PP Inquiry day 81: Committee Report

Meeting report

Chairperson: Good morning, colleagues and everybody. The time now is 10:00. We are just going to be waiting for a few minutes to get our quorum going. Thank you. I just want to indicate quickly, Thembinkosi, if you have got any apologies before I make the final remarks?

Mr Thembinkosi Ngoma (Committee Secretary): Good morning, Chair and good morning, Members. Chair, I do not have any apologies. Thank you very much.

Chairperson: Mr Ngoma?

Mr Ngoma: Chair, I hope you can hear me?

Chairperson: I cannot hear you. There is an audio [problem] on your side. I can see you. I can see [that] your lips are moving [and] you are trying to smile, but we cannot hear you.

Mr Ngoma: Chairperson, can you hear me now?

Chairperson: Just fix that. We cannot hear you. There is an audio problem that we are not able to hear. I do not know what the problem is.

Mr M Mahlaule (ANC): Actually, the problem is with the Chair.

Chairperson: While Mr Ngoma is sorting that out, I will come back to that.

Mr X Nqola (ANC): Chairperson?

Chairperson: He is indicating on the chart that we have no apologies.

Mr Mahlaule: Chair?

Chairperson: Therefore, colleagues, our agenda has got three items.

Mr Nqola: Chairperson?

Chairperson: Maybe before I proceed, Hon Denner, your hand is up?

Ms H Denner (FF+): Good morning, Chair. No, I just wanted to indicate that I can hear Thembinkosi. Maybe the audio problem is on your side, Chair.

Chairperson: Okay, I cannot hear Hon Denner, so we might have a problem of audio; it seems that it is not only Thembinkosi. I do not know whether it is on my side or… Is it on my side? Okay, I will have to check that. Thank you. Can you hear me now?

Mr Ngoma: Chairperson, we can hear you. Can you hear me?

Chairperson: Okay, so I would have, in my last meeting, muted myself from a long meeting. Now, I understand why. My apologies. Let me start again because it is very clear that none of you would have heard what I said. I have welcomed everybody in this meeting: the Hon Members, all of us on the virtual platform, the evidence leaders, the members of the media, our entire support staff, as well as the members of the public [who are] joining us, as usual, in this long journey of this important work of this Parliamentary Inquiry. I just indicated that Thembinkosi to indicate if we have any apologies. He has already indicated in the chat that we have no apologies. We have three items for today's meeting; and the main business of today's meeting being the consideration and adoption of this draft report, and I will speak to that later. But that main item is flanked by two other items. We will start with the issue of correspondence. Under correspondence, there are mainly three letters that would have been sent to Members that the Chair has already responded to: a letter from Chaane Attorneys withdrawing their services. And we have noted it as such, and indicated to them that once the draft report is adopted, it will be sent directly to the Public Protector. The second letter, or correspondence, comes from a Mr Erasmus, asking the Chair to consider the recusal application and his decision. I also responded to that, indicating that I have no intention to revisit that decision and that his letter will be brought to the Committee for Members' consideration. The third correspondence relates to a letter a few days after the Chaane letter from the PP, indicating that she has no legal reps [representatives] – I would have responded fully. And that letter has been sent to all Members. So I am going to ask Thembinkosi, perhaps, to attend to that item. After that item, we will get straight into our draft report. And we will conclude our meeting by adopting all the outstanding minutes of our work. Mr Ngoma?

Mr Ngoma: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Good morning to you, and good morning to Members. Chair, you have summed [the] correspondence very well. I am not sure if maybe there is something that Ms Ebrahim…? As you already indicated that all the correspondence was shared with the Members. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Ms Ebrahim?

Ms Fatima Ebrahim (Legal advisor to the Committee): Thank you. And good morning to yourself, Chair, and everybody else on the platform. Chair, in terms of the letter from Chaane Attorneys withdrawing, that letter, Members will see, is quite long, and deals with several issues. There was no response directly from the Chairperson to that letter because that letter was the purpose of which was to inform us that Chaane Attorneys was withdrawing – and so it was dealt with at the level of the Secretariat. However, as you indicated, subsequently, the PP did send a follow-up letter, a few days later, indicating that she now finds herself in the position without legal representation. And obviously that this matter must now serve before the Committee for consideration as to whether the Committee intends to proceed with the adoption of the draft report, or to allow the PP the time to now secure new attorneys. In terms of the letter that you sent, that is her indication, she has already touched base with Mr Isaac Chowe of the State Attorney Pretoria to secure herself new attorneys of record. Members would have noted from the report itself, we made mention of the fact that advocates cannot be briefed without attorneys of record doing that briefing; you need to work via them. And so as such, Adv Mpofu has not, together with his two juniors, been briefed since the end of March. And what the PP is now seeking is additional time to allow her to attend to the matter subsequent to the withdrawal of Chaane. In terms of the letter that was sent by the Chair, the Chair reiterates his position that the Committee has not denied Adv Mkhwebane the right to legal representation; rather, it is a case of her not having availed that, notwithstanding that the extra R4 million was made available to her. And the Chair has encouraged that she uses the services of the State Attorney. Members will recall that she previously objected on the basis of there being a, what she called, patent conflict of interest – and the letter from the Chair urges to utilise their services to brief Adv Mpofu to assist her with the last audi that she will receive, which is to respond to this report. But of course, Chair, we are in the hands of Members in terms of how Members wish to proceed on that point.

Chairperson: Thank you. Thank you, Ms Ebrahim and Mr Ngoma, for your inputs on those three correspondence matters. I now invite Members who wish to make contributions and comment on this item. So that we know what is the thinking and a decision of the Committee and the members. You would have been made aware of what the responses of the Chair has been in all of those three correspondences. I now invite Members who want to make a contribution. Hon Lotriet?

Dr A Lotriet (DA): Good morning, Chair and good morning to everyone present. Chairperson, I think we have now gone through a process, as you said, for more than a year. And we have given ample opportunity; we have gone beyond any reasonable opportunity to allow the Public Protector to obtain legal representation. And we have been very, very patient. And I think at this particular point, I also have to say that yes, one can be very disappointed in the actions of some… let me not go there. But basically to say, Chairperson, I think at this point, this Committee must now proceed with the task that we were given: and that is to finalise this report. I do not think we can delay anymore. We have a duty towards the public, the taxpayer, to Parliament. So my proposal will be that we proceed. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Lotriet. Hon Dlakude?

Ms D Dlakude (ANC): Thank you very much, Hon Chairperson. Good morning to you, my colleagues and everyone on the platform. Hon Chair, I fully agree with my colleague, Hon Lotriet, with regards to the Committee work. Hon Chairperson, I do not think it will be difficult for the PP to use the services of the State Attorney to brief the senior counsel, as she has Senior Counsel Mpofu as her senior counsel of choice. He was part of the proceedings since the beginning. So this time around, it is about the issue of the draft report, which we are going to deal with as this Committee. Hon Chairperson, we dealt with this issue, we have come a long way for us to be halted at this stage. So I suggest that we proceed with the work of the Committee, then the State Attorneys will have to brief the Senior Counsel of the PP. Thank you very much, Hon Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Dlakude. As other Members are coming, also respond to [the] other letters, including that of Mr Erasmus, so that it is not taken as if you have not said anything.

Ms Dlakude: Oh, can I come in on that one, Chair?

Chairperson: You can come back. Yes, go ahead.

Ms Dlakude: Thank you very much. I thought we were dealing with this one by one. My apologies. Hon Chairperson, on that letter of Mr Erasmus for your recusal as the Chairperson of this Committee; I just want to say that, Hon Chair, we started this process last year, already, around July. So for that letter to reach this Committee at this stage, I do not think it is acceptable. If there was an issue with the Chairperson of the Committee, that letter should have, with the contents that it has, come before this Committee at the start of the process. So right now, Hon Chairperson, the issues that Mr Erasmus is raising are not issues that as this Committee we would want to deal with. We are not dealing with those issues. Our mandate as this Committee was to embark on an inquiry of which is what we have been doing since the start of the Inquiry. Hon Chairperson, I submit. Thanks.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Dlakude, for your second bite. I now recognise Hon Maotwe. Hon Omphile Maotwe, you are recognised.

Ms O Maotwe (EFF): Thank you, Chair, and greetings. I am battling with connectivity. Chair, I do not know how else to say this without sounding like, you know, it is rhetoric, but to this day, the PP does not have legal representation. And it is not something of her own making. Let us just remind each other that this was as a result of the withdrawal of funding from the Office of the Acting PP, which has now resulted into the situation we find ourselves in. Now, I have seen the correspondence between you and her and the legal representatives [and] State Attorneys. But the essence of it is that she does not have a legal rep, and to ignore that fact, just because we want to rush the process and finalise it, it is unfair: it does not need a brainer to know that that is unfair. She has explained several times. Firstly, she said that she is not comfortable with the State Attorneys representing her, for reasons she outlined – that I am not going to repeat. Secondly, they are not the legal rep of her choice. So we cannot force them on her, despite the fact that she has even raised concerns of conflict of interest. So I do not know why we would want, honestly, to rush [and] finalise this process without her being afforded the opportunity to get the legal reps, and we have a fair process in front of us. I am appealing to the Committee Members to say, let us re-look this. We might not like her, but she is in that office. And we are here representing South Africans, all of us. In the spirit of fairness, let us afford her the opportunity to have legal reps. We will still conclude the process. I do not think there is anyone here who would want… I mean, we have been here for more than a year now: all of us. We are actually tired of this process. But as tiring as it is, it cannot be a process that at the end of the day, it does not pass the test of fairness; because as it is now, it is not fair on her part. It is like a witch hunt on her, that despite her voice expressing how this is so unfair in the fact that there is a conflict of interest: one. Two, it is not her attorneys of preference. So why are we forcing them? And they came out as well – the State Attorney – now they withdrew. So, Chair, we are back to square one, where the PP does not have legal representation. Let us bear with her. Let us find her one. Let us finish this process. It has been unfair from the beginning, I must say. It is not only now that it is going to be unfair; it has been very unfair. I mean, you have had a lot of applications for your own recusal, Chair; unfairness related to the legal team and all those things. But we are saying we are almost at the end of the process now. Let us just present a fair closure to this matter. That will be my input on that subject, Chair. I thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Maotwe. Hon Siwela?

Ms V Siwela (ANC): Thank you, Chairperson. Greetings to Hon Members. Chair, let me join other colleagues on this matter. I think we have got three issues before us. The first one is the one which is dealing with you. We are saying, Chair, we are not even interested to entertain Erasmus’ letter, because it is not even related to our task; it deals with issues of 2019 which is not relevant to this task. Secondly, so you are not going anywhere. We are proceeding with you as the Chair. We are in support of what you have alluded that you are not leaving the Committee. And you are not the only decision-maker, as the Chairperson, you are just chairing the meeting. So we are saying we are not entertaining that particular letter. Secondly, on the issue of legal representatives; I think State Attorneys are there. The issue of unfairness, I think we have been patient enough. I want to agree with the first speaker, that we have been patient. At the same time, we must look at both sides of the coin. The issue of taxpayers’ money, and also the issue of the PP need to be treated equally. We are in agreement that she must have [a] legal representative. But on the issue of the draft report itself, I do not think that there is any problem because we are going to make sure that the report is being tabled. And the legal representatives, which, at this stage will be the State Attorneys, will brief the CC [meant SC]. And my understanding is that the CC, Adv Mpofu, has been with him [her] throughout the process – he is familiar with all the issues. So I do not see any problem there. We must just continue with the draft report because we want to conclude this matter otherwise, we are highly abusing taxpayers money in this regard. So I am saying to my Hon Members that let us conclude the process and let [us] allow our Public Protector to respond because you will be given an opportunity to respond. For now we are not judging anyone, there is no one who is guilty here, but let us allow the process to unfold so that we exercise or execute our task, as per the mandate by the National Assembly. That is my submission, Chairperson. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Siwela. I now recognise Hon Maneli. Hon Maneli? Hon Boyce Maneli?

Mr B Maneli (ANC): Yes, Chair. I take it that I am audible now?

Chairperson: Yes, you are.

Mr Maneli: Thank you, Chair. Greetings to Hon Members on the platform. Hon Chair, with regards to the three letters, I think there has been commentary already. At the time I was raising…

Chairperson: You are muted again. Hon Maneli, you have muted yourself.

Mr Maneli: No, it is the gadget itself. Sorry, Chair. I am just saying, Chair… My point really, at the time, was to really note the three letters that have been presented to the Committee. Also noting that as the Chairperson you have responded to it as far as you can to those letters, to support that there has been a response to the letters. Of course, with the letter that regards the recusal, I think that matter has been covered by Hon Dlakude; except, Chair, to make the point that when one looked at the letter – that is why we were not commenting probably – was because we have already made a call, Chair, that matters that seek to distract the Committee from doing what it is supposed to do, we would not entertain going forward. But I took it, Chair, that you wanted t be transparent, that that was received and that was responded to, because from where we are, really, they have nothing to do with the matter at hand before this Committee. I think Hon Dlakude explained even the timing of it as information raised seems to be something else [and] not what we are dealing with as the Committee. With regard to the withdrawal, Chair, again, there I think it is a matter, like the legal services would have explained – that it has been responded to administratively. But I think, for me, of concern, Chair, which I want to register, because this then borders on what we are now told as unfairness. First and foremost, Chair, the attorney that is withdrawing is not an imposed attorney, he is an attorney of choice of the Public Protector. And this is the same attorneys, Chair, that were on a dead bed. This is what was presented to this Committee… to South Africans. Miraculously, this attorney also rose back, again, from the deathbed, and was ready to move in because he is alive and kicking. So it is important to make this point, because there has not even been the State Law Advisors coming in, in this case, because that was clear and that was at the time of a deathbed situation. Thereafter, as I say, miraculously, he was back to life [and] alive and kicking, ready to take up the task. Again, Chair, from the point of fairness, the same people were appointed because those are the attorneys of choice: not of the Committee, not of anybody else. And it is them who are now withdrawing having not briefed the senior counsel, which was the main purpose of appointing [them]. But, of course, they have done other tasks, other than the main task of ensuring that this Inquiry is able to proceed with the senior counsel having been briefed properly. So I just thought it is important to make this point, because I am worried, Chair, that probably between the miraculous and the withdrawal there may have been costs incurred from the same money of the taxpayers; that was fought for by this Committee outside what they are supposed to do, but just to make sure that the Inquiry proceeds. That is how that additional R4 million came about. So I am worried that you may not report R4 million in that period of rising from the deathbed, miraculously so, and then you have the withdrawal at the end. I am saying it should not be left unattended, Chair, so that South Africans at least know what we are dealing with as this Committee in trying to be fair and that fairness is seen to be practised from here. I just thought I must spend time on that part. And I understand the third one, Chair, to be about formally, as the client elected to have these attorneys ‘That I am formally informing you that my attorneys have withdrawn. Therefore, I am following a process to get attorneys in that regard.’ And I think the last point to make, Chair, is that: then having assessed these letters in the way we have looked at them now, I think, Chair, I want to still agree with earlier speakers, that necessarily the letters have no bearing on the main item of today. Today’s report is not about the PP being represented at this point, it is about the Committee satisfying itself that its inputs, and everything else, has been put in the draft report, and therefore adopted as its draft report. So that then report – again, from a principle of fairness, again – cannot be a final report until it is also given to the PP as part of audi; for the PP to also make comments, if she elects to do so, which the Committee should consider; or elects not to in that way. That will also be a response that the PP would have also been satisfied that the information put in the report is adopted by the Committee, and that there is probably nothing to contest in that regard. So I just thought that I should make that point, Chair, so that we do not clump the letters and the main purpose, which you put as the discussion that will ensue in this Committee. I thank you, Chair, for now.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Maneli. I now recognise Hon Sukers.

Ms M Sukers (ACDP): Good morning, Chair. Good morning to all my colleagues on the platform and everybody listening in. Chair, mine is just to support what has been said by the colleagues in terms of the importance of the Committee proceeding with its work. Secondly, the issue around fairness has been traversed extensively throughout this year long period. And lastly, Chair, to add that the bill that is being footed here, is footed by the South African taxpayer. That bill well exceeds R26 million if we add what has been made available now, in addition to ensure that, again, the PP has legal representation in these proceedings. And, Chair, we are beyond what is considered reasonable in regard to the constitutional obligation that we have as a Committee, to within a reasonable timeframe complete the work that is before us. So I strongly support what has been said: we need to proceed. And also, Chair, to add, that this body of Parliament is responsible for oversight over the Public Protector. Her obligation is to this Parliament. It is for her to appear as a head of a Chapter Nine Institution before this body and account. Chair, it is our job to ensure that it happens. So, Chair, we must proceed. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Denner… Hon Sukers. I now recognise Hon Nqola.

Mr Nqola: Good morning, Chair. Good morning to my colleagues. Chair, I must say that I have struggled to grasp two issues as it relates to Mr Erasmus’ so-called recusal application or reconsideration of the recusal of the Chair. The first, Chair, is the relevance, the entire substantive relevance of Mr Erasmus’ letter to the Committee, because I think Mr Erasmus went all over the place and failed to grasp and shoot straight to neither the Motion, the report of the Independent Panel, the court rulings around these reports that are before the table here. So I have struggled to actually get the actual substantive submission in relation to the charges, the Motion, and everything else that is related to the work of this Committee. Chair, I really do not understand how an organised committee meeting of the ANC, legal and monitoring, the ATM (African Transformation Movement), are actually relevant to the context at which this Committee was formed. But I saw one attempt to get closer to the CR17 Report. But he even fails to go further, because Mr Erasmus speaks about the CR17 report of the PP, but fails to say what then the court said about the report itself, that even the applicable laws in that report were just misconceived; the issue of POCA [Prevention of Organised Crime Act] and PRECCA [Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act], the code of ethical conduct was misconceived. I think, Chair, from where I am seated, the letter by Mr Erasmus is too much far from the work of the Committee. They are not related. Maybe we would have, in a different platform, attended to the sentiments shared by the letter, but in this platform they really do not share a link of the work of this Committee. So, Chair, I think the Committee must uphold your decision to refuse to recuse yourself on the basis of what was said in the letter of Mr Erasmus. Two, Chair, I am not quite sure what then becomes the locus standi in the proceedings of the Committee? I am not quite sure, Chair, because we want to be fair, so we would allow all the more than 56 million citizens of the country to write to the Committee. But I think, Chair, because we have done it before. We have allowed a group of advocates to barge in a Committee meeting and we allowed them to address us because we would actually not want to be far from society as we continue doing this work on their behalf. So I think that is the spirit we are actually entertaining Mr Erasmus. Otherwise, from where I am sitting, Mr Erasmus does not even have a locus standi to be sending us recusal applications as this Committee. Nevertheless, Chair, for fairness purposes, we would have entertained the contents of his letter. But I think, Chair, we must not even go deeper because he is discussing apples while we are busy with bananas in the Committee. So I think let us just be sharp on the issue of relevance of the issues submitted by Mr Erasmus. Chair, I think on the issue of the withdrawal of the legal representatives… Chair, I wish to plead with this Committee that we must not allow any one of us to use the decision of the Constitutional Court on the legal representation of the PP as a weapon of mass destruction. At no point did this Committee refuse to allow the PP to be legally represented in this Committee. But I think it has been an issue that has been used as a missile to take the Committee from pillar to post for whatever reason that has no interest of fairness, that has no interest of justice being served, that has no interest of adherence to the role that this must be done in a reasonable time period. So, we have done everything in our power, Chair, even halted the proceedings, and went and acted ultra vires because we assisted issues of legal representation that were not part of our own role, because the Committee must be seen and must be known as the most fair Committee; that must allow the PP to have her own representatives in the proceedings. But it does look, though, that the legal representative matter becomes, now, a missile or a weapon of mass destruction. And we must remind Committee Members that even the issue of the State Attorney was requested by the PP. It is the PP that requested that the State Attorney must come to the rescue because of the challenges of legal representation. And later, that submission was changed by the same PP. It must not be seen by Members and the public that we imposed the State Attorney to the PP: it is not true, Chair. We acted upon the request of the PP that the State Attorney must come to the fore. Lastly, Chair, I wish to share the same sentiments that Hon Maneli shared here, that actually, Chair, the meetings of 28 July and 30 July was a Committee meeting. Today’s meeting is a Committee meeting to attend to matters relating to a draft report; a draft report that which is going to be shared with the PP for last commentary. That is where the PP, then, will require her legal representation, not in this meeting. So there is a time period at which the PP will be allowed to analyse and look at everything that is raised in the draft report, and therefore respond accordingly with help from her own legal representatives. So, Chair, I wish to concur with the Members that said we must, today, proceed with the agenda as set. Thank you very much.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Nqola, for your contribution. I now recognise Hon Denner, to be followed by Hon Mileham as the last speaker.

