Democratic Alliance MP Glynnis Breytenbach has turned to the Supreme Court of Appeal to prove she was justified in claiming public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane was a spy.
Breytenbach says she is “very confident” she will be able to prove her allegations against Mkhwebane, who launched a defamation suit against her in 2017.
This came after Breytenbach and fellow DA MP Werner Horn suggested at a press conference in September 2016 that the public protector was a spy appointed to perpetuate state capture during former president Jacob Zuma’s tenure.
Mkhwebane said the claims against her “were meant to taint my good name and convey to the public that I was not fit and proper to be appointed as public protector”.
She said Breytenbach’s remarks were intended to convey to the public that she continued to be on the State Security Agency’s payroll and was “not independent as I am intricately connected to the state president [Zuma] who is allegedly abusing the State Security Agency”.
She said it was implied that “my appointment will lead to the state capture of the office of the public protector by the state president [Zuma]”.
Breytenbach and the DA lost a high court bid seeking documents it believed would strengthen their defence, and she has now petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeal to hear the matter.
Over the weekend, amaBhungane reported a senior State Security Agency official had confirmed the agency’s involvement in two of Mkhwebane’s investigations.
As part of Breytenbach’s response to Mkhwebane’s defamation case against her, the DA’s lawyers have sought access to several of the documents she referred to in her legal action against the MP, which include crucial documents relating to her employment history.
Those documents include a 2009 deployment to the department of home affairs office in Beijing by then minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, Mkhwebane’s employment application to the SSA and confirmation of her acceptance of the analyst position she held for less than two months before being nominated to replace Thuli Madonsela as public protector.
The DA also wants access to the parliamentary committee report recommending Mkhwebane’s appointment as public protector.
The DA contends Breytenbach and Werner require these documents to address whether Mkhwebane was on the payroll of the SSA, and if so, what functions she performed in that capacity.
It wanted to establish if she “ever performed the work of a ‘spy’” and if she was “appointed as the public protector at the instance or with the support of then president Zuma or persons politically aligned with him”.
The party failed to convince the Western Cape High Court to compel Mkhwebane to hand over the documents they sought and which she had refused to provide to them.
Judge Taswell Papier ruled it would be “inappropriate” and “illogical” to rely on those documents to prove the truthfulness of the spy claims against Mkhwebane.
But the DA’s lawyers have now petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeal for the right to challenge that decision, meaning Mkhwebane will again need to reiterate why she has refused to hand over information related to her employment history.
Speaking to Times Select’s sister publication, Business Day, Breytenbach said she was “looking forward” to meeting Mkhwebane in court, and was adamant the public protector would fail to show the spy claims against her were, in fact, lies.
The DA is also pushing for a parliamentary inquiry into Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office to be held as soon as possible.
Mkhwebane told Times Select: “They alleged something they couldn’t back up with evidence and now want the proof after the fact? They made the accusation. The burden of proof lies with them. They must get the records from the SSA.”