Search for deputy Public Protector will have to begin afresh with the seventh Parliament
Justice Committee Chairperson Bulelani Magwanishe said that the new Parliament will need to tighten the rules to ensure that MPs who have a conflict of interest in matters before them, declare this upfront.
The position for a deputy public protector is in the process of being filled. Picture: Facebook/Public Protector South Africa
CAPE TOWN - The Democratic Alliance (DA) said that the seventh Parliament will need to review whether an impeached public office bearer, should be allowed to serve as a member of parliament (MP).
This comes after former public protector, now Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) MP Busisiwe Mkhwebane refused to recuse herself over her connections to two candidates interviewed in March, to become the next deputy public protector.
It means that the Public Protector’s office will have to remain without a deputy, for several more months, with the National Assembly on Thursday agreeing that the new Parliament will have to start the recruitment process, afresh.
Justice Committee Chairperson Bulelani Magwanishe said that the new Parliament will need to tighten the rules to ensure that MPs who have a conflict of interest in matters before them, declare this upfront.
The DA said that it can’t be blamed for flagging the conflict of interest involving EFF MP Mkhwebane, once candidates were already flown to Cape Town to be interviewed for the job of deputy public protector.
One of the candidates was an employee of that office who testified against Mkhwebane in her parliamentary impeachment inquiry, while another is an advocate representing her for free in a human rights matter.
But Mkhwebane insists that her presence was not problematic, and that the two candidates involved did not object to her involvement when asked.
She has rubbished Parliament’s legal opinion and accused the chairperson of weak leadership.
Mkhwebane said that her exclusion is part of a campaign to exclude the EFF from parliamentary work.
"There was no legal basis for this and it smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order.
The onus rests on the party alleging bias to prove with the facts that there’s a reasonable apprehension of bias."
the committee has not said how much money was wasted on the failed process.