By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Zambian Public Protector said it might be time for South Africa to rethink the system in which the Public Protector operates.
Caroline Zulu-Sokoni testified for a second day before Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s impeachment inquiry in Parliament.
Zulu-Sokoni again told the inquiry that in line with international principles, she did not think it was right for Parliament to interfere in the work of a Public Protector.
The Zambian Public Protector said if a complainant had an issue with a report by the Public Protector, they should take the matter to court.
Zulu-Sokoni was asked by evidence leader Nazreen Bawa what should happen if the courts issued repeated judgments highlighting the same mistakes and errors on the part of the Public Protector.
“It is sufficient for the ombudsman to perfect their trade and ensure that they don’t carry out a similar mistake,” she said.
Bawa then asked Zulu-Sokoni what should happen in instances where a Public Protector repeatedly lost appeals against judgments, all the way to the country’s apex court, the Constitutional Court.
“I would then think it’s time to rethink the system. You must move away from binding decisions to recommendations,” she said.
Zulu-Sokoni said as long as a Public Protector’s findings were binding, the executive would always seek to undermine the office.
Meanwhile parliament’s Section 194 committee reaffirmed its decision to summon former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela to testify before the impeachment inquiry.
The committee resolved last week that Madonsela be summoned to appear, at Mkhwebane’s request.
This despite her listing reasons why she didn’t believe she could assist the committee, and conditions she wanted met, before she would agree to appear.
Madonsela said Mkhwebane’s questions could have been answered if she had not refused to meet with her when she took charge in 2016.
Mkhwebane sought reasons also from Madonsela as to why she had not completed the CIEX or the Vrede reports before her term of office ended.
Both these reports and their subsequent setting aside by the courts form part of the basis for this parliamentary inquiry into misconduct.
In a detailed letter to Mkhwebane’s attorneys, Madonsela said the information the inquiry sought from her was with the Public Protector’s office.
Madonsela said she would not be able to assist as “I see no rational connection of the majority of questions and the Section 194 inquiry which stems from court judgments up to the constitutional court regarding Mkhwebne’s integrity and her understanding of the PP’s constitutional mandate”.
The information the committee sought, added Madonsela, was with the PP as an institution and not with her personally.
“Having left more than six years ago it is the PP that is best suited to respond to questions regarding its relationship with organs of the state in line with its constitutional position as an independent constitutional institution set up to hold other organs of the state accountable including the State Security Agency.”
She said she would have been in a position to help a week after leaving office “if efforts to work with the PP team members to a assure quality set of records were not rebuffed”.
Madonsela said Mkhwebane forbade her from meeting with staff, and that Mkhwebane herself reneged on an agreement to meet, saying it would be inappropriate.
Madonsela added she would need paid legal assistance to help retrieve documents and prepare for the inquiry.
Committee chairperson Richard Dyantyi said Madonsela’s position did not change the decision to summon her.
“We started the process and we are attending to the issues raised in the correspondence including the focus which I think the committee is happy about.”
Watch Live in the video below:
Video Courtesy of Parliament.