Buck 8 Floor, Suite 53 Kya Golovard alan Busines Park : Midrand 1684 ! ya Tek: (0H 466 0442/0168, Fox: (Dil) 4B6 B01 Pee Enable ‘Our Ref: TNS/PUB1/0028 23 March 2022 Your Ref: 241/20/P 17 OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY, GAPE TOWN Attorneys for the Speaker of the National Assembly 22 Long Street Cape Town Western Cape Province Attention: Mrs. Molanie Faure Per Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Dear Madam, Re: Public Protector / Speaker of the National Assembly and Others Your letter dated 22 March 2022 1 We refer to your letter dated 22 March 2022 purporting to be a response to our letter to the Speaker dated 18 March 2022. 2 We have no intention of litigating this matter by correspondence. Accordingly and ordinarily, we could, for that reason, ignore your aforesaid letter and proceed with the Director: Theophilus Noko Seanago BPrac, LLM (Corporate Law); Marbe Malone BA Law ULB Associates: Kamagelo Moet LLB Naubelo Matheny LL, Cnsultant/Conveyancer: Sanson Shadun BProx. LB Candidate Attarneys: Nefeesa Patel LB LM (ierational Camera aw); HaquellChitsmbe BA Law, LLB: Rebecca Chika 1B, LUM Tat La)envisaged application. However, some of the provocative and incorrect statements contained in your letter cannot go unchallenged and we therefore wish to place the following facts on record. Ad paragraph 3 3 Ithas never been our ciaim that the rescission application suspends the impeachment process. That very notion is an absurdity. 4, Itis incorrect to suggest that our client “is not entit/ed’ to bring a rescission application and thereby “relitigate" the issues which have been allegedly decided in conditions which satisfy Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court, read with Rule 29 of the Rules, of the Constitutional Court. Any litigant is entitled to bring a rescission application. Whether the application will succeed or fail is a completely different question. 5. _Alll that is being asked for is that, just as the Committee correctly “suspended its activities pending the appeals of the DA and the Speaker’, It should similarly suspend its activities pending the application brought by the Public Protector. This request is inline with Rule 89 of the National Assembly Rules, as well as the past practice and behaviour of the Committee when the matter was pending before court. Ad paragraph 5 6 It is misguided to argue that the Section 194 Committee “will not be considering the issues raised by the rescission application’. itis also absurd to claim that none of the issues raised in that application “has any bearing on the question for decision before Directors: Theophilus Noka Seanego BProc, LLM (Corporate Law): Maribe Malape BA Lew. LL, Associates: Karogelo Malka LLB: Noubako Mathanya LLB Consultant/Convayancer: Samysan Shadung BProc. LLB. Candidata Attornays: Nafeesa Patel LLB, LLM (Internatinal Commercial Low); Naquelle Chilsmibs BALaw. LLB: Rebecca Chimuks LB, LUM (Tax Law),the Committee”. The issues of separation of powers and the constitutionality of the appointment of the Judge are exactly what gave rise to the very existence of the Committee. They have an indomitable bearing on whether the Committee can do anything. Ad paragraph 6 7. The Speaker is ultimately responsible for the activities of the National Assembly, including its sub-structures or committees. We refer you to the provisions of section 3 of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliaments and Provincial Legislatures Act 4 of 2004, Ad paragraph 7 8 These allegations are'false. The draft programme was apparently presented and recommended to the Committee only on 3 March 2022. As a matter of logic, it can therefore not have been approved on 22 February 2022 ‘Ad paragraph 10 9 ‘The Speaker was not entitled to extend a "courtesy" to the President by giving him information adverse to the Public Protector, without extending a similar courtesy or fulfling his faimess obligations to her. ~l Ad paragraph 12 10. The information given to the President was far from being “factually accurate”. For starters, the adoption of the programme was a falsity, as demonstrated above. Diractors: Theophilus Hoko Seanego BProc, LLM (Corporate Law) Meribe Malope BA Law, LLB Associates: Kamagela Wale LLE: Nqubeko Makhanya LLB. Consultant/Conveyancer: Sampson Shagung BPron LLB. Candidate Attorneys: Wafeese Patel LLB, LLM (international Commercial Law); Naquelle Chikara BA Law, LLB: Rebeces Chimuta LIB, UM (TaxLan)ee 1 12, 43. Secondly, the “current status’ is that there is a rescission application, which is not reflected in the letter. Therefore, a fundamental change in “the current status quo" was ignored and not taken into consideration. Such conduct is plainly irrational. Insofar as you make reference to the irregular letter sent by you to the Chief Registrar of the Constitutional Court, please refer to our separate letter squarely dealing with that letter and demonstrating its irregular and/or unlawful nature. Finally, we wish to reiterate the point made in our original letter to the Speaker, which has not been addressed in your response, namely that the letter written by the ‘Speaker to the President on 10 March 2022, read with the media release on 16 March 2022, was clearly choreographed to prompt the President to suspend the Public Protector. It worked. The suggestion that the two decisions must somehow be delinked from each other is not only clearly unsustainable on the facts but it is also disingenuous. These events formed part of the same causal chain aimed at the unlawful suspension of the Public Protector. At the tisk of stating the obvious, the suspension would not have been initiated without the Speaker's letter dated 10 March 2022. That letter contains the blatant lie that ‘the Committee has adopted terms of reference and a programme to guide its proceedings and progress”. In tun, the Speaker's letter itself would not have been ‘sent but for the inexplicable failure of the Speaker to update the President and/or the South African public once the rescission application was actually received. This Directors: Theophilus Hoko Ssenegn BProc, LLM (Corparate Li); Maribe Maiope BA Law, LE Associates: Kamagela Meleka LLB; Nqubeta Makhanya LLB. Consultant/Conveyancer: Sampson Shadung 8Proc, LLB (Candidate Attornays: Nafaesa Patel LLB, LLM (International Commercial Law); Naquelle Chikariba BA Law, LLB: Rebecca [himuka LLB, LUM (Tex Law), ainvoked a significant shift to and alteration of "the current status of the process in the Section 194 Committee’. 14. Please do the right thing and withdraw the impugned letter so as to undo or reverse the merry state of affairs created by the Speaker, falling which the legal steps gd in our previous letter will be effected as a matter of last resort. Directors: Toph NokoSeanogo Brac, LM (Conparate Law); Marte Wlape BA Law, LLB Associates: Karogea Wale LB: Nqubeko Makhenya IB. Consutant/Convayancer: Sampson ShedungBPro, LB. CCondidataAttarnays: Nefaosa Patol LB LM (ternational Commerce Law); HaqullsChitamb BA Law, (18; Rebecca Chime LE, LLM Taxa)