Ms Denner: Thank you, Chair. Good morning to everyone. Chairperson, I think we are now past the point where recusal applications are even irrelevant, so I do not think it should even be considered. That is my first point. My second point, Chair, and I have said it before, is we have been more than fair during this process toward the Public Protector. And I mean, I actually agree with Hon Maneli that today's meeting is where we as [the] Committee must consider our draft report. I think we should continue without further ado, I think we have done everything we can to ensure that this process has been fair. So I think we should continue, finish the report and conclude this process without wasting any further time. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Denner. Hon Mileham?

Mr K Mileham (DA): Thank you, Chairperson. Chair, I apologise for the quality of my connection. I am in a very spotty internet area. I want to raise a question to Ms Fatima Ebrahim, and maybe the Committee can then give some consideration to it. So my question is this: Rule 129 a d says that the Public Protector has the right to be heard in her own defence and to be assisted by a legal practitioner or other experts of her choice. That is what the rule says. It does not say she has to be represented by a legal practitioner; it says that she has to be assisted. Now my question is this, would that assistance require that Adv Mpofu be briefed by an attorney? In other words, because we are not a court of law, do we have to follow the same court processes where an advocate is briefed by an attorney? Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Mileham. Before I give to Ms Ebrahim to quickly respond to that, and then I do the summary and the ruling on these correspondence matters, is there any other Member that I am missing? None. Thank you. Ms Ebrahim, any quick points from your side on that, or any other issue you want to pick up before I do the summary?

Ms Ebrahim: Thank you, Chair. Unfortunately, Chair, in terms of the Code of Conduct that is applicable to legal practitioners from the Legal Practice Council, regardless of the fact that this is not a court process, Adv Mpofu would have to be briefed via attorneys – so he would not be able to accept a brief directly from the PPSA.

Chairperson: Okay, thank you. I hope that clarifies it: brief and to the point. Hon Members, Hon Mileham says thumbs up – he is okay with the response. Just to conclude this item on the correspondence having listened to you, just as a summary from the Chair, and our ruling on this matter. I think maybe just before one does that it's important that you would have noted in, especially in my letter to the PP… I would have indicated that, and reminded the Public Protector, her attorneys of choice – Chaane, in this case – there would have been a to and fro correspondence between myself, as the Chair, and the PP and her legal rep, where they indicated – just to remind you – that they wanted to familiarise themselves with what the evidence that we have on the drop box and everything else, and they would have indicated [that they needed] a month to do that, which we rejected. There was no basis for them to do that. Those attorneys were onboarding into this process. So in fact, when at the point of that letter of attorneys withdrawing, it was exactly after that month that they needed to peruse. After completing that month of perusing – that the next action is to withdraw. I am hoping that they did peruse and that they familiarise themselves with that. But the next point is not to say ‘We have now familiarised ourselves and now we are ready to brief the senior counsel.’ So the next point is ‘We are now withdrawing’citing various unsubstantiated issues in that regard. Secondly, the suspended Public Protector, since our intervention to secure this funding, has had time, since the month of May up to August, to brief the senior counsel. She has not done that. The only time the senior counsel would have been briefed was in relation to the recusal application. So there was no difficulty in briefing. There was always a way to brief, but it depends on what they wanted to brief. So the issue here is not [that] there is an obstacle in briefing the senior counsel, otherwise they would not have briefed the senior counsel for the recusal application if there was that difficulty. So it is important to contextualise those issues. And so I hear Members quite clearly. Firstly, let me deal with the Erasmus reconsideration matter. I think Members are very clear that, as a Committee, you reject that: there is no relevance. Hon Nqola would have gone into detail in unpacking how that relevance lacks into that and that it belongs to a different platform, not this Section 194 [Committee]. And in summary, collectively Members are in support of the response of the Chair and the indication of not revisiting that response. And so I think we should put that aside. And Mr Erasmus will be informed accordingly about the Committee's deliberations and decision on the matter. I think, on the issues of both the Chaane and PP, Members are of the view that, restating what you have said before, this Committee has gone beyond reasonable patience for this process, contrary to what would have been raised before – that we have a predetermined outcome, we have rushed into this process. We have been more than fair; beyond being fair, even to a point where we would have paused on the actual mandate of this and tried to assist on other matters to ensure that things get back to this Committee. You are of the view that we must proceed and finalise as we get to the next point of the draft report, and finalise our draft report. The suspended Public Protector must brief her senior counsel of choice in preparation for her final audi, in response to the draft report. I think there is also an issue raised – a very critical matter – that says, this issue of fairness must also be looked beyond the suspended Public Protector. It is also about the interest of the public; issues of [the] taxpayer footing the bill have been raised around this. And there has been a serious concern raised about the cost that would have been incurred, even with the substantial R4 million that would have been made available – today's meeting is not looking into that. And so that this withdrawal of the legal attorneys would have no bearing in us considering and adopting our draft report today. The PP has effectively not been denied – and I say so in the letter in response to her – legal representatives. There is a withdrawal, which is not the same as this Committee denying her a legal representative: that must be very clear. And still urge her to brief her senior counsel because we have mobilised the resources. In the manner we did, the resources are still available to her disposal to do that. I think, further, there is a point being made that the Constitutional Court’s position on legal representatives must not be abused. And therefore we must put it into a proper context. So that is really the majority of views that Members have raised here. I do note Hon Maotwe, on this issue, making the point that the issues that the PP finds herself in are not of her own making – so that point has been registered. We are not going to get into details about that and unpack that. But that would be the summary and the ruling on this matter, Hon Members, which basically says Mr Erasmus’ reconsideration letter is rejected; that there is no basis [and] it does not belong here. It is irrelevant. There is another platform. He needs to look into another address to take his matter. And on the issues of the legal rep and the withdrawal of that, Members have been very clear that the onus is not on the Committee, the onus remains with the Public Protector to ensure that she briefs the senior counsel to be ready to assist her in response to the draft report that we are going to get to next. So I thank you very much, Hon Members. We are going to step off that matter now. I am now going to invite… And then we get into our next point, which is our main point of today: the consideration of this report by ourselves, as the Committee. I think it is important to make the point that on the 28th and the 30th of July we spent about eighteen hours; ten hours on the Friday the 29th of July, and eight hours on Sunday, the 30th of July, with Members of this Committee. This Committee, in its own way, designing… creating a proper framework of this draft report. We did that charge by charge. We did that sub-charge by sub-charge; where the Committee would have made decisions in its own way on those charges and those sub-charges and indicated where it is going. And at the end of those eighteen hours, we then agreed that we are going to ask the Secretariat, our support team, to put together the deliberations, the decisions of the Committee, having spent those two long days on this report. And we would have given them a week or so to do that work. I want to upfront appreciate the work of the support team, our legal advisor – Ms Ebrahim –, together with the evidence leaders and all the support staff, for having knuckled down since the 30th of July, to sit every day, every night, flowing from the determination of the Committee on each of those matters, to put a very comprehensive report, in parts A and B. At some point, you would get tired in reading and you have to read this paragraph 1029 of the report, which has to 244 pages and then you go to the next with 247. It is commendable work that has been done: sacrifice, commitment and determination. And that work was able to be put together. And you would have received on the 8th of August, Tuesday, both parts A and B of that report, which details the entire journey of the work of this Committee from day one, even as we designed our roadmap. This report that has been submitted to you, take[s] us through that journey, both the historical and the now, and goes deep into what you would have indicated around all of those charges. And so you would have had some time to go through that and read, because you are not reading something new that you were coming across for the first time, you were reading your own work, your own product – and especially on the 28th and the 30th of July. And so the report is therefore, as we get into the consideration of this draft report with a purpose to adopt it, is taken as read, as it would have been submitted to yourselves. We are taking an approach that I am going to ask Ms Ebrahim to summarise, to take us through the summary, section by section, of that report. Because today, we are not going to do what we did on the 28th and the 30th, where it was [a] hard slog on those two days, because this is our report. And so she is going to take us through in presenting a summary of that report, section by section. We will be flexible in a particular section where you want to reappraise yourself, where you want to remind yourself or reassure [yourself] about certain details, we can quickly go and say this is where it comes from in this detail of this evidence in case you have forgotten something. But we have agreed that we are going to take a look in this way, especially if you agree on that approach. I would now want to invite Ms Ebrahim to take the Members through the summary of our report, starting with part A. And thereafter, we will take a break. Go to part B. We will take a break. We are also going to go to a conclusion and recommendation section. So see it as kind of three parts of the summary that we are going to get into. Ms Ebrahim?

Ms Ebrahim: Thank you so much, Chairperson. Chair, I am not going to switch my video on because I am to ask for Tshepo to put it up on the screen. I think that is going to be easier.

Chairperson: Thank you, that is fine. Go ahead.

Ms Ebrahim: Chairperson, what we done is that we divided the draft report into two parts, a section A and section B. Section A deals with the introduction and charges one through to three, whereas part B deals with charge four, as well as the conclusion that needs to be inserted, and the recommendation to the NA. I am starting on section A of the Part A of the report. Tshepo, you can just move down. So, Chair, I just want to start off by saying that since sending it to Members on Tuesday, we have made very minor changes, nothing of substance. It has been tracked, so Members may see as we go along that there has been a change. One of the things, for example, that I did afterwards is where we mentioned impeachment. I have changed it to removal, except insofar as it was Adv Mkhwebane or her legal team that used that terminology. And Members may recall quite early on in the process. When I had given one of my briefings, I explained that in South Africa we do not use the terminology of impeachment – Section 194 does not refer to it as that, it talks of removal from office. I have made that an example of a change. We have started off with abbreviations, and these are carried through for purposes of both parts of the report, but we can move through that fairly quickly. These terms are also captured in the content itself. So where, for example, we use Asset Forfeiture Unit, we would have said it in full and then in brackets, AFU. So it is not necessary that Members would have to keep referring back to this table. But it is just there to make things easier for the readers, especially those that would not have been involved in the process. You can move down.

Ms Tshepo Morie (Second Committee Secretary): Fatima, for easier reference, I have the headings on the left side of the screen, so you can just tell me where to go if there is a specific area that you want to go to.

Ms Ebrahim: Okay, I think we can skip all of these beginning parts. The only other thing is that we have listed the cases referred to and we have also listed persons whose names appear in the report. And it is not necessarily every person because some people are really just mentioned once, so it was not necessary. The only change that I made last night was to add the name of Ms Zulu-Sokoni there, because we have in fact mentioned her on more than one occasion. I think we can then skip to Roman numeral one, background and overview. Chair, that, very briefly, was just an introduction to Chapter Nine Institutions – the principles that govern these institutions such as independence, impartiality, non-interference, et cetera. The fact that this Committee is the committee that is envisaged in Section 194, who is charged with determining the veracity of these charges. And members will recall quite early on that Adv Mpofu argued, I think it might have even been during these opening statements, that this Committee was not the committee for purposes of [Section] 194, but Members did not agree to that. ‘Initiation of Inquiry’, that is number two there, Tshepo – Roman numeral two. That just sketches a background that there was a substantive motion that was ruled in order, as per the removal rules; that it was referred to an independent panel and that that panel's reports before the NA, and that is how the Motion came to be before this Committee. The next one, Tshepo, ‘Scope of Inquiry.’ Chair, this section sets out the fact that the Committee has considered all of the charges in the Motion and not only those in respect of which the Independent Panel had found prima facie evidence of; and we set out why the Committee treated it as such. Legal advice was given on this very early on because it was one of the first objections raised by Adv Mkhwebane. So this really just summarises and captures the previous advice given. Number four, ‘Legal framework of the Inquiry and the Committee proceedings.’ There, just a real quick summary of the applicable NA Rules, the terms of reference that the Committee adopted on 22 February 2022, which provided for the use of an evidence leader; the fact that the Chair has issued directives, we explain why that that was necessary; and then, of course, the fact that the Powers and Privileges Act was utilised by the Committee from time to time to the extent that people have to be summons and witnesses had to be sworn in. Roman numeral five ‘Grounds of removal.’ We take the reader through the fact that there are three grounds for removal: misconduct, incapacity and incompetence. But only ground needs to be established to justify removal. We record the definitions of misconduct and incompetence as per the rules because, of course, incapacity is not one of the charges. And we capture the fact that the Constitution requires a lower standard for a Chapter Nine Office bearer’s removal than it does in respect of a judge. But the threshold of removal has been regarded as high by the Committee, given the constitutionally entrenched independence that these institutions enjoy, and that the findings have not been arrived at lightly. We explained that these definitions of misconduct and incompetence have to be understood within the context of what is expected from a PP, and to that extent, we refer to Section 182 of the Constitution, as well as the testimony of both Mr Ebrahim and Ms Zulu-Sokoni, who were the two expert witnesses and who set out the standards of conduct. And Ms Sokoni, of course, also dealt, to some extent, with the protections that should be afforded to the Public Protector – so that is all captured in that section. And Roman numeral six ‘Approach to evidence’. We indicate there that the Committee is not a court of law, and it was not required to re-conduct the investigations. So, in other words, it was not the duty of this Committee, for example, to make a determination of whether the SARS [South African Revenue Service] Unit was rogue as alleged, or whether the Vrede beneficiaries… Let me not even go there. I think the example that I have given is sufficient, that the Committee was not tasked with re-investigating what the PP has investigated, but rather, to capture whether in her investigations she has done what is expected of her in terms of the standards of conduct that she ought to follow. Number seven, the ‘Evidentiary value of court judgments.’ Members would have noted that before the IP [Independent Panel] referred to the ‘Hollington Rule’, which is an English rule, in terms whereof evidence from a criminal trial would not be allowed to be used or is not admissible in a subsequent civil proceeding. And that was raised in evidence with Mr Pillay, as I recall. And Adv Mpofu, when he did his opening statements, also spoke, to some extent, about the role of these judgments – there being general agreement that the Motion was rooted in various adverse judgments and what the Committee was going to do with those judgments and how we would treat it. And we have made it clear that the Committee just does not blindly follow judgments. The Committee, in fact, sourced additional evidence, evidence that would not have been before the courts; it has given Adv Mkhwebane the opportunity to respond as to why the courts may have been wrong. And in so doing, we arrive at independent conclusions. But equally, as Adv Mpofu also pointed out, that is not to say that those judgments could simply be ignored, because, of course, they could not. And then Roman numeral eight, we note that it is not a comparative exercise, notwithstanding the comparisons drawn with the previous Public Protector. This Motion was restricted to Adv Mkhwebane, and it is her conduct that must be assessed by the Committee, not the conduct of any of her predecessors. Public participation: Chair, we just did a summary there of the process that was followed by the Committee, the number of submissions received; the fact that when those submissions were received, we checked whether they speak to the charges in the Motion. Many of them were simply complaints that the public had against the PPSA, regarding the way in which various investigations have been conducted, and then, of course, other people that also expressed support for the PP. And we summarised which witnesses there were called by the evidence leaders, pursuant to that process. Then Roman numeral ten, ‘The hearings’. We record when the hearings started [and] we list every single witness there and who called that witness; whether they were called by the evidence leaders or whether they were called by Adv Mkhwebane. Section B of the report, Tshepo, ‘The preliminary and interlocutory issues.’

Chairperson: Just pause there. Maybe before you proceed, [I] just want to check with yourself and the Members. You can indicate Fatima what, as we go through this report, wherever you want just to wait until you finish or you are comfortable doing it bits by bits. That is one thing that you can indicate. But also to ask Members, whether you [are] comfortable, so farm with the approach? I want us to be a bit flexible so that where Members want to come in, they will be able to try to speak or raise their hand on the issue. So let me just settle that, so that we have a smooth run of how we go through this. I will start with you, Ms Ebrahim.

Ms Ebrahim: So, Chairperson, the content advisors are sitting with copies of the report, and they are going to be making detailed notes of anything that Members want us to change. So certainly it is better that we deal with it part by part. And if there is a particular paragraph that Members have spotted an error in, or they want us to re-do the wording, to please just indicate so that they can capture that as we go along. Otherwise, I think it is going to be too much to leave to the end. So, perhaps, now that we have concluded with part A, which is the background, that you ask if Members wish to make any further comments there.

Chairperson: Yes, that helps. Thank you for that. And then for the next parts you will pause when you know that you have completed this part, so that I can go back to the Members. Thank you for that. Hon Nkosi?

Mr B Nkosi (ANC): Thank you, Chair. This is myself, I am not an artificial thing. Thanks.

Chairperson: We see you. We see you. You are seen. Go ahead.

Mr Nkosi: Chair, on paragraph six, I think it should reflect, in the final report, the third application for [the] reconsideration of your recusal. Thanks. That is all, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Did you get that, Ms Ebrahim?

Ms Ebrahim: Yes, Chair, but it is dealt with later on in the report – in the next part.

Chairperson: Okay, thank you. Any other Member [who has] a brief comment so far? Are we happy? I get it, that is an indication. Thank you, Hon Nkosi. Please proceed, Ms Ebrahim.

