Holomisa was well advised that the Constitutional Court remained the final arbiter of justice and its judgments must be accepted and respected, said the presidency.
“Parliament does not have the mandate to review Constitutional Court judgments in the separation of powers of the executive, legislative and the judiciary,” it added.
The National Assembly initiated a section 194 inquiry to investigate allegations of misconduct and incompetence by Mkhwebane.
“President Ramaphosa had, in accordance with the section 194(3)(a) of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa, decided to suspend advocate Mkhwebane from the office of the public protector effective 9 June 2022,” said the presidency.
“Section 194(3)(a) of the constitution provides that the president may suspend the public protector (or any member of a chapter 9 institution) at any time after the start of proceedings by a committee of the National Assembly for [their] removal.”
TimesLIVE
Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.
Section 194 inquiry not a platform for unsubstantiated allegations outside its scope: Ramaphosa
Image: Esa Alexander
President Cyril Ramaphosa on Wednesday rejected a suggestion by the UDM's Bantu Holomisa that he should give evidence on his 2017 party political campaign at the section 194 inquiry into public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane's fitness to hold office.
Holomisa made the suggestion during the inquiry, the proceedings of which were not a platform for unsubstantiated allegations outside its scope, the president's office said.
Ramaphosa said he did not make allegations against Mkhwebane and could therefore not be compelled to give evidence.
The presidency said Holomisa’s speculation that the CR17 campaign “may have” used public funds was baseless, misdirected and vindictive.
“It is an abuse of parliamentary processes and privilege. It has never been alleged that public funds were used by the CR17 campaign. The Constitutional Court judgment last year ruled that the public protector had no authority to investigate the CR17 campaign, given that this was not an organ of state and therefore not within the public protector's remit,” it said.
Public protector's office a 'superhero of our constitution', says expert while cautioning MPs
Holomisa was well advised that the Constitutional Court remained the final arbiter of justice and its judgments must be accepted and respected, said the presidency.
“Parliament does not have the mandate to review Constitutional Court judgments in the separation of powers of the executive, legislative and the judiciary,” it added.
The National Assembly initiated a section 194 inquiry to investigate allegations of misconduct and incompetence by Mkhwebane.
“President Ramaphosa had, in accordance with the section 194(3)(a) of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa, decided to suspend advocate Mkhwebane from the office of the public protector effective 9 June 2022,” said the presidency.
“Section 194(3)(a) of the constitution provides that the president may suspend the public protector (or any member of a chapter 9 institution) at any time after the start of proceedings by a committee of the National Assembly for [their] removal.”
TimesLIVE
Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.
MORE:
WATCH | ‘A cesspool of illegality’: Mpofu on Mkhwebane’s impeachment hearings
Mkhwebane says she's ready to tell her side of the story
Inquiry into public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office continues
Presidency denies lawyer Malesela Teffo's claim it meddled in Senzo trial
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.
Most read
Latest Videos