PRETORIA, Gauteng — Former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane is mounting a fierce legal defense against the Legal Practice Council (LPC) after the regulatory body filed an application in the Gauteng High Court to have her struck from the advocates’ roll. The impeached ombud has publicly condemned the move, describing the regulatory action as a blatant political witch hunt rather than a legitimate professional conduct review.
The LPC’s high court application is rooted in 18 distinct grounds of misconduct, ranging from allegations of dishonesty, incompetence, and bias to bullying and the mishandling of subpoena targets. These charges heavily rely on the findings of the Section 194 parliamentary inquiry that ultimately resulted in her removal from office. However, Mkhwebane argues that utilizing a political impeachment process to fuel a professional disciplinary trial constitutes “multiple jeopardy,” effectively punishing her twice for the exact same conduct.
Procedural Grievances and Defense of Competence
Beyond the substantive charges, the former Public Protector raised severe procedural grievances regarding how the LPC handled the application. She revealed that the regulatory body served legal documents to an outdated telephone number and noted that a similar attempt was made the previous year without her ever receiving the formal papers. Furthermore, she pointed out that the parliamentary inquiry was finalized in her absence and without her legal representation present, as she was not even allowed to complete her testimony before the committee.
In defense of her professional track record, Mkhwebane emphasized that she was never a practicing advocate at a specific bar council, having spent her career in public administration. She highlighted her tenure as the first Public Protector to secure three consecutive clean audits. Addressing the roughly 24 court cases that were set aside during her term, she clarified that judicial reviews do not equate to incompetence; they simply reflect the normal legal process of parties challenging the ombud’s decisions in a higher court.
Alleged Persecution and Financial Concerns
Mkhwebane attributes the regulatory onslaught to her willingness to investigate powerful entities, specifically citing her reports on the Reserve Bank, the CR7 matter, and the Phala Phala controversy. She argued that she is being targeted by well-resourced systems for standing up for the poor and marginalized.
She also criticized the LPC for wasting state funds on “tens of thousands of pages” of paperwork for the application, arguing the body should instead focus on practicing lawyers who cheat clients or mishandle funds. Additionally, she disclosed a separate issue with the information regulator, which she lost after the LPC published her identity document in a publicly accessible affidavit, further violating her constitutional rights to privacy and a fair hearing.
Constitutional Court Timing and Chapter 9 Implications
Mkhwebane also cast doubt on the timing of the regulatory body’s actions. She noted that the LPC revived the strike-off process shortly after the Constitutional Court ruled against the President regarding the parliamentary handling of the Phala Phala report—a ruling she initially viewed as a vindication of her work before the regulatory action was suddenly renewed.
Looking ahead, she argued that a favorable court ruling would set a crucial precedent, shielding future Chapter 9 institution heads and public servants from political persecution. She maintained that opposing a matter in court is merely a way to assist the judiciary in dealing with facts, not an act of fighting an opponent, and warned that public institutions should not be weaponized for political battles.
Langa Service Delivery Report
In a separate discussion regarding the current Public Protector’s recent report on service delivery failures in Langa, Cape Town, Mkhwebane expressed dismay at the timeline. Having participated in a 2022 oversight visit to the area, she was surprised the report was only recently finalized, given the “horrendous” squalor residents have endured for years. She expressed hope that the City of Cape Town will now fully implement the necessary remedial actions to resolve the accommodation challenges.
The matter is now set to be adjudicated by the Gauteng High Court. Mkhwebane has formally opposed the application and is assembling a legal team to defend her position, maintaining that the LPC’s 18 grounds will ultimately fail to withstand judicial scrutiny.