Ms Ebrahim: Thank you, Chair. Part B, ‘The preliminary and interlocutory issues’. Chair, Members would know that there were many, many of these issues that we have been seized with since proceedings started. What we did, however, was to concentrate on the ones that the PP has raised in her statement, rather than capture absolutely everything that has happened since the beginning, every objection and so on, because there have been many. We do make it clear though, and we emphasise the importance of correspondence. Also to listen to the input of the PP and her legal team when some of these things were considered. So the first one was that it was a politically and racially motivated campaign. And, Chair, here we simply said that the fact of the matter is that there are serious allegations against Adv Mkhwebane. And the Committee has conducted, at length, a facts-seeking exercise, at the core of which is accountability. But we do, however, note that there were parties that objected, through the proceedings, on the basis that they thought that it was not fair and they raised concerns. And we named some of the, or list, some of the delays that the Committee has faced and why we faced those delays. And we make it clear that it is not the case that the Committee lays the cause of every delay at the door of the PP. There were, of course, other delays, whether it be with witnesses or whatever the case may have been, for which nobody is at fault – illness being another example. But the ones that she has raised specifically, we have tried to deal with specifically. Sorry, Tshepo, I skipped ahead, but you can move to political and/or racially motivated campaign. And I took the Committee through this when the Committee deliberated, Chair, so I am not going to go through it again, other than what I have said; is to say that the allegations were serious and the Committee had a Motion before it, which it had to consider. And then the next part, Tshepo, ‘Proceeding in Adv Mkhwebane’s absence and in the absence of Adv Mkhwebane’s legal representatives.’ Adv Mkhwebane raised this in her statement to the Committee. We have dealt with various incidents. We have dealt with, firstly – and we did it in chronological order, Chair – 13th to 16th of September, when she was ill, and we set out what happened there. Chair, much of this would have been traversed and covered, in some detail, in correspondence where we provided reasons and so on. So these are very short summaries, really. The report would have been hundreds of pages if we had to go into the detail of what was contained in that correspondence. We then also dealt with the so-called walk out. The presentations of evidence leaders: Members will recall that after the withdrawing of funding, evidence leaders then gave presentations to the Committee to assist on CR 17 and SARS. Adv Mkhwebane had objected at the time that we were continuing in the absence of her legal representation. And then we have dealt, at length, with what has happened beyond March 2023, because, of course, the last hearing of the Committee was at the end of March. But what I would need to do here, Chair, is to just add two or three lines on the decision that the Committee has taken today. I think I did insert the withdrawal of Chaane Attorneys, but, of course, I was not able to insert what the view of the Committee was on that. But we will insert that in two or three lines. And then there was the recusal and removal application. And we list there, Chair, that is also done in chronological order. ‘The first recusal application against yourself and Hon Mileham’, and we do not go into detail why yourself and Mr Mileham declined to recuse themselves, because that is covered already in terms of documents that form part of the record. We deal with the removal application in respect of the evidence leaders, and then the second recusal application, in respect of the Chairperson. And so that is just a summary of these recusal and the removal applications thus far. The next section, Chair, deals with the refusal to call the President, Ms Mazzone and Minister Gordhan. And we, very briefly, set out the reasons for saying [so], again, that was discussed at length in the Committee and the reasons are also set out in full in correspondence that would have been shared with the PP when these decisions were taken. The next one ‘Refusal to recall Ms Baloyi and Mr Pillay and Mr van Loggerenberg.’ Again, we set out the reasons there, and why the Committee has not recalled them. The fact that the PP was invited to submit written questions, and that she could have, similarly, also asked that these people be subpoenaed, considering that they did not want to come back voluntarily, despite us requesting them to do so. Mr van Loggerenberg, for example, sent quite a long letter explaining he will not subject himself to further cross-examination. And so we just detail that in that section. The next one is Adv Mkhwebane raised that she did not have sufficient time to prepare her evidence; and that would have been her statements. And we just set out, briefly, a timeline there and the fact that extensions were, in fact, granted for the submission of her statement; and the statement was, in fact, submitted in two parts, because the Chair had afforded additional time. The next section deals with previous attempts to remove Adv Mkhwebane. And this, in her statement, refers to attempts that were made by the DA when they filed previous motions; and also attempts by the DA within the Justice Committee. Chair, here we just simply indicate that this Committee is hearing this Motion for the first time. This committee has never been seized with a removal application or a removal motion in terms of the Public Protector, but in any event, nothing would prevent any Member of Parliament from submitting multiple motions. And, in fact, the public is sometimes confused thinking that this Section 194 Committee is an ad-hoc; it is, in fact, not an ad-hoc committee. This is a permanent committee of the Assembly. So it is entirely possible that this Committee would be seized with two motions for a Chapter Nine Institution Office bearer’s removal during their term of office: it would not be impossible. In this, however, of course, we only have this Motion that the Committee has dealt with. The next one, Chair, prejudgment by the Justice PC [Portfolio Committee]. Adv Mkhwebane refers to a meeting of 6 March 2018, which would have been an oversight meeting of the Justice PC. She refers to statements that were made by the Chairperson. Those were dealt with extensively in the Chairperson’s response to the first recusal applications, so they are not repeated in the report. What we simply capture here, Chair, is that as part of oversight, oversight must be robust. It is expected that Members will engage with those organs of state that are accountable to it; to ask tough questions, to criticise, where necessary. And it could never be said reasonably, that if such a robust exercise were to happen, that a Committee would never be able to then remove the office bearer, because of what had transpired earlier. Effectively, it would mean that Parliament would not be able to act, or would have to be very careful in the way in which it does its ordinary oversight; so that cannot be. And that is what we tried to set in that portion of the report. The next was that the removal rules were designed for the PP. Chair, here, we have simply stated that the rules have been tested in the Constitutional Court, and the Constitutional Court had found that the rules were in order except on this issue of legal representation, which of course has been accommodated for – so the rule no longer has that proviso anymore that says… that limits the participation of the legal representative. Then there was an issue raised in respect of double jeopardy. And this arose from the fact that the PP is facing criminal charges in relation to a charge of perjury on the SARS/SARB [South African Reserve Bank]/Lifeboat matter. And the complaint was that Mr Kekana had given evidence on the same matter. And here we simply said that from a legal perspective, she is not in jeopardy of conviction of a crime by this Committee, because, of course, this Committee does not perform a criminal function. And that, Chair, takes me to the end of those preliminary and interlocutory issues. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Ms Ebrahim. Any comments, Members, in that section we have just concluded? Whilst I am waiting for hands, can you just go back to paragraph 198 which relates to the 6 March 2018 issue. It is just a slight correction there; it is not changing the context and the substance of this. Just to indicate that because I am only… It is done properly in the first recusal response, because myself, as the Chair, and another Member here, Hon Nqola, in 2018 were not members of that Justice Committee. I was in the legislature. I do not know where he was. I think the matter they were referring to would have been comments that we made in an oversight annual report in 2019. So it is just to fix that particular date, so that it is not confused as if we were Members of the NA in 2018, because we were not. We were only [Members] immediately after elections that we became part of the Justice Committee; just that kind of fixing and correction, but it does not change, really, what the paragraph is. Any other Member? If none, we will proceed to the next section, Ms Ebrahim.

Ms Ebrahim: Thank you, Chair. The next section is charge one, and that is the charge of misconduct in respect of the Lifeboat report. So, Chair, what I have done is just to briefly go through each of the charges and remind the Committee of its findings. But what I want to just state upfront, Chair, is that whilst the Committee made findings on certain things, the test was still whether those findings would support a finding of misconduct and or incompetence. And in the case of this particular section, we are only dealing with misconduct. So if I were to give any example: if there was a matter in which I, Fatima Ebrahim, is accused of not performing because I failed to deliver a legal opinion within a turnaround time of seven days, in which I was supposed to have done it. And then the Committee has now considered that and the Committee finds, indeed, I was meant to do a legal opinion. Indeed, I failed to give that legal opinion within seven days. So the finding is there that, factually, that is correct, but the Committee then has regard, for example, to the fact that my reasons are that I was ill or I was hospitalised, therefore it was not possible. And so the Committee finds that I have not committed misconduct. So the fact that the Committee has made findings on certain things does not necessarily mean those findings then translate into misconduct and or incompetence. I just wanted to make that clear. Members must just keep that in mind as we go through the charges. The first one, Chair, is the charge 1.1.1, and this was about secretly meeting with the Presidency; and the majority here agreed that Adv Mkhwebane had met with the President to discuss the merits of her investigation, and [that] she failed to file a transcript. And we record the minority view, which would have been, if I recall correctly, the view of Hon Herron, that the meeting was undisclosed, but it was not a secret meeting. The next one was a similar charge – well, it is part of the same, in fact – meeting with the SSA [State Security Agency]. And, again, the majority here agreed, and we captured the minority view that it was not a secret meeting. Then 1.1.2 was a charge that Adv Mkhwebane had materially broadened the scope of the investigation, when compared to the provisional report. There the Committee had agreed that the evidence establishes that she had indeed done so. The next one, 1.1.3, was that she had materially altered the remedial action on instruction of either the President and or the SSA, without giving notice and an opportunity to comment thereon to affected parties. And the Committee there also agreed that the evidence established that. 1.1.4, that Adv Mkhwebane had failed in her duty to give affected persons, including the Speaker and SARB, notice and an opportunity to comment on her findings and proposed remedial action that she intended to take; and that this had severely damaging consequences to the country and the PPSA. And here, the Committee also agreed with that. The next one, 1.1.5, was that she failed to honour an agreement with the SARB to make her report available five days prior to the release thereof. Here the Committee agreed that there was no evidence of such an agreement, and therefore she cannot be found to have failed to have honoured an agreement. 1.1.6, that Adv Mkhwebane had failed to refer or even discuss submissions made by the SARB or any other person. And here the Committee found that in relation to some evidence for SARB, for example, that even though it was unsatisfactory in the way in which it was dealt with, she did refer to and discuss most of the concerns that the SARB had raised. And similarly too with ABSA; however, she failed to deal with or engage with the Minister of Finance’s submissions. And the finding under this section was that Adv Mkhwebane is guilty of misconduct in that her investigation in the Lifeboat matter and the litigation that ensued, she adopted a dismissive, high-handed, bias and procedurally unfair approach in the investigation. So here, we would just want Members to confirm that they agree that the finding of misconduct is sustained in respect of these findings that I have just referred to – in other words, that Members agree that the factual findings also support a finding of misconduct.

Chairperson: Okay, thank you. Let us pause there. Hon Members, can I hear your voices on this – your take? I am inviting hands and comments on what Ms Ebrahim has drawn us to. Any takers? Do you agree with the issues? Do you have a different view? What is your take, Members? Have you been caught unaware? Hon Lotriet?

Dr Lotriet: Chairperson, just to say that I agree with the report thus far. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Lotriet. Hon Nkosi?

Mr Nkosi: Chairperson, I also agree that the factual findings go with the charge.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Siwela? The last hand.

Ms Siwela: Thank you, Chairperson. I happen to agree with the summary as a true reflection of what we deliberated on those previous two days. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Maneli?

Mr Maneli: Thank you, Hon Chair. My hand earlier has been about maybe just as a matter of principle. But for those matters that we may not comment on because we agree, like the ones that have already passed, that for purposes of record, at least it gets recorded as such that there is agreement in the Committee of those aspects.

Chairperson: Okay.

Mr Maneli: So that is the first point, maybe before I comment on this one. Secondly, Chair, even where there has been a possible amendment or correction made that we are also affirming on that, so that when that addition… for example, when the withdrawal application issue, as it will come in, that it at least that has been affirmed by the Committee. So I also agree with this one, that yes, the factual is confirming substantiation of what has been put through. I am not sure, Chair, if it will be demanding too much that probably where you have a situation where there has been the Independent Panel making a finding and that is substantiated on record, at least that it also be put as such because there will be instances where the Independent Panel may have not expressed a view, but from a Committee side of things, we have picked up, based on evidence put before the Committee, that it may not be with regard to the Independent Panel; so on this one we have an issue from the side of the Committee. So that is why I was raising the hand earlier, Chair, before we got to this point. So yes, I just wanted to raise that for purposes of record. Thank you.

Chairperson: Okay. Thank you, Hon Maneli. That is very helpful to just guide us through the process. No further hand? Is there any dissenting view? None. We proceed. Thank you, Hon Members. I think your points are taken in terms of just the clinical way of doing this. Back to you, Ms Ebrahim.

Ms Ebrahim: Thank you, Chairperson. Chair, in the first section of the report, we do include all the charges on which the Independent Panel found that there was misconduct and incompetence. And, of course, our report does not necessarily mirror exactly what the Independent Panel found. Chair, if we have time in the final report, because it will not make a difference to the content of the draft report for purposes of giving the Public Protector audi, we could try to put in footnotes to say that in this particular case, the IP found differently. If that would help. Chairperson, moving on to 1.2 in the Motion – and we are still on charge one of misconduct in the SARB matter. That dealt with, specifically, the litigation. And there the Committee found that indeed, the Public Protector failed to give a full, frank and honest account of her meetings with the President and the SSA; and that she misrepresented her reliance on economic experts like Dr Mokoko, Mr Goodson as well as Dr Moodley. And so the Committee found that those facts were all established. And the finding there, Chair, is that the Committee finds that she has committed misconduct in that she failed to meet the essential standards of honesty, transparency, fairness and independence, and was not rational as alleged in charge one. If everybody is happy with that then I can move on. In fact, Chair, I think for the next section…

Chairperson: Just pause. Let me check with Members, as Hon Maneli was indicating, we do that. Hon Nkosi?

Mr Nkosi: [I] agree with the summary, Chair. The Committee agrees.

Chairperson: Thank you. That is Hon Nkosi. Any other Member?

Mr Maneli: Hon Maneli agrees with the summary.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Maneli. Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: Agree, Hon Chair.

Chairperson: Yes. Hon Lotriet?

Dr Lotriet: Agreed, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Nqola?

Mr Nqola: Agreed, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Nqola. Do we have any dissenting view? None. Thank you. We proceed.

Ms Ebrahim: Thank you. Chair, I am moving to charge two, which is misconduct in the Vrede Dairy matter, and that starts at paragraph four of the Motion. In terms of 4.1, the charge was that Adv Mkhwebane narrowed the scope as required by the complaints. Members will recall that there were three complaints, as commenced by her predecessor. And here the Committee found that the evidence establishes that she did, indeed, narrow the complaint by failing to consider various significant issues, which included value for money in the Gupta leaks, beneficiary matters, non-compliance with environmental legislation and so on. And the report goes into detail on each of those. And there are some things where the Committee did not make a finding. So for example, on the issue of cattle deaths; there the Committee accepted the explanation. So a thorough reading of the report will show exactly which elements of the charge that the Committee agreed to and [which] they did not, as per the deliberations that took place. Paragraph 4.2 was an allegation that Adv Mkhwebane had failed to investigate Dr Jankielsohn‘s third complaint. There, the Committee found that the evidence established that she failed to investigate and report on the material components of that third complaint without providing a rational or proper explanation; and that her claim that the third complaint was addressed in her response to the first two complaints is sustainable, because most of the issues raised in the third complaint are not addressed at all in the Vrede Report. And we also refer to the fact that much of that was then carried through to that second Vrede investigation and the second Vrede Report, which does not form part of the subject matter of this Motion. Paragraph 4.3, that was a charge that the investigation steps were wholly inadequate, given the magnitude and importance of the complaints, and that there was no rational or proper explanation provided for the failure. Here the Committee agreed that the issues in the investigation were of great importance because they involved vulnerable members of the local community as well as allegations about the improper use of hundreds of millions of Rands in public funds. We found that the allegation that she removed a provincial investigation from the provincial investigator – that would have been Ms Cilliers – from the Vrede matter, because of her perceived political affiliation that that was unsubstantiated. We found further the facts, as a whole, establish that she acted irrationally in failing to interview various persons, including senior officials, senior politicians, representatives of Estina; that she acted irrationally in failing to call for… to subpoena critical documents, including financial records, agreements in respect of the beneficiaries, updated beneficiary list and so on. Then in 4.4, the charge there was that Adv Mkhwebane materially altered the remedial action in Adv Madonsela’s provisional report. And, Chair, it was common cause that there was, in fact, no provisional report by Adv Madonsela, therefore that charge was unsubstantiated. 4.5, that she gave contradictory explanations for her conduct to the High Court under oath. And the facts establish that indeed, that was so. And the report sets out the different explanations that she had given as to why she did not report various things. And the conclusion there – Tshepo, if you just go down. It should be in bold – that the Committee is satisfied that she has committed misconduct in relation to the Vrede report… the manner in which it was investigated and the subsequent litigation. So if we could please just get input on that finding in bold, Chair.

Chairperson: Yes. Thank you. Hon Members, I invite you on 829, your comments on that finding by the Committee. Hon Nkosi?

Mr Nkosi: Chair, I agree with paragraph 829 of the Committee…

Chairperson: Thank you.

Mr Nkosi: Of the report. Sorry.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Nkosi. Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: Hon Chair, it is the true reflection of the Committee’s findings. Thanks.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Dlakude. Hon Lotriet?

Dr Lotriet: Chairperson, I agree with it.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Siwela?

Ms Siwela: I agree with the report, Chair. It is a true reflection.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Nqola?

Mr Nqola: Chairperson, I agree with the report.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Nqola. Hon Sukers?

Ms Sukers: Thank you, Chairperson. I agree with the report. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Is there any dissenting view? None. We proceed. Over to you, Ms Ebrahim.

Ms Ebrahim: Thank you, Chair. I am moving onto charge three, which is incompetence. That is the last charge that is dealt with in this section of the report. And for this charge, Chair, reliance was placed on all of the evidence in relation to charge one and two, so CIEX as well as Vrede, and then there was an addition of the Tshidi matter as well. So incompetence in respect of the SARB, 7.1.1. The charge was that Adv Mkhwebane had grossly overreached and exceeded bounds of her authority and had unlawfully entrenched on Parliament's authority and the national executive to determine socio-economic policy – and that had to do with the amendments to the Constitution. Chair, the Committee had agreed that the facts there had established that it was, in fact, so. Then in terms of 7.1 to 7.1,6, so that is five sub-charges there, Chair. I had explained, when we were deliberating, that there are some charges that appear under the misconduct charge that is also carried across to incompetence on exactly the same facts; and where that is the case… and the Committee has already made findings on misconduct. The Committee makes no findings on incompetence in respect of those particular charges. So that would be 7.1.2, 7.1.3, 7.1.4, 7.1.5 and 7.16, and we have recorded it as such, Chair. 7.1.7, that was a charge that Adv Mkhwebane had demonstrated irrationality, forensic weakness, incoherence, confusion, and misunderstanding of applicable contractual constitutional and administrative law principles in the SARB matter. And here the Committee found that the evidence establishes that she had acted irrationally and or demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of applicable legal principles. And we set out the reasons as to why and the different instances in which that occurred. And the Committee had found there that there was a serious and worrying understanding of fundamental legal concepts. Tshepo, if you could just go down. No, we are on the wrong section. You should move to… No, I think you are right. Yes, you can just move a little bit down.

