Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane

Parliament, Tuesday, 10 October 2017 – Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services today resolved to agree to a request to hold an inquiry into Public Protector Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office.

The matter was put to a vote after the Chairperson of the Committee, Dr Mathole Motshekga, in his introduction of the matter recommended that the Committee consider referring the matter back to the Speaker. The request was initially made by the Democratic Alliance to the Speaker and then referred to the Committee for it to deal with the matter. Dr Motshekga highlighted the huge workload of the Committee, including outstanding legislation that needs to be finalised. Thus, he was unsure whether this Committee will have the necessary time to deal with the matter and also whether the Committee was the right forum or competent authority to deal with such a matter.

He proposed that the Committee refer the matter back to the Speaker, proposing that an Ad Hoc Committee be appointed to deal with it. According to him, the appointment of the Public Protector was done by an Ad Hoc Committee and, therefore, an inquiry into the removal should be done by an Ad Hoc Committee. He indicated precedence and law existed in this regard. Dr Motshekga further added that should the Committee be in favour of conducting the inquiry, he would likely have to recuse himself as the remedial action by the Public Protector stated that Parliament and the Chairperson of the Justice and Correctional Services Committee should change the Constitution to amend the powers and mandate of the South African Reserve Bank.

This view was supported by some members of the Committee. However, after a short caucus, the majority felt that the Committee is the correct forum/mechanism to deal with such an inquiry as it performed oversight over the work of the Office of the Public Protector. The Committee further resolved to hold these meetings outside of normal parliamentary hours, after hours or over weekends, should there be a need for it.

The request referred by the Speaker is two-fold. Firstly, to request Parliament to proceed to remove the the Public Protector, as she has overreached her powers in the SARB and the ABSA/Bankorp matter. The second request relates to the Deputy Public Protector, Adv Kevin Malunga, for allegedly unlawfully terminating investigations into a former mayor and municipal manager.


Show More


  1. Hi Mr Jeff go on with the good thing u do. Why can’t the crooks answer which means they r guilty of looting. Pay back the money we suffer

  2. Dear Dr Mathole Motshekga

    I further wish to state that the submission of the facts on my PDF document to BASA, was done in my capacity as the Financial forensic investigator/auditor.

    I stand by these facts, & have given it to the law enforcement in a form of sworn affidavit.

    I further wish to unreservedly & unconditionally make myself available to testify before this committee, should I be required to do so.

    All implicated people named & shamed in my submission can also have an opportunity to defend themselves, so that the real state capture/economic terrorism done warfare style can be revealed & dealt with.

    The public protector cannot be investigated into her fitness to hold office purely on the basis of people who are conflicted and are accomplices reviewing her findings on the Ciex report.

    The Ciex was never limited to the absa lifeboat, it was phase 1 or just a tip of the iceberg.

    The people reviewing the PP findings

    *Maria Ramos (Absa)
    *Lesetja.Kganyago (Sarb)

    *Treasury/Finance Ministry

    Are all abusing their powers in the institutions they represent., a clear mockery & abuse of our judicial system.

    All these people are part of this serious crime! Therefore their review application constitute to conflict of interest or self protection.

    Am currently investigating corruption in the Free State Province on behalf of COGTA, it is therefore my humble request that I be informed in advance should i be required to testify in front of this committee & my traveling expenses from Bloemfontein & return will need to be covered.

    Jeff Koorbanally.

  3. I have put a solid spanner in wheel,to stop the witch hunt, at this committee.

    Let’s wait & see if they are able to break that spanner!
    But i created a dalema, that will make the DA to back off.

  4. DA calls on Zuma to suspend Mkhwebane while Parliament holds inquiry

    The DA has piled the pressure on the ANC and Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, calling on President Jacob Zuma to suspend her now that Parliament has agreed to hold an inquiry into her conduct.

    The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services on Tuesday agreed to hold an inquiry into the under-fire Mkhwebane and her deputy Kevin Malunga’s conduct over the past year.

    Five ANC MPs agreed to hold a portfolio committee inquiry after rejecting a proposal by committee chairperson Mathole Motshekga that an ad hoc committee was best suited to deliberate, which was supported by opposition parties.

