The burning issue: the naming of attorneys and advocates who represented Mkhwebane and exactly how much of the R147-million directed to legal expenditure during her six years was made up of payments to these practitioners.

Off the bat Mpofu clashed with an uncompromising committee chair, Qubudile Dyantyi, who ruled that the names of the legal practitioners would not be censored. 

This in spite of a meeting between Mpofu and evidence leader advocate Nazreen Bawa on Thursday evening where Bawa had intimated she had been prepared to withhold names but that the final decision was the committee’s to make.

Dyantyi ruled that the show would go on, names would be named.

Bawa on Thursday apologised for a few errors in the tallies of amounts paid to legal practitioners and which were flighted earlier, a matter which has caused great indignation and “consternation” said Mpofu. 

So much so that advocates Muzi Sikhakhane and Vuyani Ngalwana actually personally came to address the committee on Wednesday.

Dyantyi allowed Sikhakhane – Zuma’s counsel at the Zondo Commision – 10 minutes to address the committee whose actions, he charged, had been “racist”. This as only black legal practitioners had been named and that, as a result, their lives had been “placed at risk from criminals”.

Fixing the numbers 

On Friday Bawa, after apologising for mixing up the numbers, revealed that Mpofu had in fact been paid around R13-million in fees and not R10-million.

Advocate Vuyani Ngalwana had received R3.4 million (and not R4.7-million) and advocate Muzi Sikhakhane, R3.9-million and not R4.7-million.

Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations

Seanego Attorneys, in the corrected version, now appears to have earned R55-million and not R48-million on 24 matters and in fact did bag the bulk of work from the Public Protector South Africa.

Another tweak of the figures overnight revealed that the PP spent R5.9-million on CR17 litigation and not R4-million.

Mpofu told committee members that the R13-million he had been paid was “peanuts” and that had he charged “for everything I have done, it would be double, but that is another story”.

He has steadfastly argued that the amounts advocates where paid was “completely irrelevant” to the inquiry. He has attempted to split hairs about the difference between “fees” and “costs”.

The ‘brilliant’ Mr Ngobeni

With regard to Paul Ngobeni, who is being sought in the US and who is not registered to practice law in South Africa, Mpofu said that the services he had offered clearly “straddled communications and legal”.

Under Ngobeni’s umbrella, former EFF official Kim Heller and UNIZULU’s Professor Sipho Seepe, in fact manufactured propaganda attacking the judiciary and cabinet ministers. 

Heller, in a pitch, wrote that she viewed the mission to counter negative press on Mkhwebane as “spiritual”. Evidence has also revealed that Ngobeni directed the ideological and legal path Mkhwebane chose to take.

It was Ngobeni who drove Mkhwebane’s challenge to her impeachment inquiry and the rules of Parliament which cost the PPSA R15-million.

He also provided a legal opinion on Mkhwebane’s CR17 report, later set aside by the courts and for which he was paid R96,000. He was paid a further R30,000 to pen articles criticising former Minister of State Security, Dipuo Letsatsi-Duba, and minister of Finance, Tito Mboweni.

As far as Mpofu is concerned the only sin here is that Ngobeni’s invoices were paid through the legal and not the communications department.

Ngobeni had arrived at the PPSA’s doorstep after an introduction by Mkhwebane’s late “chief of staff” Sifiso Nyembe. The “brilliant” Ngobeni, added Mpofu – “and you would know if you read his papers” – impressed Mkhwebane. 

There was no duty on her part, however, to do any checks of his qualifications or track record, said Mpofu. That was someone else’s job.

There was no crime, he added, in employing someone you “thought” was an advocate. There was no “impeachable duty” by the PP to do so, he said.

Mpofu’s comment to Neels van der Merwe, senior manager of legal services at the Public Protector’s office during his continued cross-examination at the inquiry, revealed a possible strategy Mkhwebane may present in her testimony

“Yes, we know the PP was the captain of the ship but why are we not told about the deficiencies of those upon whom she put trust to do the various jobs?” he asked Van der Merwe, adding “I am sure you would accept just as the benefits of the clean audits must be shared the deficiencies should also be shared.”

Minions further down the feeding chain are about to be thrown under the bus, it appears.

Auditor-General steps in

Just before lunch, Mpofu flighted a media statement by Acting Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka announcing that the Auditor-General would be investigating the issue of the PPSA’s legal expenditure.

Mpofu read out the letter and scoffed at Gcaleka’s use of the word “calls” in her media release stating “apparently there were calls, maybe they are from [Kevin] Mileham [DA MP] and [Natasha] Mazzone [DA MP].

Gcaleka also advised that the office was reviewing systems with regard to the procurement of legal practitioners in future.

As a parting shot, Mpofu offered “By the way, when you talk about the PP, I assume you are referring to advocate Mkhwebane and not the acting-PP”.

The inquiry continues. DM