Does the public need protection?
The mixed reaction of the courts' damning findings against the public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane should raise the consciousness of every South African.
There is a serious need to ask if it is not South Africans who must be protected against the public protector.
The narrative that arms of state, who either challenge or set aside the public protector's reports, are setting a wrong precedent is a farce or far too ignorant to the rule of law that places the constitution ahead of people's ego.
When society raise their opinions about the impartiality and professionalism in the conduct of Mkhwebane as a person, it should never be translated as an attack on the office itself, because the two are not one thing.
The fruitless and wasteful expenditures that the state coffers have lost under the current public protector can't be ignored.
The public protector's decision to investigate the recruitment and selection of Sars's Edward Kieswetter should raise an alarm.
We all understand the crucial role that Sars plays in our economy and the credibility of its head is important, however, if the public protector should prioritise the recruitment of a person who doesn't have a year in office, can't the public not ask itself if there are no cases against municipalities that are not servicing citizens or other burning issues?
South Africans shouldn't fall into a trap of political rhetoric that places white capital monopoly as the biggest threat of our economic development - more than corruption.
Monopoly is monopoly regardless of the colour of the cabal that push for it.
So the narrative that the public protector is under threat for dismantling white capital monopoly is too shallow.
Rofhiwa Phaswana, e-mail