Defend Truth


The lessons learnt from the process to remove Busisiwe Mkhwebane from office

The lessons learnt from the process to remove Busisiwe Mkhwebane from office
From left: Suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane. (Photo: Gallo Images / Phill Magakoe) | President Cyril Ramaphosa. (Photo: EPA-EFE / Nic Bothma)

The story of the rise and fall of Busisiwe Mkhwebane is in many ways a curious and sad one. But it is also, looking beyond the individual, a rare good news story in which the responsible institutions more or less did what they were constitutionally required to do.

On Monday, the National Assembly overwhelmingly voted to remove Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane from office on the grounds of incompetence and misconduct. President Cyril Ramaphosa is now constitutionally required, diligently and without delay, to give effect to this decision.

With this vote, the National Assembly belatedly corrected its calamitous decision to appoint Mkhwebane as Public Protector more than six years ago. But I fear that the political parties who supported Mkhwebane’s appointment may well learn the wrong lessons from this fiasco.

Lessons on the appointment of Chapter 9 office bearers

It should not be controversial to point out that the decision by ANC MPs, supported by some opposition party MPs, to appoint Mkhwebane as Public Protector was bad for the office of the Public Protector, bad for the country and its citizens, and, it must be said, ultimately also bad for the politicians who secured her appointment with the aim of using that office to target and discredit their political foes inside and outside the governing ANC.

In the Nkandla judgment, former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, in full Pentecostal flight, described the Public Protector as “the embodiment of a biblical David… who fights the most powerful and very well-resourced Goliath… one of the true crusaders and champions of anti˗corruption and clean governance”.

This would only be remotely true if the person appointed to the position was truly independent, fearless and principled.

But this is not enough. A Public Protector cannot be a truly effective anti-corruption “crusader” if he or she lacks basic legal knowledge, is incompetent, acts in a dishonest manner, and then fails to seek proper legal advice, relying instead on the advice of charlatans and political opportunists.

Not only does this lead to scathing court judgments invalidating investigative reports, but it also erodes public confidence in the office of the Public Protector and weakens the authority and political influence of that office.

The politicians who secured Mkhwebane’s appointment must be kicking themselves for selecting her. Had they appointed a knowledgeable and competent ally (one more skilful at hiding their dishonesty) to go after their political foes while shielding members of their own political camp, the office of the Public Protector might have had some success in destroying these perceived enemies and would have done far more damage to our democracy than Mkhwebane did.

Sadly, the National Assembly has only once (and probably by accident) appointed a truly fearless and independent person to the office of Public Protector. This is probably because the appointment requires the support of 60% of the members of the National Assembly, which currently means that ANC MPs have a veto over the appointment.

Given this track record, I worry about the wisdom of the appointment of Deputy Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka as head of that office. 

Gcaleka is far more knowledgeable about the law and far more competent than Mkhwebane, but during her short stint as acting Public Protector, she has not shown the kind of fearlessness one would expect from a “true crusader” against corruption willing to challenge the proverbial Goliath head-on.

Lessons on the effective functioning of parliamentary committees

Not a single speaker opposing Mkhwebane’s removal from office attempted to refute any of the damning factual findings made against her by the Section 194 committee. Instead, they complained about the alleged unfairness of the process followed by the committee. This is somewhat ironic, given the fact that the Section 194 process provided a rare example of a parliamentary committee taking its constitutionally imposed accountability function seriously.

As the Zondo Commission Report pointed out, parliamentary committees have a lamentable track record in holding members of the executive accountable.

Party political grandstanding by MPs from across the political spectrum often bedevil these proceedings, sometimes leaving one with the impression that a committee hearing is for show only; MPs already having had their minds made up for them by their party bosses. (To be fair, this is not always the case, especially when the issue before a committee is not politically divisive.)

The Section 194 process was not without its faults. Too much time was taken up by the testimony of witnesses dealing with minor infractions by Mkhwebane.

Moreover, the absence of ground rules on the exact role of evidence leaders, as well as of lawyers representing Mkhwebane, complicated the job of the chair of the committee, who mostly erred in favour of Mkhwebane and her lawyers. This was ruthlessly, but seldom skilfully, exploited by Mkhwebane and her lawyers in an attempt to turn the proceedings into a political trial of her critics.

Despite these shortcomings, the committee reached the only conclusion it could rationally have reached, given the evidence presented, and given Mkhwebane’s refusal to answer questions from evidence leaders.

