Article 194 chairman Dyantyi will not ‘voluntarily recuse himself’ over Mkhwebane corruption allegations

[ad_1]

The chairman of the Article 194 committee, Qubudile Dyantyi, did not “voluntarily recuse himself”. Suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane did not file a formal request for recusal, and Dyantyi said he could not make such a decision based on an “incomplete trial of WhatsApp conversations”. Mkhwebane’s husband alleges that the late ANC MP Tina Joemat-Pettersson asked him for bribes on behalf of herself, Dyantyi and ANC chief whip Pemmy Majodina to sabotage the dismissal of Mkhwebane.

The chairman of the Article 194 commission charged with investigating the fitness for office of suspended public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, Qubudile Dyantyi, has decided not to ‘voluntarily recuse himself’ in the absence of an official request of recusal.

Mkhwebane’s latest attempt to remove Dyantyi as committee chairman comes amid corruption allegations made by Mkhwebane’s husband, David Skosana.

Skosana filed a complaint with the police, alleging that ANC MP Tina Joemat-Pettersson, who died last week, approached him to get bribes of R200,000 each for herself, Dyantyi and Majodina, in order to sabotage the impeachment of Mkhwebane.

Dyantyi and Majodina have publicly denied these allegations.

Mkhwebane subsequently lodged a complaint against the three ANC MPs with the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Ethics and MPs’ Interests.

She held a press conference Tuesday at a hotel in Sandton, amplifying the allegations and releasing audio recordings in which a voice resembling Joemat-Pettersson’s could be heard, but nothing directly implicating Dyantyi.

READ | Mkhwebane, EFF, UDM and ATM seek to turn investigation into his fitness for duty into an investigation into Dyantyi

Last Wednesday, when the committee was again unable to proceed with Mkhwebane’s testimony because she was unrepresented by a lawyer, Dyantyi said he would consider the written requests for recusal that reached him at 1:00 p.m. Friday.

This came as Mkhwebane, EFF, UDM and ATM called for his removal as president.

Friday’s meeting, once again, could not continue with Mkhwebane’s testimony because she declined to be represented by the state’s attorney, despite having said three days earlier that they could inform his lawyer. Mkhwebane then said she did not have a lawyer to file a formal recusal.

“I sent a letter through RMT’s lawyers stating that I will not make a request, as I do not have a lawyer,” she told the committee.

In that letter, Mkhwebane’s attorney, Gcwali Makhathini of RMT Attorneys, wrote that Dyantyi would be aware that “[you] have been implicated in allegations of criminal behavior involving extortion, bribery and bribery with respect to your membership and/or chair of the Section 194 Committee, made by the late Mrs. Tina Joemat-Pettersson” contained in “WhatsApp conversations and audio recordings, in which Dyantyi is allegedly called “one of them” and whom Joemat-Petterrson described as her “guy”.

Makhathini also noted that the allegations were being investigated by the Hawks’ and Parliament’s Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests.

“It is in this context that, in recent days, calls for your voluntary recusal from the committee, pending the outcome of these investigations, have been made by our client as well as by several members of the committee, including the Honorable Holomisa, Honorable Zungula, Honorable Malema and Honorable Maotwe.

“Our client indicated that in the absence of legal representation on the committee and the termination of the mandate of the lawyers she has chosen, she obviously would not have access to the assistance required. So she approached us to advise her on the legal options available to her.

In accordance with their legal advice, Mkhwebane asked them to ask Dyantyi to provide them with his reasons for not recusing himself voluntarily.

“Depending on the content of these reasons, our client reserves the right to take urgent action in court to declare you unfit. [to] preside over the proceedings pending the outcome of criminal and parliamentary investigations,” Makhathini said.

Mkhwebane has previously told the committee that she cannot afford her own legal representation at the inquest because she has been “knocked down” by personal costs orders. She has not personally paid for these orders yet.

Dyantyi said on Friday that he would respond to such correspondence “like a letter,” in other words, not like a request for recusal.

In his response, addressed to Mkhwebane, Dyantyi noted that he had not received a formal, written request for recusal, as required by the committee’s guidelines (the rules governing the investigation).

He said, therefore, “that such a request cannot be given proper consideration, given its significant implications for me, the committee and Parliament, based on a few paragraphs of the correspondence received and media reports, the origins of which are not known, and what appeared to be an incomplete record of WhatsApp communications”.

Dyantyi said:

As someone with a legal background, you know that media statements and WhatsApp messages are no reasonable substitute for recusals and I do not intend to have committee deliberations determined by media.

“Consequently, in the absence of a written request, I cannot consider a request for voluntary recusal and again emphasizes that at no time have you been prevented from making such a written request setting out fully the reasons of this request and the supporting evidence. which can be taken into consideration,” Dyantyi said.

Dyantyi also questioned why Mkhwebane had not submitted a formal recusal request.

“Nothing prevented you from instructing the Public Prosecutor to inform the lawyer of your choice to bring any request you deem necessary, or to use one of the legal teams who are willing to, and act regularly for you in the legal proceedings you are initiating. . You have not been denied legal representation. Rather, you have refused to allow counsel to be informed. In this regard, I do not agree with what is stated by RMT attorneys, who actually act for you in other S194-related disputes, which are not paid by the PPSA.

“It is also noted that there is a contradiction in the RMT letter in that on the one hand it states that you cannot seek recusal before the committee due to a lack of legal representation but it seems that this legal representation is not lacking for the purpose of bringing an urgent legal request.”

READ | Mkhwebane rejects the prosecutor she requested 3 days before

In September last year, Mkhwebane filed a formal motion to disqualify Dyantyi, saying Dyantyi had shown bias against her and her legal team and allowed the process to be procedurally unfair.

Dyantyi refused to recuse himself.

“I do so in the belief that the PP has not established any grounds upon which it can be said that I am biased or that my conduct can give rise to an apprehension of bias,” he said on October 17.

Mkhwebane then challenged his decision in court, but the Western Cape High Court dismissed his claim. She successfully applied for leave to appeal.

The inquiry has suffered numerous delays over the past two months regarding Mkhwebane’s legal costs and representation, and decided on Friday that it will put written questions to Mkhwebane, and if it chooses not to respond, it will not would consider only the evidence available to it.

Mkhwebane has waged a war of attrition with the investigation, including legal petitions, the summoning of irrelevant witnesses and the systematic obstruction of his lawyer Dali Mpofu SC.

This meant that the process, which was originally due to be completed in September last year, with Mkhwebane’s R4.5m legal costs, is ongoing and his legal costs have soared to R30m. .

Mkhwebane’s term ends in October.

[ad_2]