Africa-Press – South-Africa. After a witness before the Section 194 inquiry into Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office had his honesty questioned and called a “whistle-inhaler”, MPs discussed how witnesses are treated during the proceedings.
The Section 194 Committee met on Wednesday to review its operations since the impeachment hearing started last Monday.
Last week, Mkhwebane’s legal counsel, advocate Dali Mpofu, raised former SA Revenue Service executive Johann van Loggerenberg’s mental health during his cross-examination.
On Tuesday, he questioned former Public Protector investigator Tebogo Kekana’s honesty, saying he was not a whistle blower, but the exact opposite, a “whistle-inhaler”, adding Kekana was acting out of vindictiveness after being fired.
Mpofu said the first witness before the committee, Hassen Ebrahim, who has more than 25 years’ involvement in constitutional drafting, was not an expert on anything.
At Wednesday’s meeting, DA MP Kevin Mileham expressed concern about the bullying of witnesses and said there were horrible instances during Kekana’s cross-examination and this situation was absolutely untenable.
He pointed out the directives – the rules of how the inquiry will function – the committee adopted stated no person interrogating a witness should impugn their character.
Mileham was also concerned about Mpofu’s tendency to repeat the same questions and said the committee needed to take a firmer grasp on it as it only served to draw out proceedings.
Mpofu claims Mkhwebane consulted SSA to avoid ‘instability’, but Reserve Bank blunder tanked economy
DA MP Benedicta van Minnen said they were a parliamentary committee with a clear mandate.
“This is not a trial. This has been made very clear,” she said adding, the line of questioning was at times extremely adversarial, rather than inquisitorial.
Van Minnen said they were not a jury but a committee of Parliament that would make a decision.
ACDP MP Marie Sukers, who during the hearings expressed her concern about how witnesses are treated, added fairness should be the guiding principle.
ANC deputy chief whip Doris Dlakude said the process was fair as Mkhwebane was represented by her legal team.
“What we should guard against is the throwing in of insults. That cannot be tolerated,” she added.
For the process to be fair there should be respect for the MPs, evidence leaders and witnesses, Dlakude said.
“We want the chairperson to be firm, also, on things that are not right. This is a committee of Parliament. We cannot allow this process to be derailed.”
Public Protector: Adverse findings against politicians removed from Vrede report, inquiry hears
However, there was an alternative view.
GOOD MP Brett Herron said the committee should not be overly sensitive if witness testimonies are tested vigorously during cross-examination.
“If I were representing the Public Protector, I would do the same thing, test the evidence as vigorously as I can, based on the evidence that I’m going to bring.”
He added witnesses should expect cross-examination, which was not easy, but a legitimate process.
ATM leader Vuyolwethu Zungula suggested the committee should get an expert to explain cross-examination to them.
“The cross-examination will not be a sweetheart process; it will not be a process whereby people are going to be happy with it and it is going to be sweet. Difficult questions need to be asked, and difficult questions need to be answered.”
The committee paused the hearings to allow Mkhwebane and her legal team to prepare for her court challenge against the process, which the Western Cape High Court will hear on Monday and Tuesday.
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
