Africa-Press – South-Africa. Cape Town – Parliament’s Committee for the Section 194 Inquiry into suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office has turned down a request from the public protector’s legal team to summon President Cyril Ramaphosa to testify before it.
The committee took the advice of Parliament’s legal counsel, Fatima Ebrahim, who advised against summoning Ramaphosa to give evidence.
This despite a demand for him to do so by Mkhwebane’s lawyer, advocate Dali Mpofu, in a letter handed to committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi. Mpofu had wanted Ramaphosa to testify on the CR17/Bosasa matter, but Ebrahim reminded the committee of its mandate.
“While Parliament must exercise oversight over the president, this committee’s singular task is to establish the veracity of the charges against the public protector and to report to the National Assembly,” she said.
Ebrahim said while there was no legal reason stopping the committee from summoning the president, or anyone else, it should do so only where the person summoned is able to provide the committee with information necessary for it to determine the veracity of the charges against Mkhwebane.
The CR17/Bosasa matter resulted in the courts making certain remarks about the public protector, which in turn led to two of the charges that the committee was looking into.
Mpofu had also written a letter to the committee in which he said he wanted to recall two witnesses, former SA Revenue Service (Sars) executive Johann van Loggerenberg and former Sars deputy commissioner Ivan Pillay.
During the discussion of the legal advisers’ opinions on the issue of recalling Pillay and Van Loggerenberg, committee member Xola Nqola (ANC) said he thought it would be best for any outstanding questions to be sent in writing to the two. He said this would save time and ensure that the committee was not delayed any longer.
GOOD Party MP Brett Herron said that while the committee was not a judicial process, it was not an informal process either and it would be unfair not to let the PP’s legal team complete their cross-examination of Pillay and Van Loggerenberg.
As for the subpoena of the president, he said the Public Protector’s legal team or even Mkhwebane herself should be made to submit a “substantive motivation that meets the very high standard of relevance that the legal opinion sets out”.
After hearing contributions from committee members, Dyantyi found most of them were in favour of the legal opinion.
“It is clear the members are not in favour of subpoenaing the president due to the irrelevance of the reasons listed in the request. We are not going that route,” said Dyantyi.
The hearings continue tomorrow with evidence from PPSA human resources manager Gumbi Tyelela.
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
