Chairman in Mkhwebane investigation is not going to withdraw


The chairman of the parliament’s art. 194 Committee, Qubudile Dyantyi, refused to withdraw from the committee for the second time. This after the suspended Public Protector (OB), adv. Busisiwe Mkhwebane, again requested that Dyantyi pardon him.

Dyantyi strongly denies that he was ever bribed, tried to bribe someone or asked for a bribe to influence the outcome of the investigation, which began more than a year ago.

Mkhwebane claims Dyantyi was involved in a plot with the late ANC MP, Tina Joemat-Pettersson, to get money from Mkhwebane’s husband, David Skosana.

Dyantyi could not meet the deadline of Friday to respond to the latest application – that he should withdraw. He says it is because he was waiting for Mkhwebane to provide him with the complete recordings on which the allegations of bribery against him are based.

Dyantyi maintains that he never acted in any way that was unfair to the suspended OB. He also says that the evidence that has been presented gives none prima facie-proof of the allegations against him.

He says he went through the entire investigation with an open mind and did not draw any predetermined conclusions in assessing the charges against him.

“On the contrary, I have actively engaged with the evidence and will continue to apply my thoughts in a fair, unbiased and rational manner when making findings and recommendations to the National Assembly (NA),” said Dyantyi.

“I have no doubt that I have been fair, reasonable, firm and balanced in trying to ensure that the committee fulfills its fundamental constitutional function. There is therefore no substantive merit in the revocation application.

“I find the allegations against me hurtful and deeply offensive, given my commitment to a fair process. In addition, I have always considered myself as someone with integrity who bases his life on the principles of fairness, integrity, honesty and strong civic responsibility.”

Dyantyi also questions why Skosana did not bring the alleged underhandedness to the attention of the police and the OB.

“One wonders why the OB, who holds a position in which she is supposed to investigate, establish facts and come to conclusions, did not advise Skosana to involve the police to obtain irrefutable evidence,” says Dyantyi.