PP Inquiry day 82: Adv Mkhwebane submissions: consideration; Final Committee report: adoption

Meeting report

Chairperson: Good afternoon colleagues and welcome. It's now two o’clock. We're now just waiting for few Members to join to have a starting quorum. Thank you, we’ll wait for few minutes... Good afternoon again, Hon Members, colleagues. We now are ready to start, the time is two minutes past two. I want to welcome all of you Members, all of us on the virtual platform; to welcome our entire support staff with us, members of the media, and members of the public who’ve been with us from start until today. Today is 21 August 2023, we’ve set this day and agreed on it when we met on 11 August. But also, this day, even without looking at the date, was in our terms of reference, that when we’re done with our work, we’ll have a day when we look into and consider the final adoption of our report. Today’s meetings main focus is that main item, but we do have other items that we‘re going to consider before that and after, as the agenda would have been sent to you. We will also look into the correspondence that might be speaking to the main item of the adoption of the report. At the end we’ll conclude with our minutes. But before I do that, I'm going to ask Thembinkosi to just share with us what apologies we have.

Mr Thembinkosi Ngoma (Committee Secretary): Good afternoon, Chairperson. Good afternoon, Members. Thank you, Chair. We have apologies from Dr Gondwe, and apology from Mr Herron. Ms Denner will be joining us later, Chair. That's all I have before me. Thank you very much.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Gondwe; Herron. And Hon Denner, an apology to join the meeting late. Thank you for that. Do we accept those apologies Hon Members?

Mr B Nkosi (ANC): Accepted, Chair.

Deliberations on correspondence from Adv Mkhwebane’s legal team (Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys)

Chairperson: Thank you. No objections, we proceed. Maybe before I ask Thembinkosi or Fatima just to lay down the correspondence that we’ve received, which has been sent to you. Just from my side to indicate that on 11 August after we’ve finalised the adoption of our draft report en route to the suspended Public Protector, on the same day the report would have been sent to the Public Protector for her comments and she would have been given a deadline of ... the 21st, which was yesterday, today is the 22nd. And so yesterday would have been the last date expected of the Public Protector to give us comments. We will hear from the correspondence. I'm going to ask Thembinkosi... and Fatima, to just summarise the correspondence. I will then speak thereafter, and then invite the Members for the discussion.

Mr Ngoma: Thank you. Thank you, Chairperson. I think, Chair, mine is just to concur that there’s been communication between the Committee and the Office of the State Attorney, as well as Adv Mkhwebane and also Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys. But Fatima, Chair, will take Members through the contents of that correspondence. Thank you very much.

Chairperson: Thank you, Mr Ngoma. Ms Ebrahim?

Ms Fatima Ebrahim (Parliamentary Legal Advisor): Good afternoon, Chairperson and Members. Chair, I'll start with the correspondence, or I'll pick up at least from after the last meeting of the Committee. So after the Committee met, that evening the Secretariat sent the Public Protector a copy of the draft report as adopted and indicated as you’ve said, that she has until yesterday to make comments, so a period of ten days. On 14 August there was a letter from the Chairperson to the State Attorney, Mr Chowe, and this was in response to a letter that Adv Mkhwebane had sent on 11 August. Members will recall that letter because they deliberated on the contents thereof, in respect of her request for an extension of time. And there the Chairperson reiterated that the onus has always been and remains on Adv Mkhwebane to do the necessary to secure her legal representation, and that the Committee had not impeded her in any respect thereof. And the Chair reiterated his position as the chair, that despite the two recusal applications that were submitted against the Chair as chairperson, his job is to ensure that the process is brought to finality and of course to balance the requirements of fairness to the PP on the one hand, but also the obligations of the Committee to fulfil its constitutional obligation and public interests on the other. She was informed that the Committee had deliberated on her letter and was resolute that it had not prevented her from accessing or availing her rights to legal representation, and therefore, the application or request for postponement was not agreed to. Chairperson, on 14 August there was a letter from the PP to the State Attorney, wherein the Secretariat was copied and you as Chairperson as well. She raised the legal implications of the withdrawal of Chaane, and the fact that she’s now without legal representation of either attorneys and/or counsel, and notes that in respect of the merits of the Inquiry she’s been without legal representation since 31 March 2023, which would have been the last day on which she gave oral evidence. She noted in that letter that she had telephonically requested the State Attorney to provide her with a list of the attorneys that are on the PP’s A-panel of attorneys, so that she could then choose new attorneys. Chairperson, between 14 and 20 August, there would have been that process for appointment of new attorneys. Or at least we were only informed on 20 August, where we received a letter from Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys informing us that they are the PP’s new attorneys of record. That was sent on 20 August in the evening. And that letter noted that they will meet with their client, being the PP, in the next 72 hours, but by no later than Wednesday 23rd, which would be tomorrow. Thereafter they would brief counsel and make contact with the evidence leaders and Chaane to access the record, and that they would provide weekly updates in the form of a progress report to the Committee and also list any issues of concern that they may have. They noted their intention to ask counsel once appointed, to draft a status quo memo and to advise subject to approval by State Attorney or the PPSA for them to obtain same. They also then said that they estimate that they can only meaningfully participate in the next... and I'm quoting here, Chair, in the next “couple of weeks or so” depending on the nature of the record and the extent of issues arising. So they request that they be granted the necessary space to fulfil their obligations, and they state that obviously the deadline for the PP to submit representations on the draft report must fall away, even assuming that that is the next step in the process, which is... and their letter says “possible to say at this stage” - they obviously meant to say “impossible to say at this stage”. So in short, that letter is indicating that they intend to brief counsel, but that they would still require some time to familiarise themselves with the record and to get some direction from counsel as to the way forward, and that way forward may or may not be comments on the draft report, it may take us back to something else that the letter obviously doesn’t go into detail, because the attorneys would still wait on counsel to do that status quo report for them. Chair, the Secretariat did acknowledge receipt of that letter yesterday, and indicated that it would be tabled before the Committee today, so that the Committee can deliberate and make a decision on that request in that letter, that they be afforded more time. Chair, that is the update on the correspondence to date. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Ms Ebrahim. And thank you, Mr Ngoma. Hon Members, I'm not intending to waste any time. The correspondence that has just been summarised for you, you would have received that correspondence. You would have read it; it was merely a summary that was being done. And therefore, please acknowledge that in your contributions. I am actually now with that in mind inviting Members for their own contributions in relation to the main purpose of this meeting, which is about this Committee considering the final report. I must just indicate that what both Mr Ngoma and Ms Ebrahim have taken us through, as we sit here we have no comments or submission from the suspended Public Protector on the report itself. What we have is that correspondence that you have just listened to. May I invite you Hon Members, to make your contributions? Hon Nkosi, to be followed by Hon Dlakude, in that order. Hon Nkosi? The platform is yours... You can switch off your camera, so that you get proper network... Hon Nkosi, we can’t hear you, just switch off your camera.