Ms Morie: Okay.

Ms Ebrahim: Yes, you can move more. No, sorry, you can wait. 7.1.8, Chair, was a charge that the Public Protector demonstrated that she does not fully understand her constitutional duty to be impartial and to perform her functions without fear, favour, or prejudice. And there the Committee agreed that during the investigation, she showed a lack of independence, and that caused intentional or recklessly caused serious economic harm and failure to act fairly in respect of the SARB, Minister of Finance, Parliament, Absa, and other parties with a serious interest in the Lifeboat report. And all of that was captured above in the context of misconduct allegations. And then 7.1.9, the heightened duty towards the court as a public litigant. And this is that the Public Protector has failed to appreciate that duty. And the evidence there, the Committee found, establishes that in numerous instances Adv Mkhwebane failed to appreciate her duty towards the courts as a public litigant – but these issues have already been dealt with in the Committee’s findings in respect of misconduct, therefore it was not considered in respect of the incompetence charge under three. Then 7.2.1… Chair, maybe we can just deal with the SARB before I move onto Vrede, because from 7.2, that deals with the Vrede investigation. So if Members are satisfied with what we did there, which was not to find a double finding of misconduct and incompetence, because to some extent they are not reconcilable? So where we have found misconduct in the first charge we then do not repeat under incompetence to the extent that the charges are repeated or mirrored in that section.

Chairperson: Yes, very important. Members, 9.903, let me hear your comments on the issues that Ms Ebrahim is raising. Not to repeat the findings that it would be suffice to have done it under misconduct. Hon Nkosi?

Mr Nkosi: Agreed, Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Nkosi supports and agrees. Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: Agreed, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Mananiso?

Ms J Mananiso (ANC): Agreed, Chair. Thank you.

Chairperson: Hon Maneli?

Mr Maneli: Agreed, Chair. That distinction was canvassed before.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Siwela?

Ms Siwela: Agreed, Chair. Thank you.

Chairperson: Agreed. Hon Lotriet?

Dr Lotriet: Agreed, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Nqola?

Mr Nqola: It is in order, Chair.

Chairperson: In order. Do I have any dissenting view on that matter?

Mr Nqola: No, we do not, Chair. Sorry.

Chairperson: I am asking for a dissenting view. You cannot speak for absence. There is none. We proceed. Over to you, Ms Ebrahim.

Ms Ebrahim: Thank you, Chair. Moving on to incompetence. So we are still on charge three, incompetence but now in respect of the Vrede Dairy matter, and that falls under paragraph 7.2 onwards of the Motion. 7.2.1, that the PP demonstrated a failure to conduct a lawful and meaningful investigation and a failure to grant appropriate remedial action – that is dealt with fully in the report, and Members were in agreement in respect of that. The only element where there was no adverse finding there, Chair, is that there was no evidence that her meeting with Mr Magashule, which was a brief meeting, that she had, that Mr Samuels had taken us through, that there was evidence there to contradict the PP’s version that it was merely a meet and greet and that it was not an investigative meeting. So apart from that, Members were in agreement that she failed to conduct a lawful and meaningful investigation or grant appropriate remedial action as set out in the Motion. 7.2.2, failure to appreciate the legal duty to come to the aid of the vulnerable – and that would have been the fear of beneficiaries. And the Committee agreed that the facts established this. 7.2.3, failure to appreciate that her investigation was wholly inadequate and grossly negligent and/or her failure to conduct a lawful and meaningful investigation. Here, the Committee had also found that this was established by the facts. 7.2.4, that the PP demonstrated legal ineptitude in her ability to comprehend and accept the inappropriateness of her proposed remedial action in the report. Here, the Committee also found that this was established in terms of facts. And then 7.2.5, that she demonstrated irrationality, forensic weakness, incoherence, confusion and misunderstanding of constitutional and administrative law principles. Here, the committee also agreed that there were various instances of irrationality and forensic weaknesses. Then 7.2.6, the Public Protector’s duty to the court as a public litigant. Here, the Committee had agreed that the evidence establishes that Adv Mkhwebane had failed to make the required full disclosure to the court on matters related to Estina, that she did not disclose that she had declined the opportunity to meet with beneficiaries at the site visit, that she had misled the High Court into thinking Adv Madonsela had approved a November 2014 draft report, and failed to disclose any other draft reports in her Rule 53 record, and she gave a misleading impression that was nothing implicating Premier Magashule and MEC Zwane at the time; therefore, she mislead the High Court. So the Committee had agreed with all of those findings. And that takes us to the end of Vrede. And the ultimate finding and conclusion there was that incompetence had been established in the Vrede Dairy matter, but like SARB some of it would have fallen under misconduct.

Chairperson: Okay. At that point, I am back to you Members to confirm or not. Your take, Hon Maneli?

Mr Maneli: That is agreed, Chair. As I said, that distinction is now understood. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Maneli. Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: Agreed, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Lotriet?

Dr Lotriet: Agreed, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Siwela?

Ms Siwela: Agreed, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Is that a new hand, Hon Maneli, or you have gadget problems? Thank you. Any other Member? Is there any dissenting views? None. We proceed. Thank you. Over to you, Ms Ebrahim.

Ms Ebrahim: Thank you, Chair. Moving to paragraph 7.3 of charge three; that is a charge of incompetence in the Tshidi matter, which is also referred to as the FSCA [Financial Sector Conduct Authority] matter. So, Chair, this is an additional matter that is then introduced for the first time in this charge. And there were two sub-charges: 7.3.1 was that the PP in the litigation conceded irrationality and forensic weakness and misunderstanding or misapplication of legal principles. Chair, here the Committee had found that the facts do not establish this because it does not… The court records before the Committee did not indicate why the PP had conceded the FSCA report. So she did not make any admissions that the report was irrational or forensically weak or subject to an error of law. She merely did not explain to the court why the report should be set aside. So on 7.3.1 we did not have facts to arrive at a finding that she had conceded, as per the wording in the charge. However, on 7.3.2, which was a charge that she had failed to appreciate her heightened duty towards the court. There, Chairperson, the facts showed that she has failed to explain to the court and to the other litigants why she believed that report to be invalid. Therefore, she deprived the High Court of the ability to assess whether she has conceded for good reason, and whether its order should have included further directions to avoid a repetition of that error, and whether the punitive cost orders sought by the applicants were warranted. So had she merely taken the court into her confidence and explained why she was not going to challenge that review, they might not have been those adverse cost orders. So that is on the Tshidi FSB [Financial Services Board] at 7.3 of the Motion, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Back to you, Hon Members. Do I hear you with your contributions and interventions?

Ms Ebrahim: Okay, we just move on then, Chair. The conclusion on charge three dealing with incompetence. We have indicated that across very important investigations and in numerous rounds of superior court litigation, Adv Mkhwebane has demonstrated a repeated and sustained failure to deal with evidence in a rational and appropriate manner, as well as a fundamental inability to engage with critical legal principles or to fashion appropriate remedial action. She has repeatedly neglected her duties as a constitutional office bearer and officer of the court and as an organ of state. She has demonstrated a lack of knowledge and legal skill, and then [we] speak of the inadequacies in the Vrede Investigation, the Lifeboat investigation, and the harm that was occasioned by those two investigations; and how that may have led a reasonable person in society to question her ability to discharge her duties and functions and therefore to negatively affect the public's confidence in her. Chair, the repeated failures and the conduct in seeking to defend these failures before the courts show a sustained lack of necessary knowledge and skill as well as a fundamental inability to discharge the duties of office in an effective and efficient manner. And therefore, she has demonstrated incompetence. So here, Chairperson, Members will recall that when I did my presentation before the deliberations, I had indicated that on incompetence the wording in the removal rules is such that one act of incompetence or even two or three acts of incompetence may not be enough to sustain a finding of incompetence; it would be necessary to establish that that incompetence is, in terms of the definitions of the rules, a knowledge… a demonstrated and sustained lack of knowledge to carry out an ability or skill to perform his or her duties effectively and efficiently. And so, the way we understood Members deliberations is that Members had agreed that Adv Mkhwebane had demonstrated incompetence in all of the various aspects that we have taken Members few, and for those reasons those issues, looked at collectively, show that there is a demonstrated and sustained lack of knowledge and ability of skill to perform. So Members can just please keep confirming that we captured that correctly, that finding of incompetence in relation to all of these incidents instead are described separately. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Ms Ebrahim. Hon Members, 1029 to 1031. Your take? Hon Nqola?

Mr Nqola: 1029 to 1031 is in order, Chair. It reflects how we have agreed as the Committee.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Nqola. Hon Nkosi?

Mr Nkosi: Agreed, Chairperson. Thanks.

Chairperson: Thank you. Supported. Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: Agreed, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Tlhape?

Ms M Tlhape (ANC): Agreed and supported, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Siwela?

Ms Siwela: Agreed, Chair. A true reflection.

Chairperson: Thank you. Any other Member? None. Do we have any… Okay, before I ask for any dissenting view. Hon Lotriet?

Dr Lotriet: Agreed, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Do you have any dissenting views? None. I guess the hand is an old hand, Hon Nkosi? Or is a new one on the dissenting views?

Mr Nkosi: [An] old one, Chair. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Okay, thank you. That is agreed and supported. Back to you, Ms Ebrahim.

Ms Ebrahim: Chairperson, the next section is the part B of the report, which is charge four. It does require for Tshepo to now have to load the new one on.

Chairperson: That is fine. I indicated that we would take a break when we include this. But before we take a break, I am just checking my notes. Tshepo, can you go to paragraph 619? I want to make sure that – I have taken notes as you went through – you were asking something to the Committee in that paragraph. 619. I realise that after the break you can fix that. Ms Ebrahim, I think you were leaving Tshepo behind. She was a bit slow to catch up with you. Maybe she needs that break. Can we go to that paragraph before we conclude this section – paragraph 619? Yes, thank you. I think the last sentence says “The Committee must consider whether the further investigation thereof, by Adv Mkhwebane, was necessary to get to the root of the Vrede complaints that were before her.” Ms Ebrahim, I just wanted to make sure that we update this section. Is there anything else you still want the Committee to consider here?

Ms Ebrahim: No, Chair. Perhaps the drafting needs to be changed, but it is considered as the report goes on. Maybe it is just not clear. I will make a note of that and just slightly amend the wording there.

Chairperson: That is it. I am happy then. Thank you for that. That concludes this section, therefore. We will take a fifteen minute break, colleagues, and we will be back at eighteen minutes past twelve to start the next section: part B. So far, I think we are on course in the manner we are doing it. So please keep up the good work. Do not log out,  just a stretch break and whatever that you need to. Thank you. We pause.

The Committee adjourned for a fifteen minute break.

Chairperson: Thank you. Welcome back, colleagues. It is now eighteen minutes past twelve. I hope you recharged during this short break. I am going to ask Ms Ebrahim to lead us into the next section, part B of our report, doing the same exercise on the further charges. Over to you, Ms Ebrahim.

Ms Ebrahim: Thank you, Chairperson. Chairperson, this is part B of the report and it deals with charge four, which Members would have known was misconduct and/or incompetence charge; and this charge would have included Vrede, SARB, Tshidi, CR17 and the SARS Unit matter. Chairperson, the first one, charge ten, that is what we had referred to as the HR (human resources) charges. And we had gone into some detail on that during the deliberations where Members felt quite strongly in respect of certain persons, that the facts established that there was harassment alternatively, intimidation or victimisation. So for example, Members found that with Mr Samuels, they found that with Ms Mogaladi and Sekele, with Mr Madiba there were no findings, with Ms Baloyi there were – all of those in alternate – with Mr Kekana as well. But that charge, Members will see that it has two elements to it. It also talks about charges against these persons being trumped up; and to some extent, the evidence establishes that charges were not trumped up against certain people. So for example, in respect of Mr Samuels, the assault did occur. So the report notes that the assault happened; it is not for this Committee to consider the merits of that assault and what happened between him and Mr Seabi, and to accept one version of the actual conduct of what had transpired there over somebody else's version. So the Committee did not seek to do that at all. And likewise, with Ms Mogaladi and Ms Sekele, the charges were not trumped up because there we know that they were charged pursuant to certain conduct in the Tshidi investigation. But what had happened is that Adv Mkhwebane, notwithstanding that the disciplinary hearing against them, the finding there was that they should be suspended they should be suspended for a period without pay. She then sought to dismiss them, which they challenged in the court. So, Chair, we went into some detail over there trying to capture all of that. But the conclusion, and this is what needs to now be discussed with the Committee, Chair, is the conclusion there that I have put in from a legal perspective, having applied the definition of misconduct in the rules – and just to remind Members, the definition of misconduct, as per the removal rules, is the intentional or gross negligent failure to meet the standard of behavior or conduct expected of a holder of public office. And as we said, the threshold is quite high to make such a finding. So whilst I have done my best to capture Members’ very strong sentiments on these HR issues and what Members felt these people had gone through, we were of the view that it does not rise to misconduct for purposes of the rules. And therefore, as the report is currently drafted, it says that the Committee does not make any finding of misconduct in the respect of charge ten. But what we have done, as I have indicated, Chair, is to indicate that the Committee appreciates this evidence that has come through from these various persons; that not rising to misconduct is not done in a manner where the subjective experiences of those persons are questioned. My concern is with a legal argument, but the Committee can apply its mind to the way in which we have captured that.

Chairperson: Thank you. Thank you, Ms Ebrahim, for that presentation. I now invite Hon Members to interact and to make interventions. Hon Nkosi?

Mr Nkosi: Yes, on this issue I remember in the deliberations I was particularly vocal on this issue. I, however, agree with the legal service that however we think, and subjectively so, the incidents of whatever do not rise to the threshold of misconduct. I have just relooked the aide memoir, and I agree with 83, Chair, that we must uphold it.

Chairperson: Okay, thank you. Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: Hon Chair, I agree with Hon Nkosi. This is a true reflection of our deliberations as a Committee. Thank you. I agree with it.

Chairperson: Thank you. Supported. Thank you. Any other Member? Hon Maneli?

Mr Maneli: No it is agreed, Chair. It is like Hon Nkosi would have said, we spent a lot of time on this [and] we also tried to persuade each other as Members not to go that route. So the reflection is true, Hon Chair. It is agreed to.

Chairperson: Thank you. Supported. Agreed. Hon Nqola?

Mr Nqola: It is supported, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Siwela?

Ms Siwela: Agreed, Chair, and supported. Thank you.

Chairperson: Agreed. Any other Member? Is there any dissenting view of 83 being a decision of the Committee? None. We proceed. Thank you. Back to you, Ms Ebrahim.

Ms Ebrahim: Chairperson, I just wanted to mention, though, that we did make it clear in the report that the Committee is not saying that an HR related issue can never arise to misconduct for purposes of the rules, and have the effect of warranting a removal from office of a Chapter Nine Head or functionary. It may be that the misconduct in respect of an HR issue is so serious, that it could easily rise to misconduct. But for purposes of this, the Committee, of course, heard evidence that counted the experiences of some of these people who said they did not experience Public Protector to be a person as described by some of the witnesses. And also people spoke of her hard work and the fact that she was a hard taskmaster, et cetera, et cetera. So I just want to make it clear that it is not in agreement with if I had understood the PP’s representations correctly from the beginning, that this charge almost has no basis because you could never ever have made a finding – that was not the case. And notwithstanding that the Independent Panel did not make a prima facie finding. This Committee, of course, had the benefit of hearing from witnesses and sourcing additional evidence. So it might very easily have found differently had the facts pointed differently. Chair, moving on to…

Chairperson: Thank you for that differentiation, based on evidence, of course. Please, proceed.

Ms Ebrahim: Chair, moving to paragraph 11.1. This was a charge of misconduct and/or incompetence in relation to the management of internal capacity and the resources. Tshepo, I am just going to ask you to go down to the conclusion. Chair, this charge, Members will recall, dealt with the way in which management staff, investigators and outreach officers, how those resources were dealt with. And there is some overlap here, too, with paragraph 11.2, which is where the financial issues come in. So during the deliberations, when Members spoke on staff and investigators and outreach, there was often reference to the fact that clearly there were monies that was being spent on the increase in litigation costs and so on. So that is what came out of [the] deliberations. The Committee strongly felt that there was definitely an unhealthy working environment [and] that resources were poorly managed. But again, on the evidence that was available, Chair, we are of the view that it does not rise to misconduct. And we deal with the financial issues and the decisions in terms of the litigation and so on, as a completely separate matter. The issue of charge four, Chair, is that there is much overlap in the way in which the charges are drafted. S Members would have seen that when they read through the report; and in fact, 11.3 and 11.4 we sought to deal with together. So whilst Members may have raised something in deliberations, under 11.1, they will find that it does actually then find application later on in 11.2. But it was our view, Chair, that for purposes of 11.1 that it does not rise to misconduct or incompetence.

Chairperson: Thank you. Your attention is drawn on 171, Hon Members. Let me hear your take. Hon Maneli?

Mr Maneli: Thank you, Chair. I would want to persuade the Committee to agree with that point, as explained, that there is a separation of matters when we get to the finances as a separate matter from HR. It is something we will be able to look at. So I agree, Chair, and persuade the Committee. Thank you.

Chairperson: Persuaded and agreed. Any other Member? Hon Lotriet?

Dr Lotriet: Agree.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Siwela?

Ms Siwela: Agreed, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Any other Member? None…

Ms Dlakude: Agreed, Chair. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Dlakude. Is there any dissenting view? No dissenting view. We proceed. Over to you, Ms Ebrahim.

