Accusations of unfairness and bias aimed at chairperson split Mkhwebane committee

Committee for Section 194 Enquiry chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi (ANC). Picture: Armand Hough/African News Agency(ANA)

Committee for Section 194 Enquiry chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi (ANC). Picture: Armand Hough/African News Agency(ANA)

Published Aug 1, 2022

Share

Cape Town - The Committee for Section 194 Inquiry hearings into suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office appeared to be split on Friday during a row about the time allotted for the cross-examination of witnesses.

Some members of the committee launched an attack on chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi shortly after proceedings began, when he allowed committee members to question the witness, the recently reinstated public protector’s Free State head, Sphelo Samuel.

When his time was up on Thursday at 3.30pm, Mkhwebane’s counsel, Dali Mpofu SC, had indicated he needed more time to complete his cross-examination of Samuel.

Dyantyi, who had wanted to give the committee time for questions on Thursday afternoon, ruled that he would extend Mpofu’s time and push the MPs’ questions to Friday morning.

Mpofu said he didn’t think he would be finished with the witness by Friday.

On Friday morning, members of the committee were about to start their interaction with Samuel when African Transformation Movement (ATM) MP Vuyo Zungula rose on a point of order to remind Dyantyi that Mpofu had said he wasn’t finished.

When Dyantyi reminded him of his ruling, Zungula accused him of being unfair and insisted Mpofu should be allowed to finish. At that point Dyantyi accused Zungula of acting like Mpofu’s spokesperson.

Zungula took offence and said he would be writing to the Speaker about Dyantyi being emotional in his rulings and of turning the process into a witch-hunt against Mkhwebane.

EFF MP Omphile Maotwe also accused Dyantyi of bias.

However, committee members Ganief Hendricks (Al Jama-ah), Baxolile Nodada (DA), Zanele Majozi (IFP) and Corné Mulder (Freedom Front Plus) sided with Dyantyi.

Dyantyi said the committee had a responsibility to exercise fairness and to conduct its work in a balanced manner.

“This is not an elastic process and it must be done within a reasonable amount of time. The directives adopted by the committee speak clearly to the leadership role the chair should provide in terms of time allocated,” he said.

After the row, members of the committee sought clarity from Samuel about issues in his affidavit, evidencein-chief and cross-examination.

These included the Vrede Dairy Farm investigation, increasing legal costs in the Office of the Public Protector, his suspension, his working relationship with Mkhwebane, and his opinion about her competence.

Later the committee recalled the first witness, Hassen Ebrahim, for further cross-examining by Mpofu.

Ebrahim, a constitutional expert, said Section 194 of the Constitution did not give the committee the power to remove Mkhwebane. However, he said, it would be up to the committee to establish whether there were grounds for her removal. He said if there were such grounds, Parliament would vote on whether Mkhwebane should be impeached.

“If two-thirds of the MPs of the Assembly vote in favour of impeachment, the president can fire Mkhwebane,” Ebrahim said.

The hearings continue.

mwangi.githahu@inl.co.za

Cape Argus