By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
Zambia’s Public Protector, Advocate Caroline Zulu-Sokoni, testified in defence of SA’s suspended Public Protector, Busisiwe Mkhwebane, at the resumption on Monday of the Section 194 inquiry into Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office.
Responding to questions from advocate Dali Mpofu for Mkhwebane, Zulu-Sokoni said the office of the public protector was established as “a corporate soul”, charged to investigate maladministration, protection and defence of human rights – accountable to parliament.
“The office of the ombudsman was not intended to be the object of disciplinary or administrative censure by all three branches of the state, because that weakens the independence of the office,” said Zulu-Sokoni.
Zulu-Sokoni, said it’s unfair for the courts to slap personal costs orders on a Public Protector who is shouldering blame on behalf of an entire office.
“I don’t think the executive arm of government should be allowed to get back at the ombudsman using the court system because these are the costs which are supposed to be borne by the respondent institution and then they are cast upon the PP personally”.
“The [ombud] is the people’s protector and defender of rights – an institution for the vulnerable to hold government to account, “she added.
Critical of the suspension of Mkhwebane by President Cyril Ramaphosa before the constitution of a disciplinary hearing, Zulu-Sokoni said: “Before a person is suspended, there should be a hearing into charges against that person.
“She should be given a fair hearing to ensure ultimate justice and fair play. The legislature should be able to assist an officer who is accountable to it – checking on whether there has been fairness and accord the necessary protection.”
Quoting a court judgment which ruled in favour of Mkhwebane, Mpofu said: “This is what one of our courts has ruled: ‘In our view, the hurried nature of the suspension of the applicant in these circumstances – not withstanding that the judgment of the full bench was looming on the same subject matter – leads this court to a conclusion that the suspension may have been retaliatory and hence unlawful.
“It was certainly a tainted bias of a disqualifying kind and perhaps improper motive. In our view, the president did not bring an unbiased mind to bear. He was conflicted when he suspended the applicant.”
Mpofu added: “Parliament washed its hands and wanted nothing to do with the judgment which ruled in her favour.
“Parliament said issue of the suspension – retaliatory or not and inspired by 31 questions – had nothing to do with them, having washed its hands in biblical terms and unable to intervene.
Meanwhile, former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela has indicated that as a “law-abiding citizen” she will be attending the inquiry as she had a “duty to comply” when subpoenaed.
Watch Live in the Video Below:
Video Courtesy of Parliament.