Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane, a former public protector, is refusing to back down from her demand that her R10-million gratuity be paid out.
Mkhwebane has made a bold statement, threatening advocate Kholeka Gcaleka, her successor, with legal action if she does not make the payment.
This comes after Gcaleka instructed Mkhwebane to go fly a kite last week through her solicitors, claiming that the payout was not going to occur.
According to Gcaleka, Mkhwebane was not deserving of the gratuity because she had left the office through an impeachment process before the official end of her term.
Threat to drag Gcaleka to the cleaners
Mkhwebane insists that this reasoning is not only nonsensical but also unlawful and unconstitutional.
It was for this reason that she would drag Gcaleka to the cleaners to accede to the gratuity demand that was due to her.
“It is with regret that I announce the necessity of pursuing legal action against the Office of the Public Protector,” said Mkhwebane.
“Despite numerous attempts by my legal representatives to engage with the Office of the Public Protector regarding the gratuity stipulated in my employment conditions of service, our inquiries have been met with silence.
“Last week, the public protector publicly announced her decision to deny the stipulated gratuity, citing the reason that I did not vacate my office on my own volition.
“This decision is wholly unfounded and introduces a new punitive condition that has no basis in my employment contract. This conduct is not only unlawful but also unconstitutional.”
Mkhwebane charged that attempts to treat her differently from others would be met with a serious fightback.
The insistence that she forfeit her gratuity because she was impeached did not apply, as the constitution was silent on this.
A legal challenge is imminent
She claims that the president, not the leaders of Chapter 9 institutions or judges, would forfeit any benefits resulting from an impeachment proceeding under the terms of the constitution.
“A legal challenge will be imminently filed in the high court to address the interpretation of the employment conditions of service, relevant legislation, and the constitution by the public protector,” she said.
“This decision has not been taken lightly, but in the interest of upholding the principles of fairness, justice, and the rights of every individual under the law.
“I trust that the judicial process will serve as a fair and impartial platform to resolve this matter.”
