EFF statement on the illegal proceedings of the Section 194 Committee following the lack of legal representation for the Public Protector

1 November 2022

The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) condemns the compromised and factional decision by the Chairperson of the Section 194 inquiry Qubudile Dyantyi, to proceed with the inquiry while the Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane does not have legal representation present in the committee.

Dyantyi, has resolved to proceed with the inquiry despite not giving the Public Protector sufficient time to consult with her legal team on the status of her representation or giving her legal team the necessary time to re-align their schedules to attend to the committee. Dyantyi is essentially orchestrating an ambush of the Public Protector and has undermined her and all natural laws of justice.

Dyantyi proceeded to constitute a sitting of the Committee, with short notice and without any due consideration of the other work-related commitments of the counsel of the Public Protector. This ad-hoc scheduling committee meetings is typical of how Dyantyi conducts himself in the committee, as if it is his kitchen where he is accountable to no one, not even the Constitution of South Africa.

The Public Protector and her legal team have been inundated with litigation for which they must prepare heads of argument, and to expect them to jump whenever Dyantyi deems it fit to call a meeting is foolish and suspicious. The litigation the Public Protector is involved in as alluded to by her, includes but is not limited to;

(a) an application for leave to appeal instituted by the DA;

(b) an application for leave to appeal by the President;

(c) an appeal by the DA;

(d) an appeal by the President;

(e) a confirmation application by the Registrar;

(f) a conditional cross- appeal by the Public Protector, and

(g) a conditional application for leave to appeal by the Public Protector.

All of this is related to the work and purpose of the Section 194 Inquiry itself, and in some instances is a result of rulings made by the Committee itself. This work is therefore of equal importance to the process as a whole. It is therefore simply unfair to prejudice the Public Protector by continuing with committee proceedings while she has no legal representation present.

The Constitutional Court made an order that the section 194 committee;

'must afford the holder of a public office the right to be heard in his or her defence and to be assisted by a legal practitioner or other expert of his or her choice. "'

The word must, in this instance does not leave room for debate or senseless discussion by a committee of Parliament. It is operative and directive, and any deviation from this, is contempt of court.

The Con-Court dismissed the nonsensical assertion that the Public Protector does not have an absolute right to representation, and for the proceedings to happen regardless is constitutional delinquency. The parliamentary inquiry into the Public Protector is in contempt of court by proceeding while the Public Protector does not have representation.

The EFF supports the Public Protector's decision to review the decision to proceed while she has no legal representation present. The level of illegality that the committee engaged in is reflective of a witch-hunt against the Public Protector, because of her decision to investigate those in the highest levers of power, including Cyril Ramaphosa for Phala Phala Farm.

Issued by Sinawo Thambo, National Spokesperson, EFF, 1 November 2022