Busisiwe Mkhwebane

Parliament says the Section 194 Committee investigating the fitness of the Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane to hold office will meet on Wednesday.

“The section 194 meeting is continuing with its inquiry. The related consequence is that the president may also place Adv Mkhwebane on suspension pending the finalisation of the section 194 inquiry. The second consequence is that parliament may now proceed with the inquiry into the fitness of the public protector Mkhwebane to hold office. “This leak, if established, clearly poses a threat to the very fabric of our democracy, the rule of law and much-needed independence of the judiciary. It claims that the Constitutional Court’s rejection of Mkhwebane’s rescission application has a number of ramifications. This comes days after the Constitutional Court dismissed Mkhwebane’s rescission application on Friday last week.

The February judgment of a unanimous Constitutional Court cleared the way for an impeachment process against public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane in parliament.

Mkhwebane said that the responses of the Constitutional Court were inconsistent, at first thanking her for bringing the sms to its attention, but then refusing to engage further. I am entitled to these as of right and/or reasonable expectation.” Though she had already once applied for its rescission, that application was dismissed last week.

Mkhwebane has again approached the apex court to rescind the decision in took on Friday where it dismissed her application.

Unless there is any misconduct related to that SMS, I think it’s really in my view irrelevant to our proceedings.” But committee members say the SMS leak has nothing to do with the inquiry and it should move on. Mkhwebane has again approached the apex court to rescind the decision in took on Friday where it dismissed her application.

Embattled public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane would appear before a parliamentary Committee for Section 194 Enquiry in July.

“Therefore, the court has concluded that the application should be dismissed as no case has been made out for rescission. The apex court ruled: “There are also no exceptional circumstances that warrant the rescission of the judgment. She filed criminal charges last week.

Parliament is forging ahead with the inquiry into Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, for her fitness to hold office, after members of the Section 194 ...

But that was the basis of May 18 and 19, that there was a rescission which has since been decided. But, like I indicated, there is a different application for a rescission of a rescission, which is a curveball for all of us. We don’t know what will be argued on May 18 and 19, based on what has already happened.

It decided to move ahead with its inquiry into Mkhwebane's fitness to hold office despite her second rescission application in the Constitutional Court. The ...

He expressed concern about the inquiry proceeding when the matter is “probably sub judice”. We can’t divorce what happened in the Constitutional Court and criminal proceedings with the work of this committee,” said Zungula. Brett Herron of GOOD said: “It seems as if there is an attempt to conflate the SMS saga with the cases of what we are dealing with. “I don’t want to dwell on the leakages and everything that has happened; it’s very unfortunate, but it’s not our baby. “It means all you have to do, will be to file an application before court.” “But the festival (of correspondence) continues.

The February judgment of a unanimous Constitutional Court cleared the way for an impeachment process against public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane in parliament.

Mkhwebane said that the responses of the Constitutional Court were inconsistent, at first thanking her for bringing the sms to its attention, but then refusing to engage further. I am entitled to these as of right and/or reasonable expectation.” Though she had already once applied for its rescission, that application was dismissed last week.

News24 explains why Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has asked the Constitutional Court to rescind its previous rescission ruling.

Parliament has decided yet again to proceed with the impeachment against Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane amid a controversial leak.

“There is no court that has power to decide whether the public protector is incompetent or misconducted herself. We have repeatedly said to this committee and other committees that Parliament is a separate arm of government. “As we have been saying for months now, there is no legal impediment to the committee proceeding. It has a constitutional mandate to deal with specific issues. While Zondo recently told SABC that the leaking of the judgment was “unacceptable”, and that an investigation had been launched, Mkhwebane also indicated that her office would also be investigating the alleged ConCourt leak to the extent that the law permitted. The ConCourt had at the time given the committee the green light to proceed with Mkhwebane’s impeachment.

She has pressed criminal charges against the sender, Ismail Abramjee, and the justices of the constitutional court, and sent a scalding letter to Chief Justice ...

She said photographs of the event pictured Abramjee with Kollapen and Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo, who has been acting on the constitutional court. In papers filed to the high court, she has argued that the president must be barred from suspending her as he is conflicted because she is investigating a host of complaints against him, including that he imposed Mlambo as an acting justice of the apex court. In her rescission application she also cries foul over a letter sent by the speaker of the national assembly to the constitutional court to ask that it deal with her initial rescission application expeditiously, as the impeachment inquiry was due to get underway on 4 May. No other court can therefore possibly have jurisdiction over this matter,” Mkhwebane has asked the high court to interdict parliament from proceeding with the inquiry pending the outcome of her first application for the constitutional court to rescind a ruling that upheld the rules of the committee handling the process. She has pressed criminal charges against the sender, Ismail Abramjee, and the justices of the constitutional court, and sent a scalding letter to Chief Justice Raymond Zondo demanding to know the scope and terms of the investigation into the text message.

Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane's Stalingrad tactics to prevent her impeachment did not have an impact on Parliament - the Section 194 Committee decided ...

She is confident that no legitimate enquiry will find her guilty of the charges brought by the Democratic Alliance," Public Protector spokesperson Oupa Segalwe said in a statement. This report has been updated to include the Public Protector's statement. "The Public Protector will therefore leave no stone unturned in the quest for justice, the vindication of the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. We don't have a preconceived outcome," she added. It is her duty to protect the public from alleged wrongdoing and/or criminality by any person or public institution even at the highest level of the state." She said the "first issue of consideration by the committee should therefore be to revisit its earlier decision" to forge ahead with its inquiry, despite her rescission application and the second part of her High Court application. Herron said there seemed to be an attempt to conflate the SMS with the committee's work, and it would "contaminate" the committee's proceedings. The committee expects to adopt its report by the end of September. "The misconduct with the SMS is irrelevant to our proceedings," he added. On Monday, Mkhwebane's attorney sent a letter to Parliament in which they stated that at the Section 194 Committee's meeting on 29 March it took an "unreasonable stance" to continue with its work and her interdict application became "necessary and inevitable". The committee - named after the section of the Constitution dealing with the removal of the head of Chapter 9 institutions - met on Wednesday to discuss its way forward and adopt a programme. The second part to the High Court is an application for the review of the Speaker's letter to Ramaphosa, informing him the process is underway.