Cape Town - The head of the Office of Public Protector in the Free State on Thursday said it was not his expectation that the parliamentary impeachment inquiry would just believe his speculations and make conclusions.
Sphelo Samuel made the statement while being cross-examined by Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s legal counsel Advocate Dali Mpofu.
This was after Mpofu accused Samuel of expecting the committee to rely on his speculations about a meeting Mkhwebane had with former Free State premier Ace Magashule while the Vrede Dairy farm project was under investigation.
“That could potentially be dangerous to the career of Advocate Mkhwebane,” Mpofu said.
In his defence, Samuel said it was not his expectation that the committee should believe and reach conclusions based on his speculations.
“I gave the evidence as it happened. As to how it is received and conclusions drawn, it is out of my hands,” he said.
On Wednesday, Samuel testified that he had a discussion with Mkhwebane about Magashule wanting to meet her during an outreach programme in the Free State and that the incumbent declined the request.
Mkhwebane apparently later received a call and then changed her mind, saying she would meet the former premier the following morning.
Samuel also testified that Mkhwebane had later indicated that she made an undertaking to finalise the Vrede Dairy Farm project investigation in April 2017.
Mpofu said according to Samuel’s theory, Mkhwebane changing her mind about a meeting with Magashule had something to do with the phone call.
When he asked him who made the call, Samuel said he did not know.
Mpofu told Samuel that he wanted the committee to believe her decision had to do with the phone call.
“That was my belief at the time and it still is,” Samuel responded.
Mpofu said it was pure speculation for him to make the connection.
But Samuel said had Parliament investigated Mkhwebane when he made the request in 2020, the issue of the phone call could have been clarified.
Mpofu insisted that Mkhwebane’s decision to have a meeting with Magashule was not influenced by the phone call.
While Samuel accepted this assertion, he said it would be suspicious if the call came from Magashule.
“It will reinforce my belief that he called her and made sure she attended the meeting that he wanted. If that call came from the premier, it would explain why she changed her mind,” he said.
During the cross-examination Mpofu said it was also Samuel’s intention to want the committee to believe that Mkhwebane made the undertaking to deliver the report at the meeting with Magashule.
Samuel denied this, saying it was not for him to dictate to the committee that it should believe him.
“I stated she sent an email and that she made an undertaking,” he said, adding he did not make that connection.
Mpofu then revealed that Mkhwebane's legal team intended to call former DA leader Mmusi Maimane to give evidence that the undertaking Samuel referred to was made in the Free State legislature.
“I can’t dispute if that is where she made it,” he said.
Pressed to recall if Mkhwebane made the undertaking at the Free State legislature, Samuel could not.
Mpofu produced a letter Maimane wrote to Mkhwebane demanding the release of the promised report.
In his letter, Maimane had accused Mkhwebane of sitting on the report for months.
“You confirmed to the Free State legislature that the investigation was complete and that the report will be released in April,” Maimane wrote at the time.
When asked if his memory was refreshed, Samuel said: “I have no reason to doubt that it was made there.”
When Mpofu put it to Samuel that his speculation could be dangerous to Mkhwebane and her career, he said he could not make that determination.
“It would make sense to raise it there,” he said in reference to Mkhwebane making an undertaking in the legislature.
Cape Times