Home

Parliament still to deliberate on court ruling against rules to remove Mkhwebane

Busisiwe Mkhwebane
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Parliament will consult further on whether or not to appeal a recent Western Cape High Court ruling, which made some adverse findings against the rules to remove a Head of a Chapter Nine institution.

The findings against the National Assembly relate to allowing legal representation at an inquiry and the inclusion of a judge on a panel determining prima facie evidence.

Parliament established the Section 194 inquiry committee to determine whether Public Protector, Busisiwe Mkhwebane, should be removed from office. She challenged the constitutionality of the rules in court.

VIDEO: Busisiwe Mkhwebane in court to challenge parliament’s impeachment rules

Parliament drew up rules to set out how the head of a Chapter Nine institution should be removed. Among others, an independent panel, headed by a judge, must look into the existence of prima facie evidence against the affected person.

This will inform the establishment of an ad hoc committee to do the actual investigation.

With the Public Protector being under fire, she challenged these rules with some success. Parliament’s senior legal advisor, Siviwe Njikela, says the National Assembly might have limited success if it decides to appeal.

“Perhaps we have better prospects in as far as a judge serving on independent panel, than the issue of legal rep. The issue of legal rep, nothing has materialised because inquiry hasn’t started yet. So parliament may, if continue, to decide legal representation before the committee.” says Njikela.

African National Congress (ANC) Chief Whip, Pemmy Majodina, says the institution should appeal.

“As ANC we fully support that parliament appeal on both findings by the court. Parliament is the legislative arm of the state and therefore powers shouldn’t only come when it suits judiciary,” says the ANC Chief Whip.

The Chief Whip of the Freedom Front Plus, Corne Mulder, agrees.

“Court is wrong on both instances. A judge on panel – it’s not unheard of in different processes where needed. In our case, it was a retired judge, which would have no effect on that. This is the interference of the legislative arm of Gov.”

But the Chief Whip of the Democratic Alliance (DA), Natasha Mazzone, called for a more cautious approach.

“I’ve learned not to say the court is wrong. I suggest the appeal should go in. Parly legal should work with a table to explain how committees are established. Let it not hinder our work, this is maybe even a third court case, we haven’t let it hinder our work.” says Natasha Mazzone, Chief Whip of the DA.

VIDEO: A report of Mkhwebane to hold office expected to be finalised in 2021

Author

MOST READ