Suspended public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s lawyers have written to the chairperson of parliament’s impeachment committee asking him to summon President Cyril Ramaphosa to appear and testify.
“The president’s testimony is of utmost importance,” said Seanago Attorneys in its letter to Qubudile Dyantyi, chairperson of the section 194 committee, which is hearing evidence on Mkhwebane’s competence to be public protector and whether she has committed such misconduct to warrant her removal.
The letter, sent on Monday, said the committee “should not only be seen to be fair, but that fairness should prevail” as was required by rules governing the committee. “Any failure and/or refusal to act in terms of the relevant prescription will be blatantly unfair, unreasonable and irrational in the circumstances,” it said.
Seanago said their steps to secure Ramaphosa’s attendance voluntarily had been unsuccessful. He had “predictably” refused.
The lawyers said Mkhwebane sought to question Ramaphosa on the CR17 or Bosasa case, which resulted in judgments in which the courts had scathingly criticised Mkhwebane, and which led to two of the grounds upon which Mkhwebane’s impeachment was sought.
When the Constitutional Court set aside Mkhwebane’s CR17 report, it said: “The public protector, like all of us, is fallible and mistakes are to be expected in the course of the exercise of her powers. But what is troubling in this matter is the series of weighty errors, some of which defy any characterisation of an innocent mistake.” The high court judgment that preceded the ConCourt’s also criticised the public protector.
When the president’s lawyer refused Mkhwebane’s request to testify before the section 194 committee, he said Mkhwebane was trying to characterise the CR17 issue as one arising from “evidence that served before the courts”. But when looked at properly, Mkhwebane’s complaint “in fact relates to the findings made by the courts”.
Mkhwebane was operating from a premise that it was open to the committee to re-litigate or reconsider the courts’ findings. These views were “misplaced and legally unsustainable,” said state attorney Mark Owen. “Consequently, no lawful or constitutionally appropriate purpose would be served by the president giving further evidence in respect of such findings,” he said in his letter of July 25.
However, Seanago said the president’s evidence was “clearly required for the proper performance of the committee’s function” and would assist the committee “to arrive at a just and equitable decision” on the charges related to the CR17 judgments.
“We look forward to hearing from you as a matter of some urgency,” said the letter.
TimesLIVE
Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.