[ad_1]
Public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane. The National Assembly’s programming committee was told that the parliamentary removal investigation could continue. (Photo: Gallo Images / Netwerk 24 / Felix Dlangamandla)
Parliament’s inquiry into the removal from office of Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane is scheduled to continue, it emerged from Thursday’s scheduling committee. Hours later, before the justice committee, Mkhwebane asked for help as his corrective actions seem to be increasingly ignored.
An investigation into the removal of Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane from office was never going to be easy. But now it’s one step closer: three years after the district attorney’s first complaint in September 2017, the adoption of a new parliamentary rule, a flood of letters, and legal action.
On Thursday, the president of the National Assembly, Thandi Modise, told the programming committee that “before me” were the names of the members of the independent panel who would make a first assessment on whether the Public Protector had a case to answer.
It is a complicated procedure. Following a motion of complaint, once approved by the speaker, the political parties nominate candidates for an independent three-person panel which is the first stage of a two-stage removal procedure under parliamentary rule Removal from Public Offices in Institutions that they support constitutional democracy. Adopted in early December 2019, the rule establishes a 17-step process that can end with the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in the House to remove a Public Protector.
It is also politically complicated. The first attempt to establish this panel in February 2020 failed when the nominees withdrew due to possible conflicts due to their current areas of work.
“We had to restart,” Modise told the parliamentary programming committee. “It had to be thorough. We had to look at all the candidates and make sure no candidate is used to discredit any decision the panel makes. “
That is the clearest sign of the tensions in this process. Since July 2019, Mkhwebane has addressed highly critical correspondence to Modise.
At the beginning of July 2019, the public protector complained about what she considered as the lack of protection of the president in the new Parliament after the elections of May 2019, the prosecutor renewed her request for deportation procedures, noting the lack of rules. In early December 2019, the House unanimously adopted the new rule, but on January 29, 2020 Mkhwebane asked Modise to suspend the “extremely unfair” rule pending a “friendly” solution to the problems, or face legal action.
Parliament held that, as an institution to select a Public Protector, it had a role in the removal of a director from a chapter 9 institution, for which legal action was initiated. While Court documents were exchanged on the request for interdiction., the Covid-19 lockdown in late March 2020 meant that the hearing was delayed until mid-August.
We do not need to wait for the judicial process to conclude. So we can proceed right now, we are warned.
A ruling on the injunction is still pending and a hearing on the validity of the parliamentary rule is scheduled for late November.
On Thursday, after a question from Chief District Attorney Natasha Mazzone, the National Assembly’s programming committee was told that the parliamentary impeachment inquiry could continue.
“We don’t need to wait for the judicial process to conclude. So, we can proceed at this time, we are informed, ”said the Secretary of the National Assembly, Masibulele Xaso.
What is needed now is for the speaker to announce the independent panel and its start date.
The panel has 30 days to make its recommendation. If you discover that there was no case against Mkhwebane, the removal investigation ends right there. If the panel recommends that Parliament proceed, the House should establish an inquiry committee to take the process further.
It is a process that will not end soon. On Thursday, Mkhwebane was four years away from his seven-year non-renewable term.
The Public Protector’s presentation to Parliament’s justice committee requested more money (54.5 million rand for staff, security, welfare and an electronic library) and assistance in negotiations with the National Tax Authority (NPA) and other organs of the state.
In his opening remarks to MPs, Mkhwebane did not mention the NPA, but spoke of state bodies and departments that did not implement corrective action, did not report on the review, but simply “ignored” the Public Protector.
“We ask Parliament to assist us with state bodies that do not review our reports or implement corrective measures,” Mkhwebane said with specific reference to North West and Tshwane.
The language the NPA uses in correspondence when responding to our requests for assistance is inconsistent with the spirit of collegiality expected of state institutions with the same purpose. I hereby appeal to your honorable Members to assist us in this regard.
Complaints about the NPA arose in the Public Protector’s written information document, which singles out prosecution services for refusing to release documents.
“It doesn’t help to cite information on the subject of an investigation when another state body in the accountability value chain already has possession of it and could simply share it with us.”
And then there are the issues over the tone of the NPA letters, according to the briefing.
“The language the NPA uses in correspondence when responding to our requests for assistance is inconsistent with the spirit of collegiality expected of state institutions with the same goal. I hereby appeal to your honorable Members to assist us in this regard. “
In July 2019, Mkhwebane, in his report on President Cyril Ramaphosa misleading Parliament about Bosasa’s funding of the CR17 campaign, told NPA chief Shamila Batohi, to take note of the report, to “carry out an additional investigation into the prima facie evidence of money laundering uncovered during my investigation ”and to inform you as Public Protector. In response, Batohi wrote to Mkhwebane, noting that the Public Protector appeared to have misunderstood the” independent mandates “of their respective offices.
In early March 2020, a full court in Pretoria High Court struck down that report after Ramaphosa reviewed it. The scathing trial found that Mkhwebane did not understand his powers, could not lead the NPA, an independent institution, and imposed a personal costs order.
On Thursday, ANC MP Qubudile Dyantyi opposed Mkhwebane’s request for assistance regarding the NPA, a sentiment later shared by the chairman of the justice committee, Bulelani Magwanishe. The justice committee is unlikely to agree to intervene.
Regarding other state bodies ignoring the Public Protector, Dyantyi said details were needed: “name and shame,” he called Mkhwebane.
She does not.
But Mkhwebane promised to provide the justice committee with an inaction list on corrective measures, and also to send a letter about his history and interactions with the NPA to support his call for MPs to act as mediators.
“I must cry. You are my parents, ”Mkhwebane previously told MPs. “We do not have money. We have no security. State bodies are not implementing corrective actions ”. DM
