Cape Town - The chairperson of Parliament’s committee for Section 194 inquiry into suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office has put his foot down with regard to interruptions that cause the delay of testimony by witnesses.
Chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi (ANC) was reacting to requests to “put certain matters on the record” from both inquiry evidence leader advocate Nasreen Bawa SC and Mkhwebane’s senior counsel Dali Mpofu.
The latter finally returned to the hearings, albeit virtually, after a two and a half week absence.
In an unprecedented move, Dyantyi, who ordinarily immediately accommodates such requests from the counsel on either side, told both lawyers they would have to wait until after the day’s witness had been cross-examined.
Bawa had asked for 10 minutes and Mpofu had asked for an hour and a half.
The witness, who also appeared virtually, was PPSA Provincial Investigation and Integration manager Nelisiwe Thejane. She had been waiting in the wings since she gave her evidence-in-chief in mid-September.
Dyantyi said that the committee would only sit three days this week before taking a break until November 28 and that the purpose of the sittings was only to allow the Mkhwebane side to cross-examine Thejane and PPSA Senior Legal Manager Cornelius van der Merwe, who began testifying last week.
Addressing Bawa and Mpofu, Dyantyi said: “I am not going to entertain your placing those matters on record now, because I’m interested in dealing with matters that are related and relevant to the witness on the stand.”
He said Thejane had been waiting for her chance since the end of September and had been invited to the committee several times only to be made to wait.
“It is not fair and it is downright disrespectful of this committee to call her into sessions and then make her wait. I will allow the requests only once Thejane has been cross-examined, which will be happening today.”
In response, Mpofu said that the proposal “made sense”. However, he still listed the issues he wanted to raise as being the events of October 27 when he and the rest of the Mkhwebane legal team walked out.
In his version of what happened on that day Mpofu said what the legal team did was not a walk out. He said there had been a lot of misrepresentation around the events of the day and it was false that they withdrew or staged a walk-out.
He also said that the reason the legal team did not attend the enquiry on November 1 and 2 was that the legal team was “indisposed”.
Mpofu said the committee acted unconstitutionally when it continued with witness evidence and that the hearings had been akin to a kangaroo court.
He further voiced discomfort with the time allocated to lead his witnesses. He said his client Mkhwebane alone would take up the 10 days that have been allocated to them.
Committee members deliberated briefly on Mpofu’s submissions and the majority who participated in the discussion indicated that the committee took a resolution to continue with the hearings and it should stick to that decision.
Several members also maintained their view that the events of October 27 constituted a walk out, with some members insisting that it was “staged”.
Thejane’s cross-examination was conducted in two parts. In the morning she was taken through her testimony by Mpofu’s colleague, advocate Bright Shabalala.
Shabalala quizzed her about her motives for appearing before the enquiry.
He said Thejane was another of the PPSA’s disgruntled employees who were making up stories about Mkhwebane.
Thejane denied being disgruntled and said she had been invited to assist the committee.
In the afternoon, Mpofu took over the cross-examination after Dyantyi dismissed Bawa’s protest about two people on the same team cross-examining the same witness.
In her testimony in September Thejane said Mkhwebane was more focused on the completion and submission of reports than their quality and accuracy.
Mpofu put it to her that she had misled Parliament in saying this, but Thejane denied it.