Mr B Nkosi (ANC): Chair, I acknowledge the summary...

Chairperson: Just start again, we missed you there. Just switch off your camera as well.

Mr Nkosi: Chair, the camera is off.

Chairperson: Okay, go ahead. Go ahead.

Mr Nkosi: Thanks Chair, I was saying I acknowledge the summary given by Ms Ebrahim. I've gone through the correspondence from yourself and from the new attorneys. Chair, I think the first thing to note is that for our purposes we have always maintained that the Public Protector has legal representation; it is her responsibility to brief legal representation. Two, that in the correspondence it’s clear that were we to consider it positively, it will impact on our own internal deadlines and our obligations to the National Assembly in terms of reporting within reasonable time. I think we’ve taken too long on this process. And three, Chair, it does look like the attorneys know that they can meet with and receive instructions from the PP within 72 hours, but they don’t know how long it’s going to take them to go through the record. And they’re speaking about a few weeks, after which they may come back to us and indicate that this is a step that they’re taking, they’re responding or not responding. I think my considered view, Chair, is that in view of the fact that we have an obligation to report on this matter, that reasonably so we have granted the PP the opportunity to comment on the report. She has always had legal representation; the Committee never impeded her from utilising legal representation of her choice. But also that, I think, I don’t think that the PP acknowledges and even understands the severity of the charges that she faces, and the implication for herself and that Office. And on that basis, Chair, I think the circumstances and the deadlines that we have do not allow us to positively consider the request from the attorneys. My proposal, Chair, is that we acknowledge receipt and explain the process at which we are and the circumstances, but politely indicate that we have an obligation to report and therefore we will proceed to consider the report for additional time... The PP’s term of office expires in October. And this Committee should by then have reported to the National Assembly, and the National Assembly should have taken a decision...

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Nkosi. Your line was breaking a bit there throughout, but we did pick up what you’re saying. Hon Dlakude?

Ms D Dlakude (ANC): Thank you very much, Hon Chairperson. Good afternoon to you and everyone on the platform. Hon Chair, I want to concur with Hon Nkosi on his sentiments. And also to add that, Hon Chair, as this Committee we don’t have an open-ended mandate or time to deal with this Inquiry. So time is of essence for us. And also to mention that, Hon Chair, the suspended PP was given enough time to get legal representation. And all the processes that we’ve been through as this Committee with regard to assisting her as well to source funds for her to utilise in order to get legal representation. So I would say we have spent more time in this regard, and wasted more time again with a view of ensuring that we do our work diligently so, and also in a fair manner. We conduct this Inquiry in a fair manner. So from where we are now, we know, Hon Chair, that Chaane Attorneys were supposed to brief senior counsel, they were given that time after the recovery of Mr Chaane, as we all know that he was once in hospital. So they were given that opportunity to do their work, but their main focus was administrative, writing letters to and from the Committee. So that is what they mainly did in this regard. So with us, we have come to a point where we are supposed to adopt our report, and the report be taken to the National Assembly where a decision will be taken. So we are at that stage now, Hon Chair. We have given the PP the audi that she needed. We gave her the audi and also the courtesy to go through the draft report and react to it. Unfortunately, that opportunity the suspended PP missed… missed those opportunities. So where we are now, I would suggest that we note the correspondences that we received as the Committee, and also adopt this report. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Dlakude. Hon Hendricks?

Mr G Hendricks (Al Jama-ah): Thank you very much, Hon Chair. Hon Chair, I would have liked the Public Protector to comment on our report, so that I can consider supporting or not supporting some of her representations. So it is very disappointing that I don’t have an opportunity to do so. Having said that, Hon Chair, if the Public Protector for example had to comment on the offences relating to labour relations, industrial relations (IR) or HR, where the Committee found that she was at fault, and she objected to the findings of the Committee, I would have supported her, because such matters, employment-related matters must be dealt with by the CCMA. That is the forum where such matters are decided. And I think it is sad that our Committee spent too much time on matters where there is another forum to deal with. So the complaints against the Public Protector with regard to IR, or HR, disciplinary matters, for me is moot, because those individuals involved had the opportunity to go to the CCMA, to go for arbitration, and that is where those matters should have been settled. Having said that, Hon Chair, you know my position, that I don’t support the impeachment of the Public Protector. So I want to make a last desperate representation to the Committee, that we should consider a lesser penalty. I am not sure whether the Public Protector Act and related Acts allow this Committee to consider a lesser penalty after Parliament has asked us to look at impeachment. So I'm not sure whether there’s any discretion, because it is a part of natural justice that one must always look at mitigating circumstances. The mitigating circumstances, which I hope the Public Protector would have put on the table, was the fact that there are thousands of cases where she did well. Number two, is that... she came in cracking the whip, which was needed, because a lot of cases were unnecessarily delayed, it took too long. So she acted like a father and not the mother, if you understand what I mean. Also the fact that the Office of the Public Protector was plagued with bad audits, and she restored the dignity of this Office three times in a row, I think, where there were unqualified audits. Surely, those are mitigating circumstances, and shouldn’t we go to Parliament to state that our position was to call for the impeachment, but after taking the representation of the Public Protector into account, which she didn’t do, and which I'm trying to do, I mean I can’t speak for her. But I would have expected those matters to be put before the Committee, so that we consider a lesser penalty than impeachment. And I'm not sure what that penalty should be. Lastly, Hon Chair, I have to, seeing that this is our last word on the matter, I have to say that the Public Protector’s Office is a section nine office. It is not a specialist court in terms of the Superior Courts Act. There are checks and balances, given the Office’s certain leeway, certain discretion, certain informality to speed up matters. And the checks and balance is that when a section nine office, like the Public Protector’s Office makes determinations... The checks and balances is that any person who feels aggrieved at the determination of the Public Protector has direct access to the High Court. When it comes to, for example, something similar in my mind, the way the Public Protector should have acted is like the CCMA. There you only have access to the High Court and the special circumstances. But in the case of the Public Protector, there are no restrictions. So I would like to conclude to say that I am very concerned that the objective of the Constitution or section nine structures is going to be defeated, because this Inquiry has used the highest standards that you can find, even equal to the Constitutional Court, to make determination. Now I suppose there’s nothing wrong with that, but that is not in the true spirit of why the Constitution provides for section nine committees. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity, Hon Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Thank you, Hon Hendricks, for your contribution. I now recognise Hon Mileham.