Ms Ebrahim: Thank you, Chair. Chair, paragraph 11.2 was misconduct or incompetence by failing in an intentionally or grossly negligent manner to prevent fruitless and wasteful or unauthorised public expenditure. Chair, the first thing to note with this charge is that there is also some overflow here to paragraph 11.3, because the Committee would know that we dealt with the appointment of certain persons and the use of certain resources that impacted impartiality and independence but also came at a cost. So for example, the appointment of Mr Paul Ngobeni, the appointment of Kim Heller and the work that they did for the PPSA, just by way of example. So there is that overlap which we have tried to capture. The first thing, Chair, is the use of the word ‘unauthorised expenditure’ in this charge, which did not find application, in fact, to the PPSA at all, because it is only departments that can incur unauthorised expenditure. Perhaps the Motion had meant to say ‘irregular expenditure.’ But we had agreed that we are not going to call Ms Mazzone or any other person to explain the Motion and that the Motion will be treated as it is in front of us. So the wording here was ‘unauthorised’. It does not find an application and so it has not been dealt with. What we did deal with in quite some detail, Chair, was the issue of fruitless and wasteful expenditure; what the definition of fruitless and wasteful expenditure is; and whether the Public Protector then was negligent and she could reasonably have avoided some of these costs. There is quite a bit of detail there in describing clean audits. And I think Adv Bawa had taken the Committee through it during the deliberations, to say that a clean audit does bit necessarily mean that there is no fruitless and wasteful expenditure; clean audits are based on samples, and there are certain things that auditors would not ordinarily pick up because they would not even look at it. If you had requested a legal opinion and you paid for the legal opinion, it is not an auditor's job to check whether the legal opinion was necessary or the legal opinion served its purpose, by way of example. So, Chair, this goes into quite a bit of detail. But Tshepo, you can skip straight, I think, to the conclusion to make things easier; the summary. And Members will forgive me that the numbering has come out… Yes, it has gone a little bit funny, Chair, but we will fix those things. But the finding there was that Adv Mkhwebane has failed in a grossly negligent manner to prevent fruitless and wasteful expenditure by ignoring basic legal principles expected from an incumbent Public Protector in finalising reports and then pursuing litigation endlessly and needlessly. So, again, Chair, this is why I am saying there is some tie back to the use of resources, the management resources and staff and so on. Adv Mkhwebane committed misconduct in utilising resources to obtain legal advice and commencing litigation for personal gain. And in so doing committed misconduct by failing intentionally to prevent fruitless and wasteful public expenditure and legal costs. So this would, for example, be where we have heard evidence on the securing of a legal opinion on crowdfunding, for example. Then Adv Mkhwebane has committed misconduct in the performance of her duties by failing in a grossly negligent manner to prevent fruitless and wasteful public expenditure in legal costs by litigating recklessly, as demonstrated above. And we would have set out all of that in some detail. So if the Committee is in agreement that the evidence that has been provided in terms of legal costs, what was spent, and given Adv Mkhwebane’s advice that the reason for the increase in legal expenditure owing to the Nkandla report that made the remedial actions of the Public Protector binding, that had to be weighed against what the actual expenditure was, and why was this expenditure being incurred. The Committee had deliberated on some length, but the conclusion that we reached there, Chair, is that it is misconduct.

Chairperson: Thank you, Ms Ebrahim. Hon Members, 281 to 283. Your contributions. Hon Mileham?

Mr Mileham: Thank you, Chairperson. Chairperson, I agree with the conclusions and I agree that they are an accurate reflection of our discussion. However, I want to draw attention to paragraph 283, the third line where it says ‘There was a failure to establish appropriate cooperative governance. I am not sure if that is meant to be cooperative governance or corporate governance. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Okay, thank you. I am going to ask Ms Ebrahim to clarify that or fix it.

Ms Ebrahim: Chairperson, that is meant to be corporate governance and it was something that was raised by Hon Sukers during the deliberations. We will make that correction.

Chairperson: Okay, that is attended [to]. Thank you, Hon Mileham. Hon Nkosi?

Mr Nkosi: Thank you, Chair. I agree with the conclusions. I think the paragraph now has confused me, but in my notes in the summary, I think on paragraph 274, it says ‘A clean audit does not mean fruitless and wasteful expenditure had not occurred.’ But I think even in her, not oral… but as she was explaining the charges, she does say that it does not ‘necessarily mean’. Instead of being emphatic that it ‘does not mean’, I think we should say that it ‘does not necessarily mean.’

Chairperson: Okay. Thank you for that. You got that, Ms Ebrahim?

Ms Ebrahim: Yes, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: Thank you very much, Hon Chairperson. I agree with the conclusion and the amendments thereof. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Dlakude. Hon Mananiso?

Ms Mananiso: Thank you, Chairperson. I am covered. I am adopting with [the] amendments. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you. Agreed with the amendments as well. Hon Siwela?

Ms Siwela: I am in agreement, Chair, with the conclusion as well as the amendment. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you. Any other Members? Do we have any dissenting view?

Mr Nqola: No, Chairperson.

Chairperson: Can you drop those hands, Hon Nkosi and Hon Mananiso, unless it is new hands. Any dissenting views?

Mr Nqola: There is no dissenting view, Chair.

Chairperson: None. We proceed. Mr Nqola, you are busy defending the dissenting views. Over to you, Ms Ebrahim.

Ms Ebrahim: Thank you, Chairperson. Chair, we have dealt with 11.3 and 11.4 in the Motion together. And 11.3 was a charge of failing intentionally or in a grossly negligent manner to conduct her investigations, and/or make her decisions in a manner that ensures the independent and impartial conduct of investigations. We know that those are standards that must be followed by a Public Protector. Then 11.4, which ties in with that, “By deliberately seeking to avoid making findings against or directing remedial action in respect of certain public officials, while deliberately seeking to reach conclusions of unlawful conduct and imposing far-reaching disciplinary measures and remedial action in respect of other officials (even where such conclusions and/or measures and/or remedial action manifestly had no basis in law or in fact. So, Chair, what was included as part of the evidence in charge four, as I indicated, was all of the evidence that had already served before in charges one, two and three. But these aspects would have already been dealt with under thereto, to a large extent, so it was not repeated in this section. However, the two additional matters that do come up in this section, as the Committee will be very familiar with, is CR17 and the SARS Unit, because we heard evidence at length, and, in fact, we have heard the PP’s oral evidence on those two matters also. So, Chair, what we did in this section of the report is deal with 11.3 and 11.4 together, and deal with, firstly, the CR17 matter, showing where there will be incompetence and misconduct there, and in doing the same in relation to the SARS unit matter. So I think the SARS unit is first, Tshepo… or is it CR17? It is CR17.

Ms Morie: Yes, it is CR17.

Ms Ebrahim: Yes, so just prior to that section, Chair, we did the summary of the appointments of Mr Nyembe, who was appointed as the Special Advisor, and then the services of Mr Paul Ngobeni. And we summarised all of that as a background to some of what follows in this section of the report. On CR17, Chair, I am not going to take the Committee through that into too much detail. But misconduct there came in respect of the issue of money laundering, that she questioned the bona fides of the President. And what we did, ultimately, is really rely on the ConCourt judgment, because the Committee was in agreement on the evidence that was provided to the Committee, that those findings of misconduct have been established here in terms of CR17. And then in terms of CR17 there were also aspects of incompetence in relation to the EMEA [Executive Members Ethics Act]. And over there we also deal with the application of the EMEA in the Gordhan matter, where it was also wrongly interpreted, where there was a complaint that Mr Gordhan had misled Parliament; and similarly in CR17, where the President was alleged to have misled Parliament. So there we show that it is incompetence because of the wrong use or wrong version of the code. Chair, we have found in, for example, in the SARS Unit; or rather, not in SARS… On the Gordhan matter… Sorry, Chair, my notes are a little confusing because these two charges are together. Rather, on the CR17 matter, that the instruction to Parliament, for example, to take action against the President in terms of our own code of ethical conduct, would have shown incompetence because the President would not have been subjected to that code. He is not a member of the House, by way of example. But there is quite a bit of detail in this section of the report, Chair, which is why it forms part of this part B of the report, because of the amount of evidence that was led on B. And some Members were in agreement with all of the findings and the factual findings that were made during deliberations, and the conclusions that we then reached. Tshepo, maybe if you just want to go directly to the conclusions? So here, Chair, this is the Constitutional Court judgment in CR17. I think you might have gone too far. Yes, so, Chair, we also deal with the attacks on Judge Potterill. There are quite a few elements in these charges. But here, as you can see from this conclusion, “Adv Mkhwebane contends that her decision to investigate was never influenced by the desire to target a certain individual, in particular, the President.” And she also argued that given that she had already been mounted with a cost order, she should not be punished twice for the same offence given the double jeopardy rule. But in fact, even though I think it was Adv Mpofu that had said that she was mounted with a cost order, she was not because no personal costs were granted against her in her personal capacity. And then Adv Mkhwebane had made serious findings against the President in the CR17 report. And as I said, she imbued his bona fides in material respects, and, in fact, called him a liar under oath. That was the effect of it. And she found that the President had misled Parliament that he had failed to disclose the donations to the CR17 campaign and that her investigation had supported a prima facie suspicion of money laundering. And the Committee will be very familiar with the incorrect use of legislation in respect thereof. And then we go on to summarise what the Constitutional Court said in its CR17 judgment, which does not need to be repeated here. The Committee has already heard it in some detail. Yes, so that is on that one. You can move to the SARS Unit. So, Chair, we provide the background – you can slow down there, Tshepo – on that investigation. [We] go through in some level of detail on the reliance of all of those different reports, the Sikhakhane Panel, what happened with the Sunday Times and the retraction, the KPMG reports, the SARS memo that the PP had placed reliance on [and] had gone to Minister Trevor Manuel at the time. If you can just skip to the findings of the Committee, Tshepo. You must forgive me, because my counting in the Roman numerals is not that good. But after it says ‘lawfulness’ and ‘the SARS memo’. The next one, over there. So, Chair, this we summarise the findings of the Committee, as per the deliberations; what was in possession of the PP. I am not going to read it all out because we have gone through it already. Tshepo, you can move down. Okay, go here [to] 778.1. The majority view was that the investigation of the SARS Unit matter was not impartial, open minded or independent, and it was conducted in an incompetent manner. And the evidence pointed to a predetermined outcome, and also that the investigation was flawed. And we did capture the minority view there, which was from the Al Jama-ah party during deliberations, Chair, that they were of the view that it did not warrant her removal from office, and that she had relied on legal opinions from some of the best advocates in the country. But if the Committee is in agreement with the way in which we have captured the fact with overall, the Committee finds that there is misconduct in Adv Mkhwebane’s failure to conduct an independent, impartial and open-minded investigation as well as incompetence, in that she misinterpreted the law and found that the complaints were unsubstantiated, to the extent that she relied on discredited opinions and unreliable evidence for her findings and ignored information and retractions, which showed that the evidence in question was unreliable and the opinions wrong in law. That was also a further act of misconduct. Chair, I think this paragraph might need some cleaning up because it is not reading very well. But the question before the Committee is whether the Committee agrees that in the CR17 [and] the SARS Unit matter there is both misconduct and incompetence for the reasons that we had set out.

Chairperson: Okay, thank you, Ms Ebrahim. A bit of detail and navigating a lot of things there. Hon Members, back to you. I invite you to make your interventions. Hon Nkosi?

Mr Nkosi: Yes, Chair. In respect of CR17, I agree that the report reflects what we discussed, that there is misconduct. Also, in respect of the SARS Unit matter, I agree that the Committee found that there is misconduct on the side of the PP. Thanks.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Nkosi. Hon Maneli?

Mr Maneli: Thank you, Hon Chair. I also stand to agree with what has been presented. And I want, Chair, for purposes of record, again, [to] also indicate that also the part in F which was not clearly presented as such for us to comment, because it links to the two and the comparison that has been made with the other charges leading to that F. That is also agreed, Chair. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Maneli. Hon Siwela?

Ms Siwela: Thanks, Chairperson. I am in agreement with the report. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Siwela. Any other Member? None. Are there any dissenting views? Any dissenting views? None. Thank you. We proceed. Back to you, Ms Ebrahim.

Ms Ebrahim: Chairperson, maybe it would be easier if we just go directly to the summary of the findings.

Chairperson: Sure.

Ms Ebrahim: Tshepo, it is paragraph 1084.

Chairperson: Okay.

Ms Ebrahim: And there, misconduct: “Adv Mkhwebane is found to have committed misconduct or demonstrated incompetence in performing her investigation and making decisions reflecting a lack of independence and impartiality and deliberately seeking to reach conclusions of unlawful conduct and imposing far-reaching remedial action without basis in law or fact” and this is to do with the SARS Unit matter, “and the Committee, in light of the aforegoing, conclude that charges 11.3 and 11.4 are substantiated to the extent that it reflects extraordinary steps here to impugn both the President and Minister Gordhan, in a manner that reflects a lack of independence and impartiality and which do not meet the standards expected of a Public Protector.” Chair, there we have captured, as I said, the view of Al Jama-ah, that neither CR17 or SARS rise to misconduct or incompetence. Chair, there were two other matters that were also included that the Committee did not hear too much evidence on: the one was the SARS subpoena matter, and the other one was the GEMS [Government Employees Medical Scheme] matter. But before I go there, Chair. Can I just get confirmation: am I correct that the Committee is in agreement, because when Members spoke now, they spoke of misconduct in [the] SARS Unit and CR17 matters? Misconduct and incompetence, both are dealt with. It might just be an oversight.

Chairperson: No, you are right. Let us just reconfirm that. Thank you. Members, I do not know if it is old hands: Hon Nkosi and Maneli.

Mr Nkosi: No, Chair, I confirm as it stands in the report.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Maneli?

Mr Maneli: No, Chair. Confirmed. That is the reason why I also brought back F before, because there it was clearer about both being applicable.

Chairperson: Yes, thank you. Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: In agreement, Chair. Thanks.

Chairperson: Agreed. Any other Member? Hon Siwela?

Ms Siwela: Siwela agreed. I agree, Chair. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you. Is that a new hand, Hon Nkosi or gadgets?

Mr Nkosi: No, no, gadgets.

Chairperson: Thank you. Any dissenting views? None. We proceed. Hon Nqola?

Mr Nqola: It must be registered, Chair, that there is no dissenting view. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you. I have registered that Hon Nqola. Thank you for that. Thank you for assisting the Chair. Over to you, Ms Ebrahim.

Ms Ebrahim: Thank you, Chair. Just to move to the SARS Subpoena matter – this is also known as the Zuma Tax Record matter. Chair, in that matter, there was a dispute between the Public Protector and SARS regarding whether in terms of the Tax Administration Act, SARS was legally obliged to release confidential tax information of individuals. So that Act says that they cannot release the private tax records. And the PP sought to obtain such records, and litigation ensued as a result thereof. And the High Court eventually ruled that the Public Protector did not have the power to subpoena personal information from SARS. And they ordered costs against her in her personal capacity. But there was then an appeal on the matter, which was dismissed on the merits. But the Constitutional Court did overturn the personal costs order. The PPSA then would have had to pay the cost. And in this matter, Chair, Members will recall that when Mr Samuels gave evidence on reckless litigation, Mr Samuels has said that it is important that in some cases that there is litigation, that reports are reviewed, or where there is a legal principle that requires clarity, that the Public Protector must seek that clarity. And, Chair, we contend that this would have been one of those examples, as to whether the power of the Public Protector to subpoena documents would include the power to subpoena the tax records of an individual because up until this point, that question was not clear. So we do not believe that could arise to either misconduct or incompetence in seeking that clarity.

Chairperson: Okay, thank you. Hon Members, your take on that summary? Let me hear you. Do you agree?

Mr Nkosi: Agreed, Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Nkosi agrees. Thank you. Any other Member? Hon Siwela?

Ms Siwela: Agreed.

Chairperson: Recorded. Any other Member?

Ms Sukers: Agreed, Chair.

Ms Mananiso: In order, Chair.

Mr Mahlaule: In order.

Chairperson: Thank you. Is there any dissenting view? None. We proceed. Back to you, Ms Ebrahim.

Ms Ebrahim: Chair, the next matter is the GEMS matter. And this matter, Members will not see it listed in the Motion as such, because it formed part of the additional evidence that was provided to the Independent Panel; the rules provide that the Independent Panel may get additional information and this was submitted as part of that. Chair, I am not going to go through the substance of this matter because it was covered during deliberations, except to say that in light of the fact that the Committee has not heard any evidence on this matter, the committee obviously cannot substantiate the complaint or the charge in respect hereof. And therefore, there is no finding made in respect of GEMS.

Chairperson: Okay.

Ms Ebrahim: Okay. So, Chairperson, moving to the next section of the report. That would be a very brief summary of the findings and recommendations of the Committee. Of course, we know the findings: the finding is that the PP has misconducted herself and demonstrated incompetence, as we have now agreed to based on what was contained in the draft report and for the reasons contained therein. What the Committee needs to do, though, Chair, is to deliberate on the question of removal. At this point, Chair, I want to just make two comments. One, a Public Protector or Chapter Nine functionary, as I said, can be removed on the basis of any finding, whether it be misconduct or incompetence, or incapacity; in our case, we have got misconduct and incompetence. It is not necessary that there needs to be findings in respect of both and that there needs to be findings in respect of every charge and sub-charge that lies to misconduct, or incompetence. So the Committee may find that merely based on one particular aspect of the charges, if I use Vrede misconduct, as an example, that Vrede misconduct alone is sufficient to warrant a recommendation of removal. On the other hand, the Committee may have found misconduct in all of those matters, in all of the charges, even incompetence, but still not be of the view that it warrants removal. What the Committee needs to do now is to deliberate on this question specifically of removal and what it intends advising the NA in terms of a recommendation in respect thereof.

Chairperson: Okay.

Ms Ebrahim: Just to remind… Sorry, Chair. The second thing is to remind Members is that the Constitution says you may remove on a finding; the NA does not have to remove on a finding of misconduct and/or incompetence. So the Committee can similarly also take that into consideration.

Chairperson: Alright. Thank you for that support and advice, Ms Ebrahim. Maybe before I get into there, I just want to conclude the GEMS so that I hear the Members on GEMS, and then we get into this. Your comments on the GEMS part, as presented, Hon Members? Before we get into deliberating on the actual removal or non-removal. Your brief comments on GEMS? You did not comment on that. Do you agree or you do not agree with what has been placed? Hon Maneli?

Mr Maneli: Thanks, Chair. I am not sure if the capturing takes care of the point I want to raise.

Chairperson: Yes.

Mr Maneli: Because on this matter, it was firstly to note that, of course, there is a court decision in this regard, however, the Committee did not hear any evidence to it.

Chairperson: Yes.

Mr Maneli: Now, the point being made here, Chair, is that we are not ignoring that the matter would have served [before] the court and there is a decision in that regard, whilst we have not heard the evidence. So I thought I should raise it now, whether in the way it is captured that is taken care of. Thanks, Chair.

Chairperson: Okay. Thank you, Hon Maneli, for that contribution. Any other Member on the GEMS? Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: Hon Chair, thank you very much. I do agree with Hon Maneli. Indeed, we did not hear any evidence as the Committee, except for what the court pronounced on it. So we did not make any conclusion in this regard. I agree with what is put here. Thanks, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Dlakude. Any other Member? None. Do I have any different or dissenting view on the GEMS matter?

Ms Ebrahim: Chair, I will rephrase it to capture the sentiments of Members, just to make it clearer. But my understanding is that Members are in agreement that we have not reached any findings in respect thereof.

Chairperson: Yes, that is the point. Thank you for that. You can do that clean up and refine that, in line with the Members’ contributions. Hon Siwela?

Ms Siwela: No, Chair, it is a mistake. But I wanted to support the two speakers. Thank you.

