[ad_1]
- Public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane is the first director of a Chapter 9 institution to be indicted by Parliament.
- 275 MPs against 40 voted in favor of an investigation into their suitability for office.
- The EFF, which with UDM, Al Jamah-ah and ATM, voted against the investigation, said it would challenge the decision in court.
Public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane is the first head of a Chapter 9 institution to be indicted by Parliament after a vote in the National Assembly on Tuesday.
However, the EFF intends to change this by going to court.
The National Assembly voted 275-40 to go ahead with an investigation into Mkhwebane’s fitness for office.
READ | Parliament votes to launch an investigation against Busisiwe Mkhwebane
In total, 168 ANC deputies voted in favor and none against the motion.
This after party chairman Gwede Mantashe, at a special ANC committee meeting before Tuesday afternoon’s session, promulgated the law and instructed ANC MPs to vote in favor of the investigation amid the division in the ranks on the matter. The ANC has 230 seats.
Only one DA deputy was absent due to health concerns, and the remaining 83 voted to proceed, as it was after the entire party that launched the process last year after DA chief Natasha Mazzone presented. a motion before the Speaker of the National Assembly Thandi Modise. .
In November, Modise appointed former Constitutional Court judge, Judge Bess Nkabinde, and lead attorneys Dumisa Ntsebeza SC and Johan de Waal SC, to serve on the independent panel to consider whether there was a prima facie case for the impeachment of Mkhwebane.
Relying largely on the various court rulings against him, the panel found “substantial information that constitutes prima facie evidence of incompetence” and “repeated errors” and “sufficient information” that constitutes prima facie evidence of misconduct, and recommended that the National Assembly will continue with an investigation into Mkhwebane’s fitness for office.
READ | Mantashe ‘directs ANC caucus to support vote to institute Mkhwebane investigation’
This was the question before the House on Tuesday: whether he should continue the investigation, not whether Mkhwebane should be removed from office.
At the beginning of the procedure, Modise said that he received a letter requesting the suspension of the procedure, pending Mkhwebane’s legal challenge to the validity of the rules, as it would violate Rule 89 of Parliament, which prohibits dealing with matters that are sub judice.
This is the second part of the Mkhwebane legal challenge. This first part, a request for an injunction to stop the proceedings pending in the second part, was dismissed in the Western Cape Superior Court. On Tuesday, it also emerged that his request for direct access to the Constitutional Court was rejected by the higher court.
Merits
Modise said Rule 89 meant that no member could reflect on the merits of a matter pending a court decision.
“I must once again emphasize that the issue before the Chamber today is whether to proceed with an investigation or not. It is not a question of ruling on the validity of the relevant norms, or of determining whether the Public Protector should be dismissed.” added.
Mazzone described the panel as “three of the best legal brains in the country,” which agreed that there was a prima facie case against Mkhwebane.
He thanked Modise and the parliamentary staff for ensuring that “the letter of the law” was followed.
EFF MP Natasha Ntlangwini said the rules were made specifically for Mkhwebane, as did the notorious Sobukwe Clause of the apartheid Parliament and the EFF would go to court if the National Assembly voted in favor of the investigation.
“As a general, our law does not apply retrospectively, our law is progressive,” Ntlangwini said.
He also raised the issue that the Constitution allowed President Cyril Ramaphosa to suspend Mkhwebane while the investigation was ongoing.
“This is what those who persecute the Public Protector want. They want her to leave, urgently,” Ntlangwini said.
“This, without a doubt, is the unconstitutional prosecution of a black woman whose only sin was to hold the cartel boy of white monopoly capital accountable. If this motion passes, we will immediately go to court to stop this process, shape or form. ”
The “Sobukwe Clause” argument was raised by Mkhwebane in his unsuccessful candidacy for the Western Cape Superior Court last year. The lawyer Dali Mpofu SC, former president of the EFF, was his legal advisor.
Other parties that opposed going ahead with the investigation were UDM, Al Jama-ah and ATM.
READ MORE | ConCourt rejects Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s attempt to stop parliamentary inquiry
Thandiswa Marawu of the ATM claimed that the matter was sub judice, repeating the arguments in the letter to Modise.
The DA, ANC, IFP and FF Plus expressed their support to go ahead with the investigation, while Good also voted to go ahead.
AIC and PAC were not present. Willie Madisha de Cope, despite expressing support for the investigation to proceed, abstained.
Order
Before the vote began, the EFF raised what it called “points of order” about the legality of proceeding with the investigation.
EFF Deputy Leader Floyd Shivambu claimed that the panel report had “concluded that the Public Protector is guilty.” In fact, the panel report concluded that there was “prima facie evidence” of incompetence and misconduct.
What happens next?
The MPs are to be appointed to a committee that will conduct an investigation into Mkhwebane’s fitness for office. This committee can call witnesses. Mkhwebane will also have the opportunity to respond to the allegations against him in person.
The committee will then report to the National Assembly. If she passes a motion, with a two-thirds majority, that Mkhwebane be removed, Ramaphosa must remove her from office.
Deputy Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka will act as Public Protector while the parliamentary process to appoint a new Public Protector begins.