Mr K Mileham (DA): Thank you, Chairperson. Good afternoon, to Members. Chairperson, let me start by saying this Committee has been more than reasonable in its dealings with the Public Protector, both in terms of the time that we have allotted to affording her cross-examination of witnesses, to presenting her own evidence, to pontificating and expounding on various opinions and matters. And we’ve also been more than reasonable in assisting her with regard to the financial support that she found necessary to procure her legal representation. Chairperson, our parliamentary processes cannot be held ransom to, or dictated to, by a person or person’s hell-bent on running out the clock. We have to deal with things timeously and speedily. And we have to ensure that our parliamentary inquiries are dealt with effectively and efficiently. And all that’s happened during the course of this Inquiry has been for Adv Mpofu and Adv Mkhwebane to play for time. So I think we need to factor that into our deliberations. We have repeatedly said that Adv Mpofu is intimately familiar with the merits of this case...

Chairperson: You want to say Adv Mkhwebane?

Mr Mileham: No, Chair. I’m saying Adv Mpofu, her legal representative.

Chairperson: Oh okay. Oh sorry... My apologies.

Mr Mileham: That Adv Mpofu is intimately familiar with the merits of this matter. And that it is therefore unnecessary for the attorneys to spend weeks and weeks and weeks familiarising themselves with the matter, when essentially they need to get him on brief in dealing with the merits that he is already is well aware of. Chairperson, nothing this Committee has done has in any way impeded or hindered Adv Mkhwebane’s ability to brief her legal assistants. We cannot be accused of having prevented her from representing her case or from contesting any evidence. The lack of the response from the Public Protector cannot be grounds for this Committee’s report to be dismissed. Now I want to address a couple of issues that Hon Hendricks has just raised. The first is he said that the HR matter should be dealt with in the CCMA. However, Chairperson, HR matters are not beyond the purview of this Committee, because our mandate is to investigate the possibility of misconduct or incapacity or incompetence on the part of the Public Protector. And if there has been such misconduct, incapacity or incompetence to then make a finding of that nature. It's not outside the scope of the CCMA. Those matters still have to be dealt with in the CCMA and the labour courts and the like. However, we are not looking at the merits of those issues. We are looking at the conduct of the Public Protector. The second issue that I want to take exception with, is his plea for an alternative sanction. Chairperson, the Constitution is the highest law in the land, it supersedes the Public Protector Act, it supersedes the Superior Courts Act. It is the bedrock of all our other laws. And Section 194 of the Constitution talks specifically to the removal from office of the Public Protector. So we don’t have an option here. Our option is to find her guilty and therefore warranting removal, or not guilty and therefore not warranting removal. This Committee has gone through all the evidence; we’ve gone through it very, very carefully and judiciously. We've looked at it in great detail. And therefore, Chairperson, I want to propose that we adopt the final report of this Committee. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Mileham, for your contribution. I now recognise Hon Siwela.

Ms V Siwela (ANC): Thank you, Chairperson. Greetings to my colleagues. Chair, I won’t repeat what other Hon Members has said, but rather to say that I'm highly disappointed like Hon Hendricks, because I was expecting that we’ll get the response by the Public Protector. According to me, this Committee has been fair enough. We have spent more time, we have been patient. And we gave the PP an opportunity to... look for her representatives, which has been granted by this Committee. So the issue of the attorney, Mr Chaane, I agree with those other Hon Members that his role was to facilitate administratively to brief the SC, and the SC which is familiar with this matter for a year. So Chair, we are not going back, we’re moving forward. The PP was given enough time. The PP decided not to use that opportunity. Yes, of course, we note the correspondence as others have said, but what we need to do today is to adopt the report based on three things as other Hon Members has indicated, whether we’re finding her guilty or not. So I think our decision still stands. The Public Protector has failed herself as she has failed to do herself favour by not responding to our report. So we don’t have any option than to stick to our decision. Our option is to adopt the report and forward it to the National Assembly. We are disappointed, Chair, but we don’t know what is the motive behind it. We've spent more time on this matter; I believe we need to close this chapter. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Siwela. I now recognise Hon Denner.

Ms H Denner (FF+): Thank you, Chairperson. Chair, I think we followed due process, what is expected of us. And I second Hon Mileham’s proposal that we accept the report. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Denner. Hon Maotwe?

Ms O Maotwe (EFF): Thank you, Chair. Chair, I think you know our position in as far as the report itself is concerned. But I’d want to remind everybody who seems to have forgotten, that the PP has not had a legal rep effectively from the end of March. So everything that happened between March and now, happened without the PP’s legal team. We've got correspondence from attorneys that were appointed, they went to hospital, they were sick, they came back, they said they can’t continue, because of the conduct and the manner in which they were handled, they withdrew. The State Attorney came. Upon realisation that there were concerns about conflict of interest, the State Attorney withdrew. And only last week, the PP got to get the legal representation she sought. The letters are before us. So I don’t understand when we come here, and we say we’re disappointed that the PP has not responded. How was she going to respond when she highlighted that she doesn’t have the legal rep. The legal rep is now here, Motsoeneng Attorneys. They're saying to you and all of us, Chair, give us some time to go through the correspondence, give us some time to go through everything to familiarise ourselves with this, so that we can know what direction we’re taking. So I'm not sure if you’re expecting that they were supposed to respond to a report, but they don’t have the background of. I think, Chair, we continue to be so unreasonable to the PP. We are in a hush, in a haste to really close this matter, in this regard, everything else that is before us. We said it previously, Chair, that you have failed all the tests of fairness in this manner. So right now today, you’re caught between a rock and a hard place, because if you say let’s afford them the opportunity, you’re effectively saying we must start from scratch, from where we left off in March. So that is what we’re sitting with. You might not say it, but that is the implication, because if you grant them the time now, you’re effectively agreeing that everything that happened between March and now should be erased and we start from scratch, because the reality is that we have not had the participation of the legal rep of the PP from March until now. So this meeting is just called to rubber stamp what has already been pre-concluded, that no, we must continue. When in your introduction, Chair, you said the date of today was already on the calendar. It's true, but that date, when it was set, Chair, there were no these circumstances that we find ourselves in. Unless if you’re saying it was all planned, that acting PP would say there’s no money and this is how we’re going to drag it and all that, because that’s the only explanation one can have, to say yes all of us we’ve got the intended date to finish the matter. But we don’t know, we can’t pre-empt what’s going to happen in this journey. And it has proven itself, that indeed we could not have anticipated that there’s going to be these delays, which were not caused by the PP to start with. So colleagues, the PP could not... And I'm not her advocate, I'm not her ambassador, but I'm just looking at the fairness of the process. If you were to take this matter to court to test the fairness, there’s not a chance of us winning it, just on the basis of fairness, we’ve not been fair colleagues. And we continue not to be fair. Now we’ve rushed this process to come to the end, and we realised that we can’t do anything, we can’t manoeuvre. But our position as the EFF, and it must be recorded, is that today we are saying afford the legal rep of the PP to familiarise themselves and to come and represent the PP in this Committee. We can’t pre-empt what they’re going to say, they are fair to say we don't know the magnitude of this matter, Chairperson. The PP has not responded fully to the charges, but we have made already the findings ourselves. It is very unfair, and we stand with our position. But Chair, for this purpose of the meeting, we’re saying let's afford them the opportunity to go through. Let's not rush the process on the basis that we got a deadline, which was set prior to us finding ourselves in this situation. That will be our submission as the EFF, Chair. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Maotwe, for your contribution. Hon Marawu?

