Pretoria - After facing heavy criticism of some of her reports including the handling of the investigation into the Vrede dairy farm and the Absa-Reserve Bank report, suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane allegedly paid a legal adviser R96 000 to draft articles in her defence.
This was revealed on Friday when Muntu Sithole, the manager for legal services at the office of the public protector, gave his testimony on Friday.
Sithole was testifying about the rulings given against Mkhwebane and her office's legal costs.
While Sithole was giving his evidence it emerged that Mkhwebane consulted a legal adviser, Paul Ngobeni, and paid him R96 000 for an opinion piece in April 2019.
Parliament heard that Ngobeni was tasked with writing articles in defence of the criticism Mkhwebane received.
The opinion pieces were published on www.africanews24-7.co.za
The website seems to be not operational at the moment.
Sithole said Ngobeni is not a member of the National Bar Council of South Africa and he’s not a senior counsel. He has never met him, and only spoke to him on the phone.
According to News24, Ngobeni went to the US on a scholarship in 1982, and graduated with a law degree at the New York University School of Law in 1989.
He went into private practice in Connecticut but was suspended from the roll in 2005 and found guilty of seven counts of misconduct.
Former public protector Thuli Madonsela described Ngobeni as a fugitive from justice in a 2012 report on his appointment as a Special Adviser in the Ministry for Defence and Military Veterans.
Evidence leader, advocate Nazreen Bawa, asked Sithole if there had been any due diligence conducted on the advocates and consultants appointed to act on behalf of the public protector.
Sithole said he was not sure, but thought his colleague must have done a background check.
During cross examination advocate Dali Mpofu for Mkhwebane asked Sithole if he had any knowledge about Mkhwebane being against using the GuptaLeaks emails in the Vrede dairy farm investigation.
Sithole denied the allegations and came to Mkhwbane’s defence.
“The public protector was actually saying we should look into the GuptaLeaks, whether they have any bearing on the investigation.”
Sithole’s testimony contradicts the testimony of several witnesses who testified that Mkhwebane did not want the GuptaLeaks emails used in the Vrede dairy farm investigation.
In her final report, Mkhwebane did not use the emails. She was chastised for that after the Pretoria High Court set aside the report.
Mpofu said Mkhwebane's version would be that if there were any fundamental flaws during the first three years of the Vrede farm investigation, there was nothing she could do to turn back the clock.
He said Mkhwebane was already a target before she entered office. He accused the DA of driving a campaign against her.
Sithole will continue with his testimony on Thursday next week.
IOL