Former public protector advocate Thuli Madonsela will on Wednesday appear before the section 194 committee to give testimony on behalf of suspended Busisiwe Mkhwebane.
It is the first time a Chapter 9 institution’s former head in the country is called to testify in a parliamentary inquiry against her successor.
Madonsela will be testifying by means of a subpoena after she repudiated summons to testify on behalf of her suspended successor in the inquiry probing Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office.
In February, the committee agreed that Madonsela’s testimony could add value to the inquiry, as she had previously handled some of the investigations in question.
In her response letter, Madonsela expressed concern, saying she saw no need to testify.
“I do not see the rational connection of the majority of the above questions and the section 194[1] inquiry, which stems from judgments by courts, up to the Constitutional Court, regarding advocate Mkhwebane’s integrity flowing from court decisions about her honesty and professional competence flowing from court decisions regarding her comprehension of the public protector’s constitutional mandate,” wrote Madonsela.
According to Madonsela, the information sought by the committee is with the office of the public protector. She said the office would be a better fit to testify on behalf of the embattled Mkhwebane.
Madonsela said she would have been in a good position to help with all the required information just a week after her tenure as the public protector ended, however, Mkhwebane would not agree to meet her.
“I would have been in a position to help a week after leaving office if efforts to work with applicable public protector team members to finalise a quality assured set of records in the week after leaving office on 14 October 2016 were not rebuffed by advocate Mkhwebane, who flatly forbade any contact between myself and the teams I had worked with when I requested her permission to do so.
“With matters still fresh in my head, advocate Mkhwebane would have had an opportunity to ask me institutional management questions, not in mine or staff reports, had she not suddenly refused to meet me the week following my leaving office, despite the two of us having agreed during our handover meeting at my office on 14 October 2016 that we would continue our meeting and briefing the following week.”
Madonsela explained further: “The following week, she suddenly insisted that as I was no longer in office, such was inappropriate to meet to augment my briefing with her and that I should have done this earlier.
“This was despite it being in the public domain that I had been ambushed by the then president [Jacob Zuma] with legal action on the state capture matter, which impacted my plans for a neat handover.
“E-mail correspondence to this effect should be available. In my case, I had been able to meet with both my immediate predecessors, advocate [Lawrence] Mushwana and [Selby] Baqwa, soon after assuming office to fill in [the] gaps where there were some.”
Also read: Madonsela sees no need to testify at Section 194 inquiry
To read more political news and views, click here.
Follow @SundayWorldZA on Twitter and @sundayworldza on Instagram, or like our Facebook Page, Sunday World, by clicking here for the latest breaking news in South Africa. To Subscribe to Sunday World, click here
