Office of public protector's enormous legal bills revealed

The senior manager for legal services in the office of the public protector, Neels van der Merwe, has revealed that the enormous legal bills incurred by the office affected the work of its investigators.

On Wednesday, Van der Merwe told the parliamentary committee for the section 194 inquiry into suspended public protector advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office that the office has spent R147m on legal fees in the past six years.

“With burgeoning litigation costs, it obviously meant that other costs had to be curbed. This also meant that investigators were restricted from conducting investigations physically. They became unable to interview witnesses in person or to source the services of expert witnesses. It also had a significant impact on training,” Van der Merwe said in his affidavit.

He said it had affected the quality of the investigations conducted and would have a knock-on effect on the quality of reports.

“It results in the number of reviews increasing, resulting in greater legal costs and less money being available for operations.”

Van der Merwe confirmed invoices and payments made to law firms representing the office of the PP.

He told the committee Seanego Attorneys received the lion’s share of legal instructions totalling about R55m for services rendered from June 2018 to May 2022, with advocate Dali Mpofu, receiving more than R12.2m in fees. Seanego Attorneys are the attorneys on record for Mkhwebane's inquiry. 

Other payments listed were to advocate Bright Shabalala, who is also part of the PP’s legal team for the inquiry, who received R9.12m; advocate Muzi Sikhakhane, who received R4.7m; advocate Vuyani Ngalwana, R4.7m; and advocate Thabani Masuku, R4.5m.

Some of the costs include the office of the PP spending R213,000 on a legal opinion relating to whether Mkhwebane could receive crowdfunding to pay for a personal cost order of R226,621 issued against her in the Reserve Bank case.

It also includes more than R200,000 on obtaining a legal opinion on the appointment of Mkhwebane’s special adviser.

Further legal opinions were obtained relating to the lawfulness of her appointment of the CEO, Vussy Mahlangu, who handed in his resignation two days after the legal opinion confirmed that his appointment was unlawful.

The committee also heard more evidence on Wednesday about how public relations and media analysts and strategists Kim Heller, Prof Sipho Seepe and Paul Ngobeni were paid thousands of rand to promote the PP’s public and media image. They also wrote critical articles about certain judges who had ruled against the PP.

There was an invoice for R390,000 that seemed to have been paid to a company, Wekunene BS (Pty) Ltd, which was for services rendered by Heller and Seepe. Van der Merwe told the committee the company was not on the database of service providers of the office of the public protector. 

Evidence leader advocate Nazreen Bawa told the committee it had since been established that the reference used on the invoice, SS-KH, stood for Sipho Seepe and Kim Heller. 

At the start of the hearings on Wednesday, Mkhwebane again indicated her unease about being present at the hearings without her legal representative present. This after Mpofu walked out of the proceedings a week ago. She indicated the ruling the previous day, which did not allow her to be excused, made her feel like a “hostage”. She requested that the committee give her reasons why her request is being declined. 

Committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi replied that his ruling stands.

“Your request to be excused is denied. It is in your best interests to be here. This is an exercise in accountability. This is the work of the National Assembly. As the head of a Chapter 9 Institution, you account to this body,” Dyantyi said. 

“We expect Seanego also to be here. There is no leave of absence here. If they are not present today, they will have to explain their absence. They are the attorneys of record and your legal representatives. If they take a particular choice not to be here, it will have to be explained. The Constitutional Court refers to your right to have your legal representative present, not necessarily an SC (senior counsel). We are under no obligation to pause or postpone the hearings. There is no legal impediment for us to stop,” he said. 

TimesLIVE