Tussle over whether ex-PP Mkhwebane due an end-of-service gratuity unresolved
The Public Protector’s office has confirmed to Eyewitness News that Mkhwebane has sent it a letter of demand for the around R10 million she believes is due to her.
FILE: Former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane outside the Public Protector's head office in Pretoria on 5 September 2023. Picture: Jacques Nelles/Eyewitness News
CAPE TOWN - The tussle over whether former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane is due an end-of-service gratuity remains unresolved.
The Public Protector’s office has confirmed to Eyewitness News that Mkhwebane has sent it a letter of demand for the around R10 million she believes is due to her.
Mkhwebane, now an Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) member of Parliament, insists that despite being impeached, she’s still owed a gratuity in terms of the conditions of service for Public Protectors adopted by the National Assembly in 2002.
Mkhwebane was removed from office in September, a month before her seven-year term would have officially ended.
Four months since Mkhwebane became the first head of a Chapter Nine institution to be dismissed from office, the Public Protector’s office said it was still determining whether it was authorised to pay her a gratuity.
The Public Protector’s conditions of service, which were made a resolution of the National Assembly in 2002, state that a Public Protector is due a gratuity according to a specified formula once the incumbent vacates office.
But spokesperson for the Public Protector, Ndili Msoki, said the office was not the custodian of these conditions of service.
"The PPSA’s responsibilities are determined by the Public Finance Management Act to ensure that any expenditure defrayed from its budget is properly authorised."
However, parliamentary spokesperson, Moloto Mothapo, disagreed.
He said it was not for Parliament to determine how these conditions were implemented.
"The responsibility for implementing the resolution lies with the office of the Public Protector."
Mothapo said Parliament was advised by senior counsel that there’s no ambiguity in the National Assembly’s resolution related to the Public Protector’s conditions of service.
"Parliament’s endeavour for a legal opinion was solely focused on the scrutiny of the wording of the resolution and did not extend to the implementation thereof."
Mkhwebane has not responded to requests for comment.