Dyantyi will not recuse himself after Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s recusal application

Qubudile Dyantyi, chair of the section 194 enquiry into the fitness of public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane to hold office, has decided not to recuse himself after a second application from Mkhwebane.

Mkhwebane made the latest application more than a week ago, alleging her husband, David Skosana, received a call from the late ANC MP Tina Joemat-Pettersson in which she allegedly tried to extort a bribe from Skosana to benefit herself and Dyantyi.

Dyantyi had agreed to reply to the recusal application by last Friday. However, Mkhwebane failed to provide all the recordings that she relied on in her application.

Dyantyi said such allegations were hurtful and offensive due to his dedication and commitment to a fair process.

“I have always considered myself as a person of integrity who lives his life based on the principles of fairness, integrity, honesty and strong civic responsibility,” he said.

“I will not allow myself to be distracted from the important work I and my fellow members of the committee have undertaken to do. I have performed to the best of my ability and I go forward, confident recusal will not serve the best interest of the committee, parliament or the public interest at this critical juncture.” 

Despite submitting a transcript of 12 recordings, only four audio recordings were provided to Dyantyi, with all lasting just over nine minutes as opposed to the hour-long recordings Mkhwebane claimed to have.

In addition, Chaane Attorneys, who represent Mkhwebane, said the submitted recordings were the only ones provided by its client.

According to Dyantyi, this was suspicious as the full context of the allegations was not known. Dyantyi denied he had ever solicited a bribe through the late Joemat-Pettersson or any other third party from Mkhwebane.

Dyantyi said he never acted in any manner that was unfair to Mkhwebane and was of the view the evidence provided by Mkhwebane did not support proof of the allegations against him. Instead, this raised further questions. 

“On the contrary, I have actively engaged with the evidence and will continue to apply my mind in a fair, unbiased and rational manner when concluding on findings and making recommendations to the National Assembly.

“All in all, I have no doubt I have been fair, reasonable, firm and balanced in seeking to ensure the committee discharges its fundamental constitutional function. There is therefore no substantive merit in the recusal process.”

TimesLIVE