Madonsela will no longer testify at Mkhwebane's impeachment inquiry

Former public protector Thuli Madonsela will no longer give oral evidence at the parliamentary inquiry into her successor Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office.

Instead, the committee will accept her written statement about her role in the CIEX and Vrede dairy farm investigation which she initiated while still in office.

The committee took the decision after confusion and debate about whose witness Madonsela was after her refusal to consult Mkhwebane’s legal team.

In January, Mkhwebane submitted Madonsela’s name among five she wanted to be subpoenaed to testify at her impeachment hearing. The committee agreed to subpoena Madonsela and Bianca Mvuyana, an investigator in the public protector's office.

Before the subpoena was issued, Madonsela changed her mind and informed the inquiry of her willingness to give evidence, which was then scheduled for Wednesday morning.

On Wednesday, Mkhwebane accused the parliamentary committee of hijacking her witness, Madonsela.

Mkhwebane’s legal representative, Dali Mpofu SC, told the inquiry that Madonsela had refused to meet Mkhwebane’s legal team to prepare for her appearance and had elected to draft her statement independently.

“All we did was to say, since originally you were called by us, we would like to consult ... she elected not to consult and she wanted to consult only with evidence leaders, saying there is a tradition about that,” said Mpofu.

He said even when they explained that the tradition didn’t apply to the process because it was unprecedented and had its own rules, Madonsela insisted on not consulting them and declined their assistance with drafting her statement.

As a result, neither Mpofu nor the inquiry’s evidence leaders Nazreen Bawa and Ncumisa Mayosi were prepared to lead her testimony.

“We can’t lead somebody on a statement prepared by somebody else. It doesn’t happen,” said Mpofu. “Leading evidence means examination-in-chief. It means you already know what the person is going to say because you have prepared that statement.”

Bawa denied that the committee had taken over Madonsela and made her its witness. She said they also did not consult her because she was Mkhwebane’s witness.

Evidence leaders were under the impression that Mpofu was going to lead Madonsela’s evidence, she said, as it was at the request of Mkhwebane’s legal team that Madonsela was subpoenaed.

“The evidence leaders have not identified any evidence they want to lead. The burden is on the public protector’s team to lead evidence,” said Bawa.

She reiterated that as evidence leaders they did not know the relevance of Madonsela’s evidence in the inquiry even after reading her statement.

The majority of MPs agreed that her oral evidence was not necessary. Only UDM leader Bantu Holomisa objected, accusing the inquiry of “hiding” Madonsela from coming to answer verbally.

Mpofu had earlier addressed accusations allegedly made by committee members on Tuesday that Mkhwebane was delaying the process.

Mpofu said this was an unfair accusation and that MPs' comments were hurtful and gratuitous.

Madonsela had twice missed the deadline to submit her affidavit to the committee. According to the inquiry rules, witnesses have to submit their affidavits seven days before their appearance.

After missing the first deadline of February 22, she asked for an extension to February 24, but missed that as well and only lodged her affidavit on Saturday, February 25.

Madonsela’s late filing of her statement had denied the Mkhwebane team enough time to prepare for her appearance, said Mpofu.

He accused the committee of running roughshod over Mkhwebane regarding its decision about Madonsela oral evidence.

He indicated that they will either challenge Madonsela’s non-appearance in court or make a fresh application to summon her which, he warned, may result in a much longer delay.

TimesLIVE