Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s Request to Summon President Ramaphosa Denied by Section 194 Committee

• A parliamentary inquiry has denied Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s request to summon President Cyril Ramaphosa to her impeachment inquiry
• The Section 194 Committee found that Ramaphosa’s testimony would not impact the work that they are trying to do
• A witness only needs to appear before the committee if they have information that will help the committee determine the legitimacy of the charges

CAPE TOWN – The Section 194 Committee denied the request to summon President Cyril Ramaphosa to appear at suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, 16 August.

The committee handling Mkhwebane’s impeachment received legal feedback that Ramaphosa should only be called if his testimony is relevant.

EWN reported that most parties on the committee agreed that the president didn't need to appear after considering parliamentary legal opinion.

Read also

Marikana massacre: AMCU president calls out post-apartheid presidents for not improving South African lives

According to News24, Mkhwebane’s legal counsel, Advocate Dali Mpofu, requested after the State Attorney acted as President Ramaphosa’s proxy last month, saying that he did not think Ramaphosa needed to be called to testify. In essence, President Ramaphosa declined the invitation to appear before the committee.

A witness must only be called to testify if they can give the committee information that will impact the validity of the charges.

A few ANC MPs and Freedom Front Plus MP Corné Mulder agreed that Ramaphosa’s testimony wouldn’t be relevant to the impeachment inquiry as the committee is trying to ascertain whether Mkhwebane has engaged in misconduct or if she is incompetent.

Mulder said:

“Nobody could argue the committee took the decision haphazardly in terms of whether the president should be summoned or not because we’ve gone through a very extensive legal opinion and I think the legal opinion is absolutely sound.”

Read also

“Who are we to question experts?": Advocate Dali Mpofu argues Fraser acted lawfully by granting Zuma medical parole

Brett Herron from the GOOD party had a different opinion, stating the committee should request Mkhwebane to be more specific about why Ramaphosa’s testimony would be relevant. Committee chairperson Richard Dyantyi vetoed the suggestion.

South Africans weigh in on the committee’s decisions

South Africans are in two minds, with some saying the president is subject to preferential treatment, while others think it was a good decision.

@Ofhanij_majusto said:

“Good call.”

@rocksolidau said:

“MPOFU THE BIG TALKER LOSES... AGAIN!”

@KennyTM78 commented:

“Mkhwebane should approach the court.”

@gmalau32 added:

“A president who is untouchable and protected by both the judiciary and Parliament instead of holding him accountable. One day when it’s a different president, they must do the same. We won’t allow them to do it differently.”

Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane suspended with immediate effect “in the interest of the country”

Previously, Briefly News reported that Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has been suspended with immediate effect by President Cyril Ramaphosa.

Read also

EFF Deputy President Floyd Shivambu speaks on Marikana massacre, says the "ANC must die"

The presidency released a statement that said Ramaphosa decided it was in the best interest of the country to suspend Mkhwebane on Thursday, 9 June.

The statement said the suspension falls under section 194(3) (a) of the Constitution, which states the president may suspend the public protector. In the section, it reveals that a suspension can occur at any time after the start of proceedings by a committee of the National Assembly. Eyewitness News reported that the absence of Mkhwebane from office will not hinder the progress of any investigations that are pending or underway.

Source: Briefly News