Cape Town - Former public protector Thuli Madonsela raised her concerns about the manner in which she said she was treated at the impeachment inquiry into the fitness of her successor Busisiwe Mkhwebane to hold office.
In her closing remarks after completing her testimony, Madonsela said she was shocked when she was accused and watched on the virtual platform on March 1 and unable to defend herself.
She said she was also treated like an accused person on Monday when she gave further testimony.
Madonsela said she had appeared before the inquiry as a reluctant witness, citing the relevance of her evidence.
Madonsela butted heads several times with Mkhwebane’s legal counsel Advocate Dali Mpofu when she was being cross-examined and at one point there were threats to report her to the Legal Practice Council over her self-drafted affidavit.
She had refused to consult with Mkhwebane’s legal team and even told the inquiry on Monday she could not have allowed the person drafting the statement to throw her under the bus.
Although the Section 194 committee had wanted her to testify on the CIEX and Vrede Dairy investigations, Mkhwebane’s team had wanted her to answer on other matters.
“I do hope what I shared about the glorious institution - not flawless - assisted you to get a sense of what I did with two reports you asked me to be involved with,” she said.
Madonsela said she was shocked that she was asked if she was an advocate and whether she was born in South Africa.
“The only thing I was not asked was if I am a woman or not, and to prove it.”
She also said the commissioners of oaths for her affidavits were made to look like criminals.
This was in reference to threats to report her and the commissioners of oaths that assisted with her affidavits to the professional bodies they belonged to.
“I am a little saddened that their names were wrongly and unnecessarily maligned,” she said.
Madonsela also took issue that she had been asked an irrelevant question about whether she was an advocate or not.
“Nonetheless, I am an advocate of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa. It was irrelevant,” she said.
“That I was asked because whoever needed to know that should have checked with the records of the Legal Practice Council.
“They would have found my name and number, but that was not relevant. The person wanted the information for purposes of reporting me.
“That could have been done after this process. It was not relevant to the evidence that you as a committee need to know in order to make a finding on whether or not the client of Advocate Mpofu, my successor Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane is guilty of the things she is accused of.”
Mpofu tried to interject as she finished her remarks but committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi would not allow him to speak without being recognised first.
Dyantyi said they thanked Madonsela for availing herself on March 1, Monday and Tuesday.
“I am grateful for that on behalf of this committee. We thank you for what you brought. We are to deliberate on all the issues, including what you just shared.
“We hope that the testimony will be of great use for the work we have been mandated to do, which deals with incompetence, misconduct and fitness of Public Protector Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane,” he said.
When Mpofu was given a chance, he complained that Dyantyi was turning the inquiry into a circus and had shouted him down because he wanted to release Madonsela before he had responded to her remarks.
He said Madonsela had refused to answer a question he had asked her several times.
“The reason why I put the question to the witness is because we had information at our disposal that she was not an admitted advocate when she started as a public protector and she subsequently was enrolled,” Mpofu said.
He said she should have cleared the air on the matter
“It is a very serious allegation. To allow us to be addressed like that is really objectionable,” Mpofu said.
Cape Times