By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Section 194 Committee investigating suspended Busisiwe Mkhwebane fitness to hold office was hit again by delays and decided that all questions will be submitted to her in writing.
Mkhwebane didn’t testify on Wednesday, but Chairperson Richard Dyantyi ruled that the inquiry will continue on Friday with the evidence leaders questioning her on the CR17/Bosasa and SARS unit matters.
On Friday, the impeachment inquiry got underway, but proceedings were again plagued by the impasse of her legal representation.
The State Attorney had taken over from Chaane Attorneys to act on behalf of Mkhwebane following the hospitalisation of Adv Hope Chaane.
Chaane Attorneys’ mandate was terminated by Solicitor-General Fhedzisani Pandelani at the request of the financially constrained Office of the Public Protector.
The Section 194 Committee was informed that the status of the State Attorney as Mkhwebane’s attorney was “in dispute”.
Mkhwebane sharply raised issues with the State Attorneys representing her. She said that the State Attorneys in Cape Town appointed the evidence leaders. She claimed there is a conflict.
Isaac Chowe, who works for the State Attorney’s office in Pretoria, said the Public Protector has claimed that the office was conflicted.
“Therefore, when the State Attorney is conflicted, they cannot profess to be acting on her behalf and the genesis for the conflict of interest is that the State Attorneys in Cape Town has appointed the evidence leaders in this particular hearing.
“It can’t that another State Attorney on the opposite side can now be acting for her so that is the basis for her objection,” Chowe said.
He told the committee that once a client objects to being represented, it would be unethical for him to represent her.
Chowe said that Mkhwebane’s legal team – advocate Dali Mpofu and his two junior counsel – were briefed, however, they also seem to have “issues with their own status”.
“The main client does not necessarily recognise or agree her representation by the State Attorney so those are also in dispute in that an attorney who hasn’t been properly instructed by a client to issue briefs to the advocates, those briefs in a way become null and void.”
Chowe also said Mkhwebane raised the matter of her legal funding was pending before court as she would have to pay out of her own pocket if the R4 million ran out.
He said Mkhwebane, however, did not object to legal representation from any attorneys on the Public Protector office’s database.
Chowe further said that he did not receive any instructions from the Public Protector’s office on an alternative.
Another issue was that Mkhwebane’s latest recusal application against the committee’s chairperson Dyantyi.
“Unfortunately as I have said, the State Attorney in Pretoria and myself have no mandate to move such for the recusal of the chairperson because of my status,” Chowe said.
Following a 15-minute break, Dyantyi said the committee was operating in a tightly determined timeline and was bound by the Constitution to complete its task in a fair manner within a reasonable time as well.
“We have been given R4 million, there is no intention as we indicated [last week] Friday, to extend those 22 days. There is no intention to deplete the R4 million and ask for more money,” he said.
As way forward, Dyantyi proposed that members of the committee and the evidence leaders put all their questions to Mkhwebane in writing.
He said the Public Protector will get an opportunity to respond to these questions either in writing or orally if she picked the second option.
“If her preference is to respond in writing, I will allow time for that to be submitted under oath,” he said.
“Should the Public Protector fail to answer, the committee will have no choice but to make its findings based on the evidence already before it including the Public Protector’s statements which were done under oath. Thankfully much of the evidence is already in the form of sworn affidavits which will assist us in our task.”
Dyantyi said Mkhwebane, through her counsel, can submit a closing statement either in writing or orally as well.
The evidence leaders will also be expected to make a summation of evidence, while the draft report on the inquiry will be written after members have deliberated.
Th report will then be provided to Mkhwebane for comment which, in turn, will be her “final audi” before a final report is be tabled in the National Assembly.
Watch Live in the video below:
Video Courtesy of Parliament.