By Jan Gerber.
The Section 194 committee is considering compiling its draft report on its inquiry into suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness for office earlier than anticipated after she ignored another deadline.
After Mkhwebane appeared before the committee without legal representation on several occasions, the committee resolved unanimously on 9 June that it would change its process and send written questions to her. If she failed to answer these, it would consider the evidence before it. It intended to complete its work by 28 July.
In terms of this process, the committee allowed Mkhwebane to indicate, by 19 June, whether she would answer the questions in writing or orally, and to place further evidence before the committee by 22 June.
On 25 June, the committee sent her a raft of questions from the members and the evidence leaders, which she had to answer by 6 July. By 7 July, she had to indicate in writing to the committee secretariat whether she would make a closing statement and the format in which it would be.
All these deadlines whooshed by without a word from Mkhwebane.
In a statement on Tuesday, exactly a year after the first day of the inquiry, committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi said that the committee would not extend its deadlines any further.
He said 28 July remained the committee’s deadline for its draft report for its adoption.
Dyantyi said: In fact, to the contrary, her continued non-response to questions and deadlines means that we may produce a report much sooner than initially planned because there would be no reason for the chairperson not to direct the evidence leader to do the summation earlier than planned or to convene a committee meeting earlier than 28 July if this is practical.
Mkhwebane, who has been in a war of attrition with Parliament since her impeachment was first mooted by the DA in 2019, denies that there are any deadlines she must adhere to.
The suspended Public Protector insists that the committee’s new procedure, and subsequently the deadlines, is “very unlawful” and has no standing because she wasn’t consulted and because she didn’t have legal representation present.
On that day, she was without legal representation because she refused to be represented by the State Attorney, despite indicating in writing to the committee three days before that the State Attorney could brief her counsel.
During a Twitter Space on Sunday evening, where Mkhwebane’s supporters rallied the public to donate to her legal funds, Mkhwebane, who is paid around R2.3 million per year, said: “So, the current status now of this particular matter is that I haven’t missed any deadlines.”
Mkhwebane last testified on 31 March and still needs to complete her testimony after several roadblocks to the committee’s work stemming from her legal funding and representation.
“Why send questions when I am still on the stand? I must still present my side of the story as far as the issue of Vrede is concerned, the issue of CIEX is concerned,” said Mkhwebane.
Of the closing arguments, Mkhwebane said: “How do I do that when I must still deal with these issues first?”
Parliament determines its own procedures, and Mkhwebane, of course, isn’t a Member of Parliament.
The National Assembly’s Rule 183 reads: “Any person, including counsel and attorneys, appearing before a committee or subcommittee must observe the directions and conform to the procedures determined by the chairperson of the committee or subcommittee.”
Mkhwebane’s term of office ends on 14 October, at which time she will get a gratuity of around R10 million.