Cape Town - The Section 194 Committee on Thursday accepted the decision by evidence leader Advocate Nazreen Bawa not to recuse herself from the inquiry into the fitness of Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane to hold office.
The inquiry received a recusal application for Bawa last week from UDM leader Bantu Holomisa and Godrich Gardee Attorneys, acting on behalf of chairperson of Black People’s National Crisis Committee, Chumani Maxwele.
In his letter, Holomisa said it had come to his party’s attention that Bawa was implicated in legal proceedings that called her conduct into question.
In a separate letter, Gardee said Maxwele was aware of proceedings in the Western Cape High Court where allegations were made against Bawa in June 2020, but were not substantively addressed by the legal Practice Council and the Cape Bar Counsel.
He said the records relating to Bawa’s alleged misconduct were before the high court and had been resubmitted to both the legal Practice Council and Cape Bar Counsel.
On Thursday, Bawa said the complainants relied on an affidavit of Xulu Barnabas of B Xulu & Partners Incorporated in an ongoing litigation involving the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment.
Bawa has been acting in that litigation on behalf of the department since August 2019.
She told the MPs that the complainants have no knowledge of the allegations and solely relied on whatever information they got from Xulu’s affidavit. “They appear to labour under a misconception that there exists a 407-page affidavit which, in its entirety, impugns my reputation and seeks to implicate me in some sort of criminality, which I have not figured out what, and which I have some obligation to respond (to) whether in court or in some unspecified criminal or other process.”
Bawa also said she respectfully declined the invitation to recuse herself as the evidence leader before the committee as a consequence of what is occurring in those proceedings.
“I am also not a decision-maker, nor a member of this committee. The complainants have not pointed to anything done during this enquiry that warrants my removal.
Of course, the decision is ultimately one the committee would inadvertently have to make,” she said before delving into details of the litigation. Holomisa said the committee had a duty to hear both sides of the story and also ask Xulu to give his version.
“She has made serious allegations of dishonesty against Xulu. The committee should not give oral presentation to the evidence leader without affording the same opportunity to those who accuse her of wrong doing,” he said.
DA MP Kevin Mileham said Bawa was not the person to be investigated or take further action against.
“The allegations made by the various complainants are completely unsubstantiated,” Mileham said.
ANC MP Xola Nqola said the committee should reject the recusal application on the basis that the UDM based its wisdom on allegations and Maxwele questioned the character of Bawa.
“These are matters outside the jurisdiction and operations of the inquiry,” Nqola said.
But EFF MP Omphile Maotwe said the committee should prioritise the integrity of the process of the inquiry not because Bawa was guilty.
“We are suspicious of Bawa’s political motives and we say for the sake of this committee’s time, and the people of South Africa, she must recuse herself and allow us to continue with someone who no one is asking questions about their character,” Maotwe said.
In closing the matter, Dyantyi said the majority view was that there was no need for recusal as it bore no relevance to the work of the committee.
“Members are very clear that this application has nothing to do with the work of this committee and should not have been entertained.
“They support the decision of the evidence leader not to recuse herself and reject the application moved and supported by quite a number of members,” he added.
Cape Times