Former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane is taking her case to the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, seeking the payment of her R10-million gratuity.
Mkhwebane, who was impeached just two days before her term could end, argues that the decision by the Office of the Public Protector not to pay her is unjust.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: New EFF MP Mkhwebane Criticizes Public Protector’s Office, NPA, And SIU
In her court papers filed last month, she alleges that she received a letter from the legal representatives of the current Public Protector, Advocate Kholeka Gcaleka, stating that she would not be receiving her gratuity due to her removal from office.
Mkhwebane’s argument is anchored on Section 32 Subsection 3 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. This section stipulates that an employer must pay an employee their remuneration no later than seven days after the completion of the period for which the remuneration is payable.
Mkhwebane contends that the non-payment of her gratuity within this period constitutes a breach of this section.
Furthermore, Mkhwebane is expected to argue that there have been various constitutional breaches on the part of Gcaleka, emphasizing that her rights to dignity and self-worth were violated as a result.
She highlights the extended delay in receiving a response from the Office of the Public Protector and Gcaleka, as well as a history of malicious conduct dating back to May/June 2022, as additional grounds for the punitive order she is seeking.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Mkhwebane On Joining EFF: “I Think I Will Be Contributing A Lot”
In her application, Mkhwebane emphasizes that public administration must be governed by a high standard of professional ethics, fairness, and absence of bias, as prescribed by Section 195 of the Constitution.
She argues that the failure to pay her gratuity is not only a violation of her rights but also undermines the principles that should guide public administration.
Mkhwebane seeks relief in various forms, including an order from the court to ensure that the gratuity is paid no later than 30 days after the date of the order. She believes that the court’s intervention is necessary to rectify the alleged breaches and to uphold the principles of fairness and justice.
