Since now suspended public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane took office in 2017, 36 reports containing her findings have been reviewed and set aside by the courts.

And there is another 47 review proceedings pending before the courts - 24 of which were opposed and 23 unopposed.

These figures were presented in graph form on Thursday by evidence leader Adv Nazreem Bawa at the parliamentary inquiry into the fitness of Mkhwebane to hold office, and were confirmed by Neels van der Merwe, senior manager for legal services in the office of the public protector, who now under cross-examination.

Legal fees spent on these and other matters — amounting to R147m — names of attorneys and advocates — and the amounts they received — were made public in what has become a controversial presentation.

Earlier on Thursday, senior advocates Muzi Sikhakhane and Vuyani Ngalwana arrived unannounced at the hearing committee and were given 10 minutes to present their objections to this.

They alleged they and others named had been insulted by the disclosure of their personal information and the perpetuation of the stereotype that black lawyers were “corrupt”, that they had not legitimately earned their fees and had no worth.

It was this issue that Adv Dali Mpofu, for Mkhwebane, spent most of his time on when he began cross-examining Van der Merwe.

Van der Merwe said he had no agenda but had simply been asked to compile the document by the evidence leaders at the behest of the committee.

“It was to reflect an objective and transparent view of what had been spent and on earnings [by attorneys and advocates],” he said.

Mpofu — who himself scored R12m in fees — said the disclosure had caused “great harm”.

But Van der Merwe said there was a need for clarity on how the money was disbursed given that there was a panel of attorneys and there needed to be an inquiry if there had been a fair distribution of work. 

He said he could not refer to, for example, attorney A and advocate B, because that would have confused the issue.

“My impression was that was what the committee required. These are records. They asked for access to our records. This is a fair representation  of the records. And it’s a transparent presentation of the records. 

“Those invoices were not rendered in the names of aliases. They are real payments. I am not aware of anything to safeguard confidentiality.  

“I cannot say I thought it would cause harm. We are accountable because it’s public money. That’s how I saw it.”

Cross-examination continues on Thursday and Friday.

TimesLIVE