    Both ANC national spokesperson Zizi Kodwa and ANC chief whip Jackson Mthembu came down hard on their MPs for agreeing to an inquiry.

    The DA has now called on Zuma to suspend Mkhwebane, as allowed for by section 194 of the Constitution.

    “President Zuma is empowered to suspend Advocate Mkhwebane, now that the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services has agreed to our request to initiate proceedings to remove her,” DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach said on Wednesday.

    “Advocate Mkhwebane has demonstrated numerous times that she is not fit to hold the office of the Public Protector, and the DA has opposed her appointment from the start.”

    The section in question says the president may suspend a person from office at any time after the start of proceedings of a committee of the National Assembly for that person’s removal.

    Bizarrely, both Kodwa and Mthembu seemed unhappy with the decision to hold an inquiry. Kodwa blamed the committee as a whole, calling the proceedings a “witch-hunt”, while Mthembu blamed the DA for their “frivolous” motion.

    “The fractures in the ANC caucus has once again come to the fore, with their members serving on the portfolio committee… voting in favour of an inquiry into Advocate Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office, only for a subsequent press release to slam it.

    A ‘publicity stunt’

    “Once again, the work of Parliament is undermined by ANC infighting,” Breytenbach said.

    Mkhwebane was not the person to lead the fight against corruption, she added.

    The North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria ruled against Mkhwebane, following a controversial report she published on the ABSA/Bankorp bailout.

    In the report, she had directed Parliament to amend the Constitution by taking away the clause compelling the Reserve Bank to protect the rand, a move the DA labelled as gross overreach.

    Mthembu, though, said previous Public Protectors have had their reports taken on judicial review, without resulting in an inquiry.

    “A report being taken on review does not reflect negatively on the Public Protector, in fact that is part of our jurisprudence,” he said on Wednesday.

    Mthembu also said the requested inquiry into Malunga had no grounds. The DA requested an inquiry into Malunga for allegedly calling off a probe into alleged municipal fraud in the Ekurhuleni Municipality.

    “This investigation is not closed, as the false narrative that is being bandied in the media suggests. This call for an inquiry is, therefore, a ridiculous attempt to get publicity.”

    He called on the portfolio committee to reject the DA’s “publicity stunt”, despite it already being voted on by five ANC MPs.

    1. Composition of justice Committee

      Dr Mathole Motshekga (Chairperson) (Anc)

      Adv Bongani
      Bongo (Anc)

      Mrs Makgathatso Majake-Pilane (Anc)

      Mr Moloko Maila(Anc)

      Ms Madipoane
      Mothapo (anc)

      Adv Loyiso Mpumlwana (Anc)

      Mr Vincent Smith (Anc)

      Adv Glynnis Breytenbach (Da)

      Mr Werner Horn (Da)

      Ms Karen Jooste
      (De Kock) (Da)

      Mr Stevens Mokgalapa (Da)

      Mr James Selfe (Da)

      Mr Mosiuoa Lekota(Cope)

      Mr Nthako Matiase (Eff)

      Mr Luthando Mbinda(Pac)

      Hu prof Christian Msimang (Ifp)

      Mr Nyiko Shivambu (Eff)

      Mr Steven Swart

  5. If the Public Protector had jump on the get-Zuma-out train, we would had a different view from the DA. It is clear that the agenda of the DA is to hunt everybody who is against white domination in the economy. The DA is protectors of imperial capitalists that try very hand to derail radical economical transformation.
    I say…Hands off our Public Protector!!!

  6. Letter sent to the justice committee today

    Dear Dr Mathole Motshekga

    I write this letter to you and all members of the Committee in my capacity as a concerned member of the public.

    It is my submission that the inquiry into the fitness of the Public Protector may be a witch hunt to protect the biggest financial crime/economic terrorism sabotage committed by the Sarb under the reigns of both Dr de Kock & Chris Stals, in conjunction with Absa.

    For the purpose of understanding my involvement in this matter
    I make reference to this link

    Attached in this mail is a 5 page PDF document sent to the Chairman & board members of BASA.

    I urge all of you to read this document in order to understand what the public protector was dealing with when she made an error of overreach in her recommendation on the Ciex report.

