Protecting the Protector: SAPS vs. Public Protector round 2

The Democratic Alliance (DA) notes with extreme concern, the reports that the SAPS is on the point of arresting the Public Protector, Advocate Thuli Madonsela, for crimes which are unclear, but apparently relate to her tenure as a member of the SA Law Reform Commission (see report).

This allegation is of particular concern when seen in the light of the following circumstances:

Advocate Madonsela was appointed by the President in October 2009, after a selection process in Parliament wherein she received the full support of all parties in Parliament.  No allegations were made at that time of any wrongdoing.

The police investigation reportedly commenced in February this year, at around the time the Public Protector released her first report into the SAPS lease in Pretoria, in which she found the actions of Commissioner Bheki Cele to be unlawful, and also found fault with the actions of the Public Works department.

Advocate Madonsela is on the verge of releasing her second report into the SAPS lease in Durban, which is by all accounts more damning than the first report.

Days after the story broke that there were allegations of impropriety regarding the Pretoria lease, one of the journalists responsible for writing the story was arrested by police, on charges that were later thrown out of court.  In addition The Sunday Times last week made public the fact that both Mzilikazi wa Afrika and Stephan Hofstatter (who wrote the first exposé on lease deals involving National Commissioner Cele) had been advised that their movements and communications  were under surveillance.

In early March, shortly after the release of the first report, two SAPS members paid a "visit" to the offices of the Public Protector, requesting information which they reportedly already had in their possession.  The Public Protector herself, when appearing before the Justice Portfolio Committee shortly thereafter, advised that her staff had been unsettled by this action.  The police officers have since been cleared of any wrongdoing, SAPS saying that they had been engaging in official business.

There is thus already a clearly established pattern of intimidation of anybody who has been involved in finding or exposing wrongdoing on the part of the SAPS.  It is too coincidental that these allegations against the Public Protector are now surfacing.

It is fundamental to our democracy that our Chapter 9 Institutions be permitted to exercise their powers and functions "without fear, favour or prejudice".  Advocate Madonsela has shown herself to be fulfilling that mandate in exemplary fashion to date.  If there is no substance to the reported SAPS allegations that she has infringed the law (the Public Protector has denied any wrongdoing), and if it is true that they are investigating her and are on the verge of an arrest, this conduct amounts to a continuation of the campaign of intimidation of the Public Protector, by the SAPS in particular, and may well contravene section 181(4) of the Constitution, as well as section 11(1) of the Public Protector Act, 23 of 1994, which makes it an offence to interfere with the functioning of this Institution.  Urgent answers are needed from the Minister of Police on these issues.

As it is Parliament to whom the Public Protector is accountable, the DA will be taking up this matter urgently with the Chairperson of the Justice Portfolio Committee when we attend the Chief Justice's Access to Justice Conference in Johannesburg on Friday.  We await the Public Protector's statement later today, and will if necessary suggest that we urgently meet with Advocate Madonsela.  Once we do this, we shall be better placed to evaluate the seriousness of this matter and take appropriate action.

Statement issued by Debbie Schafer MP, DA Shadow Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, July 6 2011

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter