Committee to decide on Mkhwebane’s application to remove evidence leaders

Had we as evidence leaders been adversarial in our delivery of the evidence, this would have been very obvious to the Committee a long time ago. We would not have sought to correct members where there was an error in relation to evidence in circumstances where such evidence would reflect negatively on the PP or have said to witnesses we interviewed that our job is to put evidence

before the Committee – whether implicating or exculpatory – with reference to the Motion.

We would not have led the evidence of witnesses who clearly have no quibble with the PP, as we have done, or ensured that where witnesses have praised the PP that this is put before the Committee. We would not have taken the trouble to distinguish the judgments and legal challenges attributed to reports prepared by the PP’s predecessor and carde out the legal fees attributable to those cases or which are attributable to labour cases,” Bawa and Mayosi state.

“We also did not lurch into action to protect witnesses when they were, in our professional view, being abused in cross examination as we would have done in an adversarial process, nor did we put up contrary views on legal principles put up by the PP’s legal team with which, as legal practitioners, we fundamentally disagreed, be it the concept of double jeopardy, the application and interpretation of the Protected Disclosures Act or even the submission that members of the Committee would be in contempt of a non-existent court order, were they not to recuse the Chair or a member and proceedings continued, when an intention to bring a review application was made known.

“In an adversarial process, the ‘prosecutor’ would have objected to the PP having, on many occasions inserted an earpiece in her ear when being addressed by, or was herself addressing the Committee, even as this was suggestive of her being prompted from elsewhere. The reality of the non-adversarial stance adopted by the evidence leaders since [the] inception of these proceedings has recently been demonstrated by the chairperson himself,

when he requested that the evidence leaders be more robustly involved in these proceedings. Otherwise, we do as we are required to do by this Committee.”

– Karyn Maughan


Must read: SASSA Grant Recipient is eligible for NSFAS 2023/2024 funding

Share This