By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The section 194 Inquiry into Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office resumed after the committee went into a tailspin when her legal team staged a walkout.
Inquiry chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi said from Wednesday to Friday, Mkhwebane’s legal team will be able to complete its cross-examination of the final two witnesses called by evidence leaders: Nelisiwe Thejane and Neels van der Merwe.
The Section 194 Committee took a look at the money spent on lawyers during Mkhwebane’s reign at the Office of the Public Protector.
The Auditor-General will also scrutinise the Office of the Public Protector’s legal fees in future audits, the office said in a statement on Tuesday.
Evidence before the inquiry calls into question the R147 million spent on legal fees in relation to the quality of services provided given Mkhwebane’s dismal litigation track record. It also appeared from email evidence that counsels’ political affiliation played a role in their appointment.
Since 2018, Seanego Attorneys received the most briefs, and evidence shows the firm has to date been paid more than R55 million in legal fees and, out of this amount, advocate Dali Mpofu SC, was the highest-paid counsel, having received about R12 million.
Furthermore, evidence before the inquiry also shows Paul Ngobeni, a fugitive from US justice who is not allowed to practice law in South Africa, was paid thousands of rand for “legal opinions” and communications services, including attack articles against judges who ruled against Mkhwebane, from the legal services budget through Seanego Attorneys.
Ngobeni subcontracted RET commentators Kim Heller and Professor Sipho Seepe for “communication services” – for which he invoiced Seanego Attorneys.
This while PP had a department for communication services. After this evidence was revealed, the DA said it would write to Acting Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka to “request that a full audit is conducted on all funds spent by the Public Protector to defend Mkhwebane both in court and in the media space”.
“Regarding the calls for an investigation/audit into the expenditures incurred by the institution in respect of legal fees over the last number of years, there is a process currently underway in Parliament, which, amongst other issues, is tasked with ventilating this matter,” read a statement from acting PP spokesperson Ndili Msoki.
He said while the office is still awaiting the outcomes of this process, it had reported the matter to the Auditor-General “and confirmation was received that the matter will be an area on which they will focus on, within the scope of the next audit”.
Meanwhile Mkhwebane’s lawyer, Advocate Dali Mpofu, has dismissed claims that he staged a walkout at the Section 194 inquiry.
Mpofu informed the Section 194 committee that his mandate had come to an end and asked to be excused before leaving.
This came after the committee rejected Mkhwebane’s application where she asked for an adjournment to go to court to review the committee’s chairperson, Qubudile Dyantyi, and a Democratic Alliance (DA) MP Kevin Mileham’s decision not to recuse themselves from the inquiry.
The legal team’s move left the members of the committee puzzled, raising suspicion that the “walkout” was planned all along.
Addressing the committee on Wednesday, 9 November, Mpofu sought to provide clarity on the “walkout”.
I just wanted to clarify a few things because certain things have been said in our absence and I suspect deliberately because we were not there to answer for ourselves which need to be put into perspective,” he said.
“We were accused of withdrawal then the terminology changed that we have staged a walk out… well both of those are false and not accordance with what happened.”
Mpofu also said the committee exercised the “law of the jungle” by allowing Van De Merwe to testify and claimed that the listing of the legal representatives who received payments from the Public Protector’s office amounted to “abuse” of black lawyers and advocates.
“If legal representation would have been there, it wouldn’t have been allowed or at least objected to,” he said.
Livestream Video Below:
Video Courtesy of Parliament.