The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

I have noted with concern rumours and speculation in the media that the Public Protector is about to be arrested on allegations of fraud and/or corruption.

As a cabinet member responsible for the administration of justice, I find it most unfortunate and unsettling that the integrity of Advocate Thuli Madonsela and by extension the office which she occupies has been called into question in the manner we have seen in the media in the past few days.

The office of the Public Protector, an institution established in terms of our Constitution, plays a very important role in strengthening our democratic dispensation. This office, together with other democracy supporting institutions, must always be supported and protected by all of us and not be attacked or undermined through the employment of tactics of whatever manner.

Relationship between Advocate Madonsela and the Department of Justice

Advocate Madonsela became Commissioner at the South African Law reform Commission (SALRC) in January 2007 following her appointed by the President in terms of section 3 of the South African Law Reform Commission Act 19 of 1973. At that time her remuneration packaged had to be negotiated. A proposal to this effect was referred to the National Treasury for consideration. The department was requested by the National Treasury to look into a possible conflict of interest as she was operating a business entity which was rendering a service to the Department of Justice.

The department duly instituted an enquiry into the matter. This was intended to establish whether or not there was a duty on her part to disclose that she was operating a profitable business entity whilst serving as a member of or a Commissioner at the SALRC.

Adv Madonsela operated a business entity which rendered services to the Department of Justice. Her relationship to this business entity, Waweth, which provided a consulting service to the department, was never a secret.

The outcome of the departmental enquiry

The department interacted with Adv Madonsela on these matters during the enquiry process. This happened in 2009 and also recently.

When the matter was resuscitated and reported on in the media, the Public Protector called me to raise her concerns with me. I had discussions with her on the status of the enquiry. She further discussed the matter with the Director-General, Mrs Nonkululeko Sindane, who is the Accounting Officer for the department.

It emerged through the departmental enquiry that Adv Madonsela was not appointed in terms of the Public Service Act and Public Service Regulations and as such was not subject to those prescripts.

The South African Law reform Commission Act did not provide for regulations governing code of ethics for Commissioners.

Conclusion

On the basis of all that has been considered, I am satisfied that conduct of the Public Protector in relation to what had to be investigated, that is, whether or not there was a duty to disclose or that she was operating a profitable business entity, did not constitute a violation of any prescripts or laws. This means the enquiry is consequently closed.

I wish to indicate and emphasise that at no point did the department during the enquiry report the matter externally to any law enforcement agency for criminal investigations. If at all there is any investigation against the Public Protector, the Department of Justice is not a complainant.

The office of the Public Protector must enjoy confidence of all South Africans. For this to be safeguarded, all of us must work towards strengthening and supporting it as opposed to attacking and weakening it in the process.