South Africa


Suspended Public Protector legal action hits end of the road just as impeachment hearings kick off

Suspended Public Protector legal action hits end of the road just as impeachment hearings kick off
Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane. (Images: Gallo Images / Tebogo Letsiet | Leila Dougan |

The parliamentary impeachment inquiry against suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, including public hearings scheduled from next week, now unfolds without the cloud of legal proceedings because these have been withdrawn by the acting incumbent.

In a twist that effectively draws the line under R67-million already spent by suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane on a swathe of legal challenges to fight the impeachment proceedings and suspension, acting Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka has put an end to legal proceedings in the name of the Chapter 9 institution.

Mkhwebane spent a total of R67,122,771 on legal costs fighting off a parliamentary impeachment inquiry and presidential suspension over the past two years – R38,878,530 in the 2020/21 financial year and R28,244,241 in 2021/22 – according to a parliamentary reply to DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach dated 31 March 2022.

The acting Public Protector – in a letter dated 6 July to the Western Cape High Court, Parliament’s presiding officers and others – gives notice of withdrawing the further legal action and appeal that was initiated by Mkhwebane when on 10 June she – again – failed in her bid to interdict both Parliament’s S194 impeachment inquiry and President Cyril Ramaphosa’s suspension.

“… Seanego Attorneys Inc (Mkhwebane’s lawyers) were not authorised, instructed or briefed by me as the acting Public Protector or the Chief Executive Officer of the Public Protector, as the accounting officer to deliver the aforementioned application for leave to appeal,” writes Gcaleka in the letter that was leaked publicly, adding that the Western Cape High Court would be formally approached.

“In the event that Advocate Mkhwebane proceeds with these applications in her personal capacity or the respondents persist with any relief they may seek, the PPSA (Public Protector South Africa) shall abide by the decision of the court unless any respondents persist with seeking costs against the office.”

In other words, only if Parliament, the President or the DA insist on seeking costs against the Office of the Public Protector would any legal action continue on the costs.

Parliament spokesperson Moloto Mothapo has confirmed receipt of Gcaleka’s notification. “Parliament has taken note of the acting Public Protector’s intentions on the matter and will await any further directions from the court,” he said in a statement on Thursday morning.

It may just be that everyone drops legal action, in a move to end what has been about two years of often acrimonious litigations in which Mkhwebane resorted to claims that she was being victimised by powerful forces, as her court papers put it in the last, also unsuccessful, court bid.

Throughout, Parliament’s S194 impeachment inquiry rules and proceedings – a 17-step process – have been found proper and lawful, with one tweak: the Constitutional Court ruled in February that the heads of Chapter 9 institutions who appear before such a S194 parliamentary committee have the right to full legal representation, not just legal advice.

What remains outstanding is Mkhwebane’s turn to the Constitutional Court to ask it to rescind its decision to dismiss her earlier rescission application. It’s an unprecedented move to the highest court of South Africa, and has been viewed in some legal and political circles as undermining the judiciary.

Read in Daily Maverick: “After Mkhwebane suspension, Public Protector’s office chases 30-day deadline for Farmgate report

Ramaphosa suspended Mkhwebane on 9 June. “Advocate Mkhwebane will remain suspended until the section 194 process in the National Assembly has been completed. President Ramaphosa has fulfilled his obligation to provide Advocate Mkhwebane a fair hearing by according her sufficient time and opportunity to make submissions,” a Presidency statement said at the time. 

Meanwhile, the National Assembly – which already established the S194 inquiry committee in March 2021, but held off proceedings pending litigation – is ready to proceed.

Earlier in 2022, two evidence leaders were appointed, and Mkhwebane met the 22 May deadline to submit her version on the counts of incompetence and misconduct that underlie the inquiry into her fitness for office – and potential removal before her non-renewable seven-year term ends in October 2023.

“The work of the committee is on track and continues as planned from 11 July 2022,” S194 committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi confirmed in a text message on Thursday morning.

On that day, the first public hearings will start with testimony from those who answered a public call to make statements under oath, as well as witnesses.

Read in Daily Maverick: “Stalingrad on stilts: ConCourt dismisses suspended Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s application in Ivan Pillay pension saga

Exactly who may be among those participating in next week’s public hearings is expected to emerge in an official S194 committee notice that might be issued later on Thursday. 

The programme adopted by MPs in late May charts a way towards finalising the removal-from-office inquiry by the end of September 2022.

Unless Mkhwebane pulls another legal rabbit out of the hat or perhaps submits a sick certificate, the S194 committee has scheduled four days from 26 July to hear from her. DM


Comments - Please in order to comment.

  • Michael Forsyth says:

    Do we have another Thuli Madonsela in the making?

  • Bruce Anderson says:

    My bet is on a sicky … and surely, if she drags it out to beyond the term of her contract, the process should be pursued for the sake of completion, and to ensure that her opportunity to enjoy perks on the taxpayers dime for a job (not) well done is removed. Being suspended she cannot fulfil her duties under her contract and therefore, if legally removed, the removal should apply from the date of suspension. The legal cost incurred in defending her incompetence are personal, they were not protecting the office, and should be recovered. Enough now.

  • Richard Fitzpatrick says:

    So another R67m to wave goodbye to, what a pleasure being a tax payer in SA.

  • Johan Buys says:

    How does a narrow matter like this with almost no in court litigation end up at R67m? That is more than 10y of fulltime lawyer time 35h a week

  • Luan Sml says:

    Another example of us hardworking taxpayers funding incompetence… to the tune of R67 million worth of legal fees!… what arrogance from someone appointed to be the peoples protector!!

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted


This article is free to read.

Sign up for free or sign in to continue reading.

Unlike our competitors, we don’t force you to pay to read the news but we do need your email address to make your experience better.

Nearly there! Create a password to finish signing up with us:

Please enter your password or get a sign in link if you’ve forgotten

Open Sesame! Thanks for signing up.

Make your taxes work for you

Donate to Daily Maverick’s non-profit arm, the Scorpio Investigative Unit, by 29 February 2024 and you’ll qualify for a tax break.

We issue Section 18A tax certificates for all donations made to Daily Maverick. These can be presented to SARS for tax relief.

Make your donation today

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Become a Maverick Insider

This could have been a paywall

On another site this would have been a paywall. Maverick Insider keeps our content free for all.

Become an Insider
Otsile Nkadimeng - photo by Thom Pierce

A new community Actionist every week.

Meet the South Africans making a difference. Get Maverick Citizen in your inbox.