Cape Town - Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has filed a review application in the High Court after her application for a postponement of the impeachment enquiry against her was declined.
Briefing the enquiry committee on Wednesday, Mkhwebane’s legal counsel, advocate Dali Mpofu SC, said the application was served on Monday.
“That has serious implications for this committee,” Mpofu said.
He told the Section 194 committee that the application focused on committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi and DA MP Kevin Mileham’s refusal to recuse themselves from the inquiry as well as the committee.
“The purpose of that application is to review your (Dyantyi’s) decision, that of Mr Mileham and committee in your non-recusal decision.”
Mpofu said it would be on an urgent roll on December 13 and 14.
Some of the grounds for recusal were valid, he said, and warned that should the court decide in Mkhwebane’s favour, everything done by the committee since the beginning would be a waste of time.
“We will have to see what the court have to say about that,” Mpofu said.
Earlier, Mpofu dismissed what he described as misrepresentation on what happened on October 27 when the committee refused the postponement application of the proceedings pending the review application.
He left the proceedings after the application was dismissed.
The committee went ahead last week with two witnesses testifying in his absence, though Mkhwebane’s attorney of record was present.
Mpofu said the claims that Mkhwebane’s legal team had withdrawn and walked out were false.
“Both of those are false and not in accordance with what happened.”
He said they had informed Dyantyi and the committee that they were there for the adjournment application.
“We did not stage any walk out. I can assure you, chairperson, that the day I stage a walk out, you won’t be confused. I will tell you I stage a walk,” he said.
“I am not scared of saying that if it ever happens it would not be a secret,” he said.
Mpofu took issue that the proceedings continued without a legal representative of Mkhwebane’s choice and that she was held “hostage”.
He also took issue with the “interrogation” of her instructing attorney despite protests from some MPs, when he too was refused recusal from the proceedings.
Mpofu charged that Parliament had never wanted the legal practitioners in the inquiry and had prevented legal representation in the Constitutional Court.
“The feeling is mutual. We also don’t want to be here but we have to perform our duties.
“We need to find a way to work even if we don’t want to be in each other’s company for the sake of justice and the Constitution.”
He also tore into the proceedings, describing them as the law of the jungle and another kangaroo type of activity.
“Not to mention the abuse of black advocates by putting up information and attorneys out of malice and spite which was irrelevant to the matter,” he said in reference to the Office of the public protector’s legal fees that were the subject of testimony last week.
“The behaviour was reminiscent of the worst forms of oppression.”
Mpofu also complained that Mkhwebane was given 10 days after November 28 to bring her witnesses and rebut testimonies by witness brought by the evidence leaders.
After some members asked questions, Dyantyi said they would continue with proceedings on Thursday and cross-examine legal services manager Cornelius van der Merwe as planned.
He said they were denying assertions that there was violation of Mkhwebane’s rights, the enquiry being a kangaroo court or any illegality.
“All of those are rejected. It is important we stay focused.”
He said they welcomed that the review application was filed in court and that there was no legal impediment in their work.
“There is no interdict.
Dyantyi said: “We are to proceed as we started multitask in what needs to happen in court whether the Constitutional Court on November 24 or December 12 or any date in relation to the review.”
Cape Times