/ MEDIA STATEMENT / 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.

The Democratic Alliance’s (DA) lawyers will today make arguments, before the Western Cape Division of the High Court, opposing the Public Protector, Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s urgent application to interdict Parliament’s inquiry into her fitness to hold office.

We believe that this legal action by Mkhwebane is frivolous and another attempt by her to frustrate a legitimate and legally sound Parliamentary process to hold her to account for her continuous mishaps at the helm of this crucial Chapter 9 institution.

Mkhwebane wrongly claimed in court that the DA has a vendetta against her. This could not be further from the truth.

Our decision to institute removal proceedings against her was based solely on her performance. In fact, the DA submitted over 7000 pages of supplementary evidence to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Thandi Modise, to support our motion for the removal of Mkhwebane.

Her tenure as Public Protector has been characterised by legal blunder after legal blunder, as well as questions around her independence. Some of her most notable mishaps include:

The Constitutional Court found that she acted in bad faith and was not honest with the High Court regarding her investigation process in the Reserve Bank matter.

She jumped to the defence of former President Jacob Zuma by laying criminal charges against former Public Protector, Advocate Thuli Madonsela, for releasing the transcript of her interview with him.

In late 2019, the North Gauteng High Court dismissed her appeal to overturn Judge Ronel Tolmay’s scathing judgment lamenting her handling of the Estina Dairy Farm matter and the report thereof.

She was also recently reported to have celebrated her 50th birthday party with individuals involved in state capture – she chose to spend an evening sipping champagne with the very people she should be investigating.

Mkhwebane has demonstrated that she cannot conduct her work independently and has illustrated a poor understanding both of the law as well as of her mandate as Public Protector. She has proven that she is not fit for office and must be removed.

Issued by The DA