Former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has won the first round in her gratuity tug-of-war with her successor Kholeka Gcaleka.
Ruling on the matter at the Pretoria High Court on Thursday, Judge Colleen Collis found that the public protector may have committed perjury by making inaccurate allegations under oath.
Punitive costs
Collis mandated Gcaleka to provide records of Mkhwebane’s denied R10-million gratuity. The judge also imposed her with punitive costs for the delays in the case.
The judge also announced that the requested records must be provided by tomorrow, as the hearing date for the case is awaiting confirmation.
The crux of the dispute revolves around Mkhwebane’s entitlement to the gratuity following her impeachment by Parliament in 2023. Her removal from office occurred in September of the same year. It led to a determination by her successor, Gcaleka, that she did not qualify for the payment due to the circumstances of her departure.
Denial of gratuity ‘unlawful, unconstitutional’
Mkhwebane, through her legal representatives, has consistently argued that the decision to deny her the gratuity is both unlawful and unconstitutional.
However, despite repeated attempts to engage with the public protector on the matter, her inquiries have reportedly been met with silence.
“Adv Gcaleka @PublicProtector, who was represented by Adv Ngcukaitobi SC to oppose the payment of the gratuity, was ordered to pay Adv Mkhwebane punitive costs. Also, the court found that she made factually incorrect allegations under oath… [This] constitutes the criminal offence of perjury. This matter will be acted upon urgently,” Mkhwebane reacted on her X (formerly Twitter) page.
Mkhwebane also expressed dissatisfaction with the actions of the current Public Protector. She alleged misuse of state resources. And questioned whether her successor would be held accountable for similar expenses upon vacating office.
Misuse of state resources
“Gcaleka opposes my entitlement to gratuity upon office vacation, citing my removal. And Ppsa is relying on the Section 194 biased report which is before the SCA. The CEO uses the PPSA car and state security officers due to alleged life threats resulting from the gratuity dispute? Contrary to Treasury regulations, Gcaleka is chauffeured around using four state cars. And I wonder whether she will pay for such on vacating office?
“And whether she will also pay legal fees of opposing the Section 194 proceedings bringing SC’s on watching brief events. The WCHC asked about their relevance. Now she has appointed SC Ngcukaitobi. This for a matter which needs court assistance to interpret the PP conditions of service adopted by parliament?”
