No wonder the suspended Public Defender Busisiwe Mkhwebani appeared to have obliterated Investigation 194 as she was faced with a 119-page list of questions by evidence leaders seeking to clear up the vast silences and loopholes.
It is these questions, as well as the damning evidence that has been put forward, that Mkhoebani has chosen to ignore and appears to have abandoned the defense in the investigation of her eligibility to hold office for alleged misconduct and incompetence.
Section 194 Historical Investigation Chief Qubidile Dyantyi announced this week that the multi-party commission may complete its work before the end-of-July deadline. In other words, he was moving forward regardless.
To date, Mkhwebani has missed three deadlines for submitting oral and/or written responses or submitting sets of questions by panelists and evidence leaders.
Read more at The Daily Maverick: Third Strike – Mkhwebane The ghosts of Section 194 carry out an impeachment investigation while lawyers collect fees
She has repeatedly brought up legal issues that have now left her new team of legal representatives, Chaane Attorneys, to deal with the fallout.
While Dyantyi did not respond to a single request, Dyantyi said the company had already withdrawn R500,000 from the R4 million surrounded by Mkhwebane.
Changes and modifications
On the Mkhwebani lifeboat a reportIn a back-door attempt to change the mandate of the Reserve Bank of South Africa, the country may never discover the public defender’s motives for hiding its meetings with former President Jacob Zuma and the State Security Agency (SSA) from court records.
Evidence of close collaboration with the SSA and its former director general, Arthur Fraser, is presented in the CIEX report. Mkhuebani also met with Zuma in connection with the reinvestigation.
The complaint, noted by Evidence Leaders, was from the Accountability Institute of South Africa (IASA) and “was not about the SARB’s powers and mandates in general and did not arise from the manner in which the SARB’s powers were, but from the failure to carry out the report made prepared by CIEX in certain circumstances.”
The committee’s legal team said the matter had been investigated by former public defender Tuli Madonsella and that Mkhuebani’s attempt to change the HRC’s mandate was “irrelevant”.
“Attorney Mkhwebani made changes to this interim report which differed in material aspects from those prepared by Adv Madonsella.”
They asked who exactly was consulted in making these changes and where those changes originated.
The committee sought to clarify its relationship with SSA Agent Mahendra Moodley, who was part of a team working on the public defender’s IT package and who provided the text for Makhbani’s final corrective action recommendation to change the mandate of the SARB.
Read more at The Daily Maverick: Inside the Office of the Public Defender of the State Security Service in Busisiwe Mkhwebani
“how Did lawyer Mkhuebani know Mr. Modly? “
Why did she think Modly was “sufficiently knowledgeable, qualified or experienced to advise on an amendment to the Constitution to alter the Reserve Bank’s mandate?”
Also based on “what exactly was the information at her disposal at the time that Advocate Mkhwebani provided to Mr. Modly as an economist?” Ask the evidence leaders.
Modly had provided Mkhuebani with a one-page document outlining the text of the constitutional amendment “except Changing the word “cabinet” to “parliament” included in the CIEX report as a remedial, “semi-literal” measure.
The court record of what evidence leaders repeatedly referred to as the “lifeboat report” was lacking transcripts of interviews with the SSA and Zuma, two sets of draft research on central banks, as well as emails from Mkhwebani that cite SSA and “economist” input. regarding the proposed amendment.
Ultimately, the leaders sought evidence from Mkhoebani’s answers as to whether it had considered Judge William Heath’s Special Investigation Unit report at the time it recommended remedial action.
“If not, why? Why were the meetings with the Presidency that took place on 25 April 2017 and 7 June 2017 not disclosed in the lifeboat report?”
Why were the meetings with the Presidency not recorded and written down? Why did the lawyer order Mkhwebani not to register them?
Describe fully what was discussed in these meetings with the Presidency.
“Why did Lawyer Mkhwebani inform the Coordination Committee [Constitutional Court] That it has not discussed the final report/new procedure or chair, when it has at least discussed the new procedure in relation to the Special Investigations Unit?
Point specifically to where “Importing Presidential Submissions” is addressed in the Lifeboat report.
Why were the meetings with the SSA on May 3 and June 6, 2017 not disclosed in the Lifeboat report, given the use of the document received from the SSA?
“Why were these meetings with the SSA not recorded and notated? Why did the lawyer order Mkhwebani not to register them?
Describe fully what was discussed in these meetings with the SSA?
What role does the SSA have to play in recovering from what the Reserve Bank is alleged to have “unlawfully” given up?
Why is the meeting with the SSA classified, instead, why are the meeting minutes or notes classified?
What is meant by the phrase “meaningful social and economic transformation”?
How will this be achieved by SARB?
“On what basis does Attorney Mkhwebani have the authority to make such a recommendation?”
You get my drift and why Chaane’s lawyers might be reluctant to take a plunge there.
In Part Two, we bring you unanswered questions regarding Mkhwebane, CR17, Vrede Dairy, and SARS reporting. DM