Ebrahim told the committee the process was “inquisitorial” and the role of evidence leaders was to present evidence.
“That is their role. Can they do so in the presence of the public protector and her legal team? The golden thread is the process must be fair.
“My understanding is the public protector will be afforded an opportunity to deal with whatever evidence is presented here today [Monday].”
Ebrahim said the first opportunity for Mkhwebane was when she appears before the committee to answer their questions and that of evidence leaders.
“The process evidence leaders seek to do is to equip members to ask questions. It can be said the public protector would be at an advantage, possibly because she will be aware of contradictions and gaps evidence leaders present and will have an opportunity to prepare for possible questions arising out of that.”
If it was an “adversarial” process, that would not have happened because evidence leaders would “keep their cards close to their chest” rather than identify problem areas in her evidence.
“It would have been ideal if the public protector's [legal] team was here. The committee has a duty to ensure it proceeds in a manner that ensures its work is done in a reasonable time frame,” Ebrahim said.
TimesLIVE
Parliamentary adviser says evidence leaders can present evidence to committee without Mkhwebane
Parliamentary legal adviser Fatima Ebrahim says it is acceptable for evidence leaders at the inquiry into suspended public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane's fitness to hold office to present evidence to the committee without her and her legal team's presence.
Parliament's legal services was called in on Monday after Mkhwebane and some committee members objected to evidence leaders presenting evidence while she was without a legal representative.
Mkhwebane asked to be excused after committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi said Monday's meeting was not an inquiry but a committee meeting. Dyantyi called the evidence leaders to address evidence by Mkhwebane in the past six days.
Dyantyi had ruled that evidence leaders could present the evidence without Mkhwebane's legal representatives.
Ebrahim told the committee the process was “inquisitorial” and the role of evidence leaders was to present evidence.
“That is their role. Can they do so in the presence of the public protector and her legal team? The golden thread is the process must be fair.
“My understanding is the public protector will be afforded an opportunity to deal with whatever evidence is presented here today [Monday].”
Ebrahim said the first opportunity for Mkhwebane was when she appears before the committee to answer their questions and that of evidence leaders.
“The process evidence leaders seek to do is to equip members to ask questions. It can be said the public protector would be at an advantage, possibly because she will be aware of contradictions and gaps evidence leaders present and will have an opportunity to prepare for possible questions arising out of that.”
If it was an “adversarial” process, that would not have happened because evidence leaders would “keep their cards close to their chest” rather than identify problem areas in her evidence.
“It would have been ideal if the public protector's [legal] team was here. The committee has a duty to ensure it proceeds in a manner that ensures its work is done in a reasonable time frame,” Ebrahim said.
TimesLIVE