Mathole Motshekga’s press release was telling. After sparring with the Public Protector in Parliament’s justice portfolio committee meeting he focused on the one point Thuli Madonsela conceded: she apologised for calling Judge Ashton Schippers’ ruling on her powers was a cut and paste from a United Kingdom judgment. “At today’s meeting the Public Protector conceded that her comments were inappropriate and that they should not have been made and therefore apologised to the Judge Schippers and the judiciary at large,” wrote Motshekga, the ANC’s chairman of the justice portfolio committee, on Wednesday afternoon.

But Madonsela’s appearance in front of the committee was far more than that. She has always faced criticism in Parliament, repeatedly requesting an expanded budget from hostile MPs, not just from the ANC, who infuse questions on accountability with their feelings over the nature of her investigations, which inevitably put elected representatives and their parties in the firing line. On Wednesday, much of the ANC’s anger over the Public Protector’s role came to a head, fuelled by a year’s worth of attempts to reduce the importance of her findings.

Motshekga rejected claims that ANC members on the committee are “hell-bent” on making the Public Protector’s role difficult. “We reject such claims with the contempt it deserves because our members are merely conducting oversight on the Public Protector as they do usually do with all state or government organs. Today’s attempts by the DA and EFF to block probing questions on the operations of the institution were pure grandstanding that would do nothing to strengthen parliamentary oversight. The DA and EFF’s sweetheart approach when it comes to the institution is hypocritical when contrasted with their attitude towards other institutions,” he said in his press release.

His argument followed the ANC’s party line on the calls to “pay back the money” following Madonsela’s report on the Nkandla upgrades to President Jacob Zuma’s private home. “The notion that the Public Protector is above criticism or may not be subjected to probing oversight can only come from those who seek to abuse the Office of the Public Protector for their narrow political agenda. The ANC asks difficult questions to all institutions appearing before the committee in the interest of building better, effective and efficient institutions,” said Motshekga. When Madonsela said Zuma’s response to her report was not adequate, he said it was not up to her to decide.

The Nkandla report wasn’t on the agenda on Wednesday, but its impact has clearly worsened the animosity between ANC members in the committee and Madonsela. The Public Protector said the problems she is having, likely referring to Motshekga’s point scoring attempts and the regular attacks on the legitimacy of her office, only started a year ago. The Nkandla report was released a little over a year ago.

Motshekga repeatedly interrupted Madonsela’s responses on Wednesday, claiming she had not addressed financial and administrative issues raised last year. The Public Protector said that instead of attacking her, the committee should read the strategic document her office had submitted which addressed all the issues raised. Regardless of their personal differences with members, Madonsela said her office should be respected. When members of the DA tried to defend her, Motshekga said the committee’s time had been squandered “by your friends in the DA”, a clear indication of his views on Madonsela.

The Public Protector’s request for an additional R200 million to its R246 million budget was sidelined as Motshekga looked to settle the score in the ongoing fight. Madonsela’s office has completed 21,170 of 29,303 of its recent cases but she said they need an increased budget to meet staffing plans approved by Parliament. While no decision has been made on her request, the ANC members effectively answered that the government is trying to cut costs; she has a budget, deal with it. In his press release, Motshekga repeated the ANC’s position regarding the Nkandla report: we must be wary of Chapter 9 institutions overlapping when performing their duties.

The DA’s Glynnis Breytenbach called the sitting “a disgrace due to the unnecessary levels of contempt shown for Public Protector, Thuli Madonsela, by committee chairperson, Dr Mathole Motshekga, and his colleagues – coupled with indefensible personal attacks on the Public Protector”. The party gave notice to move a motion of no confidence in Motshekga as committee chairman during the next sitting. She said Motshekga “ignored all rules and conventions in order to paint the Public Protector as being unprepared and disorganised”.

“The fact of the matter is that the Public Protector is not sufficiently funded and resourced, as the committee has repeatedly been told. This state of affairs suits the ANC’s agenda to diminish this critical institution, tasked by the Constitution with supporting and strengthening South Africa’s democracy,” said Breytenbach.

But while Madonsela’s investigation into the benefits Zuma received from Nkandla still holds weight for the public and opposition parties, the issue defining her office isn’t the R200 million she needs to do her work but how the ANC can shield Zuma from paying a portion of the R246 million spent on his home.

That’s likely why Motshekga’s press release focused on Madonsela’s apology to Judge Schippers. His judgment found that the Public Protector’s findings are not binding. It’s also why there’s so much animosity. Because despite her apology, Madonsela does not plan to allow her recommendations to be sidelined. This month she said of her office’s reports, “These are findings and not recommendations. The only authority [that] can decide that I was wrong is a court of law. The only way to change this is by changing the Constitution.” DM

Photo: Public Protector Thuli Madonsela (Greg Nicolson/Daily Maverick)