Ms T Marawu (ATM): Thank you very much, Chairperson and colleagues. I'd like to concur with what the previous speaker alluded to. As a Committee we know exactly why such delays from the PP’s side. We were clear and the report was given of the problems that the PP is encountering. If the PP now has got a legal team, there is no way that we can rush. Let's give her an opportunity. Let's give her an ear to hear. But let us set timeframes for her legal team, when they supposed to submit what was expected from them. So it's my view that let’s give her... If we’re saying we are fair enough for the PP, let us afford her and then put timeframes, because it seems as if she’s ready now, knowing exactly the problems she was experiencing. Thank you very much, Chairperson.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Marawu, for your contribution. I now recognise Hon Maneli.

Mr B Maneli (ANC): Thank you, Hon Chair. Greetings to the Members and everyone else on the platform. Chair, let me start on the part of the correspondence and note the correspondence we received. I think other Members before me, in particular Hon Nkosi and Hon Dlakude would have spoken to the point about the time. That we really do not have, Hon Chair, at this stage of the Inquiry, many weeks to go through and determine whether to proceed or not. For that reason, indeed it should not be acceded to. But Chair, I just want to picture, so that those of us who have been attending religiously to proceedings of the Committee would remember this. Chair, right as we have started, there’s always been fairness. There’s always been contest about inherent bias and all that, and these were clarified as we gone through the journey. Whether it’s a matter that gets to a court situation, like in the first recusal application, and those matters get clarified and then we proceed. Chair, even when there were problems about what gets to be budgeted and what gets to be used, which is over-expenditure if I were to put it bluntly in that way... And those costs in the main were not about the responses to the Inquiry, but other matters that seem to see any loophole that can exist to stop it, and the resources got depleted. I think, again, Chair, out of fairness, it is that reason that the Committee led by you... And for some of us, you’d know, Chair, we’re on record, that it was really matters that are just beyond the Committee, which should have been handled by the PPSA. But we agreed that from a point of fairness, those resources must be acquired. And when I say acquired, I'm starting from a point of invoices not paid, and that given as a reason not to proceed, and those got sorted. Then we get to the resources that are depleted by end of March, still again we get to another approach led by yourself to ensure that there’s additional resources... and that the PP can be assisted legally, Chair, on matters that are before this Committee. But it doesn’t end there, Chair. We must put the point that we have, Chairperson, right in the beginning asked questions as Members of the Committee. Again, as I say from a point of fairness, we’re advised that the PP was not yet answering questions and those would be forwarded and be answered later on, and those have not been answered, Chair. But the PP, I must appreciate, Chair, that the PP has helped the Committee in response to all other witnesses. Like I said, I would not repeat what other Members have said. But the PP gave us Part A and Part B response in writing, in the form of statement that’s before this Committee. And this Committee then gave the opportunity for oral evidence without undermining the validity of what the PP has put before this Inquiry in writing. And of course, we have listened partially to oral evidence given. But it does not remove the fact that the PP has responded to the charges as per what is before us, Chair. I'm raising this so that there’s no assumption that we are making decisions without considering what the PP would say to such, Chair. Chair, even when it was difficult to proceed with all the legal issues that get sorted. And I'm going to come to the legal, Chair, briefly. But I want to still come from a point of giving the PP, again, an opportunity to speak. All Members who responded to the call of the decision of this Committee to allow Members to present questions that the PP will respond to do so, Hon Chair. But on record, Chair, there’s not been responses to those questions, which was also another opportunity at least to hear the side of the PP in contesting or agreeing with the things that would be asked based on evidence that has been put before the Committee. Chair, on that score, I come then to the part of the appointment of the legal people. I want to start from a point, Chair, that I think one appreciated at the time, when the PP said she would want to have Adv Mpofu to continue to be the senior counsel of her choice, as she’d be also looking at the appointment of other attorneys through that engagement for us to have with the PPSA. And I'm saying, Chair, as time moved, at least it is on record before this Committee, that the PP reduced it to writing that she wanted an attorney of her choice or at least the Office of the State Law Advisor helping her on that score. So this thing that the State Law Advisor has just imposed himself or herself knowing that there’s conflict of interest, is misrepresentation of facts before us, because it is the PP who introduced that aspect in case one doesn’t work. Of course, it should be surprising then, that at the time that action is implemented, then the conflict of interest is questioned at that time. But be it as it may be, then the attorneys and Chaane were appointed. The other, it’s history, that we’re reminded of a deathbed and all that, Chair. We've spoken to this before. But the point I want to bring to this, Chair, is that if you look at the date of appointment and the date of withdrawal, that’s almost over a month. Almost the same time that has been asked to go through documentation. As other Members said, the focus got to be on something else, it was administrative matters of writing letters. I'm sure at some point we will know what that cost the taxpayer. But Chair, for me of interest is that with this understanding of senior counsel being that of the PP’s choice, one probably had a reasonable assumption that indeed the PP was making a commitment to assist this Inquiry by not bringing somebody new who would start from scratch, given the stage where the Inquiry is. All that was needed as we’re made to understand as ordinary people who are not in the legal field, that an instruction for the SC to continue cannot be done in any other way, other than through an attorney. And therefore the brief would have been understood to be as such, but not to restart an Inquiry. Now, Chair, this withdrawal it’s probably quite a coincidence that it happens after a thorough going by this Committee looking at the charge by charge for two days and coming to some draft conclusions on those. And I'm saying draft in a sense that this Committee had also agreed to again give another audi to the PP in terms of the draft report. And I'm saying you get that withdrawal at that critical moment. The letter, Chair, does indicate that there is a period, if you look at the letter of appointment itself... it counts about 14 days between that and the appointment. It doesn’t mean that in that period the PP was precluded from taking every measure possible to ensure that she gets the legal assistance she needs, because the resources continued to be there. And for that reason, that’s why you still have another attorney that is appointed to still proceed. We've not yet discussed the new budget, but still the resources that were fought for post 31 March. Chair, what I'm trying to say therefore is that the Committee has indeed done everything to try and assist the process, that it remains fair. As we speak, Chair, a draft report has been sent for the PP to make comments. And as we speak here, similar to the questions that were sent to the PP, there’s no comment. That’s the election of the PP not to make comments in that regard. It therefore brings me back to the letter, Chair. We seem at all times to be discussing what an attorney would have accepted as a brief knowing where the case is. That we are not restarting an inquiry, but the inquiry is at a particular stage. Therefore as you take this brief, surely you should know what you are entering yourself into, given the time. You need therefore to spring to action and be able to meet the deadlines, because you have voluntarily accepted the brief. I'm saying, Chair, there’s nothing from where one is sitting that talks to unfairness in this regard, even this draft report. I think the Committee, Chair, I must place it on record, has gone too far, in that you have not got response. You put a draft report but you still say can you make comments. We are open minded – that once there is commentary from you, we may reconsider some of the points based on what is made available to us as facts that we can use. Therefore, Chair, anything that is called mitigation in my view, would have come from responses that get put before us and apply our minds on that. But at this point there’s nothing that has changed from our previous meeting, where we adopted the report. Therefore I move, Chair, that the report indeed should be adopted now as the final report of the Committee. I thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Maneli. I now recognise Hon van Minnen.

