Section 194 Committee: Mkhwebane must be REMOVED
In a massive blow for Busisiwe Mkhwebane, she could become the first head of a Chapter Nine institution to be impeached.
In another development, most members of Parliament’s Section 194 Committee looking into Public Protector, Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office, have recommended that she be removed from her post.
ALSO READ: Why Thuli Madonsela supports Zuma remission decision
THE FINDINGS AGAINST THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR
The Section 194 Committee found that there were grounds to sustain charges of misconduct and incompetence against Busisiwe Mkhwebane during her tenure.
This is undoubtedly bad news for Mkhwebane, who had long criticised the committee and made shocking claims against some of its members. She claimed the committee’s chairperson, Qubudile Dyantyi, the late ANC MP Tina Joematt-Pettersson and ANC Chief Whip Pemmy Majodina all demanded bribes from her in exchange for making the inquiry go away.
ALSO READ: ‘Suicide’: Tweeps react to Tina Joemat-Pettersson’s death
WHAT IS THE NEXT MOVE?
In June, Busisiwe Mkhwebane released recordings she claimed were of a conversation between her husband Mandla Skosana and Joematt-Pettersson at OR Tambo International Airport. It was at this meeting that Joematt-Pettersson allegedly made the proposition.
“‘The courts are with Ramaphosa,’ these are the chilling last words uttered and contained in the voice recording of some of the remarks made by the honourable Tina Joemat-Pettersson in one of the two physical meetings with my husband at the Ocean Basket restaurant in OR Tambo International airport,” Mkhwebane had said as she started her briefing.
The DA in parliament submitted the motion to institute removal proceedings against her back in February 2020, citing a number of scathing court judgements against her, particularly relating to some of her investigations including the Estina Dairy probe. In March 2021, Parliament then voted in support of establishing the committee, after adopting a report by a panel of experts, which found there were grounds for an investigation into the public protector’s fitness to hold office.