Heated exchanges characterised former public protector Thuli Madonsela’s appearance before the parliamentary inquiry into her successor Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office.

A reluctant Madonsela finally appeared before the inquiry on Monday after being subpoenaed by parliament on Mkhwebane’s behalf. She is one of five people Mkhwebane requested the inquiry compel to give evidence.

“I appreciate the privilege to appear before you. Nonetheless I come before you reluctantly because you’ve asked me to respond to questions primarily on two cases that have been extensively dealt with by the courts and therefore my reluctance to appear before this committee had nothing to do with lack of respect for this important pillar of our democracy.

“It was because of apprehension that I’ll be put in a situation where we are rehashing what the courts have decided about this SARB matter also known as CIEX and also about the Vrede dairy matter,” she said.

Madonsela was scheduled to begin her testimony last Wednesday, but the committee decided to accept her written statement as her evidence, before changing its mind 24 hours later.

Mkhwebane’s counsel Dali Mpofu had told the committee that though Mkhwebane wanted Madonsela as her witness, Madonsela had not co-operated with her successor’s legal team. She had refused to consult them and declined their offer to help her draft her affidavit.

As a result, Mpofu accused the committee conducting the inquiry of “hijacking” Madonsela and making her its witness, saying he could not lead evidence of a witness he had not prepared.

LISTEN | ‘Standards quite low’: Madonsela slams Mpofu for ‘wasting taxpayers’ money’

On Monday, Madonsela said her problem was that Mkhwebane’s lawyers had sent her letters accusing her of “certain things”.

“How are you going to have your statement prepared by somebody who already appears like they are trying to throw you under the bus? Why would you do that?

“This is not an inquiry on my conduct,” she said.

Mkhwebane’s lawyers sent her a list of questions which she found irrelevant, she said.

“I responded accordingly, asking for relevance and also indicating that to the extent that they need that information, I am not the person who has that information. The information is with the public protector, in the archives and staff members.”

In response, Mkhwebane’s lawyers sent a new set of questions which were also irrelevant, said Madonsela.

“Again my response was to ask, what is the relevance of these questions? Is this my impeachment process because if it is, this is the wrong forum ... This is a forum about my successor Adv Mkhwebane,” she said.

Mpofu said committee chairperson Richard Dyantyi was the final arbiter of what was relevant. “Do you understand that?” he asked.

“I do understand, but you are paid for every word you utter, I am losing time for every word I utter. So, as professionals we also have to be self-regulating about what we ask and what we discuss without waiting for the chairperson to tell us,” responded Madonsela.

“You are wrong, I’m not paid for every word I utter. But I forgive you because you wouldn’t know,” fired back Mpofu, and so the fireworks began.

The two quibbled for hours about everything from how many statements Madonsela had made to the inquiry, whether her affidavit was properly or illegally signed and initialled, the contents of the letters between them and about the fights they had in the build-up to Madonsela’s appearance.

Mpofu questioned how Madonsela could find questions about her role in the allegations of ill-treatment of two complainants by the office of the public protector during her reign and about relevant HR issues and policies regarding security clearance.

Madonsela insisted these were irrelevant as the inquiry was not about her but about allegations against Mkhwebane.

She repeatedly accused Mpofu of wasting taxpayers’ money with either his line of questioning, or asking what she said were irrelevant questions.

“Every minute is wasting taxpayers’ money.”

They spent over an hour arguing about whether Madonsela changed a statement that had been attested to and signed by a commissioner of oaths which they both agreed would be illegal.

She retorted that Mpofu’s accusation was “quite low, even by your standards”, a remark she repeated as they continued to lock horns.

Dyantyi intervened and instructed Madonsela to “tone down on that kind of strong language” after Mpofu complained about “the insults” and threatened to fight back.

The inquiry continues on Tuesday.

TimesLIVE