By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
In a dramatic turn of events, at the impeachment inquiry of suspended Public Protector Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane, her legal team withdrew its services and left Parliament’s chambers.
Through her legal representation, Advocate Dali Mpofu, Mkhwebane had asked that the committee adjourn to allow her to approach the court to review a decision by committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi and the DA’s Kevin Mileham, who refused to rescue themselves from the process.
Last month, Mkhwebane brought an application before the committee for Dyantyi to rescue himself on claims that he was biased and unfair in leading the inquiry. She also wanted Mileham, who is married to DA former chief whip Natasha Mazzone, who brought the impeachment motion before Parliament, to not be part of the inquiry on the basis that he is also biased and conflicted.
Last week, the pair refused to step down from the committee and rejected the claims against them. An independent legal opinion that had been sought by the committee also advised that there was no need for the pair to not be part of the committee.
On Thursday, the committee sat for the first time and Mkhwebane and her legal team were present in the proceedings, and Mkhwebane put forward another application to have the matter postponed pending her approach to the high court.
Following Mpofu’s presentation on why Mkhwebane would be going to court, committee members then held their deliberations on how to move forward with the application. As expected, the committee was split on how to proceed, with some political parties calling for Mkhwebane to be granted the postponement while others saw it as another delaying tactic by Mkhwebane and her legal team.
Other committee members said there was no need to stop with the work of the committee when there is no matter pending in court and when Mkhwebane’s legal team has not filed papers.
Earlier, while presenting why the proceedings must be halted, Mpofu told the committee that the court papers were 60% done and that 40% of their completion relied on the decision of the committee. Some committee members raised that the inquiry was time-bound and cannot be found to be involved in protracted legal processes and miss its deadline of concluding its work.
However the adjournment application was rejected by Section 194 committee chair Dyantyi.
Following the deliberations and the decision taken, Mpofu and his team were asked to rejoin the meeting and Dyantyi told them what the committee had decided.
In the morning, Mpofu had said that he was anticipating that the application would be rejected based on previous experience with the committee.
Dyantyi said many members have said they should reject the adjournment application. He said they can’t stop the members of the committee who wants their own legal opinion, but that should not stop the committee from doing its work.
“As I indicated earlier, that decision really does not come as a surprise,” said Mpofu.
He also raised an issue that some members had made “factual inaccuracies” about the legal team and that they were not present in the meeting to answer for themselves.
He said the mandate that Mkhwebane had given to her legal team was that they would appear before the committee on Thursday and do the application for adjournment, and that they had also shared that with Dyantyi in a letter they wrote to him about Mkhwebane’s intention to go to court.
Mpofu said the legal team are not able to take further part in “any of the illegal activities” of the committee.
“Any event beyond the application, even breathing, would be the illegal activities of this committee. So, I am afraid, then as far as the legal team is concerned this is as far as the legal team can take it. And good luck, maybe we’ll see you again or maybe not,” he said.
Dyantyi asked Mpofu what that decision meant, as Mkhwebane’s legal team must still cross-examine a witness. The cross-examination was scheduled for Thursday, but was moved to Friday because of time.
“I think the answer is that anything beyond the point of the application, even breathing after that point would be an endorsement of the illegal activities of this committee and beyond the mandate that we were asked to perform today. So, as far as the legal team is concerned, at least, that will be as far as we can take it,” said Mpofu.
Evidence leader Advocate Nazreen Bawa SC asked Mkhwebane if she gave Seanego Attorneys instruction to terminate Mpofu’s mandate.
In response, She said Seanego’s attorneys also staged a walked out.
Mkhwebane added that she cannot proceed without her legal team. She said she doesn’t know how to discuss with the committee the way forward without her legal team. “They didn’t even say they are terminating, I must find out from them,” she said. “I don’t know why this came out the way it did.”
Dyantyi said the committee will meet tomorrow at 10:00 as planned to get clarification on what is going on.
Livestream Video Below:
Video Courtesy of Parliament.