Chairperson: Alright, thank you. Thank you. Now we conclude. We are done with the GEMS matter, which would have been the last one. And therefore, Ms Ebrahim has then drawn our attention as this Committee to an important task of this Committee. Having travelled this entire journey, and today having considered this draft report, and made the kind of decisions that we have made on each of the charges or sub-charges; whether in this area to exonerate [or] whether in this area to sustain; [and] what is misconduct or incompetence. Therefore, the question that I am inviting Members to deliberate on, to respond to, is what advice – having done this work, having just gone through this in a manner we did, based on the evidence that we have, and in certain areas with no evidence and the kind of decision we would have taken – what are you advising the National Assembly to do in relation to the actual task of this Committee? Removal or no removal? I invite Members to deliberate and throw their ideas and contributions. Content advisors, as well as the legal advisor, are here. We will record those issues and that will form part of our conclusion and recommendations. Thank you. Do I have any first taker? Hon Lotriet?

Dr Lotriet: Thank you, Chairperson. Yes. I think as you say, we have gone through a long process, I believe a very thorough process, and we have examined all the charges that were brought; we listened to the evidence, we have deliberated on that. Today, we are dealing with our report. And based on our findings as a Committee in terms of misconduct, incompetence, I do think that at this point, the Committee should go forward and propose and recommend to the National Assembly that the Public Protector be removed from office. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Lotriet. I now invite the next hand, if I have. You suggest that we… Hon Maneli? That the Public Protector be removed from the office, based on our evidence, findings and the work that we have done.

Mr Maneli: No, thank you, Chair. In relation to the findings in the report as it has been presented. The matters of misconduct and incompetence are sustained, which would have been the basis for her removal. Therefore, that removal is recommended. And I am using the [word] recommended, Chair, because we are still also going to give the Public Protector an opportunity to comment on our report and elect to comment or not comment. In which case, our report will then stand, Chair. So I just thought that I should just emphasise that point so that we are open to consideration if there are comments that are to be made. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Maneli. Hon Nkosi?

Mr Nkosi: Thanks, Chair. I agree with the previous speakers that after having considered all evidence and presented to the Committee, we recommend… We do find that there is misconduct and incompetence and recommend removal on that basis. I just want to add that we exonerate her in relation to all those issues that are in the report that exonerate her, and that the report be forwarded to her for comment before it is brought back to the Committee for finalisation.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Nkosi. Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: Thank you very much, Hon Chairperson. With the evidence before the Committee with regard to misconduct and incompetence. Hon Chair, I will want to join my colleagues that we recommend for the removal with a view that we are still going to hear from the PP’s reaction to this draft report. So that is my take, Hon Chair. That recommendation will mean that based on her reaction to our report, then there is space or there is a chance for reconsidering based on what she would have put on her response to our report. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Dlakude. Hon Siwela?

Ms Siwela: Chairperson, let me take this opportunity and join my colleagues that the evidence before us mandates us to arrive at that particular decision of removal. So I am in support. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Siwela. Hon Nqola?

Mr Nqola: Thanks, Chair. Chair, we would have indicated in our first meeting of the Committee even before evidence was led that even if we find in one charge, evidence of misconduct and incompetence, that would mean that will recommend the removal. I think Ms Ebrahim is echoing the same sentiments the Committee has agreed on in its first meeting. Chair, given the evidence that has been led before the Committee, it suggests in many of the charges contained in the Motion, the Public Protector would have misconducted herself and would have displayed high levels of incompetence. Therefore, I do join my colleagues in recommending her removal. That we recommend that the Public Protector be removed. Of course, Chair, we will give consideration after having sent the draft report to the Public Protector, if she elects to make representations in terms of the draft report. And, of course, I agree with Hon Maneli that even at the point that she elects not to make any representation in terms of the contents of our draft report, that would mean she would be in agreement with the draft report and we will table it as it is in the National Assembly. So, Chair, we agree that we must recommend to the National Assembly that Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane, the Public Protector of South Africa be removed from office, in line with Section 194 of the Constitution. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Nqola. Hon Sukers?

Ms Sukers: Thank you, Chair. Chair, in light of the evidence before the Committee and the conclusions that has been drawn by this Committee, I support what was made by all my colleagues as well, that after the consideration of what will be put before us, after this report, that this Committee moves for the removal. I support that. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Sukers. Hon Maotwe?

Ms Maotwe: Thank you, Chair. Chair, it is clear that the report is, in our view, premature. And it demonstrates the determination of you, as the Chair, and the entire Committee to move with speed to impeach the Public Protector, regardless of the litany of procedural mishaps committed by the Committee since inception. The hurried nature in which this report has been prepared, Chair, lays credence to the view held by the Public Protector that this is a frivolous political process meant to punish a person who is non-compliant with the dominant narrative which seeks to hold up the current head of state as a saint. Chair, apart from the many procedural own goals, by yourself, as the Chair, and the committee, the most important issue at the moment is that the PP has not had legal representation in the Committee since the termination of the funding for legal fees by the Acting PP. And this dates back to as early as March this year. The Acting PP’s belated offering of R4 million has been mired in controversy which has not allowed the legal protector – the Public Protector – space to have legal representation. So the Acting PP indicated that the PP must appoint her legal reps herself and manage the additional R4 million that the Office of the PP made available as she wishes. I mean, this was unheard of, Chair, and it placed the PP in a very precarious position because she is here to account for her performance as the Public Protector, not as a private individual. Secondly, Chair, this Committee railroaded the PP to have the State Attorney as her attorneys of record. This was done despite the PP having raised concerns about the conflict of interest of the State Attorney. This was disregarded by this very same Committee, further exposing the PP to a state-sanctioned witch hunt, whose figurehead has always been the Chairperson. When the PP finally managed to appoint Chaane Attorneys, the Committee refused to give them time to acquaint themselves with the record. On what basis where these attorneys going to brief counsel, if they themselves did not have an opportunity to study the record and get to know the cases? You said earlier that the PP should have briefed the counsel; it is not correct, Chair. It is the attorney that goes through the records, and briefs counsel, of course on the instruction of the PP. Now, Chair, Rule 129AD requires that this Committee must conduct its proceedings in a reasonable and procedurally fair manner. You can never claim that your conduct was reasonable or fair in the manner you have handled this. From the initial directives, Chair, that you issued yourself right up to the end, the process has been grossly unfair to the PP. I mean, you can cite instances, Chair, but we do not want to spend the whole day here. So the findings in the report that the PP demonstrated incompetence in relation to the charges against her, were therefore, predetermined. This is the mandate that the Chairperson and his evidence leaders were given. And these findings were made without affording the PP with her constitutionally enshrined rights to legal reps. So in conclusion, Chair, if the PP has to be impeached, that must be thorough, and through a procedurally fair process. We say let us give the legal reps of the PP time to get familiar with the records so that they can brief counsel properly. Why are we rushing to conclude this process, because it will come back to bite this very same institution if we do so? The fact that the report mentions that the process will be moot after her term of these people expires in October, is proof enough that this process is no longer about justice, but about punishing an individual. Parliament can be reduced to a tool for punishing individuals. Chair, let us give the legal reps of the PP the one month they need to get familiar with the records so that they can brief counsel. That is our position. Anything else that is being suggested by the Committee Members, we reject it. And we reserve our rights to take this report on review, because it looks like we are going to be beaten by numbers here, it is not factual. It is just numbers. A lot of people are saying this, and therefore, we should take it even though we feel that is unfair to the individual. So if you continue in the manner that you are continuing, you are going to leave us with no option, as the EFF, but to take this matter on review. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Maotwe. I now recognise Hon Mileham.

Mr Mileham: Thank you, Chairperson. Chairperson, let me start by saying, firstly, that I agree with the recommendation and findings as presented by various other Members of this Committee. I also find it utterly bizarre that Hon Maotwe should make the statements that she did, given that she did not object to a single one of the findings on any of the charges that were presented. In other words…

Ms Maotwe: Chair? Chair? Chair, on a point of order. Chair, on a point of order.

Chairperson: Just a pause, Hon Mileham. Hon Maotwe, what is the point of order?

Ms Maotwe: Chair, why is this guy addressing me? Why is he addressing me? Does he have no point to speak? I spoke about her. I never cited any of the people that spoke before me. So he comes in and speaks about me because he got nothing to say: the husband of the complainant. Firstly, he should have not been allowed to sit in this meeting, Chair. That is what makes this process even more flawed.

Mr Mileham: Chair?

Ms Maotwe: So everybody who speaks here speaks through you, Chair. I do not think you appointed anyone to be a spokesperson to respond. Normally what you would do at the end of the discussion and deliberations, you give your own views and attempt to respond to some of us. So why is he speaking about me?

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Maotwe. Your point of order, firstly, is not sustained, because this is a matter of debate and contribution that you have now. Secondly, you would know that Members here are Hon Members: we do not have a guy in this Committee. And so I would want you to restrain and not to repeat that. So I am…

Ms Maotwe: No, but he behaves like a boy. We are going to call him a boy because that is how he behaves, Chair. There is nothing honourable about Mayhem [Mileham] here. Nothing.

Chairperson: Hon Maotwe, I did not even…

Ms Maotwe: No, Chair. You are not even going to do that to me. Do not do that.

Chairperson: Hon Maotwe, I am…

Ms Maotwe: I have been listening, painfully, throughout the day on all the nonsense that they have been saying, including him, and I never said a word because I knew that the time was gonna come for me to speak. Now he opens his big pink mouth and mentions me. I am not going to allow that.

Chairperson: Hon Maotwe. Hon Maotwe.

Mr Nkosi: Hon Chairperson?

Chairperson: Hon Maotwe. Hon Maotwe, I have asked you to step down. Refrain from what you are doing.

Ms Maotwe: This guy must withdraw speaking about me. Yasis.

Chairperson: I am not sustaining your point of order. You continue to make unwarranted unparliamentary comments, even when I am asking you as the Chair not to do that.

Ms Maotwe: Because you are unfair yourself, Chair. No, you are unfair.

Chairperson: Hon Maotwe, you are now disrespecting me as the presiding officer.

Ms Maotwe: Protect me. That is all I am asking you.

Chairperson: I am not going to protect you. I am going to have to enforce the rules on you. I am not going to do that.

Ms Maotwe: Chair, as long as you tell him not to mention me, I will keep quiet. I will keep my peace.

Chairperson: Please keep quiet, Hon Maotwe. I did not invite you to speak.

Ms Maotwe: No, but, Chair, you are unfair. Everybody must speak through to you. That is what I am requesting you to do.

Chairperson: I did not even note you to speak, Hon Maotwe. I want you to stop doing that.

Ms Maotwe: Yes, but tell him to speak through you [and] not through me. If he talks about me, he is inviting me to respond.

Chairperson: Stop what you are doing. Firstly, IT (information technology) just mute her for now. Thank you. And I am not going to repeat this if she does repeat what she is doing. That point of order is not sustained. It is a frivolous point of order. And Hon Mileham, I want to give you the platform.

Mr Mileham: Thank you, Chair. Chairperson, as I was saying, I find it utterly bizarre that we could go through all the charges and not a single objection was raised at any point by Hon Maotwe or anyone for that matter, to the findings that we had made throughout this process. And then…

Ms Maotwe: Chair, on a point of order.

Chairperson: Hon Maotwe, what is the point of order?

Ms Maotwe: Can you call this person to stop calling my name please.

Chairperson: Sorry, Hon Maotwe…

Ms Maotwe: He must make his point and leave me alone. I am at peace here. I am not bothering anyone. Can I not be bothered?

Chairperson: You are not going to repeat what you are doing, Hon Maotwe. I have already addressed that.

Ms Maotwe: No, I am saying to you, Chair, that it is in the rules that we speak through you.

Chairperson: I have already addressed that. I have made a ruling. You are not parliamentary.

Ms Maotwe: No, we speak through. Do not act like you are the secretary of the DA. Please, you are not. This is not a meeting of the DA. This is not that meeting.

Chairperson: Please mute her again. Thembinkosi, please mute her again, for the last time. Please mute her again for the last time.

Ms Maotwe: Chair, if he continues speaking about me… (muted)

Chairperson: Hon Mileham, please continue.

Ms Maotwe: You, Mileham, do not talk about me. You pink… (muted once more)

Mr Mileham: Chairperson?

Chairperson: Go ahead, Hon Mileham.

Mr Mileham: Thank you, Chair. As I was saying, it is actually bizarre that there is no objection to the merits of the matter. But when we come to the recommendation, at that point, Hon Maotwe decides that the matter is now up for debate. I find that bizarre, because as a Committee, we have gone through this…

Ms Maotwe: I am not a DA member, wena. I do not take instructions from you. What's bizarre? Did we have a caucus of how we must… (muted once more)

Chairperson: Go ahead, Hon Mileham.

Mr Mileham: We have gone through this evidence very carefully…

Ms Maotwe: What protects you is the colour of your skin, nothing else. You are not making any point. Nothing.

Chairperson: Continue to mute her, Mr Ngoma.

Mr Mileham: Thank you, Chair. We have gone through this evidence very carefully, very thoroughly over an extended period of time, and the Committee has made its findings and its recommendations, based on evidence. To now say that, that the process that we have undertaken or the steps that we have followed, have been a witch hunt, I think is absolutely unsubstantiated. So that is my first point. My second is this, Chair. During the course of this hearing, there were threats made on your person, by Adv Mpofu. And I believe that this Committee has a duty in its recommendations to firstly refer those threats to the Legal Practices Council for investigation into conduct unbecoming by Adv Mpofu. And secondly, to take the necessary action, which I believe is criminal action, in terms of the Powers and Privileges Act, where a Member of Parliament is threatened in the course of his or her duties. So, Chair, I would ask that those be included in the recommendations of this Committee. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Mileham. I now recognise the…

Ms Maotwe: Chair?

Chairperson: I now recognise the last two hands with second bites.

Ms Maotwe: Chair?

Chairperson: It will be Hon Maotwe, followed by Hon Maneli, as your second bite to contribute. Over to you, Hon Maotwe.

Ms Maotwe: Yes. Thank you, Chair. Chair, I understand when you say it is our point for debate, but it is definitely the point where we now talk to each other. Hon Mileham was extremely out of order, and I do not understand why you did not call him [to order]. Throughout the whole process, Chair, we have always been talking through you. There have so many things that I [have] said that you do not agree with. Now, for him to come here and tell me that I have been quiet the whole day. How can I participate in the process that I am saying is flawed – it is procedurally unfair? I said that in the morning. Where was he? He was not listening. He just comes here because we are at the end, and we are not in agreement with him, and therefore, I should have spoken for each and every point. We deliberately kept quiet, Chair, because we said from the beginning of this meeting today that the PP does not have the legal rep. So why must we participate in this process? I am registering our objection to the report now, because I want it on record. And, Chair, you should have called [Hon] Mileham to order, because he is mayhem like that. For as long as he talks… calls my name, I have got the right to defend myself. And I have got the right to speak and protect [myself] in the absence of your protection as the Chairperson. So everything that we have said, stands. And we do not agree with him saying that we must take Adv Dali Mpofu [to the Legal Practice Council]. He must go study law himself, and stop hiding behind being a husband of a matriculant. He must go to school and practice and be an attorney and be an advocate; and then he can come and challenge all those things. For now, he is just an Hon Member who is not even honourable of anything. We reject this report, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Maotwe. Your points have been noted. Hon Maneli?

Mr Maneli: Thank you, Hon Chair. I just want to start, Chair, by indicating as we adopt that report, there would have been an agreed approach to the report of going through point by point. And you have run it fairly, Chair, that even if there would have been quite an overwhelming number of Members who have commented in affirmation of what has been presented, that an opportunity for a dissenting view would be asked and be recorded, and that there has been record, as South Africans are following these deliberations, that such did not exist. It therefore does not make any discussion that comes at the end, nullify the process that would have been followed. So I just thought I should raise that point as the first point. Second point, Chair, is that our understanding remains that this report is a draft report of the Committee, which is still subject in terms of audi for the Public Protector to also to elect to comment, which, in that case, the Committee should have an open mind to consider what would come from the Public Protector. In the same vein, where the Public Protector elects not to contest what is put in the report, it will be regarded as such, and that the Committee is able to adopt the report finally and take it to the National Assembly as such. I am raising this, Chair, so that we place it on record that there is a process that we have followed, and that process has been agreed by Members in a Committee meeting, which is this Committee that has been proceeding – not anywhere else. I want to re-state the point that, Chair, from the beginning, we would have agreed that we do not carry mandates from elsewhere, except considering facts that will be before us; sift them and make a determination. It is against this background that in some of the matters, even if they could have been found to be in existence by another forum – whether it is a panel or what – and that as a Committee, we come to a point that you exonerate the Public Protector on those matters. That is about fairness – open-minded Committee – that looks at facts that are presented before; therefore, on those that we would have agreed. It is also, Chair, informed not only by what was already there, but it is on evidence led before the Committee. By that evidence, I mean, all the witnesses including, the Public Protector herself, putting up her own report, both in writing and partially orally presenting before this Committee. And surely for those South Africans, who equally would be like Members, like ourselves, who have attended every Committee meeting and every information that is put before the Committee, will probably come to the same conclusion, that the matters before us are just about facts. And the decisions we are making are about facts without external influences and so on. And these could be tested as such, as these facts cannot be manufactured. And I want to say, Chair, even if we try and spend time to politicise the matter, but at this point, given facts before us, even that politicisation is running short of changing the facts that are before us. And we are using the facts, unfortunately, in order to arrive at a conclusion; and this conclusion, therefore, is informed by that. I just thought that should be clearly on record. And surely, South Africans, as I say, they have been following the deliberations. They know that even other matters that are said now have been challenged before – they were in courts – and they were cleared. This includes the route for this Committee to proceed. This is a matter that has been cleared. Once it was cleared and we proceeded, it meant that slogans and everything else went out of the window and that we needed to proceed as mandated by the National Assembly. I thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Maneli, for your second bite and contribution. Hon Nkosi?

Mr Nkosi: No, Chair, just a few points. Firstly, it is that I believe that all Members in the Committee brought an open mind and were very objective for the past year or so, in pre-processes, including in the internal process, I mean, in the process of the Committee itself. That is the first point. And therefore, that in our consideration of both the procedures that were followed, and the substance of the issues that were raised, we have always been very reasonable, open-minded and have applied in all respects, and objectively so, fairness and deference to… or rather, add on the question of fairness all the time. Secondly, it is not true that this Committee denied the Public Protector legal representation. If you recall, Chair, that at one point the procedures were adjourned to ensure that she gets legal representation. And it was an effort of this Committee to avail the opportunity for the PP to be legally represented. And we never proceeded an inch without affording her that legal representation. Of course, the choice in election is on her side once such legal representation was availed, or opportunity to obtain such was availed. So up to today, the understanding is that the PP has always had legal representation and that it is her election to utilise it that has denied her, effectively representation in the Committee. Lastly, Chair, I think that we should reiterate the view that we have found misconduct, incompetence on the side of the PP, and recommend removal. Thanks, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Nkosi. Do I have any other Member? Hon Sukers?

