Publications
Partners
- The Auditor-General will look into the Office of the Public Protector's legal fees in future after explosive evidence before the inquiry into Busisiwe Mkhwebane's fitness for office.
- R147 million was spent on legal fees, with questions about its quality, and payments to spin doctors and for articles attacking judges who ruled against Mkhwebane were also made out of the legal services budget.
- If Mkhwebane wants to keep having ministers as neighbours, she will have to foot the bill herself.
The Auditor-General will scrutinise the Office of the Public Protector's legal fees in future audits, the office said in a statement on Tuesday.
While Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane and her supporters have made much about the office achieving three clean audits in a row, recent evidence before Parliament's Section 194 inquiry into Mkhwebane's fitness for office, has raised questions about its expenditure on legal fees.
Evidence before the inquiry calls into question the R147 million spent on legal fees in relation to the quality of services provided given Mkhwebane's dismal litigation track record. It also appeared from email evidence that counsels' political affiliation played a role in their appointment.
Since 2018, Seanego Attorneys received the most briefs, and evidence shows the firm has to date been paid more than R55 million in legal fees and, out of this amount, advocate Dali Mpofu SC, was the highest-paid counsel, having received about R12 million.
Furthermore, evidence before the inquiry also shows Paul Ngobeni, a fugitive from US justice who is not allowed to practice law in South Africa, was paid thousands of rand for "legal opinions" and communications services, including attack articles against judges who ruled against Mkhwebane, from the legal services budget through Seanego Attorneys.
Ngobeni subcontracted RET commentators Kim Heller and Professor Sipho Seepe for "communication services" - for which he invoiced Seanego Attorneys.
This while PP had a department for communication services. After this evidence was revealed, the DA said it would write to Acting Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka to "request that a full audit is conducted on all funds spent by the Public Protector to defend Mkhwebane both in court and in the media space".
"Regarding the calls for an investigation/audit into the expenditures incurred by the institution in respect of legal fees over the last number of years, there is a process currently underway in Parliament, which, amongst other issues, is tasked with ventilating this matter," read a statement from acting PP spokesperson Ndili Msoki.
He said while the office is still awaiting the outcomes of this process, it had reported the matter to the Auditor-General "and confirmation was received that the matter will be an area on which they will focus on, within the scope of the next audit".
Meanwhile, the PP says it is reviewing its systems, including those relating to procurement of legal services.
"This is to identify gaps and put in place appropriate corrective measures, which will include reporting to the relevant authorities where necessary, in order to ensure that its message of promoting good governance in state affairs is lived up to from within.
"We wish to assure the people of South Africa that we are acting within the parameters of the law in every action being taken. As an institution that is entrusted with ensuring accountability in state affairs, we too remain accountable. The institution will not be making any further comment on this matter."
READ | How Mkhwebane forked out millions to advocates who shared her political interests
The office also said Mkhwebane was not being evicted from the ministerial home she was occupying.
On Sunday, City Press reported the beleaguered Mkhwebane - who is facing a parliamentary inquiry into her fitness for office - was "on the verge of being evicted from the prestigious Bryntirion ministerial estate in Pretoria".
In July, News24 reported taxpayers forked out R3.7 million for Mkhwebane to live alongside ministers in the government's Bryntirion Estate, while she owned her own house in the capital city.
Mkhwebane was afforded this perk in 2017, after former police chief General Khehla Sitole, who at the time was divisional commissioner for protection and security services, performed a threats assessment.
Erstwhile public works minister Nathi Nhleko - a key player in the sham to absolve former president Jacob Zuma from culpability for Nkandla - approved Sitole's recommendation to move Mkhwebane into Bryntirion.
The position of Public Protector is not one of the positions this form of elite state-sponsored is reserved for, but Nhleko endorsed an exception could be made for Mkhwebane.
Msoki said they have noted media reports regarding Mkhwebane's "accommodation arrangement".
"The institution acknowledges that the subject matter involves the use of public funds, and thus is of interest to the people of South Africa," read the statement.
READ | R3.7m - what it cost the Public Protector for Mkhwebane to live securely in comfort
"The institution wishes to place it on record that it has taken a decision to notify the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure [DPWI] of its intention to terminate a lease agreement, for immovable property, entered into by the PP and the DPWI. Communication was formally addressed to the department on 31 October 2022."
Msoki said this was done to "rectify the obligation of who bears the financial costs" of Mkhwebane's accommodation, in line with the institution's policy and Mkhwebane's employment conditions.
Mkhwebane has been informed of developments since 18 October.
The statement read:"As the PPSA, we are not at liberty to further elaborate on the details of advocate Mkhwebane's living arrangements."
The PPSA started looking into the situation before President Cyril Ramaphosa suspended Mkhwebane in June, Msoki said.
Mkhwebane's suspension has since been overturned by the Western Cape High Court but is still in effect pending confirmation by the Constitutional Court and the DA and Ramaphosa's appeals to the apex court, which will be heard on 24 November.
The Section 194 inquiry will continue on Wednesday.
