PRETORIA, Gauteng — Former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has strongly condemned the Legal Practice Council’s (LPC) application to the Gauteng High Court to strike her name from the advocates’ roll. Mkhwebane, who was impeached following a parliamentary inquiry, described the regulatory body’s move as a “clearly politically motivated” attack rather than a legitimate professional conduct proceeding.
The LPC’s application relies on 18 separate grounds, including allegations of dishonesty, incompetence, bias, bullying, and the mishandling of subpoena targets. These charges are largely anchored in the findings of the Section 194 parliamentary inquiry that ultimately led to her removal from office. The inquiry concluded that she exhibited a lack of understanding of basic legal principles during several high-profile investigations.
In a recent interview, Mkhwebane expressed shock and disappointment over the LPC’s actions, arguing that she is being subjected to “multiple jeopardy.” She contends that using the parliamentary impeachment process as a basis for a professional conduct trial amounts to being punished repeatedly for the same conduct.
“I’ve been taken through a process which was not a fair process,” Mkhwebane stated, noting that the parliamentary inquiry was finalized without her legal representation present and without her completing her testimony. She emphasized that she was never a practicing advocate at a specific bar council, having worked primarily in public administration, which she argues makes the LPC’s jurisdiction and approach highly questionable.
Procedural Grievances and Defense of Her Record
Mkhwebane also raised significant procedural concerns, alleging that the LPC served legal papers to an old telephone number and previously attempted similar actions without her receiving formal notification. She further questioned the utilization of state funds, noting that the LPC is spending significant public money on “tons and tons of papers” for the application, arguing the regulatory body should instead focus on its core mandate of addressing genuine misconduct by practicing lawyers who cheat clients or mishandle funds.
Defending her tenure, Mkhwebane highlighted that she was the first Public Protector to secure three clean audits with improved performance. She argued that the 24 cases set aside during her term do not equate to incompetence, but rather represent the normal legal process of judicial review where matters are taken to court to review the Public Protector’s decisions.
She maintains that her legal victories and investigations—particularly those concerning the Reserve Bank and the Phala Phala matter—made her a target for well-resourced systems. “My trouble started when I investigated and issued that Reserve Bank report,” she explained, adding that she is being persecuted for standing up for the poor and marginalized.
Furthermore, Mkhwebane alleged that her constitutional rights were further violated when she lost a complaint with the information regulator, after the LPC published her identity document in a publicly accessible affidavit.
Timing and Broader Implications for Chapter 9 Institutions
Mkhwebane alleged that the timing of the LPC’s application is highly suspicious. She claimed the regulatory body revived the strike-off process only after the Constitutional Court ruled against the President regarding the Phala Phala report, a ruling she initially felt vindicated by before the regulatory action was suddenly renewed.
When asked about the broader implications of the case, Mkhwebane warned that public institutions should not be weaponized for political battles. She argued that if the court rules in her favor, it would establish a vital precedent protecting Chapter 9 institution heads and public servants from political persecution.
“This will also be protecting the heads of the Chapter 9 institutions so that when they are doing their work, they shouldn’t be scared that in the future they’ll be subjected to this persecution,” she said. She emphasized that opposing a matter in court is not about fighting an opponent, but assisting the court in dealing with the facts.
Langa Service Delivery Report
The conversation also touched upon a recent report by the current Public Protector regarding service delivery shortages in Langa, Cape Town—a matter Mkhwebane was involved with during a 2022 oversight visit. She expressed surprise that the report was only recently issued, given the “horrendous” living conditions residents have been subjected to since 2022. However, she noted it is a good start and expressed hope that the City of Cape Town will fully implement the remedial actions to address the challenges in the accommodation.
The matter is now before the Gauteng High Court. Mkhwebane has formally opposed the application and is engaging legal representation to defend her position, maintaining her stance that the LPC’s 18 grounds will not hold water in a court of law.
