Evidence of disgruntled workers irrelevant, Mpofu says

SUSPENDED Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s legal representative advocate Dali Mpofu said the Committee for Section 194 Enquiry into his client’s fitness to hold office should not be turned into a complaints office for people with gripes against her.

Addressing the committee before Public Protector of South Africa (PPSA) security manager Baldwin Neshunzhi’s testimony could be heard, Mpofu objected to the witness and dismissed him as another “disgruntled employee” giving irrelevant evidence.

Asking committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi to make a ruling on the issue of Neshunzhi giving evidence, Mpofu argued that Neshunzhi and some of the other witnesses would not give evidence that was relevant to the committee’s mission.

Mpofu said: “We’ve had a fair number of these disgruntled employees here and that’s fine insofar as their evidence is relevant to the issues around which the impeachment charges are based.”

Mpofu said the committee should instead be busying itself with matters that had been dealt with by the independent panel that led to the setting up of the committee by Parliament.

That panel, comprising Justice Bess Nkabinde, advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza SC and advocate Johan De Waal SC, said it had found substantial prima facie evidence of incompetence and misconduct and Parliament could go ahead to form a committee to impeach her.

In response to Mpofu’s questions directed to the inquiry’s evidence leaders about the relevance of the evidence from PPSA employees, advocate Nazreen Bawa agreed only evidence that determined the veracity of the grounds against Mkhwebane was relevant to the committee.

She said Neshunzhi’s testimony was relevant for a number of reasons, including that he knew State Security Agency operative Maiendra Moodley who, during the CIEX matter, gave Mkhwebane the piece of paper containing the constitutional amendment with regards to the SA Reserve Bank.