The uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) has formally written to National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza, requesting that she initiate the constitutionally mandated process to remove Public Protector Adv. Kholeka Gcaleka from office on grounds of alleged incompetence and misconduct, in a dramatic escalation of political tensions surrounding the country’s embattled Chapter 9 institution.
The letter, dated May 10 and delivered to the Speaker’s office on Tuesday morning, represents the first formal attempt by any political party in the Seventh Parliament to trigger Section 194 of the Constitution—the same provision that was used in the failed attempt to remove Gcaleka’s predecessor, Busisiwe Mkhwebane, after years of legal battles and parliamentary hearings.
“We have lost confidence in the ability of Adv. Gcaleka to discharge her duties with the independence, integrity, and diligence that the Constitution demands of the Public Protector,” read an excerpt from the MKP’s letter, which was subsequently shared with the media. “Her office has become a site of paralysis, political convenience, and institutional failure. South Africans deserve better.”
The move by the MKP, which holds 58 seats in the National Assembly following the 2024 general elections, immediately drew a mixed response from other political formations—ranging from cautious support to outright dismissal as a politically motivated stunt designed to distract from the party’s own internal controversies.
The Allegations Against Gcaleka
The MKP’s letter outlines a series of specific allegations against Gcaleka, who was permanently appointed as Public Protector in December 2023 following a contentious parliamentary process. Among the key complaints:
1. Failure to Investigate High-Profile Matters: The MKP alleges that Gcaleka’s office has failed to complete investigations into several major complaints, including allegations of corruption involving senior government officials, state-owned entities, and tender irregularities. The letter specifically names the incomplete investigation into the R150 million Digital Vibes contract, which was originally opened during Mkhwebane’s tenure and has remained unresolved for over three years.
“The Public Protector has allowed politically sensitive investigations to languish while pursuing low-risk, high-visibility matters that generate favourable headlines but produce no meaningful accountability,” the letter states.
2. Bias and Lack of Independence: The MKP accuses Gcaleka of showing undue deference to the executive branch, citing her handling of complaints against President Cyril Ramaphosa, including matters related to the Phala Phala farm controversy. While the party did not provide specific evidence of bias, it argued that Gcaleka’s “pattern of exonerating the presidency without thorough investigation” raises serious questions about her independence.
3. Institutional Paralysis: The letter points to significant delays in the issuance of reports, with some investigations reportedly taking more than 18 months to complete—far exceeding the constitutionally prescribed timeframe of 30 days for simple matters and 180 days for complex investigations. The MKP claims that the backlog of unresolved complaints has grown to over 4,000 cases under Gcaleka’s leadership.
4. Questionable Legal Opinions: The party alleges that Gcaleka has issued legal opinions and remedial actions that have repeatedly been set aside by the courts, citing several High Court rulings that have found her office’s interpretations of the Public Protector Act to be flawed or unconstitutional.
“Each court rebuke is not merely a legal embarrassment. It is evidence of a pattern of incompetence that undermines the very purpose of the Office of the Public Protector,” the letter argues.
The Section 194 Process
Removing a Public Protector from office in South Africa is a deliberately difficult process, reflecting the Constitution’s intention to protect Chapter 9 institutions from political whims. Section 194 of the Constitution provides that the President, Prime Minister, Speaker of the National Assembly, or any other designated person may request a judge to conduct an inquiry into the Public Protector’s fitness for office.
The process unfolds in several stages:
- Step 1: A formal request is submitted to the Speaker of the National Assembly, who must decide within 30 days whether the request has sufficient merit to proceed.
- Step 2: If the Speaker agrees, she must refer the matter to an independent panel of legal experts, typically retired judges or senior advocates, to conduct a preliminary assessment.
- Step 3: The panel submits a report to the National Assembly, which then decides whether to establish a formal Section 194 Committee—a multi-party parliamentary committee tasked with conducting a full inquiry.
- Step 4: The committee hears evidence, examines witnesses, and makes a recommendation to the full National Assembly. A two-thirds majority vote (267 votes out of 400) is required to remove the Public Protector.
The entire process can take months or even years, as demonstrated by the Mkhwebane proceedings, which stretched from 2021 to 2023 and consumed enormous parliamentary resources before ultimately collapsing when Mkhwebane’s term expired and she was removed by court order on other grounds.
Speaker Didiza’s Response
Speaker Thoko Didiza’s office confirmed receipt of the MKP’s letter but declined to comment substantively, stating only that the matter would be processed in accordance with the Rules of the National Assembly.
“In terms of Rule 129A, the Speaker must consider any written request for the removal of a Chapter 9 institution head and determine whether the request contains prima facie evidence of serious misconduct or incapacity,” said Moloto Mothapo, spokesperson for the Speaker’s office. “Speaker Didiza will review the submission carefully and communicate her decision within the prescribed timeframe.”
Constitutional law experts note that the Speaker has significant discretion at this initial stage. She is not required to accept every removal request; she may reject it if she believes it is frivolous, vexatious, or lacks evidentiary support. However, a decision to reject the MKP’s request would almost certainly be challenged in court, prolonging the political and legal drama.
Political Reactions
The MKP’s move has fractured the political landscape, with reactions falling largely along predictable partisan lines.
