Mkhwebane’s counsel rejects affidavit from ‘disgruntled employee’

Nelisiwe Thejane, the provincial investigation and integration executive manager in the office of the public protector, is simply a “disgruntled employee” who was making baseless allegations against suspended public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane.

That was the submission of advocate Bright Tshabalala, for Mkhwebane, who was cross-examining Thejane during Wednesday’s sitting of a parliamentary inquiry into the possible impeachment of Mkhwebane.

The inquiry into Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office started investigating allegations of incompetence and misconduct against her in April. Last week her legal team, headed by advocate Dali Mpofu, withdrew from proceedings, apparently in protest at the refusal by committee chair Qubudile Dyantyi to postpone the inquiry. That followed a high court appeal against a refusal by Dyantyi and DA MP Kevin Mileham to recuse themselves from the proceedings.

Mpofu declared the proceedings “illegal” and left, but returned on Wednesday. He said he wanted to address the committee about “what happened” on that day and the possible legal challenge, which would take an hour-and-a-half.

Evidence leader advocate Nazreen Bawa also indicated she wanted to “fix” some errors made her in submissions regarding legal fees paid by Mkhwebane.

Dyantyi said these would be done after the cross-examination of Thejane, which has been postponed several times.

Thejane’s affidavit before the inquiry focuses mainly on a charge that Mkhwebane had “intimidated, harassed and/or victimised staff” — alternately that she failed to protect staff from intimidation, harassment and/or victimisation by Vussy Mahlangu, the erstwhile CEO of the Public Protector’s Office.

However, Tshabalala said there was no evidence in the affidavit to support the claim or that Mkhwebane had used Mahlangu as her “enforcer”.

He said in the initial motion, initiated by the DA through its then chief whip, Natasha Mazzone, seven people were listed as having been bullied, threatened and issued with “audis” (disciplinary notices) on trumped-up charges. Thejane made no reference to these people in her affidavit.

Thejane said she had been consulted by evidence leaders regarding her role and her experiences. She had not “altered” the charges, she said.

Tshabalala countered: “I put it to you the reason this was altered [is] because the names of all the people listed here ... these are disgruntled employees of the office, some of them have testified against the public protector and under cross-examination, all of them were discredited. 

“That is why you altered this, because you fall under the same category of the disgruntled employees who came here to make up stories with baseless allegations.”

Thejane replied: “I am not a disgruntled employee. I was requested to assist the committee as to how the office was managed and the staff were treated. I provided evidence of my experience and how the office was led.”

Thejane also raised the issue of incessant deadlines and threats of disciplinary action if they were not met. She said deadlines weren’t realistic — backlogs had mounted and the quality of work had suffered as a result.

Asked to comment on Executive Ethics Code investigations, she said she disagreed with the 30-day deadline imposed because it was too stringent.

Tshabalala responded: “You are making a mockery of yourself in front of millions of people ... this cross-examination is taking us nowhere.”

Thejane said she was not disregarding or disrespecting an act of parliament, but emphasised that deadlines needed to be realistic.

Tshabalala suggested that she was a repeat offender in missing targets and had herself been issued with three “audis” as a result.

Thejane replied that when she joined the office she had inherited matters which were “already in backlog”, adding that absenteeism and poor work quality had placed a huge burden on her.

“To me, the poor quality was indicative of a serious need for training on report writing. I even had to rewrite some of the notices and reports,” she said.

Tshabalala said she was trying to lay all the blame on Mkhwebane, including making people work such long hours that it interfered with their private lives.

He also took issue with Thejane claiming in her affidavit  that from 2019 to 202 she had “barely slept” in an endeavour to meet impossible deadlines. She said her staff were also not sleeping because she would contact them at odd hours.

“So it was you who was interfering with their private lives?” Tshabalala said.

Thejane replied: “Yes ... to avoid the audis ... to meet the deadlines. This cannot be viewed in isolation. The meetings with the public protector stretched way into the night. She did not ask me to call them. But there was a target. If you did not deliver, there was an audi, or harsh words would be said. It was a thing that haunted us.”

The hearing continues on Wednesday and has been set down until Friday.