Cape Town - It was a showdown between Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane and the chairperson of the Section 194 committee, Qubudile Dyantyi, at the start of the committee session on Tuesday.
This comes after Mkhwebane wanted to address the meeting about a letter of demand she sent to Dyantyi after the committee was to continue with receiving important aspects of her testimony after the inquiry adjourned pending resolution of funding of her legal costs.
As soon as Dyantyi opened the meeting, Mkhwebane raised her hand on the virtual platform, indicating her wish to speak at the meeting.
Dyantyi said he noted her hand and that he was to hear her out.
“I want to explain this is a committee meeting and people who participate in it are members only.
“I would not want to entertain any other person except the members. It is a committee meeting,” he said.
Dyantyi also indicated that he would not allow her to speak and that she would have to find another way if she needed to communicate with him.
“It is a committee meeting and I am allowing only members to participate,” he added.
But Mkhwebane spoke without being given a go-ahead.
“I have written you an urgent letter,” she said.
When Dyantyi noted he would look at it, Mkhwebane continued nonetheless.
“It is not for you only. It is for the committee and evidence leaders are not members of the committee,” she stated.
Dyantyi ordered that Mkhwebane be muted as she had not been given the platform to speak.
“You are completely out of order. I am not going to take that attitude from you.”
He again stated that the meeting was for the MPs and warned her not to repeat what she did.
In her response, Mkhwebane said she would release the letter to the public.
“I will release the letter,” she said.
Mkhwebane then took to Twitter, where she posted it and stated that she wanted it introduced into the record, but Dyantyi gave instruction that she be muted.
“The current ‘committee meeting’ is a gross violation of my rights and the agreed procedure,” she said.
In her letter, Mkhwebane expressed her deep concerns about the postponement of the inquiry only to be replaced by a “committee meeting”.
She described it as “actually an opportunity given to the evidence leaders to present closing arguments regarding the merits of charges 11.3 and 11.4 of the Mazzone motion”.
Cape Times