Does her report suggest she is complicit in state capture?
That's a strong allegation, but it does suggest that.
The fact that she ignored evidence that would have led her to the key players surely must mean she was protecting them?
It does. I view it as complicity in state capture. By omission rather than commission, but it suggests she issued a report where the boundaries were drawn in such a way that the real culprits were not exposed.
Is her report enough to get her removed from office?
It might well be. Particularly when seen in the context of some of the other things she has done. In many ways the reports she did on the Reserve Bank are even more outrageous. When you put them together there might well be grounds for reviewing her position. That would involve a parliamentary vote.
In the absence of this would you approach the courts?
We would consider it. This is an office that was absolutely instrumental in rescuing South Africa from the brink of failure, so we don't take lightly the neutering of that office.
With bodies like the Hawks now playing their role, to what extent has the role of the public protector become irrelevant or redundant?
Irrelevance or redundancy is one regrettable development. But it's more than that. It's positively dangerous, because she appears to be in the sway of those she is meant to be investigating. It's not about irrelevance, it's about positive malfeasance, and that represents a real danger.
So it's more urgent than ever to get rid of her?
It is urgent to do a very thorough examination of what is going on. In some sense her performance has been sublimated by everything else that has happened, but based on our recent experience we don't want a situation where the public protector sees it as her duty to protect state officials from the public rather than to protect the public from state officials.
Does the exit of Jacob Zuma mean an end to state capture?
The process of state capture has been very deep and has repurposed and absorbed many institutions. It's not going to be eliminated in a day, there's no question about it. Cabinet positions are going to have to be reconsidered, board positions at state-owned enterprises are going to have to be reconsidered, the heads of law enforcement authorities and institutions like the South African Revenue Service are going to have to be closely reviewed. And the public protector falls within that ambit.
So we can't say: "Well, the Zuma era is over now, we can relax?"
That's what happened in 1994. We got the government we wanted, and because we relaxed, we landed up with the government that we deserved. We can't afford for that to happen again.
How would you feel about Zuma getting immunity in return for being a state witness?
I would feel very badly. Immunity for state witnesses is usually given to those who can identify somebody higher than them to be fingered. I don't think the principal culprit in the whole process is a potential candidate for immunity...