Publications
Partners
Amy Louise Wood, author of Lynching and Spectacle: Witnessing Racial Violence in America, defines lynching as a “premeditated extrajudicial killing by a group. It is most often used to characterise informal public executions by a mob to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate a group. It can also be an extreme form of informal group social control, and it is often conducted with the display of a public spectacle for maximum intimidation.”
Leshoaneng Mantjane’s article “Question Mkhwebane, not her office” (City Press, June 23 2019), has succeeded in fulfilling this definition of the act of lynching.
It is premeditated to lay the foundation for her execution, the strategy being to identify, isolate, impugn and destroy the intended victim.
The second aspect is to marshal a concoction of half-truths, innuendo and rumours to create sympathy for the cause.
This is to ensure that facts do not frustrate the campaign.
In this regard, Vuyani Ngalwana SC, in a piece he recently wrote headlined A Tale of Two Public Protectors: Separating Fact from Fiction, has observed that Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane “has virtually been burnt at the stake ... even by people who have not bothered to read her reports, relying instead on media reports or commentary as their only source of information for the contents of the Public Protector’s reports”.
Mantjane attempts to isolate Mkhwebane from the institution she leads. This is to make her easy prey.
It is easier to fight an individual rather than quarrel with an institution.
The inconvenient truth is that the office of the Public Protector comprises an army of experienced investigators.
These are functionaries that have the legal and investigative expertise necessary to investigate and address complaints.
In trying to isolate Mkhwebane from her office, Mantjane unwittingly insults the intelligence and professionalism of the men and women in the institution.
As with all lies, Mantjane provides no evidence of lack of independence or impartiality. But mob justice does not require such niceties. The victim is simply guilty by accusation.
First, as part of the strategy of marshalling half-truths, Mantjane invokes adverse commentary by the high court in the case of the DA v Public Protector.
Mantjane, dishonestly, does not indicate that the case is being appealed – meaning that the high court is not the last word on the subject.
Second, Mantjane and his fellow travellers fail to mention that the judge who delivered the scathing comment – Judge Ronel Tolmay – was herself found wanting by the Constitutional Court in the gun laws case, which was supposed to be one of her significant rulings.
Third, there is nothing earth-shattering about a court judgment as rulings are subject to appeals.
As Ngalwana points out, in settling of disputes “where there is a difference of opinion as regards the proper interpretation and application of the law, even the high courts and the Supreme Court of Appeal err. That is what the Constitutional Court is there to put right – as the apex court.”
We do not see the likes of Mantjane and company jumping on the rooftops asking for the removal of judges whose rulings have been overturned by superior courts.
In fact, there have been instances where Mkhwebane’s understanding of the law prevailed at the Supreme Court of Appeal in cases that were taken for review.
Fourth, Mantjane is not alone in harping on court decisions.
But if the truth be told, there are only two cases that Mkhwebane concluded that were overturned by the courts.
She has appealed both. It is thus too early to pass judgment.
Perhaps the observation by Ngalwana could assist Mantjane in his argument – that hardly ever mentioned the wholesale attacks on Mkhwebane – that some of the investigations and reports that she has had to defend were done on her predecessor’s watch.
An example is the Venda pensioners matter. “She has been attacked even on issues in relation to which Advocate Thuli Madonsela had made the same finding but was not attacked,” said Ngalwana.
Clearly, Mantjane’s lack of familiarity with the functioning of the Public Protector and publicly available facts disqualifies him from casting aspersions on the competence or otherwise of the office of Public Protector and its incumbent.
Mantjane fails in his own advice that, in handling disputes, we “need to be guided by facts and the law”.
He and fellow travellers may benefit from the following facts: Firstly, since her appointment on October 15 2016, Mkhwebane has dealt with about 50 000 complaints, 34 271 of which have been concluded to the benefit of tens of thousands of people.
Secondly, Mkhwebane has issued 102 investigation reports. Only 30 of those have, to date, been the subject of court challenges.
This means that more than 70 of her reports remain unchallenged in court. She successfully defended two and lost two, while the rest are pending.
Lastly, the Public Protector’s office has initiated very few investigations without complaints.
Where executive ethics are concerned, she is obligated to investigate on receipt of a complaint.
To this end, she has investigated a whole range of individuals across the political spectrum.
This includes political figures such as former Tshwane mayor Solly Msimanga, former Western Cape premier Helen Zille, and former ministers Lynne Brown, Des van Rooyen and Malusi Gigaba.
The suggestion that she is partisan is thus without substance.
Segalwe is acting spokesperson for the Public Protector
