Cape Town - Zambian ombud Caroline Zulu-Sokoni said on Monday judgments delivered by the courts should not be used against the ombudsman.
Zulu-Sokoni said when a matter went to court and the ruling was against the ombudsman, the system was cleansing itself.
“The report of the ombudsman is put into scrutiny by the court. It is a way of ensuring excellence in the work of an ombudsman.
“I don’t see why it should be taken up by another arm of government as well,” she said.
Zulu-Sokoni was testifying in the impeachment inquiry of suspended public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane.
She is a witness lined up by Mkhwebane’s legal team and was giving historical context on the office of ombudsman.
Mkhwebane’s legal counsel, advocate Dali Mpofu SC, described her testimony as “possibly one of the most important testimonies that will be given to the committee”.
Zulu-Sokoni, who has been Zambian ombud since 2004, said the office of ombudsman was a unique institution.
“It is intended to investigate the very institution that created it. It was felt necessary to ensure there was sufficient protection for the ombudsman in its operation and to have international recognition from the UN and other international and regional bodies,” she said.
Zulu-Sokoni was asked whether parliament should be the one arm of government that protected the public protector.
“If you talk about the classical model, the ombudsman is accountable to parliament and is appointed by parliament and can be dismissed from office by parliament.”
She also said an ombudsman needed to be disciplined.
“We say ombudsman is accountable to parliament because through a system of checks and balances, you want to ensure it reports to a body which it does not investigate.That is the protection accorded to the ombudsman.”
She also said the executive was likely to erect barriers to the work of the ombudsman to ensure it did not do its work effectively.
“The judiciary also offers protection. It gives the office of ombudsman powers to make orders which are equivalent to the high court orders during the course of investigations.
These protections work very well.”
Mpofu asked what happened in a situation where the legislature and the judiciary were supposed to protect the public protector only to find judgments of the courts were used by the legislature against the office-bearer.
Zulu-Sokoni said the legislature was supposed to only come in to scrutinise the ombudsman where there was gross misconduct.
“I don’t think judgments should go back to the legislature,” she said, adding that those taking the ombudsman’s report had the right to exhaust channels of appeal.
When Mpofu asked her about a country that used judgments to remove the ombudsman, Zulu-Sokoni said the checks and balances were not working properly.
“If a matter goes to court and judgment is made, what is the reason to reinforce it again?” she asked.
Mpofu noted that 90% of the charges against Mkhwebane were based on judgments.
Zulu-Sokoni will continue her testimony this morning and thereafter be cross-examined by the evidence leaders and asked questions by MPs.
Cape Times