Ms Sukers: Yes, thank you, Chair. Chair, I think the parts that I just want to emphasise is the part that the process that we are in right now, is a process that has been mandated by the National Assembly and it forms part of the oversight function of Parliament. Much has been done to ensure that there was fairness and we have traversed this point, again, this morning and throughout the whole process. When I became part, and I make it personal, of this Committee, there was… I came into this Committee with no pre-set mind whatsoever. We have laboriously listened to evidence; we have listened to the Public Protector as well. It cannot be made that this process be, again, at this point, this late point, smeared to the point of a political witch hunt or a political process with a predetermined outcome. The many hours of listening to people speaking or witnesses coming before the Committee cannot be reduced to that. The millions of Rands that have been spent on the process to ensure a fair process cannot be reduced to that as well. And I think it is important for us, as Members, to reflect on the oaths that we have sworn to the Constitution and to function within our duty as Parliamentarians. Throughout this process, I think, it has been an education for every single Member to, again, go back and see what our duties are: for me it was that. So I think it is important for us just to be very cognisant of what the expectations are of the people who has elected every single party to represent them as South Africans in the National Assembly, and to consider the impact of the lack of fairness to those who have been impacted, say for instance, in the Vrede Dairy matter; the poorest of the poor. So we cannot reduce this merely to an individual. We need to look at it within the constitutional duty of the National Assembly and the service to which we have sworn ourselves. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Sukers. I now recognise Hon Hendricks.

Mr G Hendricks (Al Jama-ah): Thank you, Hon Chair. I would like to put it on the record that we appreciate your fairness throughout these proceedings, and also the generosity of all Members who allowed everyone to add their voice. And that is indeed appreciated. However, as you know, Hon Chair, this is a Motion of the Democratic Alliance. Although 60 Members of the ANC abstained from voting on this process when it came before Parliament, Al Jama-Ah voted against the Motion. We have expressed our views. And to just put it on the record, that we do not support the removal of the Public Protector. And we feel that there are some political parties who have asked their Members to follow the party line. So we do not agree with you that it has been a very impartial process. But having said that, we do not support the removal of the Public Protector, and feel that she must serve her full term of office. Thank you very much.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Hendricks. I now recognise Hon Denner.

Ms Denner: Thank you, Chairperson. Chairperson, I will reiterate what I have said before during these proceedings, and that is that they are mechanisms and remedies to the Public Protector’s disposal if she does not agree with this process, anything that happened during this process, or anything that is written in the report or the outcome of this entire process. So I agree that the Public Protector must be removed. I agree with the report. And as I said, it can be taken on review. Hon Maotwe has indicated that the EFF is considering taking it on review, and they are welcome, it can be taken on review. But I agree with the process. I think we have been fair. And that is my two cents. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Denner. I now recognise Hon Dlakude.

Ms Dlakude: Thank you very much, Hon Chairperson. Let me state this, Hon Chair, that we are a Committee established by the rules of the National Assembly. And on the establishment of that Committee, we were tasked to embark on a fact-finding mission. Based on that, we had witnesses that came before the Committee. They gave us their evidence. They were asked questions by both Members of Parliament, the PP’s legal reps, and also the evidence leaders. So the PP herself took a stand, to give us… She gave us her statements and also took the stand. Unfortunately, she could not proceed with giving us oral evidence. We relied on her statements that she deposited to this Committee. Based on those facts, Hon, Chair, that is why we are where we are now. Let me also indicate that I agree with my colleagues, Hon Chair, because as a Committee, I think we have been fair when it comes to this process. We even… You even, as the Chairperson, went out of your way to ensure that the issue of the funding is attended to, even though it was not the responsibility of this Committee to deal with those issues. With regard to legal representation, Hon Chair, yes, we heard that so many times that she has a right to legal representation, of which we agree with, but the process there was a time it was abused. You also indicated today, Hon Chair, that the Chaane Attorneys were given enough time, enough chance to brief the attorneys. Firstly, Mr Chaane was admitted in hospital. He recovered [and] came back. They were given a full month: a full month, to brief the senior counsel. And also, let us remind ourselves. The senior counsel and also the Chaane Attorneys, are the PP’s choice of legal reps. And another opportunity which they should have used in this process, of which, I believe sitting here, that they failed to utilse that, was that the senior counsel has been there from the start up until now. So they should have utilised that opportunity because looking into all these, there was not a chance… there was not a time where the senior counsel missed this process. So, Hon Chair, I want to reject the notion that as Members of other parties we were given a mandate to remove the PP. There was no such mandate. I am speaking, now, on behalf of the ANC; there was no such mandate. The conclusions and findings that we came to are based on what was presented before us, as Members of the Committee. And also, that there is so much number of members of the ANC who abstained from voting – voting for what? Because we have not come to that, as of now. So, Hon Chair, this process, according to my understanding, was a fair process. We went out of our way to be more than fair. We are still, after this meeting, going to give the PP her last audi, of which we are saying after that, we are going to sit as this Committee to reconsider our decisions based on her reaction to the draft report. After that, the report will be taken to the National Assembly. It is the National Assembly that will decide on what to do with the report; ours is to recommend. So let us stop this thing of accusing or being accused as if we came here with a predetermined outcome. Is that not what is being said?

Chairperson: Yes.

Ms Dlakude: So this, Hon Chair, I am saying, is really uncalled for, for those members to accuse us of this. We are all Members of Parliament. And also I do not think we would deliberately misuse taxpayers' money for something that we do not believe in. So, Hon Chair, that is my presentation. Thanks.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Dlakude. Hon Siwela, and then I go to Hon Nqola.

Ms Siwela: Chairperson, I am a little bit disturbed. I do not know what is it that we are doing now? As the Committee, we have gone through all processes, correctly so. And on the issue of fairness, more especially from your side and ourselves, we have been patient. And I want to support Hon Dlakude on the issue of mandate. We do not have any mandate which we were carrying here. We were trying to be objective, Chairperson. We listened to all the people who came and gave evidence. Our recommendation, or recommendations, is based on the deliberations made throughout. So, I want to really emphasise the issue of mandate, that we do not have any mandate here; otherwise, we would not for one year. Our main concern, Chair, the delay tactics which were happening, we were quite aware about it. The issue of abusing taxpayers’ money was also a problem for us. So coming here to be accused that we are carrying a particular mandate is wrong. Two, we are arriving at this point today, because of the evidence we received along the lines. Again, Chair, you have been accused, and yourself you have been highly accused, that you are supposed to leave the Chairperson position, and of which we did not agree, the majority of us, because there was no reason for you to do that. So today where we are, we have not yet concluded as comrade… as Hon Members have stated. We are still waiting for our PP to respond, and it is then we will come back and look at her responses, and then we will take the matter to the National Assembly. So the issue of accusing us here that we are carrying a particular mandate is wrong. And again, this process, according to me, it was fair. We have been patient enough. So… But we cannot allow this process to delay any longer, because we are dealing with taxpayers’ money. So my submission, Chair, is that we have been fair, and we will continue to do so. So the recommendations, as they stand, we are tabling them. We are adopting them as the Committee, so that we move forward. And then after the response by the PP, we are going to table the matter into the House, and it is the House that is going to take a particular decision, but let people stop accusing us in this matter. Thank you, Chairperson.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Siwela. Hon Nqola, you are the last hand I have noted.

Mr Nqola: Thank you, Chair. Chair, I think we must correct one thing here, that it is quite not correct that PPSA withdrew funding. On record, Chair, a letter addressed to the Committee and to the Public Protector, it is clear that they say in the content of the letter, that the funds that were allocated for the basis of the Inquiry, have depleted. They have even exceeded the limit they have set. So it was a depletion of funds, not a withdrawal of funding. There is a difference between the two. Two, Chair, there is an issue about legal representation. No part of how this Committee had dealt with matters properly, is that every correspondence is shared amongst Committee Members. And it is on record, Chair, that Chaane Attorneys, after the withdrawal of Seanego, did indicate that they are on record attorneys of the Public Protector. They have since went missing. The report that the Committee got was that Mr Chaane got sick. This Committee halted its proceedings because the report was that there is no one in the law firm that would best represent the aspirations of the Public Protector. If you do not call that fairness, therefore, we need to have a redetermination of what fairness means. After that, Chair, there was an indication that Mr Chaane has recovered and now back on the duties. There is a correspondence to the Committee to that effect. And therefore, we have resumed, Chair. We have given Chaane Attorneys two opportunities. The first is to brief the senior counsel of the Public Protector. The correspondences that have been exchanged between Chaane Attorneys and the Committee do indicate that Chaane Attorneys failed to brief the senior counsel. The second opportunity, Chair, was to go and read the record; they were given that opportunity [and] they requested more time. You know, Chair, you are given time [and then] you do not start working. It would have been different if they were given time, they started working and could not finish on the time we have given them. Then it would have made sense for the Committee to extend the time they were given. But what is reported in the Committee is that they have not even accessed the DropBox to go and read the record. It means that they have been sitting, doing nothing, playing on minor delay tactics. The Committee and Parliament cannot afford to go beyond what we are instructed to do. Chair, it is not true that it is us, the Committee Members, that is rushing the process. The process is rushed by the rules of the National Assembly. The National Assembly rules instruct us that we must conduct this process within a reasonable [and] fair time. We would have, Chair, to gauge our fairness, we would have initially set this Inquiry for thirty-five days, but because circumstances on the ground dictated that we extend, we extended for more than a year, because we wanted to undergo a seamless and a fair process. Chair, what we must not do and we must refuse to do, is to want to play politics with this process. And, Chair, in my own view, and in my own school of thought, a conscious revolutionary will be on the side of the people. A conscious revolutionary will stand in protection of the institution that belongs to the people, not the person who is occupying that institution. A conscious revolutionary, Chair, would actually stand with those whose rights were infringed. The beneficiaries of the Vrede Dairy Farm, who, until now, have not benefited anything. The forces of our own revolution, who have been robbed their rights to farm in the Free State. A conscious revolutionary would actually stand with those people, not those whom sit in the higher echelons of power. Thank you very much, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Nqola; the last speaker to make a contribution. Let me thank all of you, Hon Members, in terms of your contributions and discussions on this item, focusing on the recommendation on removal. Before I make the summary and indicate the way forward, maybe it is proper to just walk back a bit and say that as we started today’s meeting, I would have indicated that, amongst other things, consistent with our commitment to do this work from day one, we would have spent eighteen hours of our time on a Friday and Sunday, as Members of this Committee, ably supported by our team (the content team, the legal advisor and evidence leaders) as directed. And we spent those eighteen hours designing our own report as the Committee. And we would have been very patient going through charge by charge and sub-charge by sub-charge. Having done that, and we would have noted contributions that were made during that time, which were able to carry through and demonstrate and reflect today as Ms Ebrahim was able to do. And so today from eleven o'clock, we spent valuable time as this Committee, taken through the summary of our own deliberations and decisions in considering this draft report. For each charge, and its sub-charge, we were able to allow deliberations for each and every Member who wanted to do so – as Hon Maneli says, including giving space for any Member who had a different view or a dissenting view. And for each charge, and the sub-charge that we went through, I would have allowed for Members, on record, to indicate what their decision is, and Members did so. And we would have supported each other; agreed; interrogated where they were not clear. And we did that step by step. Both part A and part B of this comprehensive draft report that has been put together. And I would have invited for factual dissenting on each particular item, whether it is a main charge or the sub-charge. And I must just indicate that from eleven o’clock until we concluded that exercise, I have certainly, as a Chair, recorded no one who has dissented on each main charge, on each sub-charge that we went through. I would have allowed that. And I would have repeated twice, regularly. The draft report does, however, recognise minority views that would have been entered into during the period of 28 July and 30 July, where the GOOD party in certain areas would have indicated a different understanding and a different phrasing of a particular matter. The report has reflected, and today that would have been repeated – we are reminded of that. Al Jama-ah, through Mr Hendricks, the report reflected on the issues that you entered on 30 July, that Sunday, where Al Jama-Ah and Mr Hendricks repeated that today, in saying they do not support the removal of the Public Protector. In those deliberations, Al Jama-ah would have made their points in each of those charges where they were present, in terms of where they stand on a particular issue. And so we have gone through that exercise: it is on record. It was happening transparently for everybody that followed this from ten o’clock when we started and from eleven o’clock when we started the actual going through the report section by section, led by Ms Ebrahim. Everybody would have recorded that. So that is on record. Having concluded that we then, colleagues, got into the summary of what is it we want to recommend to the National Assembly. And that is what I want to summarise now. The majority of Members that would have spoken are of the view that we must recommend to the National Assembly, based on the work that we have done, very concrete evidence with facts and these long hours of work that we have put into this as part of this journey, that in adopting this draft report, the Committee is recommending that the suspended Public Protector, Busisiwe Mkhwebane, be removed from office, in line with Section 194 of the removal of the heads of Chapter Nine Institution[s], based on the kind of work that we have done, informed by this evidence, and the detailed work that we have done. And that is so because the Committee was able to sustain and establish evidence that sustains the misconduct and incompetence charges, whether this is CIEX, this is Vrede, CR17, the Gordhan matters, and so you go – as well as issues of incompetence. In our deliberations we are very clear that there are areas where the Committee was of the view that much as there was a very strong feeling by Members of the Committee when we deliberated during those eighteen hours, that the issues that we feel strong about do not escalate, or make us to conclude, in certain areas that there is misconduct and incompetence. This Committee deliberated on that, and made those kinds of conclusions, and therefore, has been very firm in saying in these areas, we do not find that the evidence that we have establishes that she is incompetent, or establishes that she has committed misconduct. This is on record. It has been very clear. And so our decision that we are taking, Members are of the firm view that that is subject also to hearing, as we now going to give, from latest tomorrow, the last audi to the suspended Public Protector, to comment on the adopted draft report of this Committee. And we will await what comments she makes or comments she does not make into the report. Thereafter, we will be proceeding, as this Committee, to therefore table our report to the National Assembly, in line with what would have happened in the seven days plus or so or 10 days that [we] would have given the suspended Public Protector to have a final audi on the matter. That is the majority of the decision of Members. I, however, need to note very strong views that have been raised by the Economic Freedom Fighters, through their Member Hon Maotwe, who is of the view that the adoption of the report that we are making is premature, that we are involved in a frivolous exercise, it is a rushed report – even if this is after a year and a half we are at this work. That in her view, and the EFF, they reserve the right to take the report we will conclude for review. And so that has to be recorded. We note that as a matter that cannot be wished away; it was raised here. It was articulated. And I would invite Hon Maotwe to even share some of the manner she would have phrased this, so that we are able to include it in our report. Additionally, Hon Hendricks repeated the points he would have made as part of the deliberations on the 30th of July. Firstly, that far as Al Jama-ah is concerned, they do not support the removal of the Public Protector. Of course, I must say this because it looks good. It feels good for the Chair, that he appreciates that he does not have a biased Chair, he has a fair Chair. That is accepted. And so, Hon Members, that is the summary of the work. I am not going take anything from the contribution of Members. Members have assisted me to make a much briefer summary by taking and responding to many of those issues and clarifying to everybody out there about the journey that we have travelled because this is our journey. It is us that know this particular journey. Everything is on record. Even as we speak, and as I conclude this summary, the suspended Public Protector has not been denied any legal representation. She has elected not to utilise what this Committee has offered to her. And therefore, the withdrawal of that, and non-action on the availability of the legal support is not the same as not having it; it is important that that point is made. So I want to thank you, Hon Members, to say that is how we want to summarise this. Before I proceed to us adopting our minutes, Ms Ebrahim, anything – having led this report – that you want to get clarity on or you want to comment on?

Ms Ebrahim: No. Thank you, Chair. Chair, we will proceed to draft the recommendation to the Assembly and include that in the report. Then also to do some of the final cleaning up that I alluded to – obviously, that will involve any substantive changes – it was things like numbering and if there is any spelling mistakes, or anything else that we may pick up when we do a final read through now, when we consolidate. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Ms Ebrahim. Thank you, Hon Members. That concludes that section – that part of our meeting. We now get into the last part of our meeting, which is us finalising and adopting all of our minutes that were outstanding. And I am going to ask Mr Ngoma to lead us into that. And you only get into minutes if you are present. So just to remind you so that we do not contaminate our records; if you were not present at that meeting, do not move for the adoption or even support it. Thank you. Mr Ngoma?

Ms Maotwe: Yes, Chair, like that meeting of the 28th. We were very much busy with the tenth anniversary.

Chairperson: No man. No.

Mr Nkosi: I knew [it].

Chairperson: No, it was in our programme.

Ms Maotwe: Chair, I want on record that it was the day before – a big rally in South Africa. You know?

Chairperson: No, thank you, Hon Maotwe. Mr Ngoma?

Mr Ngoma: Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon and good afternoon to Hon Members. Chairperson, the first set of minutes to table, the minutes of 28 March 2023.

Chairperson: Okay, you take us through, so that we go through who was present [and] any corrections page by page. Page one.

Mr Ngoma: Chair, sorry about, Chair. It should actually be the minutes of 23 March, where the Committee… Sorry, Chair. So many documents here opened.

Chairperson: Yes, we removed it. We do not see it.

Mr Ngoma: I am sure it is there now, Chair?

Chairperson: Yes.

Mr Ngoma: The minutes for the 23 March, tabling of correspondence, consideration of revised Committee programme and adoption of outstanding minutes. It was almost full house, Chair, with a number of apologies.

Chairperson: Okay. Any corrections, Hon Members? Is that the last page? Okay. Remember these minutes were sent to all of us? Do I have a mover?

Mr Nkosi: I move for adoption, Chair. I was present in the meeting.

Ms Siwela: I second. Siwela seconds.

Chairperson: Hon Nkosi moves and Hon Siwela seconds. Minutes duly adopted. Thank you. That is for the 23 March. Next set of minutes?

Mr Ngoma: Thank you, Chair. The next set of minutes then is the 28 March. It was a Tuesday and Adv Mkhwebane appearing before the Committee. Very short minutes, Chair, because all of this is contained in the report that the Committee just adopted.

Chairperson: Alright, thank you.

Mr Nkosi: I move for adoption. I was present.

Chairperson: Hon Nkosi, being present, moves for adoption.

Ms Siwela: I second.

Mr Nqola: Yes, Chair. Nqola.

Chairperson: Hon Nqola seconds. Minutes are therefore duly adopted.

Mr Nqola: Hon Nqola is seconding. Also noting the stand-up comedy Hon Maotwe is on about.

Chairperson: Okay, thank you. We will go to the next set of minutes.

Mr Ngoma: Chairperson, the next set of minutes is Wednesday 29 March.

Ms Maotwe: You see that Nqola is pushing me? Do you see, Chair?

Chairperson: I can see that. Let us go to the next set of minutes.

Mr Ngoma: The 29 March, Chair, also the appearance of the PP before the Committee. Also just very short minutes. Thanks, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. Any mover for the adoption?

