Ramaphosa conflicted, says defiant Mkhwebane
Defiant Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane is preparing to use her investigations of President Cyril Ramaphosa as a pivotal argument against her pending suspension by the President while her impeachment process unfolds in Parliament.
Denying that she is a ‘front’ for the ANC’s Radical Economic Transformation faction and the EFF – the latter is her loudest cheerleader – who share a common interest in bringing Ramaphosa down, she will argue the President, who gave her 10 days to provide reasons why she should not be suspended, is deeply conflicted.
She has also appealed to the Speaker of Parliament, who effectively opened the door for her probable suspension by writing to Ramaphosa to inform him Parliament was preparing to pursue the impeachment process, to be independent and impartial in executing her duties.
But Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula remains determined to expedite the process, and has written to the Constitutional Court, asking it to hand down its judgment on Mkhwebane’s application to reverse the pro-impeachment ruling against her before 4 May when the committee investigating her fitness to hold office will kick off the process by interviewing witnesses.
On 31 May it is due to start hearing the Public Protector’s evidence.
Mkhwebane, however, argues Parliament should halt the process pending the outcome of her rescission application.
Her lawyers, Seanego Attorneys, have written to the Speaker stating that, while the last decision not to accede to her request for the parliamentary proceedings to be halted had been based on the fact that no legal proceedings were pending before any court, ‘the situation has changed fundamentally’.
A City Press report says she confirmed she had filed the rescission application before the Constitutional Court a week ago, stating: ‘The main thrust of the relief sought herein is to set aside the said judgment, more particularly insofar as it pertains to the constitutionality or otherwise of the involvement of a judge in the relevant panel which triggered the formation of the committee (to investigate her fitness for office). The central issues pertain to the findings on separation of powers and the absence of any constitutional powers for the Speaker to appoint a judge to any office in the legislative sphere. These are fundamental and weighty questions of law’.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