Ms B Van Minnen (DA): Thank you very much, Chair. Chair, I really want to agree with the Hon Mileham. I think that what we’ve seen with this Committee is the Committee bending over backwards to ensure the rules of natural justice have been followed, that there has been fairness, that the Public Protector has been given every opportunity to make her representations and to put in her feedback. Unfortunately, we have seen some very long delays with legal representation, up to four months. Apparently, there was no time to brief Chaane Attorneys in that time. I think one must also bear in mind that when it comes to reasonableness, that it applies to all parties. The Public Protector is a qualified individual who has full agency and it was also important to participate in this process. Unfortunately, we’re sitting in a situation now where it is very clear that the Public Protector has chosen not to exercise her options. Essentially, we have seen a great deal of legal theatre. At this point I think the Committee has more than done its work in the way that it needs to. I would support that we table this Motion and the report, and that it goes to Parliament. Thank you very much.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Van Minnen. I now recognise Hon Sukers.

Ms M Sukers (ACDP): Good afternoon, Chair. Good afternoon to my colleagues on the platform. Chair, I move in support of the adoption as expressed by other Members who spoke before me. There is a reasonable expectation by the public, who through paying their taxes expect public representatives to act in accordance to what is expected from them, in terms of exercising accountability and oversight over the institutions that Parliament has oversight. A responsible SC and legal team have a duty to conduct their case within reasonable time and cost. These deadlines were known, and this time was abused. The context within which this Committee functions as an oversight body of Parliament must be recognised and appreciated by both the Members serving on it and the Public Protector in her role as a head of a Chapter Nine institution. The legal team of the Public Protector should within that context have assisted their client to fulfil her constitutional obligation. This Committee has gone beyond their own mandate to assist with the legal issues and challenges when funds became limited, and what was received in return is the consistent delays. And within our own obligation, Chair, we cannot – I think Hon Van Minnen alluded to the issue of reasonableness. We ourselves need to conclude our business within a reasonable timeframe. It would be wrong of us... or we would fail in our duty to fulfil and conclude matters. Therefore, I move for the adoption, in support of what was expressed by everyone. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Sukers, for your contribution. I now recognise Hon Majozi.

Ms Z Majozi (IFP): Thank you, Chairperson. Good afternoon to all Hon Members. I think Members have contributed a lot. I think they’ve shared the same sentiments, and I think it’s something we’ve been sharing for the past I don’t know how many months. We’ve been saying one and the same thing, that we can’t play with the mandate that we’ve been given. As well, these delaying tactics have been there, and they’ve been delaying us. I think the whole Committee has been fair enough to provide the Public Protector with every option that was there, and every legal term that was provided. So I think, Chairperson, we just need to now move on and support the report. And also say that we have been in this Committee for more than what the duration was given to us. And yes, I agree with other Members that we’ve bent backwards to accommodate the Public Protector, and I think we’ve done so fairly. It is now time to conclude, and we move on and submit, because these delaying tactics are a norm now. We know what is it that we would be expecting when we receive a letter, and so forth. I mean, we’ve tried to accommodate the Public Protector as this Committee. And you as the Chairperson, you’ve also been very very patient. So yes, I agree with all previous Hon Members that let us proceed. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Majozi. I now recognise Hon Nqola. I think that’s the last hand.

Mr X Nqola (ANC): Chairperson, thank you very much. I think 99.9% of the Members that spoke before me have covered a lot of ground, in terms of the conceptual issues that they’ve raised with regard to the report and the response of the Public Protector. One, Chair, I think we must remind Members and the public that the proceedings of this parliamentary committee have been taken to court a number of times. So the fairness of the proceeding has been tested in court a number of times. And all the courts that have heard the fairness of the proceedings of this Committee have decided or made judgements in favour of the proceedings of this Committee. So the doubtfulness and the threats about courts and all that, does not move all of us, because we know we’ve been there before. Fortunately, we’ve allowed and fairly participated in those proceedings. I think, Chair, from a fairness point of view, the fairness of this Committee has been tested. And the Committee remains fair in terms of the decisions of the courts. Two, Chair, we have indicated before, that this Committee has granted Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane a number of legal opportunities to help her so that we adhere to the call by the Constitutional Court that she must be legally represented in the Committee. But Chair, I want to put on record that it is my firm view that she elected not to use that opportunity given by the Committee. Lastly, Chair, we have indicated when we made the draft report, that the draft report would be sent to the Public Protector for her final comments, that may be able to assist this Committee to arrive even at a different decision. But we further indicated that if she elects not to respond to the draft report, that it would mean that she agrees with the contents of the draft report. Now Chair, I want to second all speakers that have said the draft report must now be the final report of the parliamentary committee on Section 194, that must be sent for the decision in the National Assembly. Thank you very much, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Nqola. I said you were the last one, but I think I now see a new hand, Hon Zungula. Is there any other Member that I'm leaving out because I wouldn’t want to do it one by one? Hon Zungula will be next. Is there any other Member? So that I'm not accused of leaving anybody else who has not spoken on the issue. Thank you, I will recognise those last two hands. Hon Zungula?

