Advocate Dali Mpofu has contended that Gcaleka’s reluctance to pay former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane is legally unrelated to her impeachment, and that it is motivated by animosity. Image: Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane X page
(The Post News)- On Monday, August 19, Advocate Dali Mpofu told the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria that denying former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane her once-off R10 million gratuity was unjust, harsh, and demeaning.
Mpofu believes denying her the gratuity claim would be a “double punishment” that contradicts the beliefs of Ubuntu.
The National Assembly impeached Mkhwebane in September 2023, shortly before her seven-year non-renewable term expired.
Mkhwebane’s impeachment came after a Section 194 Committee recommended that she be impeached after she was found guilty of misconduct and incompetence throughout her tenure.
According to the current Public Protector Kholeka Gcalaka, Mkhwebane left the Public Protector of South Africa (PPSA) “in financial dire straits” after she was ousted for misconduct and incompetence, following a Section 194 probe that was intended to cost R4 million but resulted in Mkhwebane’s lawyers being paid over R32 million.
Gcalaka stated that Mkhwebane and her staff wasted millions upon millions on “frivolous and irrelevant agreements,” witnesses, and unending demands for postponement.
Meanwhile, in court, Mpofu argued that Gcalaka refused to grant Mkhwebane a multimillion-dollar gratuity out of hatred for her.
Mpofu claimed that the PPSA and Gcalaka came out with guns blazing to make sure that Mkhwebane did not receive her gratuity.
Moreover, Mpofu stated that he wonders what the PPSA and Gcalaka aim to achieve by singling Mkhwebane out from all other public protectors who have been granted their gratuity since 1994 and claimed that they are being vindictive and harsh.
According to Mpofu, Gcalaka’s decision to refuse the Mkhwebane gratuity payment was unjustified.
Mpofu asserted that Mkhwebane’s removal did not disqualify her from getting her gratuity, as gratuity is classified as a benefit rather than a salary or stipend, and thus comes within services conditions.
While the PPSA and Gcalaka argued that they refused payment based on the forfeiture clause, Mpofu said that the forfeiture clause did not apply to Mkhwebane.
About the Author
