abuse of parliamentary processes and privilege. It has never been alleged that public funds were used by the CR17 campaign.
“The Constitutional Court judgement last year ruled that the Public Protector had no authority to investigate the CR17 campaign, given that this was not an organ of state and therefore not within the Public Protectors remit.
“Holomisa is well advised that the Constitutional Court remains the final arbiter of justice and its judgments must be accepted and respected. Parliament does not have the mandate to review Constitutional Court judgments in the separation of powers of the Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary.
The section 194 inquiry into Advocate Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office is not a platform to make unsubstantiated allegations that fall outside of the scope of inquiry, concluded the statement.