Cape Town - The inquiry into the fitness of Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane to hold office was on Wednesday rocked by calls for the recusal of evidence leader Advocate Nazreen Bawa.
This after UDM leader Bantu Holomisa and Attorney Godrich Gardee, acting on behalf of chairperson of Black People’s national Crisis Committee, wrote to the Section 194 committee Qubudile Dyantyi requesting the recusal of Bawa as one of the evidence leaders.
The requests are made at a time when the committee has not been sitting for two weeks now and is yet to resume with its work this month.
In his letter, Holomisa said it had come to the attention of the UDM that Bawa was implicated in legal proceedings that called her conduct into question.
He did not divulge what the allegations were, other than referring Dyantyi to start reading a 400-odd page affidavit from a certain section.
“It is the contention of the UDM that the seriousness of the allegations that are levelled against Advocate Bawa SC are such that her fitness as evidence leader is now questionable and her continued role in the committee may have the unintended consequence of soiling the work of this committee.”
Holomisa asked that Bawa be recused and be allowed the space to clear her name in court. Bawa could also not be reached for comment.
“The UDM, therefore, appeals to the chair to act in a manner that will preserve the integrity of the work of this committee and advise Advocate Bawa SC to recuse herself,” he said.
In a separate letter, Gardee said his client and activist Chumani Maxwele was aware of proceedings in the Western Cape High Court where allegations were made against Bawa in June 2020, but were not substantively addressed by the legal Practice Council and the Cape Bar Counsel.
He said the records relating to Bawa’s alleged misconduct were before the high court and had been resubmitted to both the legal Practice Council and Cape Bar Counsel.
“We are instructed to demand as we herein do that Bawa SC recuse herself or be removed from Section 194 inquiry pending the determination of the organisations seized with determining these matters,” Gardee wrote.
He also said the evidence leader should be an individual of impeccable ethical credentials who was beyond reproach.
“The standing, character and conduct of the evidence leader should not lend itself to speculation which has potential to contaminate these proceedings.
This is more so because these proceedings have been initiated to deal with the Public Protector.
“It therefore behoves the National Assembly to ensure that the evidence leader’s conduct is consonant with the constitutional functions and duties of the National Assembly,” Gardee added.
He gave Parliament seven days to respond to the request, saying “all rights reserved”.
Dyantyi said, through a committee spokesperson, that he has not received a letter requesting the recusal of Bawa.
Dyantyi and committee member, DA MP Kevin Mileham have also been asked to recuse themselves.
This after Mkhwebane’s legal counsel, Advocate Dali Mpofu, last month made a recusal application against Dyantyi on 12 grounds and separate grounds against Mileham.
Mpofu cited, among other things, Dyantyi’s refusal to subpoena President Cyril Ramaphosa and Mileham being the spouse of DA MP Natasha Mazzone, who initiated the motion against Mkhwebane.
Cape Times