Parliament’s section 194 inquiry into suspended public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office is threatening to descend into an unseemly farce instead of reaching the definitive and speedy conclusion the country hoped for.
The inquiry, which began nearly a year ago, has suffered numerous hiccups, including issues around Mkhwebane’s legal representation and her failed court bid to remove chair Richard Dyantyi over alleged bias.
Mkhwebane has now thrown a new spanner in the works with her claim that three members of the inquiry committee, including Dyantyi, tried to solicit a R600,000 bribe from her to make the inquiry “go away”. The others are ANC chief whip Pemmy Majodina and the late Tina Joemat-Pettersson, who was also an ANC MP until her death two weeks ago. Majodina and Dyantyi have denied the allegation.
Mkhwebane is demanding termination of the inquiry, or the removal of Dyantyi as its chair. The inquiry, she’s argued, is “irretrievably and incurably tainted”.
A negative finding by the inquiry would have a devastating impact on her career. It is, therefore, not unexpected that she would do everything in her power to scuttle the process, including casting doubt on the integrity of committee members. Or, alternatively, delaying the process until her prescribed term of office ends in October.
This is notwithstanding her constitutional right to legally defend herself and to demand fair treatment.
Because Mkhwebane’s claims are based on alleged interactions between her husband, an interested party, and Joemat-Pettersson, who has taken her version of events to the grave, they have to be taken with a pinch of salt until their veracity is conclusively tested.
She has laid a complaint of bribery, extortion and corruption with the police against the accused MPs. She has also reported the matter to the parliamentary ethics committee. We urge both the ethics committee and the police to move with speed to clear up the issue, which has cast a cloud over the section 194 inquiry.
Whatever one may think of Mkhwebane or her motives, parliament cannot afford to act in a cavalier manner by ignoring the serious accusations she has made.
The latest allegations and subsequent call for the inquiry’s termination and the removal of Dyantyi have placed parliament in a quandary of sorts, with the potential to cause reputational injury to the national legislature.
First, it cannot allow the 194 committee’s work to be disrupted by Mkhwebane’s repeated interventions to the point of being rendered impotent. It would also not want to set a precedent for someone appearing before it to be able to pick and choose which MPs they are willing to co-operate with.
At the same time, it is crucial for the inquiry to be seen to be fair and impartial. In that context, Dyantyi, who has so far expressed his intention to stay put, should consider whether stepping aside would enhance or diminish public perceptions of the process. Doing so would not imply guilt on his part but it would eliminate a distraction to his committee’s work. Four members of the ethics committee have previously recused themselves to avoid a conflict of interest.
The gravity of Mkhwebane’s bribery claim demands that parliament urgently resolves the matter to protect the integrity of the process against her. It therefore behoves the ethics committee to quickly finalise its investigation.
In going forward, parliament must avoid being influenced by egotism and political agendas and focus on preserving its reputation and that of the office of the public protector — both crucial pillars of our democracy.
The summary termination of the inquiry before its process is concluded, after much time and money has been spent on it, is simply not an option.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.