    While we all agree that Her recommendation constituted an act of overreach, they cannot be disregarded, disputed or ignored.

    This is a very serious matter! More specific to the fact that the Sarb is an independent institution. Their mandate needs to be extended to include the interest of the citizens of this country.

    Other countries do it, why not us?

    Thanking you.

    Jeff Koorbanally

    1. Dear Mr Koorbanally,
      This note serves to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail below with attached document for the attention of the Chairperson, Dr Motshekga.
      Kind regards
      Esmeralda Forbes
      Executive Secretary
      Portfolio Committee: Justice & Correctional Services
      Chairperson: Dr MS Motshekga
      Tel: 27 (21) 403 3089
      Fax: 27 (21) 403 2533
      Cell: 083 709 8435   

  7. Whether the Public Protector`s recommendation constituted an act of overreach,

    I and many other stand fully behind her boldness to speak the truth out.

    Lots of the aspects of the constitution need to be amended!

    This constitution is self contradict ly.

    Section 9 of the constitution

    How can there be equality when we have never corrected the past inequalities & imbalances.?

    Then look at Chapter 2
    “The bill of rights”

    Being the cornerstone of our democracy.

    The inequalities & imbalances will forever remain, as protected by this constitution.

    The Status quo remains, poor gets poorer, rich get richer.

    equality remain to be nothing but a slogan!

  8. One of the worrying things about our Government with it’s intelligence machinery is this inability to see the DA’s PREEMPTIVE STRIKES and if they do see them they come across unprepared to deal with them.


    The strategy employed is to throw rumors or fake allegations and get Government to spend time working on this frivolous claims.

    A rumor of a Cabinet reshuffle will be thrown out there and Government has to spend time responding to rumors and innuendo.

    A rumor would be thrown out there about PIC and Government has to spend time calling Press briefings.

    A rumor will be thrown out there about Dr Nkosasana becoming Minister of Education and the intention is basically to stop Government from going in the Speculated direction.

    Does Government see this? Are they prepared for this?

    This is a deliberate strategy to defocus Government.

    They preempt the direction Government is likely to take on a particular matter and formulate wild speculations and the media assassins run with it deliberately so knowing pretty well what the outcome will be:

    Its a Chess Game.


    At the moment Government can’t move without a preemptive speculation thrown in the media.

    The question is how will Government respond to this?

    1. You are so spot on,& very correct Kobedi!

      Sadly it is so,our comrades are driven to confusion & panic mode & like sheeps going for slaughter they abide!

      Well think the stretigy of opposition parties running back and forth to court has instilled lots of fear on the ruling party & made them vulnerable to exploitations.

  9. I watched how ANC Comrades in Parliament argued vigorously to retain the issue within the Committee and how they already saw through this bogus attempt to remove Public Protector on baseless allegations.

    They were so unified in their defense and this is what the ANC has always been about before it was infiltrated with external money.

    We applaud the unity of the ANC Comrades in the portfolio committee on Justice.

    The DA desire is just one of an attempt to get a Thuli Madonsela like PP appointment.

    1. Indeed Nkosi!

      Anyone that challenges WMC`s evil sins of the past, will end up in the streets.

      That’s the Democracy we were convinced to accept, with that “Sellout TRC” concept & the Sellout constitution that promote more interest of the oppressors rather than the interest of the previously oppressed people.

      We will remain screwed for the rest of our & generation`s lives

      That’s the reality!

  10. Well this committee doesn’t have much of a choice, but to do the requested inquiry, even though their findings won’t be respected! This matter could end at ConCourt. There should just let it to be dealt by national assembly

    What does it take to remove the Public Protector?

    According to South Africa’s Constitution, the Public Protector may be removed from office on the grounds of:

    “misconduct”, “Incapacity” “incompetence”

    or a finding to that effect by a committee of the National Assembly.

    Public Protector can also be removed by the adoption of a National Assembly resolution calling for her removal from office. This requires the vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the Assembly.

    The Constitution also gives rights to the President to suspend Public Protector from office at any time after the start of the committee’s proceedings.

    If a majority of the Assembly votes against her., then the President is compelled to remove the Public Protector

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button
%d bloggers like this: