Madonsela referred a dossier of complaints to National Assembly speaker Max Sisulu in July 2012 asking that Parliament investigate the allegations because, if they were not addressed, her office would degenerate into instability.
The allegations of misconduct against her came in the form of anonymous letters from the staff of the office of the public protector and a dossier from her former deputy, Mamiki Shai.
The allegations include claims of nepotism, favouritism, non-compliance with regulations, inflated tenders and bribery of the office by the Democratic Alliance to fast track investigations.
Sisulu referred the dossier to the parliamentary portfolio committee on justice and constitutional development, which conducts oversight over the public protector.
Shai, who left the office in November 2012, appeared before the committee shortly prior to her departure to make a number of allegations against her former boss. Shai said Madonsela denied her the resources she needed to do her job, and sidelined and bullied her.
Committee chairperson Luwellyn Landers said on Tuesday that the committee has received additional complaints recently from members of the public that are not related to the dossier sent to Parliament last year.
Committee members are now concerned that the committee might not have the capacity necessary to investigate the complaints. And they are concerned about setting the wrong precedent.
List of allegations
MPs said there might be a lacuna on how to deal with complaints from the staff of Chapter Nine institutions. But they want Madonsela to respond to the committee on some of the issues raised in the dossier. She is expected to appear before the portfolio committee on August 2 to answer to the allegations against her.
These are allegations of:
- Non-compliance with policy with regards to overseas travel and transfer of staff;
- No clear demarcation of roles between the deputy public protector and the chief executive officer;
- Inadequate allocation of resources to the deputy public protector;
- Questionable internal controls. This refers to the decisions of the governance and integrity committee and the executive committee that were not taken seriously;
- Fruitless expenditure.
MPs said that the allegations around finances could be referred to the auditor general for investigation.
African Christian Democratic Party MP Steve Swart was the first to point out that the committee does not have the capacity to investigate the complaints against Madonsela and her office, but should consider the matter because of the lacuna around who deals with grievances raised by people who work for such institutions.
"We are not in a position to investigate and make factual findings. We will probably, at the end of the day, make broad recommendations on how to deal with grievances by staff members in Chapter Nine institutions.
"There is obviously a lacuna in that regard that needs to be filled. We, as MPs, must exercise oversight, but we are not a tribunal that cross examines and makes factual findings," said Swart.
Taking the matter forward
He said the committee will be given an exercise in audi alteram partem by allowing Madonsela to respond to what was said, especially as she was the one who brought the issues to Parliament's attention. The committee will then decide how to take the matter forward and which body could investigate.
"When it comes to financial issues, the auditor general will be the opportune person to make findings on accounting and financial accountability."
Landers agreed with Swart on the committee not being a tribunal and lacking the capacity to investigate. "In addition to the staff [grievances], how do we address complaints from the public?" asked Landers.
DA MP Debbie Schafer said Madonsela would have to explain if there was any process in place in her office to deal with grievances raised by staff members.
"There is a concern because her staff do not fall under the public service and there is not much alternative for them other than to come to us," she said.