Ms Siwela: Siwela moves for the adoption.

Chairperson: Hon Siwela moves for the adoption. Any seconder?

Ms Tlhape: Tlhape seconds, Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Tlhape seconds. Minutes therefore are duly adopted. Let us move to the next set of the minutes.

Mr Ngoma: Chairperson, the next set of minutes will be the minutes of 30 March – a continuation of the appearance of Adv Mkhwebane before the Committee. Yes, Chair.

Ms J Hermans (ANC): I move for the adoption of the minutes, Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Judy Hermans, not Hermaans, moves for the adoption. Any seconder?

Mr Nkosi: I second, Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Nkosi seconds. Minutes are duly adopted. The next set of minutes, Mr Ngoma?

Mr Ngoma: Chairperson, the last set for March, would be the minutes for 31 March, where the PP also appearing before the Committee. And Chair, it is Hermans. Hermans, Chair.

Ms Hermans: Thank you very much.

Chairperson: Taken as read. Do I have a mover for adoption of the minutes?

Mr Mahlaule: I move, Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Mahlaule moves. Any seconder?

Mr Nkosi: Seconded, Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Nkosi supports. Minutes are duly adopted. The next set of minutes.

Mr Ngoma: The next set of minutes, Chair, is the minutes of 4 April. Yes, Chair, wherein the evidence leaders made presentations to the Committee.

Chairperson: Okay.

Mr Ngoma: Chairperson, save to say that the day was meant to be a hearing… Yes.

Chairperson: Thank you. Do I have a mover for the adoption of the minutes?

Mr Nkosi: I move for the adoption of the minutes.

Chairperson: Hon Nkosi moves. Any seconder?

Ms Dlakude: I second, Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Dlakude supports. Minutes duly adopted. Thank you. We proceed to the next set of minutes.

Mr Ngoma: I am just trying to find them quickly, Chair. My apologies. As indicated, there is a lot that is opened on this laptop. Okay, there you go. Chairperson, those are the minutes of Wednesday 5 April. Also presentation by the evidence leaders.

Chairperson: Thank you. Any corrections? Do I have a mover for the adoption of the minutes.

Ms Dlakude: I move, Chairperson, for the adoption.

Chairperson: Hon Dlakude moves. Any seconder?

Ms Siwela: Siwela seconds.

Ms T Mgweba (ANC): I second, Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Mgweba seconds. Minutes therefore duly adopted. Thank you. Can we proceed to the next set of minutes.

Mr Ngoma: The next set of minutes, Chair, are the minutes of Friday the 14th of April. Also, presentations by evidence leaders, Chair.

Chairperson: Okay, let us go through that, page by page. Any corrections? None. Do I have mover for the adoption of the minutes – those who were present?

Ms Dlakude: I move, Hon Chair, for the adoption.

Chairperson: Hon Dlakude moves. Any seconder?

Ms Mgweba: I second, Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Mgweba supports. The minutes therefore duly adopted. Thank you. We proceed to the next set of minutes, Mr Ngoma.

Mr Ngoma: Chairperson, these are the minutes for Tuesday 18 April. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. With no corrections, do I have a mover for the adoption of the minutes?

Ms Hermans: I move, Chair, that the minutes be adopted.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Hermans moves. Any seconder?

Ms Dlakude: I second, Hon Chairperson.

Chairperson: Hon Dlakude supports. Minutes therefore duly adopted. Can we move to the next set of minutes.

Mr Ngoma: Thank you, Chair. The next set of minutes will be the minutes of Monday 8 May. Chair, also note that on this day the hearing had to be postponed.

Chairperson: Thank you. Do I have a mover for the adoption of the minutes – those who were present?

Ms Dlakude: I move, Hon Chair, for the adoption of the minutes.

Chairperson: Hon Dlakude. Any seconder?

Ms Hermans: I second, Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Hermans supports. Minutes duly adopted. Let us move to the next set of minutes, Mr Ngoma.

Mr Ngoma: The next set of minutes, Chair, is Wednesday 17 May. Also, here, Chair, the advocate was expected to appear before the Committee. And this was postponed to allow PPSA to finalise the issue of legal representation – the hearing, in actual fact, not the meeting, Chair. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. No corrections? Is there a mover for the adoption of the minutes?

Ms G Tseke (ANC): I move for the adoption of the minutes, Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Grace Tseke moves for the adoption of the minutes. Any seconder?

Ms Dlakude: I second, Hon Chair. Thank you.

Chairperson: Hon Dlakude seconds. Minutes duly adopted. Can we move to the next set of minutes, Mr Ngoma.

Mr Ngoma: The next set of minutes, Chairperson, is the second correspondence and the consideration and adoption of the Committee’s revised programme.

Chairperson: Thank you. Any corrections that you have picked up? Do I have a mover for the adoption of the report – of the minutes?

Ms Dlakude: I move for the adoption of the minutes, Hon Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Dlakude, on point, moves. Any seconder?

Mr Nqola: Seconded, Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Xola Nqola supports. Minutes duly adopted. Thank you Members. We move to the next set, Mr Ngoma.

Mr Ngoma: The next set of minutes, Chair, is 7 June. This day was also meant to be a hearing, Chairperson.

Chairperson: Okay, let us go through and check who was present and whether there are corrections. Go. Any corrections, Members? None. Do I have a mover for the adoption of the minutes?

Ms Dlakude: I move for adoption, Chair.

Ms Tseke: I second.

Chairperson: Hon Dlakude, Hon Tseke support. Thank you. Minutes duly adopted. We move to the next set.

Mr Ngoma: Chair, the next set of minutes is the minutes of Friday9 June. Also, this day, Chair, was supposed to be a hearing day.

Chairperson: No corrections. Do I have a mover for the adoption of the minutes?

Ms Mgweba: I move, Chair.

Mr Nkosi: I second, Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Mgweba moves and Hon Nkosi supports. Minutes duly adopted. Can we proceed to the next set, Mr Ngoma.

Mr Ngoma: Yes, Chair. The next set would be 28 July. Coming up, right away. Friday 28 July, where we received a decision from the Chair on the recusal application, and it was considered by the Committee. And the Committee also began with the drafting of its report.

Chairperson: Thank you. Let us check who was present. That is 28 July, Friday. Any corrections? None. Do I have a mover for the adoption of the minutes?

Ms Hermans: I move for the adoption of the minutes, Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Hermans moves. Any seconder?

Mr Mahlaule: I second, Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Mahlaule supports. Minutes duly adopted. Thank you. We proceed to the next set.

Mr Ngoma: Chairperson, the last set of minutes is the minutes of Sunday 30 July, wherein the Committee finalised the drafting of the draft report that it has just adopted now. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. The 30 July. That was Sunday. Do I have a mover for the adoption of the report?

Ms Siwela: Siwela moves for the adoption of the report.

Mr Ngoma: Minutes.

Chairperson: Of the minutes. Hon Siwela moves. Any seconder?

Ms Dlakude: I second, Hon Chair.

Chairperson: Hon Dlakude supports. Minutes duly adopted. We are going to take today’s minutes, Mr Ngoma.

Mr Ngoma: They are ready, that is Members are ready to adopt them, Chairperson.

Chairperson: No ways. No, the Chairperson has not seen those minutes. They cannot be adopted. You can leave those out.

Mr Ngoma: Just to show, Chair, that they are ready.

Chairperson: No, you can leave them out. The Chair must apply his mind and bring minutes in the…

Ms Hermans: Wow.

Mr Ngoma: Thank you, Chairperson.

Chairperson: Thank you. That is the end of the minutes. We only have one set of minutes to adopt, which is today’s meetings. Just to indicate, Members, that with the conclusion of this meeting today, we are going to do the work to ensure that your work proceeds to the next step. As I would have indicated both in the letter to the suspended Public Protector, and in this meeting, that latest tomorrow we will be sending this draft report to the suspended Public Protector for her comments. And we will indicate the time lines given to that. We have indicated in the letter to her that it will be up to 21 August, as an end date before we receive the report. Based on the receipt of that report, on what would have been the comments and so on, the Committee will convene in order to send a final report to the NA. We would have indicated previously, as well, that you must be on the lookout for another day or date that we are going to be planning. Just to remind you we said we want to have a session where we deal specifically with what we call the reflections and lessons of our work. We do not want to mix that with the drafting of the report. And already Members have started speaking about those issues. We are going to do that work so that we also compile that. Also, what would be outstanding, Ms Ebrahim, is the conclusion and with the recommendation that was done today. So you will indicate how much time you will be able to take that. But it is not different from what the report has. Ms Ebrahim?

Ms Ebrahim: Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Unless as I was going through the minutes you were able to have captured that. Let me hear you.

Ms Ebrahim: That is what I wanted to say, Chair. As we always do when we are sitting in a Committee, we always draft something in advance, and then just put in the absolute necessary that we need. I said to Tshepo that Members will just forgive me if there are any editorial things that need fixing. For me, what is most important is that I capture what Hon Maotwe and Hendricks have said, and that that is correct in the report. Tshepo, can I ask you to put that up?

Chairperson: Okay, even though it has not gone through the Chair, I will allow for that, so that it is a Committee product. They can deal with that. So please, go ahead.

Ms Ebrahim: Thank you, Chair. So, Chair, what we sought to do was to just bring the entire report together, because you cannot have a conclusion that is just hanging; the content advisors certainly would not have been happy with a product like that. And what we did was to talk a little bit in the conclusion about the Kader Asmal report, that Members would obviously be very familiar with. And that was the report that was done on Chapter Nine Institutions and checking to see whether those institutions were fit for purpose and doing what they were meant to do, as it was envisaged when the Constitution was drafted. And that is almost seventeen years ago, to the day that report was tabled in the NA. And we have just captured some of what that report noted. It is a good reminder for the Committee as to what the role of these Chapter Nine Institutions are, and what the drafters had in mind. And, of course, Chair, a lot of this would have been traversed with Mr Ebrahim when he set out the background to the establishment of the Public Protector and so on. Tshepo, you can move to paragraph four, please. Chair, here we have indicated that the importance of the Office of the Public Protector cannot be gainsaid, and that was very clear from the evidence that this Committee has heard. The Committee heard from ordinary citizens affected by the work of the Public Protector, both positively and negatively so, as well as the staff of the PPSA. And the task that the Committee was given was now to assess whether Adv Mkhwebane, who has been appointed to support, protect and promote our democracy, has failed to meet the standard of conduct expected of her, or has demonstrated incompetence in the performance of her functions. And that this was an unenviable and challenging task – at least it was for Committee staff, Chair. And we have also said that the Committee has remained cognisant of the fact that the importance and the independence of the Public Protector is paramount. And the PPSA faces many challenges. And those are some of the things that the Committee would have to consider when it considers other lessons learned and the way forward, if I can put it that way. There were challenges in the PPSA Act that we have heard about. There were challenges about resources and so on, which the Committee can apply mind to in this follow-up session that you spoke of, Chair. Chair, we note that the report, obviously, makes serious adverse findings of misconduct against the Public Protector in a range of investigations, reports, and her handling of subsequent litigation. That there is also evidence giving rise to several grounds of misconduct, not just one. And in relation to the charge of incompetence, that the Committee is satisfied that the various instances of incompetence, when you cumulatively look at it together, then show incompetence as defined in the rules. And I just put in some examples there, quickly, Chair, but I mean we can always beef that up. But I have also made a note here in eleven, Chair, because it has come up several times during the proceedings of the Committee, that we noted the three clean audits, which was historical because it is the first time in the history of the PPSA that these clean audits have been achieved; that there has been significant inroads into the backlog of cases that the PPSA, a situation which the current PP inherited, and she was committed to improving; that there was appreciation of her hard work, and also that she had significantly increased the number of reports that were issued. But at the end of the day, Chair, the legal issue is such that those matters, regardless of how loadable they are. That is not what the Committee was tasked with considering. The Committee’s task was to consider the veracity of the charges as it was in the Motion and to make findings in respect thereof. So the consensus there, Chair, I have just captured that the Committee has satisfied itself, based on the evidence before it, and the submissions it has received, that the PP has misconducted herself on multiple occasions, and that this warrants removal. In terms of the minority view and abstentions, Chair, there were not any abstentions in a technical sense. I have recorded that Al Jama-ah did not support the removal from office of the PP, citing that the process has not been impartial. And she should be allowed to conclude her term in office. And then also in the report itself, Chair, Members would have noticed that we have captured some of what Al Jama-ah had said when we deliberated on particular aspects. In terms of the EFF, and if I could, Chair, ask Hon Maotwe just to assist me to make sure that I have captured this correctly now? “The EFF did not object to any findings of the Committee during deliberations. However, it noted it is very serious concerns about the fairness of the process, and to this extent stated that any adoption of a draft report would be premature, hence its choice not to engage in the deliberations. The EFF noted that the proceedings have been grossly unfair and procedurally flawed, conducted in a hurried nature, constituted a frivolous political process with a pre-conceived outcome, and is not fair in light of Adv Mkhwebane not having legal representation since 31 March 2023. The conduct of the Committee to continue with the adoption of the draft report is, therefore, not reasonable, and is grossly unfair to Adv Mkhwebane. The EFF indicated further, that it intends to review the report of the Committee.” So that, Chair, was me just trying to sum up how I understood Hon Maotwe’s contribution. And then, Chair, lastly, I just recorded that whilst no parties had abstained from voting, there were a number of parties that were not present. I do not know if I have captured them all correctly, but I will check that with the Secretariat when we adjourn. And the recommendation then of the Committee, was captured in bold, that “The Committee, having duly considered the Motion, recommends that the National Assembly, based on the Committee's findings of misconduct and incompetence, resolved to remove Adv Mkhwebane from the Office of Public Protector provided for in the Constitution.” So, Chair, I still need to clean this up, because, obviously, it is now being done very quickly. And as I indicated, I need, most importantly, that there is agreement on 14 and 15, and then generally from Members on the rest.

Chairperson: Okay, thank you. Mr Ngoma, any issues you want to correct on the attendance?

Mr Ngoma: Chairperson, I think it will just be a matter of adding the Congress of the People, because even though the members never attended, they are listed on the register of the Committee. So it is just for us to add that on the 16th, Chair.

Chairperson: Okay, that is fine. Thank you. Let me now come to Members. Firstly, I want to do two things. If there are any general comments or corrections or issues that you want to point out. And then secondly, lastly, we will do the mover and adoption of this draft report, finally, so it is done – now that we have this working conclusion and recommendations. So I will do it in that way. Any general comments? Hon Hendricks?

Mr Hendricks: Thank you, Chair. Hon Chair, I know that you did say [we'll have a special day to look at these issues.

Chairperson: Yes.

Mr Hendricks: However, I want the Committee to consider adding to the report that the Section 9 committees are normally informal committees, quick resolutions. We have now learned from deliberations that in the case of the Public Protector and the researcher made, the lawyers made reference to the act as well. It looks like we are moving towards a specialist court that the Public Protector’s Office is no longer…

Chairperson: Just reposition. We are not hearing you. Please, come closer to the mic.

Mr Hendricks: Sorry, can you hear me now, Hon Chair?

Chairperson: No, we cannot hear you. There is a problem there.

Mr Hendricks: Let me…

Chairperson: Yes, now we can hear you. You are now muted.

Mr Hendricks: Can you hear me now?

Chairperson: Yes, Hon Hendricks. Thank you.

Mr Hendricks: Oh, thank you very much. I was just saying that, you know, you did say we are going to have a special day, but I feel it is important to note that an immediate lesson learned is that to be a member… to be a Public Protector is very onerous, and does not meet the informality that we expect of Section 9 committees. And that maybe there must be consideration that the Office of the Public Protector be a specialist court in terms of the act that…. I cannot remember what you call it, but that it should be a specialist court and there is an act that provides for specialist courts. I say that, Hon Chair, because as you know, we are busy appointing a new Public Protector. And I do not know if there are going to be time for this. But certainly, you know, we asked to note that it is not easy to be a Public Protector because you have to cross your t's dot your i's; not that other Section 9 committees do that. But it certainly smacks of a specialist court. Thank you for this opportunity.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Hendricks. We will park that idea for that session and deal with it there. Thank you for bringing it up. Hon Maneli? Hon Maneli? Hon Maneli? I think he seems to be frozen. I do not see any movement on his mic. In the meantime, is there any other Member who wants to make a contribution on just the conclusion and recommendations, before I would go to the move and support action? From what Ms Ebrahim just lastly, put up now. So are you then happy with the conclusion of our report and the recommendations. Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: Thank you very much, Hon Chairperson. I think what Ms Ebrahim has presented to us just now, with regard to our deliberations and conclusion as of today's meeting, I fully agree with it. I do not think there is anything that needs to be added there. We are fine, Hon Chair. It is what we discussed and this is what we came up with. Thank you very much.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Dlakude. Any other Member? Hon Siwela?

Ms Siwela: Chairperson, thank you. I concur with the latter speaker. The conclusion and recommendations is what we have agreed upon. Thank you.

Chairperson: Okay. Thank you, Hon Siwela. Any other Member? Any dissenting view if there are no other Members? No dissenting view. Can I ask for a mover for the adoption of this entire draft report – now that it has a conclusion in it? Hon Nkosi?

Mr Nkosi: I so move, Chair, that the Committee adopts this provisional report.

Chairperson: Thank you. Hon Nkosi moves. Any seconder?

Ms Siwela: Hon Siwela seconds.

Chairperson: Hon Siwela seconds. I have Hon Mileham; you had your hand up?

Mr Mileham: No, Chair. Thank you.

Chairperson: Okay. Thank you. Therefore, this draft report is duly adopted. And I have already indicated how it is going to proceed from here. There being no matter that we need to attend to, Hon Members…

Ms Maotwe: Chair? Chair?

Chairperson: Hon Maotwe?

Ms Maotwe: Yes. With the objection of the EFF.

Chairperson: Oh, sorry. I now recognise and note the objection of the EFF on the adoption of this report. Thank you, Hon Maotwe. That will be so noted and recorded. Thank you. With that, colleagues, I think that is where we get to the end of our meeting. The time now is 14:43. We would have started at ten o’clock, again, on this Friday. I must just appreciate your commitment as Members of this Committee. We are not done yet with our work, but you have demonstrated consistently that you take serious what you have been asked to do by the National Assembly. Whilst we are still going to support our team, our support team and everybody else who has been part of this journey. For now, we want to say thank you for being interested, doing your part, especially the team that has worked tirelessly, burned the night, all long hours, to produce the kind of work that we have adopted now. Thank you very much. We still want you to still polish this further and make it a good report. But we want to thank you for now. And to thank everybody else who has been in this meeting; members of the public for your consistency. We note your own comments. I get to be notified as the Chair what you are saying. And we have just indicated now, especially to you as members of the public, that we are going to have a separate day when we deal with issues of reflections and lessons. And so you might want to share your thoughts around that. So thank you very much. Thank you Hon Members and colleagues. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

The meeting was adjourned.