Enquiry into Mkhwebane deemed fair, transparent and unbiased
Mkhwebane faces the possibility of becoming the first public protector to be impeached if the National Assembly votes in favour of the report
The Section 194 Committee Enquiry into Public Protector (PP) Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office has been commended for its fairness and transparency during the inquiry.
Committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi says that the committee members ‘worked diligently, without any fear or favour and without any preconceived outcome in mind.
On Tuesday night the committee officially adopted their report, in which it recommends the National Assembly to remove Mkhwebane from office.
ALSO READ: Mkhwebane’s last fight to stop impeachment
MKHWEBANE’S CHARGE LIST
Mkhwebane faced charges of alleged misconduct in respect of the following:
- A report involving the South African Reserve Bank and ABSA Bank
- Misconduct in the investigation and reporting of the Vrede Dairy Project
- Incompetence during both of those investigations and in a report about the former Financial Services Board;
- Allegations of misconduct in relation to the alleged intimidation, harassment and victimisation of staff at the Office of the Public Protector of South Africa
- Matters related to the expenditure of public funds on legal costs
- The failure to conduct investigations in an independent or impartial manner
- and deliberately seeking to make adverse findings against certain public officials while not making findings or directing remedial action in respect of others.
ALSO READ: Mashaba WELCOMES recommended REMOVAL of Mkhwebane
ALSO READ: Suspended PP Mkhwebane hints at a possible run for presidency
SUSPENDED PUBLIC PROTECTOR ACCUSED OF USING DELAY TACTICS
Dyantyi added that the 14month process was delayed numerously due to Mkhwebane’s constant change of legal team or her refusal to appear nor respond to the committee. He adds that since 31 March 2023, Mkhwebane did not actively participate in any part of the enquiry dealing with the merits of the motion.
“The committee has carried out its functions diligently despite what some members viewed as deliberate attempts by Adv Mkhwebane and/or her legal team to delay the proceedings and to undermine its authority and function”, says Dyantyi.
ALSO READ: Can you dispute an Additional Assessment from SARS?
“We encouraged her at all times to participate in the process – whether it was to respond to questions by evidence leaders or questions by members. Even after she continuously ignored the deadlines, when the committee adopted its draft report, it provided her with a final opportunity to comment. Nothing was forthcoming.”