Former public protector Thuli Madonsela has declined to speak on behalf of her suspended successor, Busisiwe Mkhwebane, during the Section 194 impeachment process, which is investigating her competence to retain office.
This comes after the committee revealed at its January housekeeping meeting that it had decided to grant Mkhwebane’s request to have Madonsela called to testify on her behalf.
The committee agreed at the time that Madonsela’s evidence could be beneficial to the probe, given that she had previously conducted several of the investigations under consideration.
In her reply letter, Madonsela voiced worry and stated that she saw no need to testify.
Madonsela wrote, “I do not see the rational connection between the majority of the above questions and the Section 194[1] inquiry, which stems from court decisions, up to the Constitutional Court, regarding advocate Mkhwebane’s integrity stemming from court decisions about her honesty and professional competence stemming from court decisions about her understanding of the public protector’s constitutional mandate.”
According to Madonsela, the public protector’s office holds the information requested by the committee. She stated that the office would be more qualified to speak on behalf of Mkhwebane.
Madonsela stated that she would have been able to provide all the necessary information a week after her term as public protector expired, but Mkhwebane refused to meet with her.
“I would have been able to assist a week after leaving office if advocate Mkhwebane had not rebuffed my efforts to work with applicable public protector team members to finalize a quality assured set of records a week after leaving office on 14 October 2016. She flatly forbade any contact between myself and the teams I had worked with.
Advocate Mkhwebane would have been able to ask me questions about institutional management that were not included in my or my staff’s reports if she had not abruptly refused to meet me the week following my departure from office, despite our agreement during our handover meeting at my office on 14 October 2016 that we would continue our meeting and briefing the following week.
Madonsela elaborated further: “The following week, she abruptly argued that because I was no longer in government, it was inappropriate for us to meet and that I should have done it sooner.
“This was despite the fact that it was public knowledge that I had been blindsided by the then-president [Jacob Zuma] with legal action on the state capture subject, which disrupted my handover plans.
“Correspondence via email in this regard should be accessible. I was fortunate to meet with both of my immediate predecessors, advocate [Lawrence] Mushwana and [Selby] Baqwa, shortly after assuming office in order to fill in any gaps.”
The committee has decided to issue Madonsela a subpoena in order to compel her to testify, despite her refusal of the summons. She will appear to testify as a witness.
“With regard to preparing my statement in the event that I am subpoenaed, I would need an independent legal service provider procured by the public protector as an institution and to work with that institution to find relevant records and prepare any statement that is rationally connected to and relevant to this matter.
This will necessitate that the public protector pay for my transportation to Pretoria and me sufficient time to locate relevant records.
»Madonsela finds no reason to testify during the Section 194 investigation«