Public Interest SA wants the full details of transactions, expenditure and all costs related to public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane's fight to hold office.
Mkhwebane yesterday lost another case after the Western Cape High Court declined her application for leave to appeal its ruling refusing her to return to work pending the outcome of a Constitutional Court hearing.
Earlier this week, senior manager for legal services in the office of the public protector, Neels van der Merwe, told the parliamentary committee for the section 194 inquiry into Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office that the office had spent R147m on legal fees in the past six years.
Following the news, Public Interest SA’s Tebogo Khaas said the civic movement was concerned about the “costly litigation” by Mkhwebane, particularly the impact such proclivities might have on her ability to execute her mandate.
“Public Interest SA lodged a PAIA application on Tuesday for a full, detailed ledger of transactions, expenditures, disbursements and/or provisions for payables in respect of legal expenditures/costs for the period beginning February 28 2020 until October 31 2022, both dates inclusive.
“We remain hopeful that the office of the public protector shall cooperate with us and accede to our lawful request for disclosure, especially now that some of this information has made its way into the public domain.
“Meanwhile, should evidence of malpractice from what seems to be overreaching by some lawyers be confirmed, we would wish to ensure that competent authorities act swiftly to ameliorate such in the national interests,” he said.
Following the news of how much Mkhwebane’s legal fees were, social media was quick to slam the suspended public protector, with some saying the fees were too high.
However, some, who have publicly defended Mkhwebane, said South Africans could not expect her to pay the costs in her personal capacity given that she was defending herself against a parliamentary process into her fitness to hold office.
The ANC's Carl Niehaus said the fees came about as a result of the position she holds and couldn't be expected to pay the costs in her personal capacity.
“The principle is an established one and can’t be challenged. Because she’s fighting this, the legal fees should be paid by the state. They are expensive and would be unfair to pay out of own pocket. These kind of fees are very high and would ruin anyone.
"She is entitled to the legal recourse she has undertaken . No one can tell her she can’t follow that route. She’s doing what she legally can. The high cost is unfortunate but it would be unfair to expect her to pay out of her own picket given the fight she’s undertaken," Niehaus said.
ANC national executive committee member Tony Yengeni, who took to Twitter soon after the news emerged, defended Mkhwebane yesterday.
“She is being unfairly attacked left, right and centre by those she is investigating. What do you expect her to do? She has a right to self defense," Yengeni said.
Van der Merwe confirmed invoices and payments made to law firms representing the office of the public protector.
He told the committee Seanego Attorneys received the lion’s share of legal instructions totalling about R55m for services rendered from June 2018 to May 2022, with Adv Dali Mpofu receiving more than R12.2m in fees. Seanego Attorneys are the attorneys of record for Mkhwebane’s inquiry.
Other payments listed were to Adv Bright Shabalala, who is also part of the PP’s legal team for the inquiry, who received R9.12m; Adv Muzi Sikhakhane, who received R4.7m; Adv Vuyani Ngalwana, R4.7m; and Adv Thabani Masuku, R4.5m.
Some of the costs include the office of the PP spending R213,000 on a legal opinion relating to whether Mkhwebane could receive crowdfunding to pay for a personal cost order of R226,621 issued against her in the Reserve Bank case. – Additional reporting by TimesLive
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.