The section 194 committee investigating public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to occupy office has accepted its chair Richard Dyantyi and DA MP Kevin Mileham’s decisions not to recuse themselves from the process.
Dyantyi and Mileham rejected Mkhwebane’s calls for them to withdraw from the inquiry, accusing them of bias.
With the exception of the EFF, all the parties represented in the inquiry welcomed the non-recusals, with MPs saying it was important for the committee to get on with its work.
Mkhwebane’s legal representative Dali Mpofu applied three weeks ago for Dyantyi and Mileham to recuse themselves. The committee has been on a break since then.
Mpofu accused Dyantyi of bias, not affording them enough time to question witnesses and alleging he had a predetermined outcome, while he wanted Mileham gone on the grounds of “inherent bias” because of his relationship with former DA chief whip Natasha Mazzone, who initiated the motion for Mkhwebane’s impeachment in 2020. Mazzone and Mileham are married.
In a 62-page response, Dyantyi argued that he had been lenient on Mpofu, that he had given him latitude in how he conducted cross-examination and raised objections.
He denied he had breached the standards of fairness, reasonableness and transparency, saying he accommodated Mpofu in numerous respects.
These efforts to maintain order in the meeting do not constitute unfair treatment, nor can they be construed as bias. It is my duty to maintain the order and decorum of the proceedings.
— Section 194 committee chair Richard Dyantyi
Rebutting accusations that Mpofu was not afforded enough time to question witnesses, Dyantyi said the time allocated to the evidence leaders was less than the time allocated to and/or times ultimately appropriated by Mpofu (notwithstanding allocations) for cross-examination of witnesses.
Dyantyi said this was in addition to the times given to him, at his request, for addressing and or placing on record numerous matters.
To the extent that there have been rulings made during the proceedings. Dyantyi said these had occurred in circumstances predominantly where Mpofu had refused to heed his ruling, to allow other people who were speaking to complete what they were saying and where he sought to interject without leave.
“These efforts to maintain order in the meeting do not constitute unfair treatment, nor can they be construed as bias. It is my duty to maintain the order and decorum of the proceedings,” said Dyantyi.
He said he did not act unfairly or unreasonably, or display bias or substantial prejudice or act in a manner that gave rise to reasonable apprehension of bias in relation to rulings made in relation to the scope of the motion before the inquiry.
Dyantyi said during oral submissions Mpofu had claimed that he [Dyantyi] had blocked a subpoena against Ramaphosa out of a desire to “pander” to Ramaphosa and whatever “largesse” he can offer.
“The written submissions suggest that I had ‘ruled in a manner’ which exhibited manifest bias against the public protector and in favour of Mr Ramaphosa, based on a presumption that I am a ‘loyal’ member of the ANC.
“I have reiterated that I approach my task with an open mind. Loyalty or membership of a political party of which the president is a member does not automatically give rise to any perception of bias.”
He said the decision was not his but the committee’s.
“The committee acted lawfully and reasonably, legal advice was obtained and considered, thus this claim is false and made without evidence,” he said.
Dyantyi also denied showing bias or favouritism towards the inquiry’s evidence leaders or that there was collusion between him and evidence leaders. He said a degree of co-operation is required between the chairperson, the committee secretariat, support team and evidence leaders for the committee to function effectively. “This is not unusual, unfair or prejudicial.”
Dyantyi’s response reveals that Mkhwebane’s legal team was yet to file witness statements and it appeared that to date there were no witnesses they sought to call and in respect of whom a summons is required — other than President Cyril Ramaphosa, in relation to which the committee refused the request for a summons.
At its next meeting, the inquiry will hear more about the UDM’s call for one of its evidence leaders, Nazreen Bawa, to recuse herself. UDM leader Bantu Holomisa last week claimed that Bawa’s professional conduct was being called into question in an unrelated matter.
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.