The UDM and the African Transformation Movement (ATM) said they had not submitted written questions to (suspended) Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane during the inquiry into her fitness to hold office, because there were still issues around her legal representation.
The inquiry on Monday announced that it had sent more than 600 written questions to Mkhwebane on the evidence led so far, in order for her to respond in writing or orally by July 6.
Only the ANC, DA, ACDP, Freedom Front Plus and Good Party complied, while parties sympathetic to Mkhwebane – the EFF, UDM and ATM – have not done so.
On Tuesday, UDM president Bantu Holomisa confirmed his party did not submit written questions because there were still outstanding matters on the legal representation of Mkhwebane and the recusal of the inquiry’s chairperson, Qubudile Dyantyi.
“The public protector has said in her presentation that she could not respond to the written questions without her legal representation.
“We still maintain that position because Parliament was told by the Constitutional Court that the public protector must have legal representation,” he said.
There have been issues over Mkhwebane’s legal representation after the Public Protector SA did not continue to fund her legal fees, citing budget constraints.
When an additional amount was allocated, her attorney of record, Seanego Attorneys, withdrew citing professional reasons.
Her newly-appointed legal firm, Chaane Attorneys, has made certain demands before it could brief Mkwebane’s senior legal counsel advocate Dali Mpofu SC.
When the firm’s Hope Chaane took ill, the solicitor-general appointed the State Attorney in Pretoria to represent her, but she rejected it, citing a conflict of interest.
Mkhwebane has also called on Dyantyi to recuse himself after he was implicated in bribery allegations along with ANC chief whip Pemmy Majodina and late ANC MP Tina Joemat-Pettersson to make the inquiry “go away”.
Dyantyi has said he would consider the recusal when it was formally lodged in writing.
Although Holomisa said the UDM was still party to the inquiry, he questioned how the proceedings were handled.
He charged that it appeared that there was a predetermined decision on the outcome of the inquiry.
“This thing is becoming a joke. Dyantyi is implicated in serious allegations,” he said.
“We asked the (National Assembly) Speaker to get a preliminary report from the police.
“However, we have not received a response and it does not look like they will issue one.”
ATM spokesperson Zama Ntshona said when Mkhwebane was suspended, President Cyril Ramaphosa assured her of legal representation by the State throughout the inquiry.
“The Constitutional Court affirmed the need of the public protector to always have legal representation throughout the process,” Ntsona said.
“As the ATM we can’t legitimise an unfair process which violates a Constitutional Court ruling and a basic principle of legal representation in the Constitution of the country,” Ntshona said.
Comments could not be obtained from the EFF on Tuesday.
Cape Times