By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
Former Public Protector, Prof Thuli Madonsela, appears before the parliamentary inquiry into the fitness of her successor, Busisiwe Mkhwebane, to hold office.
Madonsela’s testimony at the Section 194 Inquiry on Monday was clouded by alleged discrepancies pointed out in her statement.
She appeared before the parliamentary inquiry into suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office, where she was set to give evidence regarding the Vrede dairy farm and CIEX-Absa investigation.
The committee accepted Madonsela’s statement as written evidence, but later reversed its decision after Mkhwebane’s lawyer, advocate Dali Mpofu threatened that they would either go to court, or submit a fresh proposal to the committee to call her as a witness.
Madonsela, who testifed virtually, told the committee that she was appearing before the inquiry “reluctantly” because the two Public Protector reports that she is being asked to testify about have been dealt with “extensively” by the courts.
“It was because of apprehension that I’ll be put in a situation where we are rehashing what the courts have decided about the CEIX and also the Vrede Dairy matter,” she said.
The former Public Protector explained the reason for the delay in her giving evidence was because Mkhwebane’s lawyers sent her a “litany” of questions that she did not believe to be relevant to the inquiry.
“When I looked at the charge sheet, I couldn’t find a reason why I should answer those questions. I responded accordingly, asking for relevance and also indicating that I’m not the person who has the information [they need].”
She stressed that she repeatedly questioned the relevance of the questions put to her by Mkhwebane’s lawyers.
“Is this my impeachment process? Because if it is, then this is the wrong forum. This is a forum about my successor.”
The former Public Protector said if Parliament wants to question her, there should be separate process.
“We can’t turn an investigation into a parallel investigation and in any event, I do not think Parliament still has jurisdiction to question me over those matters.”
Mpofu proceeded to question Madonsela about her statement after she concluded reading it out.
“If you want to make an issue out of this and we use taxpayer’s money to quibble about it then be my guest sir,” the former Public Protector further told Mpofu.
Madonsela pointed out that Mpofu was raising issues that were dealt with and resolved last week.
She further claimed that Mpofu was accusing her of criminality and then she requested for legal representation.
“If advocate Mpofu wanted to put me on trial for how the changes happened between the statements, he should have indicated last week Monday that he wants me criminally charged for that, in which case it changes the complexity of this event today.
“I should have then a lawyer to come and represent me because I’m now being accused of criminality,” Madonsela said.
In his response, Mpofu said the legal team had offered to assist Madonsela so that “these illegalities” would not occur because she was not a practising lawyer.
Madonsela once again stated that there is one statement, “in three articulations”.
She explained to the committee that she initialised the pages, as did the attorney who witnessed the statement.
“Now not only advocate Mpofu has insulted and criminalised me, he has now criminalised a fellow member of the bar by simply failing to read documents he is paid to read,” she said.
“To fabricate lies here and suggest that those signatures only appeared during the corrections is shocking to say the least.”
Livestream Video Below:
Video Courtesy of Parliament.