Except for the committee members supporting Mkhwebane (who had made clear from the start that their minds were made up), committee members largely refrained from political grandstanding, and more or less seemed to keep an open mind about specific factual disputes. (To what extent a body made up of elected politicians can do so, remains a tricky question.)

We should ask if we can learn anything from this process as we consider ways of fixing some of the problems with the committee system identified in the Zondo Report.

Lessons on lawfare and the funding of legal fees

The Constitutional Court ruling that Chapter 9 office bearers were entitled to full legal representation during the Section 194 process no doubt contributed to the excessive cost of the process (the precise cost is not known, but amounts of up to R160-million were mentioned in the National Assembly debate on Monday) as well as to the interminable delays.

As a result, the Public Protector’s office funded Mkhwebane’s legal cost to the tune of R34-million. Peanuts for some; an astronomical amount for the rest of us.

Mkhwebane and some of her supporters claim that the refusal to fund her legal team beyond this sum amounted to a grave injustice. This is a preposterous and cynical claim. In South Africa, no one (not even the public office bearer of an independent body facing impeachment) has a right to legal representation of their choice funded by the state.

I would be shocked (really shocked, not Cyril Ramaphosa shocked) if any court in South Africa held that the Section 194 process was unfair because the state “only” forked out R34-million for Mkhwebane’s legal fees.

But this is a side issue. The dispute about legal fees raises a larger question about the use of public funds or private wealth to subvert accountability processes. A large chunk of the R34-million paid towards Mkhwebane’s legal fees was used to fund a series of court challenges and applications for the recusal of various individuals involved in the process.

While not all the challenges were entirely meritless, several were clearly hopeless and had no prospect of success. (None of the recusal applications had any prospect of success either.) These challenges were initiated only because the state provided the necessary funds.

The purpose of some of these challenges seemed to have been to delay the process and to use court hearings to gain political sympathy for the then-incumbent Public Protector. This is unfortunately part of a larger trend to demand funding for legal challenges aimed at protecting litigants from accountability.

For me, different lessons can be drawn from this aspect of the process. 

First, there is an urgent need to adopt clear guidelines on when public office bearers will be entitled to state funding to cover their legal fees. Such guidelines would also need to make clear how much funding would be available and would need to make clear what the funds could be used for.

This is a practical as well as an ethical problem. Practically, the absence of guidelines leads to abuse as litigants often use the issue of funding to delay proceedings against them, leading to long delays. Ethically, it seems unconscionable that the state would pay R34-million for one person’s legal fees when it could have used that money to, say, feed 45,000 children for a month.

Second, it is striking to me that a large chunk of the available funds in this case was used for the purposes of lawfare, a term I use here to mean the strategic use of legal proceedings to intimidate opponents or gain a political or legal advantage over them, including attempts to get courts to resolve contentious political disputes. 

As a result, the cost spiralled out of control and the process dragged on for far too long.

But I wonder if the litigation and threats of litigation may not also have helped to ensure the fairness of the process – at considerable cost. In this view, while the careful and considered manner in which the chairperson of the Section 194 committee dealt with both the reasonable and absurd complaints about the process did at times threaten to derail the entire process, it might have also enhanced the credibility of the process and removed any doubt in the minds of reasonable people about the fairness of the outcome.

Even if this is correct, I do not believe it would warrant the unlimited funding of legal challenges launched by public office bearers. But it does suggest that in different circumstances (for example, where an attempt is made to impeach the Public Protector for no valid reasons), litigation by civil society groups might be useful to prevent abuse.

A last word on law, facts and politics

The story of the rise and fall of Busisiwe Mkhwebane is in many ways a curious and sad one. But it is also, looking beyond the individual, a rare good news story in which the responsible institutions more or less did what they were constitutionally required to do.

Despite their limited power to do so, courts reviewed and set aside many of Mkhwebane’s irrational and incoherent reports. (Courts have no power to overturn reports merely because they disagree with the factual findings or legal arguments in a report.) In these judgments, the facts and the law almost always mattered much more than the identity or political affiliations of the person against whom the Public Protector made adverse findings.

It should not be, but I find this insistence that facts, law and the quality of one’s reasoning matter, quite encouraging.

While it will not, it ought to shame the many politicians and other citizens who project their worldview on to others and therefore believe that facts, law and principles are irrelevant and that every legal decision or piece of analysis is therefore necessarily based on whose “side” the person is on or on who paid them. DM


Comments - Please in order to comment.

