Mkhwebane to challenge suspension and ruling
Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has said she will challenge President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to suspend her. An EWN report notes Mkhwebane issued a statement questioning the wisdom and legality of Ramaphosa’s decision and claimed the President's verdict to remove her from office was in contempt of court.
She has also announced plans to challenge part of the judgment by the Western Cape High Court handed down on Friday, which dismissed her latest bid to stop her impeachment process.
A Sunday Times report says in a statement posted on Twitter on Friday, Mkhwebane said there are ‘glaring errors’ in the judgment and that she will challenge the ‘suspicious and legally questionable suspension decision’.
She said the suspension was made by a President ‘who is now even more conflicted given the more recent Glencore and Phala Phala complaints/investigations’.
A TimesLIVE report notes in the unanimous judgment by a full Bench, the court said the Public Protector was, in terms of the Constitution, accountable to Parliament: ‘We must emphasise that there exists a strong public interest in the continuation of the impeachment process. As a matter of logic, there is serious prejudice against the separation of powers and the public interest, in the event that the impeachment process is not concluded timeously and without inordinate delay.’
Before handing down judgment, Judge Nathan Erasmus said the court was aware of developments that had happened ‘last night or late afternoon’, but said the judgment was based on the facts before the court at the time the case was heard and up until an amendment was made to the notice of motion after the hearing.
The TimesLIVE report adds in Mkhwebane's bid to prevent her suspension, the court held that she would continue to receive her salary and benefits and would still be able to review the decision if the President decided to suspend her.
The balance of convenience did not favour Mkhwebane: ‘The longer Advocate Mkhwebane occupies the office of the applicant while facing serious charges, the more public faith in this office is eroded.’
The court said it had been asked to consider an application that sought ‘to prevent organs of state from exercising powers specifically assigned to them by the Constitution’.
Courts, it said, could only ‘tread deep into the heartland’ of the executive and the legislature in very clear cases. This case was ‘by no means’ one of these. The court ordered Mkhwebane to pay a portion of the legal costs in her personal capacity.
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.