Mr V Zungula (ATM): Thank you, Chairperson... I want to start by stating from the very first onset during the start of the process, there has been issues, whereby the process was not a process that could be regarded as fair, as a process that could be regarded as above board, particularly for a first of its kind. That is why you recall that part of the court process that took place in the initial stages of the process was the Constitutional Court ruling that the Public Protector must be afforded legal representation throughout the process. Now that on its own shows that if the courts were not approached, there could have been an unfortunate circumstance whereby there is this process, but the Public Protector would not have been afforded legal representation. So having said that, Chair, the fact that for countless times the courts have been approached on various matters, should not make this Committee or Members of the Committee to be defensive, because... you’ve got no problem when people go to court wanting to raise some issues, because you know that the courts will rule in your favour. Now where we are now is that the advocate, the Public Protector, Adv Mkhwebane, does not have legal representation and it is not by her doing. It is something that has been ventilated a couple of times, but as we sit here now, that is a known fact. You’ll recall, Chair, that the Public Protector was still on the stand, there’s never been a time whereby you released the Public Protector so that, you know, after her testimony or after Members have...

Mr Nqola: Chair, Zungula has not been attending the Inquiry...

Chairperson: Order. Order, Hon Nqola. I'm not sustaining your point of order. You’re disturbing the Members on the platform. That's not a point of order. Go ahead, Hon Zungula...

Mr Zungula: Let me continue, because this Member is undermining me.

Mr Nqola: On a point of order, Chair?

Chairperson: Okay. Just hold, Hon Zungula. Hon Nqola?

Mr Nqola: Chair, you’ve just ruled on the matter and Hon Zungula is still continuing with it. I don’t want to go to entertain the issue... because Hon Zungula knows better than what he’s saying, he’s just doing it for public and for vibes.

Ms Maotwe: Chair, but you ruled on this matter. Why is Nqola coming back? You ruled...

Chairperson: He’s on a point of order, thank you, Hon Maotwe... Are you done, Hon Nqola?

Mr Nqola: Yes, Chair... I was saying he continues with...

Ms Maotwe: He’s done, keep quiet. Sit down, Nqola.

Chairperson: I’ve not asked you to speak... Thank you, Hon Nqola. Thank you, I have intervened on the point of order and the unparliamentary language. Hon Zungula has withdrawn. Hon Zungula, I'd want you to continue. And please stay focused on your issues.

Mr Zungula: Yes, Chair. My issue is this Member is undermining me, because I'm addressing here, he comes and interjects whilst I'm speaking. So as I'm continuing, Chair, …is that the Public Protector is still on the stand. She was never released, that is something that we know. The other issue, Chair, which is very important is that there are bribery allegations, which have not been thoroughly tested and properly ventilated in this forum. There are ongoing investigations that have been confirmed by respective law enforcement agencies. Now to continue this process, whereas a fellow Member of the Committee made allegations that you... it was not the Public Protector or Mr Skosana...

Mr Nkosi: Chairperson?

Chairperson: Just a pause, Hon Zungula. Hon Nkosi?

Mr Nkosi: Chair, my point of order is one of relevance. Two, is that this matter was discussed and ruled by this Committee, decided by this Committee, that we do not accede to this thing et cetera. Hon Zungula should go to the minutes, read the minutes. If he wants a review of the minutes, he can then apply for a reviewal of the minutes in another meeting, not this one. Please, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Nkosi, the point of order is sustained. Hon Zungula, I've asked you to focus on the issues that are relevant in today’s meeting, as the particular agenda. We're not going to go back on issues that we’ve really traversed and dealt with. So please, as you going towards concluding, focus on those issues. Thank you.

Mr Zungula: Chair, I'm focusing on these issues, because we’re dealing with the draft report. Now I'm not going to be told or be driven as to what I can comment on or what I should not comment on. I'm going to talk about each and everything pertaining to this process.

Chairperson: Just pause. The draft report has no bribery allegation. The draft report is about the Inquiry of suspended Public Protector, Busisiwe Mkhwebane. So that’s what is in the report. Anything else that is not in that report, I'm going to rule you out, not to get into those.

Mr Zungula: Chairperson, do not seek to micromanage me and confine me to speak a different...

Chairperson: You’re going to operate according to the rules of the meeting. You're not going to be outside of that. Please proceed on your issues on the report.

Mr Zungula: Yes. That’s what I'm doing, Chair, but it is you that is disturbing me. I was proceeding and it is you that is disturbing me, and then you come back and you say I must proceed.

Chairperson: Go ahead. Please go ahead.

Mr Zungula: So lastly, Chair, I want to put it out that given what I've just mentioned, this draft report it is irrational, it is unlawful, it is full of bias. All of these things that I've mentioned, there is no one that can dispute them. That is why we’re in this particular situation now. So as the ATM, Chair, we want to put it on record that we reject this draft report, because it has got nothing to do with Parliament playing its oversight responsibility and upholding the rule of law and establishing a principle in terms of how to hold a head of a Chapter Nine institution accountable. Rather, it is a report that has been drafted with a clear objective from the onset, that there is only one outcome that is expected, which is an outcome that will nail Adv Mkhwebane. We as the ATM view this report as a dangerous precedent for our country, because it means the other heads of Chapter Nine institutions, they will not be able to do their work as required by the Constitution, because Members of Parliament can be bribed to operate in one way or the other in order for them to actually do what should not be done in terms of our public service. Chair, we want to put it on record, that we as the ATM are not in agreement with this report. And we’ll support each and every person that lawfully takes this report on review, or this part of the process on review given the situation. I thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Zungula. Hon Manketsi?

Ms M Tlhape (ANC): Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon to my colleagues and everybody on this platform. Chair, let me welcome today’s presentations and briefs that we got. Chair, my take is that I agree with Members that are saying as this Committee from the start, we adopted guidelines and we observed them. Colleagues are talking about issues of fairness that have been the cornerstone in everything that we did... issues of audi, issues of agreeing that our programme was a living document, that each time there was a hiccup it could accommodate, go back forth and make sure that everything else is done within the understanding that we're working with a living document. And as they’re saying, Chair, everything else at some stage has to come to an end. The Committee has been able to intervene, particularly through you, Chair, on issues of legal costs, which speaks to these other issues, the guidelines that we adopted. Now it is also my understanding, Chair, that as Hon Maneli has indicated, that we took numerous resolutions as this Committee that we adopted even on the minutes. That speaks to some of the issues that are being raised here this afternoon. I remember we spoke at length on issues of the meaning of legal representation, even how the court dealt with it and its meaning in a way. It has been an understanding, we have never disputed it, that it has been brought to our attention that the PP doesn’t have legal representation. But the minutes and our discussion around this matter was centred around the interpretation on what does it mean. And we agreed and resolved to continue, hence we had minutes of how are we moving forward. There has always been an agreement, and we adopted those minutes. Now Chair, in everything that we did we took the public along for transparency. It has been open discussions, it has been open meetings. That is why even we’re here today on this one matter of adopting this report. We’re talking today, discussed some of the correspondence... I'm agreeing with Hon Members, that are saying we’re here to adopt this report. But probably also, as I agree with them... if our legal advisors are still there, we could just ask them in the interest of the public. Is there anything that is preventing us to adopt this report as we’re agreeing to adopt it? That will be my submission, Chair. Thanks.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Thlape. You would have been the last one. I see there are further hands... Hon Siwela and Dlakude. Hon Siwela?