  • Dennis Bailey says:

    Thank you for sitting with us through this disgraceful saga and writing intelligently about the incredible. That SA should suffer at the hands of one person so much loss and scorn by the hand of just one person is beyond words. May the PP RIP and the office rise in glory! I fear it may be a difficult ask given widespread misgivings about her successor.

  • Sydney Kaye says:

    The system only worked and you are only able to say that Parliament did its job, because the ANC wanted to get rid of her. If they had wanted to protect her, as they usually protect their members, you can be sure that the committee would have recommended that she was fit and proper, regardless of the evidence.

  • Denise Smit says:

    The process was not only an exposure of the Public Protector, but also of the EFF in Dali Mpofu and to what lengths they will go to achieve anything , illegal, unconstitutional, or whatever means they deem necessary. Dali Mpofu’s actions was so bad, it became intolerable to think that a legal person would do what he did. Our great thanks to those who were willing and able to go against him in the hearings. They were brave and if it was not for them and they were willing to be exposed to the intimidation and threats of Mpofu, things would not have gotten so far. Denise Smit

  • Manfred Hasewinkel says:

    Mkhwebane’s past engagements with the courts should have been handled by the State Attorney. If they’re useless, fire them and appoint competent people. In all fairness however, I think that private legal representation at state cost for Mkhwebane was essential, although Mpofu spent his time developing an alternative narrative without engaging the subject of the Section 194 enquiry, while making money (with his lifestyle, peanuts). It’s like talking about the conspiracy of the Namaqua daisies flowering in spring during a KZN assassination trial. R34M+ is beyond ridiculous and there should be consequences for Mpofu.

  • Pieter van de Venter says:

    A clear lesson – There should be a division between legal fees to defend the Public Protector in an official capacity and to defend the person that is appointed in the role. To determine (as in this saga) whether the person can or should stay on in the role, is surely a matter of defending the person. Therefore, ALL the lady’s legal fees should have been from her own pocket. She wanted to defend her appointment.

  • JP K says:

    If Mkhwebane’s removal is a victory, it feels hollow. Despite all the problems surrounding her she basically managed to stay on until the end and so whether she was removed or not hardly matters – millions in legal fees later, the damage to institution had already been done.

    The issue we should be concerned about who will replace her and here, once more, the ANC here will call the shots. With the ANC’s hand on the scale, we’ll no doubt get another problematic PP. But hopefully interviews won’t be done in a day. Hopefully the applicants will submit CVs that don’t look amateurish. And hopefully there’ll be a personality assessment to make sure don’t get narcissists and other problem personality types.

  • MT Wessels says:

    The cynic in me wonders whether she (not unlike Zuma) knew all along that the writing was on the wall but persisted in full cooperation with the likes of Mpofu knowing two things: the longer the fight is extended the longer before her salary gets extended, and secondly that Mpofu can milk the taxpayers funding of the legal process for all it’s worth. In fact, perhaps even a pre-arranged kickback was involved to co-operate in finding every opportunity to drag matters out. Follow the money, not the very obvious lack of merits of the gratuitous “lawfare”…

  • dgcoventry says:

    I take issue with your comment blaming her fall on bad advice.

    I’m of the opinion that she was installed as PP as an SSA asset and her value lay entirely in her being reinstalled, even for the limited time remaining in her tenure. Clearly it would have been in her own bests interests not to forfeit her pension by trying to fight the inevitable, but this would have compromised her mission.

  • Arthur Meyer says:

    Mkwebane was appointed as the public protector by Cyril after the DA and other parties rejected her appointment but once she was appointed she became the public protector so why was she suddenly not good enough once she started to investigate the incumbent president. A president should not be allowed to remove her but her investigations and reports should rather have been reviewed by an independent panel of judges and then a ruling should have been given . This president now has a cadre in the constitutional court and the new public protector that he will be appointing who was acting pp has already showed her cadre colours when she cleared Cyril on the pala pala findings which we all know he is guilty of a crime . Nobody who knows they have something to hide does what he done when they stash money into places where money should not be like in couches , hidden chambers in walls or even buries it in the ground , these are all actions of criminals thru out history of mankind but it’s only in S.A. that the money laundering law which clearly states how much cash one is allowed to hold in a personal safe before being required to deposits it in a bank . The amount was R30000 but I stand under correction .

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.

We would like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick...

…but we are not going to force you to. Over 10 million users come to us each month for the news. We have not put it behind a paywall because the truth should not be a luxury.

Instead we ask our readers who can afford to contribute, even a small amount each month, to do so.

If you appreciate it and want to see us keep going then please consider contributing whatever you can.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options