With embattled suspended public protector (PP) Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s defence advocate Dali Mpofu having gone on a two-day verbal offensive against Stellenbosch University professor Thuli Madonsela, legal experts yesterday raised eyebrows about Mpofu’s posture, bordering on disregard for ethics.
Insults
This after the hearing descended to a new low – from insults about her looks, qualifications, to questioning whether she was born in South Africa.
Ironically, Madonsela reminded the parliamentary inquiry into Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office that it was not her facing an impeachment hearing, but Mpofu’s client – Mkhwebane.
“Again, Mr Mpofu, this is not my impeachment … this is your client’s impeachment,” said Madonsela. In her closing remarks – marking the end of her turbulent testimony – Madonsela thanked the committee for “the privilege of being a witness”, although reluctantly.
Expressing shock at finding herself being the accused, she said: “I was shocked that I was asked whether I’m an advocate or not. “I was shocked to be asked where I was born.
“The only question I was not asked was whether I am a man or a woman – and to prove it.” Madonsela found it “irrelevant” to be asked whether she was an advocate – calling on those doubting her credentials to make an inquiry at the Legal Practice Council (LPC) website.
“I am an advocate,” she told the committee. In one of the heated exchanges with Mpofu, she told him: “You are Mr Mpofu … what you have done is shocking. “You’ve taken what [former president] Jacob Zuma said about me, about my looks, and brought it into this committee.
ALSO READ: Mkhwebane impeachment: MPs concerned Mpofu’s withdrawal a delaying tactic
‘Unprofessional’
“That is shocking and unprofessional, sir.” While Accountability Now executive director advocate Paul Hoffman conceded that Mpofu’s outburst was being out of line, University of Pretoria senior law lecturer Dr Llewelyn Curlewis, described his behaviour as “highly unethical and disrespectful towards a colleague in the legal profession”.
“Not only should his conduct be reported by advocate Madonsela, committee chair Qubudile Dyantyi should also request the LPC to investigate and possibly discipline him.
“His conduct is at first glance a transgression of any reasonable limitations set by law for cross-examination. “He plays the person and definitely not the law.
“It is unacceptable, blatant arrogance and despicable to say the least,” said Curlewis. Against a background of Mkhwebane having experienced the wrath of SA courts of law, which have questioned her reports and overturned her recommendations, Hoffman said Mpofu was out of his depth.
“Mpofu has a very difficult brief, because his client has been repeatedly condemned, excoriated and ordered to pay punitive costs by the courts,” said Hoffman.
“Because he has very little material on which to cross-examine Thuli, he is resorting to playing the woman and not the ball. “All this in the hope that he will rattle Thuli, which he has not succeeded to do.” With Mkhwebane’s testimony set for next Wednesday, the committee is expected to wrap up the hearings in the next few weeks. In a letter to the committee, Mkhwebane’s attorneys, Seanago, said: “We do appreciate your considerate suggestion to ameliorate the prejudice caused by the unforeseeable change of schedule by asking for the public protector’s statement to be submitted in two instalments.
“But that will, unfortunately, not alleviate the problems we are encountering. “In the premises, it will only be fair and reasonable to defer the submission of the public protector’s statement to a date not earlier than 20 March and the commencement of her evidence to 27 March.”
Among other witnesses expected to testify after Mkhwebane are Build One South Africa leader Mmusi Maimane.
NOW READ: Mkhwebane’s play for more time rejected, as PP’s office sets deadline for funding her fight
