Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane
PHOTO: Jan Gerber, News24
- The speaker, president and DA’s legal counsel will respond to Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s application to interdict the parliamentary removal proceedings against her.
- Her counsel argued in the Western Cape High Court that there was a prima facie case that the rules for the proceedings were invalid and unconstitutional.
- The parties must also present a timetable to court for the second part of the case, which asks the court to set aside the rules.
Does the DA agree it has a “vendetta” against Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, and how does National Assembly Speaker Thandi Modise feel about having an attitude that “leaves much to be desired”?
Answers will be found on Thursday when legal representatives for the DA, Modise and President Cyril Ramaphosa will have their say in the Western Cape High Court, after Mkhwebane’s legal representative, advocate Dali Mpofu SC, presented arguments on Wednesday on why Parliament’s process for her removal should be stopped.
Mkhwebane’s application was provisionally scheduled for hearing in March, but all parties agreed to suspend it due to the Covid-19 pandemic. When it was finally heard on Wednesday, Mpofu accused the DA of having had a “vendetta” against Mkhwebane since day one, and said Modise’s “attitude leaves much to be desired”.
The court battle began in February, after Mkhwebane filed an urgent bid in the Western Cape High Court seeking an interdict to halt the parliamentary process to remove her from office, which was set in motion by Modise’s approval of a DA motion.
Mpofu’s application is built on the argument that there is a prima facie case that the rules are unconstitutional.
Some of the arguments he raised were:
- The process isn’t fair, because Mkhwebane wasn’t informed of the National Assembly speaker’s decision, furnished with the reasons for the decision or allowed to respond.
- It is unlawful that the rules don’t allow Mkhwebane legal representation during the removal proceedings.
- A person can’t be charged in terms of a rule based on something that happened before that rule was made.
- The rules allowing Modise to appoint a judge to the panel that should determine whether there is a prima facie case for the Chapter 9 head’s removal impinges on the doctrine of the separation of powers.
Timetable expected
The interdict was only the first part of the application, Part A. She is also asking the court to set aside the rules for the removal of Chapter 9 institution heads, such as the Public Protector, which the National Assembly adopted in December, and rule it unconstitutional and invalid, which is Part B.
The court only dealt with Part A on Wednesday and will continue with it on Thursday.
Judge Vincent Saldanha expects all legal representatives to present a timetable for Part B to the court on Thursday.
Presiding with Saldanha are Judge Monde Samela and Judge Elize Meyer.
The Public Protector cited all other Chapter 9 institutions and all political parties represented in Parliament as respondents, with Modise and Ramaphosa.
Proceedings are expected to start at 10:00 and will be broadcast on all Parliament’s social media accounts.
Did you know you can comment on this article? Subscribe to News24 and add your voice to the conversation.
