PUBLIC PROTECTOR IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
Zuma praise singers pitched for consultancy work with Mkhwebane, probe hears
During the Friday session of the parliamentary impeachment inquiry into suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, the office’s legal services manager was cross-examined about consultancies, sign-offs and pitches – amid ongoing revelations about legal fees.
Kim Heller, a former EFF official and “independent” political analyst, attempted to bag consultancy work with the Public Protector, the Section 194 impeachment inquiry heard on Friday.
Evidence to the committee was that Heller, along with University of Zululand professor, Sipho Seepe, had met the now suspended Public Protector, Busisiwe Mkhwebane, in the hope of providing their services.
Both Heller and Seepe have published widely in Iqbal Survé’s Independent titles.
On Friday, Evidence leader, advocate Nazreen Bawa, cross-examined Public Protector legal services manager Muntu Sithole, who admitted Heller and Seepe had visited Mkhwebane’s offices but that the pitch had fallen through.
The visit would have been between 2018/19.
Heller and Seepe are both Zumaphiles and personally selected and commented on a 2021 selection of the former president’s speeches recently published as Jacob Zuma Speaks.
Read more in Daily Maverick: “Mpofu claims revelation of Mkhwebane’s R147m in legal bills is ‘sensationalist’”
In their foreword, the authors wrote: “Zuma’s presidency never stood a chance. It was foreshadowed by massive investment in misinformation and invective directed at his person… Coming from the humblest of backgrounds and with his pro-poor posture and policy orientation, [Zuma] was a threat to the status quo and preservation of elite interests.”
This week, Sithole admitted to signing off on an R87,000 invoice for US fugitive from justice Paul Ngobeni, which included R30,000 for two published articles critical of Cabinet ministers Tito Mboweni and Dipuo Letsatsi-Duba.
Apart from this Ngobeni, who is not registered with the Legal Practice Council, provided opinions to the Public Protector on the Vrede Dairy project, the CR17 campaign, the Pravin Gordhan/Ivan Pillay pension investigations as well as the now-discredited CIEX/Reserve bank report.
Read more in Daily Maverick: “Mkhwebane fails in last-ditch ConCourt bid, while MPs hear more about her alleged abuse of power”
The total cost in public funds for “consulting and professional fees” paid by the Public Protector between 2016 and 2022 was R158-million, of which R147-million was splurged on “legal fees”, the inquiry heard.
Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations
These amounts were signed off by Sithole while some invoices did not comply with the Public Finance Management Act or the Public Protector’s own rates, the committee heard.
On Friday, the inquiry learnt that Mkhwebane’s personal legal firm, Seanego Attorneys, had received R49-million of the R147-million the Public Protector had spent on these legal fees.
Sithole denied that the firm had been given the bulk of work by the Public Protector and said other firms had also been briefed.
Sithole had trouble on Friday answering many of Bawa’s questions with regard to Ngobeni and Seanego and their interactions with the Public Protector’s office, often responding that he did not remember or recall vital details.
Even when Bawa flighted an invoice from Seanego with regard to an interlocutory application involving former state security minister Ayanda Dlodlo, which named Ngobeni, Sithole said he was unsure of Ngobeni’s role in the matter.
Read more in Daily Maverick: “Mkhwebane viewed politically sensitive Ramaphosa investigation as ‘a chess game’ – former COO Baloyi”
Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing Mkhwebane, objected, often loudly, to the grilling of Sithole by Bawa and committee members – a sign of things to come if and when his client eventually testifies.
The Public Protector’s Executive Manager: Complaints and Stakeholder Management follows Sithole as a witness. DM
Become an Insider
Why is this farce continuing? Does the enquiry not have enough evidence to fire this useless individual posing as a PP? “Sorry dali and busi, we have heard enough. You are the weakest link. Go!!”. Both of you. Go straight to jail. Do not pass go.…
The more you read about this woman the more you think we are still in the Zuma captured era. Why didn’t Ramaphosa suspend her when he could of, months ago??
You can also ask why he has not suspended Hlophe. Because dithering is the way he is.
The reason on Hlope is that he is due to retire soon, so the President wants him to get his pension
Please tell us more about Kim Heller.
What you reported does not justify the headline.
I think the topic of this discussion correctly described these individuals as Zuma praise singers I went further to say Gupta apologists. I’m not surprised to hear them mentioned in the PP enquiry. They belong to the same whatsup group.
There are a number of problems with the story that are very blatant as if we as readers do not listen to the inquiry. State capture was a bad experience for the country and its people but journalistic ethics of without bias and objectivity ought to be followed because journalism is not only about informing the public but also education on what they are reporting. When you have this kind of journalism that frames their object of reporting all objectivity gets lost and it is the beginning of gutter journalism. We have been listening to the impeachment trial and firstly Seanago is not Mkhwebane’s personal lawyer but part of the panel of lawyers of the Public Protector as several witnesses have trestified and
in the Public Protector matter they are paid by the office of the Public Protector a natter this journalist obscures from the readers! Sithole had no trouble on responding to Bawa as he said he found Ngobeni already being used by the office. This is a blatant lie! The objection by defence lawyers on the line of questioning is par for the course and is normal in an inquiry or trial. You just have to go to the Meyiwa trial to see that. The problem with the journalist is that Sithole is an honest witness who has no bone to chew with the Public Protector like other witnesses. So he does not fit the narrative of embedded journalism.
We have read the Manufactured Consensus by Chomsky and Herbert. We read with eyes and ears open!