Former public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane is not backing down in her legal battles, as she files papers to the constitutional court to challenge the dismissal of a moot appeal and criticize judges for their treatment of her counsel, advocate Dali Mpofu.
In the papers filed, Mkhwebane takes aim at appellate court justice Visvanathan Ponnan, accusing him of defaming Mpofu in a ruling that dismissed her appeal to the high court’s decision regarding her removal from office. She alleges that Ponnan launched a “scurrilous” personal attack on Mpofu and calls on the apex court to reprimand him for his actions.
Mkhwebane’s legal challenges stem from her removal from office in September, with one specific case involving an interlocutory application to remove the chairman of parliament’s section 194 impeachment inquiry, Qubudile Dyantyi, and Democratic Alliance member Kevin Mileham. The Western Cape high court dismissed this application in May 2023, stating that piecemeal reviews of proceedings were not appropriate.
The supreme court of appeal also dismissed Mkhwebane’s appeal in October, with Ponnan penning the ruling that called the matter “curiouser and curiouser.” The court found that the appeal was not properly brought before them, as Mkhwebane no longer held the position of public protector.
Following this ruling, Mkhwebane launched an attack on the court, accusing Ponnan of arrogance and bias. She also made controversial remarks about individuals of Indian descent who she claimed were persecuting her, including late minister Pravin Gordhan and others involved in her legal battles.
Mkhwebane’s outburst was met with condemnation from both the judiciary and parliament, with the latter denouncing her “racial slurs” and reminding her of her duty to uphold constitutional values as a former MP. Despite offering a partial apology to parliament’s legal advisors, Mkhwebane did not apologize to the SCA judges who struck her application off the roll.
If she had not resigned as an MP for the Economic Freedom Fighters, Mkhwebane would have faced a complaint from Freedom Under Law for scandalizing the court. She has since joined the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party, following in the footsteps of advocate Dali Mpofu.
In her application to the apex court, Mkhwebane made no racial inferences towards Ponnan but accused him of bullying Mpofu. The SCA ruling was a unanimous decision, with the court finding the appeal moot, meritless, and frivolous. They stated that her removal from office had been upheld through various legal processes and that no order from the court could change that.
Ponnan criticized Mkhwebane’s legal team for not addressing key points in their arguments and not being well-versed in the relevant authorities. He emphasized the importance of legal research, analysis, and writing skills for appellate practitioners and suggested that Mkhwebane’s counsel did not meet these standards.
As the legal battle continues, Busisiwe Mkhwebane remains determined to challenge the decisions that led to her removal from office, despite facing criticism from the judiciary and parliament. Her efforts to seek justice through the legal system show no signs of slowing down, as she fights to clear her name and restore her reputation. The recent court ruling in the case involving Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has sparked controversy and raised concerns about the conduct of legal representatives in high-profile cases. The court criticized Mkhwebane’s legal counsel, Advocate Dali Mpofu, for pursuing an appeal that was deemed “dead on arrival.” The court pointed out that counsel’s close involvement with a client can lead to biased decision-making and a lack of objectivity.
The court emphasized the importance of legal representatives acting with honesty, candor, and competence to safeguard the integrity of the rule of law. It also highlighted the need for brevity and preparedness in legal advocacy, cautioning against long-winded theatrics and empty rhetoric in court proceedings. The court called out Mpofu for exceeding his allotted time in pleadings and engaging in what was described as “Stalingrad tactics” in a separate case involving Jacob Zuma.
Mkhwebane responded to the court’s criticism, defending Mpofu’s experience and objectivity in the case. She expressed her displeasure with the court’s remarks and accused the judges of unjustly attacking her legal representation. Mkhwebane argued that the court’s comments compromised her right to legal representation and indicated her intention to file a complaint against the presiding judge.
The controversy surrounding Mkhwebane’s case has drawn attention to the role of legal representatives in upholding the principles of justice and fairness. The court’s ruling has raised questions about the conduct of lawyers in high-profile cases and the need for accountability in the legal profession. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining professionalism, objectivity, and respect for the rule of law in all legal proceedings.