The Democratic Alliance (DA), which has been a vocal critic of Gcaleka’s performance, expressed cautious support for an inquiry while stopping short of endorsing removal. “The Public Protector’s office has been in decline for years,” said DA Chief Whip George Michalakis. “We are not convinced that Adv. Gcaleka is solely responsible for that decline, but we are not opposed to a parliamentary process that examines her fitness for office. Transparency and accountability should apply to Chapter 9 institutions as much as anyone else.”
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), which has its own complicated history with the Public Protector’s office, was more dismissive. “The MKP is a party of opportunists who have no real interest in strengthening democratic institutions,” said EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo. “This is a theatrical distraction. If they were serious about accountability, they would start by accounting for their own leaders who have been implicated in corruption. Instead, they point fingers at the Public Protector because she will not do their political bidding.”
The African National Congress (ANC), which remains the largest party in Parliament despite losing its majority in 2024, adopted a cautious, wait-and-see position. “The ANC respects the independence of Chapter 9 institutions and will not pre-judge any parliamentary process,” said ANC Chief Whip Mdumiseni Ntuli. “That said, we are concerned about the proliferation of removal attempts against constitutional office-bearers. We must not normalise the weaponisation of Section 194 for political ends.”
The MKP itself, which broke away from the ANC in late 2023 under the leadership of former President Jacob Zuma, has positioned this move as part of a broader campaign against what it calls “captured institutions.” Party spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela argued that the Public Protector’s office has become an instrument of the executive rather than a guardian of the people.
“Adv. Gcaleka has failed South Africans. She has failed the Constitution. She has failed the memory of the founders of this democracy who fought for independent oversight,” Ndhlela said at a media briefing outside Parliament. “We are not afraid to use the tools the Constitution gives us to hold her accountable. And we call on every patriotic South African—every member of Parliament who truly loves this country—to support our motion.”
Gcaleka’s Record
Advocate Kholeka Gcaleka, 51, was appointed as Public Protector in December 2023 following a protracted selection process that saw several shortlisted candidates withdraw or be disqualified. A seasoned legal professional with experience at the National Prosecuting Authority and the South African Human Rights Commission, Gcaleka was seen by many as a compromise candidate—experienced enough to command respect but perceived as less politically combative than her predecessor.
Her tenure has been marked by a series of high-profile but often inconclusive investigations. Among the most notable:
- Phala Phala Farm: Gcaleka cleared President Ramaphosa of any wrongdoing in the theft of foreign currency from his Limpopo farm, concluding that there was no evidence the President had violated the Executive Ethics Code. The decision was criticised by opposition parties but upheld in a subsequent court challenge.
- Digital Vibes: The investigation into a controversial R150 million communications contract awarded to a company linked to former Health Minister Zweli Mkhize remains incomplete, with Gcaleka’s office citing legal challenges and resource constraints.
- SARS Leadership: Gcaleka’s office investigated allegations of misconduct against senior South African Revenue Service officials but concluded that the complaints were unsubstantiated, drawing sharp criticism from whistleblower advocacy groups.
Supporters of Gcaleka argue that she inherited an office in disarray after the tumultuous Mkhwebane years and has worked quietly to restore institutional integrity. “The Public Protector’s office is underfunded, understaffed, and overburdened,” said public law expert Professor Pierre de Vos. “Blaming Adv. Gcaleka for the backlog is like blaming a new captain for the leaks in a sinking ship. The problems are structural, not personal.”
What Happens Next
The coming weeks will be critical in determining whether the MKP’s removal request gains traction or fades into parliamentary oblivion. Speaker Didiza has until early June to make her initial determination. If she finds the request has merit, the independent panel process will begin, likely triggering a wave of media coverage and political maneuvering.
Even if the process advances, however, the political arithmetic for removal is daunting. A two-thirds majority in the National Assembly requires 267 votes. The MKP’s 58 seats, even if combined with the DA’s 87 seats, the EFF’s 39 seats, and a scattering of smaller opposition parties, would still fall short of the threshold. Without support from a significant portion of the ANC’s 159 seats, removal is mathematically impossible.
This reality has led some observers to conclude that the MKP’s letter is more about political positioning than genuine institutional reform.
“The MKP knows they cannot remove Gcaleka. They don’t have the numbers, and they don’t have the evidence,” said political analyst Dr. Susan Booysen. “But they can use this process to keep the Public Protector in the headlines, to embarrass the ANC, and to rally their base around a narrative of fighting corrupt institutions. This is theatre. But in South African politics, theatre often matters more than policy.”
The Bigger Picture
Beyond the fate of Adv. Gcaleka, the MKP’s move raises deeper questions about the state of South Africa’s democratic accountability mechanisms. Chapter 9 institutions—the Public Protector, the Auditor-General, the Human Rights Commission, and others—were designed to be independent bulwarks against abuse of power. But in recent years, they have become political battlegrounds, with each successive government and opposition party seeking to shape them to their advantage.
“The independence of Chapter 9 institutions depends on a political culture that respects their independence,” said former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, who served from 2009 to 2016 and is widely regarded as having set the standard for the office. “When every adverse finding is met with demands for removal, and every favourable finding is met with accusations of bias, the institution itself is weakened. We must be careful not to destroy the watchdog simply because we do not like its bark.”
For now, the MKP’s letter sits on Speaker Didiza’s desk—a bundle of paper carrying the weight of constitutional procedure, political ambition, and institutional anxiety. Whether it becomes the first step toward Gcaleka’s removal or merely a footnote in South Africa’s parliamentary history will depend on calculations that extend far beyond the merits of the allegations themselves.
About The Author
