IT IS WRONG FOR McBRIDE TO CAST ASPERSIONS ON OUR PERFORMANCE IN THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR’S OFFICE

Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane MKP chairperosn of Mpumalanga

By Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane
MKP Mpumalanga Chairperson

I would like to use this opportunity to educate South Africans about the mandate of the Public Protector, because whenever a complaint is lodged the Public Protector must investigate.

Robert McBride alleged that I requested that the IPID must stop disciplinary proceedings against its employee because I wanted to proceed with an unlawful investigation.

But the facts before us at the time were that IPID employee Mr Nkabinde had lodged a complaint in June 2018 and the complaint related to the fact that there was a vacant position of Deputy Director of Investigations within the IPID for which Mr Nkabinde had applied, and strangely that position was withdrawn within seven days and readvertised again, and when Mr Nkabinde checked the readvertised position it became clear that certain requirements for the position had been removed.

Upon further further investigation it emerged that the position had been readvertised to suit a certain Miss Botha.

Nkabinde had also complained that Mr Sisoko has formed part of the interviewing panel with intention to intervene in the proceedings of the interviews to make sure that the said Miss Botha is ultimately appointed to the position of IPID Deputy Director of Investigations.

The second complaint by Mr Nkabinde related to protected disclosure and in terms of the law a whistleblower or anyone who exposes corruption within State institutions must be protected so that they don’t end up being charged or dismissed.

This is the fate suffered by Mr Nkabinde who has revealed that IPID had improperly appointed or procured the services of Fedility Security Services to provide the services of an investigative analyst for the interpretation of cellular telephone and other data in criminal investigations.

Investigations revealed that Mr Nabinde’s revelations indeed fell under the protected disclosures and what the Public Protector’s Office does under such circumstances is to ask the implicated institution to stop disciplinary proceedings.

Now in the case of the said Miss Botha, investigations revealed that the complaint stating that she was appointed without the requirements for the position of Deputy Director of Investigations in the IPID were substantiated.

In the second case brought by Mr Nkabinde it was found that IPID’s procurement of the services of Fedility Services was irregular as procurement process were not followed.

This matter ended with a settlement agreement being reached between Mr Nkabinde and IPID, whereby Mr Nkabinde agreed to resign from IPID.

Down the line Mr Robert McBride took the Public Protector’s report and findings on review in court and the said report against IPID was set aside.

But this happened because I was on suspension at the time and could not oppose this and other review applications, while my successor in that office had decided not to oppose all the review applications that were brought against my findings in court.

Out of 60 00 or so reports and findings of the Public Protector’s Office during my tenure, only 20 of them were set aside.

But the narrative that was perpetuated at the time was that losing a case in court as the Public Protector’s Office meant there was incompetence in that office and I am saying that narrative was wrong.

And it is very wrong for Mr McBride to cast aspersions on our performance in the Public Protector’s Office at the time; as if we were following wrong and unlawful processes.