Mkhwebane’s suspension is worsening crisis of governance

• Published date: 17 June 2022
• Publication title: Mercury

Ramaphosa knew to a moral certainty that a president suffering from alleged conflict of interest cannot make valid appointment, suspension or removal decisions. This was the admonition of the court in Corruption Watch (RF) NPC and Another v President of RSA and Others; 1 All SA 471 (GP); 2018 (1) SACR 317 (GP) (December 8 2017)

There Judge Dunstan Mlambo declared that “in terms of s.96{2)(b) of the Constitution, the incumbent President (Zuma) may not appoint, suspend or remove the National Director of Public Prosecutions or someone in an acting capacity as such” because of a perceived conflict of interest.

Judge Mlambo further declared that in such circumstances, “as long as the incumbent (Zuma) is in office, the Deputy President (Ramaphosa) is responsible for decisions relating to the appointment, suspension or removal of the National Director of Public Prosecutions or, in terms of s.11(2)(b) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, someone in an acting capacity as such”.

Ramaphosa knowingly ignored this admonition from the judiciary because he either believed that he is immune from laws that were applied to Zuma, or that the pliant or obsequious judiciary will, as usual, bend the laws to favour him if he is challenged.

His bizarre decision to make the suspension decision instead of allowing his deputy David Mabuza to make it reflects the undeclared ANC internecine battles for succession and a breakdown in trust between the president and his deputy.

The public interest is sacrificed on the altar of such ANC faction-ridden succession battles.

A sober, well-advised president would have known that summary suspension of the public protector immediately upon her commencement of an investigation into the alleged corruption and ethical violations would run afoul of Section 96 of the Constitution. But Ramaphosa’s actions expose the incompetence and moral bankruptcy of his party, the ANC.

Remarkably, most of the complaints of conflict of interest involving politicians investigated by the public protector are initiated by political parties or their members. When the same parties or their representatives in the National Assembly who are in litigation with the public protector (or have cases pending before her) are allowed to initiate removal proceedings, the spectre of a serious conflict of interest looms large.

Most important, the constitutionally guaranteed independence (decisional and institutional) of the public protector is gravely undermined when the...