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),
ainvoked 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)
Gauteng Provincial Government Places Senior Health Officials On Precautionary Suspension As The Siu Begins An Investigation Into Procurement at Tembisa Hospital