Former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has come out guns blazing after her appeal in the Supreme Court of Appeals (SCA) was struck from the roll and she was ordered her to pay costs.
Mkhwebane then lashed out and stated her ongoing struggles consistently involved key figures of “predominantly of Indian descent” who have positioned themselves as her “persecutors”.
Judge Visvanathan Ponnan dismissed the appeal which stems from a Western Cape High Court ruling.
Advocate Dali Mpofu, who represented Mkhwebane before the SCA, was slammed for even attempting to pursue the matter.
The Public Protector of South Africa v The Chairperson of the Section 194(1) Committee and Others (627/2023) [2024] ZASCA 131 (1 October 2024)
— Supreme Court of Appeal ZA (@SCA_ZA) October 1, 2024
Today the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) struck the appeal of the former Public Protector of South Africa, Ms Busisiwe Mkhwebane. pic.twitter.com/OFooXdoWJe
“Had counsel stepped back apace or had Ms Mkhwebane taken advice from a disinterested member of the bar, schooled in appellate practice, she would have been advised not to pursue this appeal, which self-evidently was dead on arrival,” Judge Ponnan submitted.
Taking to social media, Mkhwebane released a statement on X (formerly Twitter) about her disappointment at the judgment.
“I lodged the appeal with the hope of seeking justice and clarity. However, it was evident that Judge Poonan, leading the judgment, displayed noticeable arrogance and dismissiveness throughout the proceedings,” she said.
“My ongoing struggle has consistently involved key figures, predominantly of Indian descent, who have positioned themselves as my persecutors.”
‼️💔In light of the recent judgement by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in The Public Protector of South Africa v The Chairperson of the Section 194(1) Committee and Others (627/2023) [2024] ZASCA 131 (1 October 2024), I find myself deeply disappointed and disheartened. As a…
— Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane (@AdvBMkhwebane) October 1, 2024
She further named more individuals.
“These individuals include Pravin Gordhan, Bawa (evidence leader), Adhikarie (Chief Legal Advisor of Parliament), Hassan Ebrahim (so-called expert witness), Ivan Pillay (witness), and Fatima Ebrahim (Legal Advisor of Parliament). Judge Poonan's attitude further underscores the challenges and biases I have faced in my quest for justice,” Mkhwebane said.
She further stated the SCA’s decision marked a significant setback for her, but also for those who believed in her role as a public protector.
“This experience has been one of immense disappointment and frustration, revealing a deeply ingrained bias that continues to obstruct genuine justice,” Mkhwebane said.
In 2016, Mkhwebane was appointed as the South African Public Protector.
By September 2023, Mkhwebane was impeached and removed from office, and Kholeka Gcaleka was appointed as her successor by President Cyril Ramaphosa for a non-renewable term of seven years effective November 2023.
The SCA’s decision comes after Mkhwebane approached the Western Cape High Court in November 2022 and sought the recusal of Section 194 Committee chairperson, Qubudile Dyantyi, and committee member, Democratic Alliance (DA) MP Kevin Mileham, from her impeachment inquiry.
She claimed bias against Dyantyi and Mileham, who is the wife of DA MP Natasha Mazzone, saying they had to be removed due to conflict of interest.
The high court application was dismissed in April 2023, and Mkhwebane, now an Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) MP, was granted permission to appeal the ruling in the SCA.
robin.francke@iol.co.za
IOL