Ms Siwela: Thank you, Chairperson. I raised my hand, I wanted to make a point of order during that session, but you ruled... So I've got no leg to stand upon it. I respect the ruling of the Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Siwela. Thank you. Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: Thank you, Hon Chair. Hon Maneli and Hon Thlape covered the points that I wanted to embark upon... I can add one, that yes, the Constitutional Court ruled that the suspended PP has a right to legal representation. But just to indicate that those rights are not absolute. So I don’t think we can go back there. Also to say that, Hon Chairperson, with regard to this very same legal representation, that enough time had been given. Whenever we came across such a situation where there was no legal representation, we allowed for that process to unfold, we paused as a Committee. Then with Chaane Attorneys, I just want to emphasise this point, with Chaane Attorneys, yes, we received a correspondence that says that Mr Chaane was hospitalised. Again, we paused as a Committee. We didn’t do anything and allowed him to recover. He came back and they were given 30 days, and in those 30 days they did nothing, other than withdrawing after the 30 days. They were supposed to brief the senior counsel, the senior counsel of the suspended PP’s choice who was there from day one. They were supposed to brief him, but they didn’t do that. Instead, they withdraw. So when we talk about fairness, what is it exactly that we are talking about. We've been fair enough. So if there is anything that we did as a Committee, then let’s see what will happen after we adopt the report. But at this point in time, we cannot go back and not adopt our own report. Hon Chair, I want to agree once more with the sentiments expressed by the other Members that we do adopt this report, because we have come to the end of our inquiry as this Committee. So if there is anything else, we also have rights as Parliament... we have the mandate from the House, that we embarked on this inquiry. So there is no way that we can go back or delay this any further. We have come to the end of the inquiry. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Dlakude. Hon Members, I now want to summarise your own discussions and what has been placed in front of us in terms of the correspondence... I see both Hon Maotwe and Hon Siwela, you have your hands up.

Ms Siwela: Chair, how far have you summarised? Because I've got a problem with network. I want to be the first mover of the adoption of this report. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Siwela, for your invitation. Hon Maotwe?

Ms Maotwe: Thank you, Chair. I wanted to warn you against allowing what Hon Dlakude just did, because otherwise we’re going to be responding to each other the whole day. I mean, I said things, and Nqola came to say things that are completely wrong. There’s no court that has found this process to have been fair, he can't come here and say wrong things like that. But if you allow us to speak after they’ve spoken, we won't finish, because when they open their mouth and they say something wrong we are then prompted to speak. I don’t understand why she got a second bite, Dlakude, because there’s nothing new that she was saying. She said already what she wanted to say, and it’s her views, we respect it. We all spoke, but why have a second bite when there’s nothing new that you’re bringing to the table? So please don’t allow that, Chair. Otherwise, we won't finish.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Maotwe, for your intervention and your concerns you’re raising. Maybe let me just start in saying, as I try to summarise, Hon Members. Firstly, here is a journey of facts in relation to the correspondence that has been placed in front of you, not today, not this week, a number of times. Maybe forget when we started until 31 March, and just start from April to demonstrate the particular steps that we’ve taken. Between that time of April and now, we count 143 days. During that time, Chaane Attorneys would have been on brief for 63 days. And maybe it’s not correct, Hon Dlakude, to say that they did nothing, because they did. If there’s one thing they were able to do in the 63 days, they did apply for the recusal of the Chair during that process. When they withdrew on 3 August, they were on brief for a total of 63 days. And they said then through correspondence and everything, that they were familiarising themselves with what was in the Dropbox and so on. It became clear at the end, even from them, at the end of that they were asking things about Dropbox and how to go to Dropbox, demonstrating that the familiarisation would not have been in Dropbox. That's the first point I want to make, that’s part of this journey of facts that we must deal with. After that withdrawal from 3 August, it’s on 10 August the PPSA gives the suspended PP a list of attorneys per her request, now that an attorney of her choice has withdrawn. She gets given that on 10 August. On 14 or 15 August, only then she writes to the State Attorney, giving the name of Motsoeneng. I'm raising that because you’ve got to see the sense of urgency or lack of it in this – effectively, twelve days later after the withdrawal of the attorneys. On 17 August, just within a matter of a day and a half or two days, the State Attorneys respond and respond in the positive, in the same way they did when they were appointing Chaane. They didn’t even take a week or four days to do that. Again, I want you to read a sense of urgency or lack of it in how the State Attorneys conducted themselves in relation to everything else. Now Motsoeneng having been appointed, they write to us. Because when we meet as the Committee on 11 August, after the draft report has been adopted, I indicated at the beginning that on the same day the draft report was to be sent to the PP. You now have a situation where on 20 August, at six o’clock that Sunday, Motsoeneng introduces themselves as the new attorneys of choice on brief. Again, I want you to see a sense of urgency or lack of it as part of it. Amongst other things they do when they write to us, as explained by Ms Ebrahim, is to say to this Committee, we’ve now been appointed, we’re attorneys of record and the choice of the suspended Public Protector, we have not met her, we’re likely to meet her latest on 23 August, meaning only tomorrow. So Motsoeneng has not met the PP, they will only meet the PP tomorrow to try and get a brief from the PP. Again, I want you to look into the sense of urgency or lack of it as part of that. But they go further - this is now the new attorneys who say, actually, even before we meet with the PP to get the particular mandate and then it’s en route to the senior counsel, we already are proposing that... we plan that we can give you weekly reports thereafter. There's a timeline for the Committee, the timeline of the Committee ended yesterday with the PP, in terms of her response to the Committee. The new attorneys, all they say is that your date of 21 August is illegal, and they still have to be briefed by the PP and familiarise themselves on many other things. So effectively, in summary what the new attorneys have done under the mandate of the PP, even though it seems that they’ve not met the PP, only meeting the PP tomorrow, they’ve set new deadlines... they’ve set new Committee deadlines, that the deadlines of the Committee are going to depend on what they putting on the table. And in all of that, there’s nothing substantive that is being put forward either to respond to the report or as an application of whatever form. The point that is being made by Members here is that the PP has been given beyond reasonable time, we’ve been very diligent, we’ve been very fair and rational. That the response to our fairness and rationality is for this Committee to be held to ransom, to be dictated to about how it must do its work to subject a head of a Chapter Nine institution. In other words, the Committee must now be subjected to a head of a Chapter Nine institution about what this head of the Chapter Nine institution thinks a programme should be. This is what we’re getting, if you just summarise what this correspondence is saying. I therefore hear you Members saying that we’ve been beyond fair. We have given an unprecedented audi, not once, many a times to the PP. I do want to note the very strong views of the EFF that says we must allow the new attorneys to familiarise themselves. The ATM supports that, but goes further to say as far as they’re concerned, they want to conclude that this process is irrational, is unlawful and therefore they reject it. And it’s part of their plan to take it on review. The majority of Members that have spoken are proposing that we do a final adoption of this report. I'm going to ask – because the report in front of us is titled “draft report” – that we break for ten minutes to allow Ms Ebrahim to fix that. I'm going to ask Members for an adoption of the report, which is not a draft but which is a final report. When we come back, that’s going to be the exercise that we do for this report, having noted what Hon Hendricks has indicated, his own dilemma about issues of HR, which other Members have responded to, and what he has registered before. But the majority of Members who have spoken seem to be all one in saying let us today adopt the final report. I therefore want to ask that we pause for ten minutes to allow for that to be replaced and the adoption is an adoption of the final report, not the draft report. Thank you. We’ll be back at quarter to four.

