PAC chisels into Mkhwebane vs judiciary battle

Johannesburg - The PAC has entered the battle between suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane and the judiciary with claims that communication was shared with outsiders before the Part A judgment was delivered.

The party this week wrote a letter to Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe claiming that members of the media and the ruling party received communication from within the court regarding the ruling on Mkhwebane's matter against the Speaker of the National Assembly.

PAC President Mzwanele Nyhontso said in the letter that the party had received very disturbing information via a whistle-blower about the claims of the incident which he said the party could not ignore.

“It has been reported to us that before the notification of the participating parties that the Part A judgment was to be handed down on June 10, 2022, a separate notification was sent out of the court to external parties including members of the media and/or the ruling party,” he alleged.

In the matter, Mkhwebane had brought an urgent application for interim relief to interdict the Section 194 Parliamentary committee processes into her fitness to hold office.

She sought to interdict the Speaker and the Section 194 committee from taking any further steps in the process of the inquiry into her removal from office and simultaneously sought to interdict President Cyril Ramaphosa from suspending her.

Mkhwebane was however suspended by Ramaphosa before the court could hand down judgment on the matter and the PAC claims that the whistle-blower indicated that the decision might have been influenced by the communication that emanated from the court.

“If true, this would explain the otherwise abnormal and inexplicable behaviour of the president in suspending the public protector on the day preceding the handing down of the judgment regarding his legal entitlement to suspend.

“It is either he already knew the outcome or he was surprisingly overconfident that the court would rule in his favour.

“Either version is for different reasons, very worrisome to us as it may amount to breaches of the applicable laws, norms and standards,” he said.

Ramaphosa’s timing in suspending Mkhwebane also raised many questions as her office was investigating the robbery at his Phala Phala farm where criminals made off with millions of dollars.

Even judges in the Western Cape High Court questioned Ramaphosa's timing.

They asked why Ramaphosa waited until June to suspend Mkhwebane but his lawyers argued that Mkhwebane had approached the courts to challenge the inquiry.

However, Mkhwebane’s lawyers argued that her suspension was driven by revenge.

Mkhwebane was investigating six cases against Ramaphosa when she was suspended and her legal team argued that it was a conflict of interest for Ramaphosa to suspend her.

Nyhontso added that to the extent that it is alleged that such undue official or “unofficial” communication emanated from the court, they were taking this step to request Judge Hlophe in his capacity as the head of the court, to institute an urgent investigation into the allegations.

“Out of respect for your office, we deem it fit to refer this matter to your good offices even before escalating it, if necessary, to the Judicial Service Commission,” he said.

Office of the Chief Justice spokesperson Lusanda Ntuli on Saturday said she would check if the letter was received and respond.

She had not done so at the time of going to print.

Mkhwebane has in the past been at the centre of numerous court decisions going against her.

Many people have argued that it appeared as though there was a directive to make sure she loses.

At times, the outcomes of her cases appear to be known even before judgments are passed.

Ismail Abramjee who describes himself as “a qualified and respected legal analyst and a commentator” once sent an unsolicited text message to the counsel for Parliament, Andrew Breitenbach.

In the text, he said he had it “on very good authority that the Concourt has declined to hear the public protector’s rescission application”.

The office of the public protector declined to comment on the matter and referred questions to lawyer Theo Seanego.

He said he couldn’t comment on the letter.

“I won’t be able to comment on the matter as I have not seen the PAC letter.

“Also, I can’t comment on the matter as it is still ongoing,” he said.