/ 12 August 2016

Ambush tactics and curve balls relieve the tedium of public protector interviews

Ambush Tactics And Curve Balls Relieve The Tedium Of Public Protector Interviews

In October a new public protector must hit the ground running, taking over from incumbent Thuli Madonsela by leading investigations into such knotty – and critical – issues as nuclear power stations and state capture.

But that could be a tough ask.

As the Mail & Guardian went to print on Thursday, the parliamentary committee that must help select the next protector was not quite halfway through a marathon of 14 interviews with shortlisted candidates. Yet the very different and sometimes conflicting expectations of committee members were already clear.

“Did you support apartheid?” asked Economic Freedom Fighters MP Floyd Shivambu of one interviewee, also demanding to know whether she would support a constitutional amendment to allow expropriation of land without compensation. Struggle credentials, Shivambu made obvious in each interview, would be a key metric for his party.

ANC MP Amos Masondo had a very different set of questions for candidates: How do they see “intergovernmental relations”? And how would they deal with the widespread belief that there should not be antagonism between, say, the public protector and the national executive?

The Democratic Alliance, on the other hand, took a vetting approach, with MPs such as Glynnis Breytenbach pushing hard on “forgotten” civil judgments and job suspensions not disclosed in the paperwork filed in the run-up to the hearings. If the parties fail to find what they variously require – impeccable struggle credentials, a nonconfrontational approach to government and a squeaky-clean record – in the same candidate, there were also early indications that committee deliberations would not go smoothly.

“Don’t be emotional,” Shivambu chided committee chairperson Makhosi Khoza during an extended disagreement about conducting all 14 interviews on the same day. “The last time your speaker did that, Parliament ended up losing lots of money in court paying legal costs because of that arrogance. I thought this arrogance is going to decline now.”

The DA and the EFF seemed to be laying the groundwork for a possible court challenge to the committee’s decision at a later stage, a tactic both parties have hinted at over the past month. The committee had known there were 14 candidates to be interviewed, Khoza held, and knew that interviews were due to take place on August 11, so she rejected the allegation that the bruising schedule was inherently procedurally suspect.

The wisdom of the one-day hearing approach seemed increasingly questionable as the day wore on. Candidates awaiting their interviews were held incommunicado as their fellows were quizzed on live television, in the interests of fairness. But without the advantage of seeing previous interviews, candidate after candidate lectured the committee on the legal underpinnings of the office of the public protector, sometimes in nearly identical language.

Each candidate was given only 10 minutes to make a presentation. Yet several took that time to read their own CVs to the committee – CVs that had been minutely studied – or to explain the workings of legislation to those supposed to draft it, quoting developments as far back as 1809 and, in one instance, citing the Roman poet Juvenal, circa 200CE.

Despite their historical preparation, the early batch of candidates often found themselves in trouble and unable to satisfy their interrogators.

He was unaware of one debt judgment against him and unconcerned with another because “life is a journey”, held the first candidate, Mhlaliseni Mthembu.

“There is no issue that is not a public protector issue,” Chris Mokoditwa told the committee when asked why he thought gun control was a key issue for that office to tackle.

“I’ve had a colourful life, yes,” shrugged Judge Siraj Desai to questions about past reports about his temper, after twice interrupting questions he felt were unfair.

“The report said it did not affect my integrity,” said Professor Narnia Bohler-Muller about disciplinary action taken against her, which she was accused of failing to disclose properly.

“It was referring to previous employment,” former deputy public protector Mamiki Goodman said, about Bohler-Muller saying in writing in July that she had not been subjected to disciplinary action when she was suspended in June. “I apologised. For me it was over.”