[10-minute break]

Chairperson: Welcome back, colleagues. We finished our ten-minute break, it’s now 15:46, the ten minutes that we took a break for. I asked for that break for us to allow Ms Ebrahim to ensure that in the report we remove 'draft' so that we adopt a final report. Before I call on the Members for a move and adoption, I'm just going to ask Ms Ebrahim if she wants to say something and lead us in that regard.

Ms Ebrahim: Thank you, Chairperson. I have removed all references to it being a draft report. However, Chair, there are just two or three more paragraphs that I would need to add to reflect the outcome of today's meeting. The draft report did not reflect that Chaane Attorneys had withdrawn, because at the time that it was adopted that had not yet happened, and also the appointment of Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys and its letter. That would just be captured in a very factual manner to indicate the correspondence received and also what the Committee decided in terms of proceeding, notwithstanding the objection of Adv Mkhwebane in that regard. So that will be done. Chair, I just need to check one more thing, please. I've got it clearly articulated that the EFF and ATM reject the report in its entirety, and we’ll ensure that that’s captured. In fact, it is like that in the draft report. But if we can please check with Hon Hendricks from Al Jama-ah, whether they are rejecting the report or only the recommendation in favour of removal. Hon Hendricks has noted that we captured all of his objections that he raised during deliberations. Where he was of the view that the findings did not sustain a charge of misconduct or incompetence as it were, that was captured in the draft report. I just want to get clarity whether it’s a rejection of the report in its entirety or only a rejection of the recommendation of the Committee to move for removal. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. I note your hand, Hon Mileham. Hon Hendricks? Comment on that.

Mr Hendricks: Yes, it’s only the recommendation. Ms Ebrahim is quite correct, the way she has seen it. I don’t know if she’s going to add my comment on... my disappointment that the Public Protector did not respond. And that I would have called for a lesser penalty, and that I cited the mitigating circumstances. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you. I think those minority views will be recorded as such. Hon Mileham?

Mr Mileham: Chairperson, I just wanted to query whether my request at the last meeting has been included or not. And that is that the conduct of Adv Mpofu be referred to the Legal Practice Council and that he be criminally charged for threatening you in a committee of Parliament, in terms of the Powers and Privileges Act. I'd like to know whether or not that has been included.

Chairperson: Okay. Before I go to Ms Ebrahim, the understanding would have been those are the kind of issues we’re going to talk about in that session where we concretise the lessons of the process – so we want to separate them from the report. We talk about. But let me check with Ms Ebrahim.

Mr Mileham: Noted, Chair. I accept that. Thank you.

Chairperson: Okay, are you happy with that? So we don’t want it to be part of the report, it has to be a separate process. Thank you. Ms Ebrahim?

Ms Ebrahim: Yes, Chair. That's correct. In that separate report we envisage that there may be a number of recommendations the Committee may wish to make in terms of the amendment of legislation or referral of certain matters, whatever the case may be. But that should come after the Committee’s had time to thoroughly deliberate and consider and discuss those issues. So for now that is not included. But as I indicated last time, this is a permanent committee of the Assembly, it’s not an ad hoc committee. Thank you, Chair.

Final Committee report: adoption
The Chairperson invited Members to move for the adoption of the final report.

Ms Dlakude moved for the adoption of the final report.

Mr Mileham seconded the adoption of the final report.

Ms Majozi, Ms Siwela, Ms Sukers, Ms Van Minnen, Ms Denner, Mr Nkosi and Mr Maneli supported the adoption of the final report.

Ms Maotwe said that the EFF rejected the final report with contempt. The EFF maintained its position to reserve its right to take it on review.

The Chairperson thanked the Members. He said that the final report has been moved for adoption and seconded by a number of Members. He noted the objection of the EFF and that they reserved their right to take the report on review.

Ms Marawu noted that the ATM rejected the report.

The Chairperson noted that the ATM rejected the report. He further noted the position of Al Jama-ah, in that it did not support the penalty of impeachment. He said that the majority view as well as the dissenting views have been recorded.

Chairperson’s remarks
The Chairperson said that the Section 194 Committee has adopted its final report, which will be submitted to the National Assembly. The majority of the Members supported the removal of the suspended Public Protector. Some Members have rejected the report, and some have indicated certain areas of discomfort, which has been recorded.

The Committee will convene on another day to deliberate on further recommendations.

He thanked the Members of the Committee for remaining determined and committed to this novel process, and for fulfilling their mandate. He was grateful for their patience, commitment and guidance during this process. The Members have been very robust in the way they have dealt with this process.

He thanked the entire support staff, which included: the content advisors, the researchers, the legal support, those who provided transport, those who ensured that there was water and tea, Parliamentary Protection Services and the administration team.

He thanked the evidence leaders for their expertise and for assisting the Committee with its work.

He thanked the media for always being curious and covering the Inquiry. He said that the media have educated society as it reported on the Inquiry, especially in criticising all of the role players involved.

He thanked the members of the public. He said that the Members of Parliament have been elected by the people to do this work on their behalf. The public have been interested in the Inquiry since day one. It seemed as if the Committee has generated so much interest. Every sitting of this Committee had unprecedented interest, especially on YouTube. The Committee are looking forward to the comments of the public as it will convene on another day to discuss the lessons learnt.

The Committee considered and adopted the minutes of 3 April and 11 August 2023.

The meeting was adjourned.