186.

AD11. PA.ULM. N608£NI

S111111i11g,l11le, Cape Tow11 7443

Cellular:

28 June 2018 Travel From Lydenburg to Pretoria (X2 times). I7,500.00

& 2Jut 2018 14.00 hours
29 June 20,18 Reading Papers, reports, correspondence and 10,000.00
& 2 July 2018 report received.
8:00 hours
02 July 2018 - Research Caselaw, Rules ofthe National 16,250.00
04 July2018 Assembly & Drafting response for Public
Protector.
13:00houl'S

05 July 2018 Reading revised Letter of Public Protector and 1,875.00

Response Thereto.
1 hour :30 min
OTAL 45,625.00

Total Hours Billed: 36.5

@ Hourly rate ofR1250
 186. 2

31 March 2019 through 12 April 2019 Invoice

Date Activity Time

31/03/ 2019 Reviewed preliminary questions for Legal opinion 4.5

& reviewed Disclosure Rules for MPs

Ol /04/2019 Travel to & From Pretoria and Meeting with Counsel 8.5

02 April to Legal 'Research on Questions Asked 24:00

06 April 2019

09 April 2019 to Further Drafting/Research of Final Legal Opinion 11:00

12 April 2019

Total Houn = 48.00 houn

Thank you for your cooperation.

Regards
!2¼111/.,;//. .19(>&-111'
Paul M. Ngobeni 24/04/2019
 186. 3
Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 11:02:41 South Africa Standard Tim~ B,
Subject: FW: lnvoice002
Date: Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 07:10:16 South Africa Standard Time
From: Theophilus Seanego
To: 'Alfred Mhlongo', 'Muntu Sithole', 'Sibusiso Nyembe'

From: kheller.
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 7:42 PM
To: Mfankhona Hlatshwayo
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: lnvoice002

DearTheo

I hope you are well. This invoice is for communication services provided by Prof and I over the course of
July, August and September. The amount is less than contracted/discussed as we have based it on direct
hours worked.

We were due to meet today with the office but this meeting is being rescheduled for next week. I will
provide a report on impact of the articles, posts and other interventions done over this period.

Kind regards
Kim

Sent from my iPhone

On 25 Sep 2019, at 15:22, Mfankhona Hlatshwayo <[email protected]> w rote:

Dear Theo

Kim Heller had ask me to send you an invoice that was sent to Paul last week. I have
attached an invoice to this mail.

Regards

Mfankhona
<invoice002.doc>

Page 1 of 1
 186. 4
.. ( \J

Ngobeni Executive Consultants

P.O. Box 583
Lydenburg, 1120
Cellular Number:
Email:

1 August 2019

Pay to Account of: Abel Ngobeni

PAUL M NGOBENI PUBLIC PROTECTOR PROJECT

INVOICE APRIL 2019-JULY 312019

DATES ACTIVITIES BILLABLE HOURS

21 May 2019 to Received CASAC DA Vrede Judgment 18:00

03 June 201 9 and provisional and final PP Reports; Final
Notice of Appeal; All DA CASAC Papers;
researched and drafted preliminary argument

24 May2019 Researched, drafted and published Article "Mobilizing 6.00

The Judiciary for Political Attacks on PP"

05 June 2019 Draft Letter to Speaker Research 2:00

06-10 June 2019 Received and Research Direct Access; Leave to appeal 12:00
Amended NOM and Supplementary Affidavit and
AmendedNOM

11-12 June 2019 Drafted Legal Opinion on Controversy 4:00

on PP's Social Media and Section 7(9) Notices

12-13 June 2019 Drafted correspondence urging Challenge to 9:00

the BUSA Self-Styled Petition; Drafted Letter to the
Speaker

13June2019 Drafted Legal Opinion on Waterkloof and Zondo 7:00

Commission
 186. 5

17 June 2019 Received Urgent demand Publication of False defamatory 4:00

Statement Re: Pillay and Von Loggerenberg from
Webber Wentzel; Researched Sikhakhane report;
Kroon and Nugent Reports and researched defamation law;
Read PP Address to Sheriffs

19 June 2019 Correspondence on Judge Tolmay's Proposal for 2:00

Stay Until Concourt decides costs; Research on piece-
Meal judgments

30 June -01 July 2019Researched and Drfated Advisory Opinion on Urgent 13:00
Need to Litigate Matter of Sect. 194 Removal

02 July 2019 Read Correspondence from Accountability Now regarding 4:00

"Holding the Public Protector to account under C 181 (5)"
Researched allegations on ABSA Lifeboat matter in which
ordered parliament to change the mandate of the SA Reserve Bank,
a matter about which AN had allegedly not complained.
Wrote advisory on need to write to Speaker about referral of
PP removal matter to a Committee

19-20 July 20 I 9 PP report on Pres. Ramaphosa and researched legal challenges 8:00
CR raises; jurisdictional and factual isses

21 -22 July 2019 Hoffman's Correspondence to LPC; research on effect of 1 J :00

Concourtjudgment on disciplinary matters; researched referral rule
and mero motu disciplinary proceedings

23- 24 July 2019 Researched disbarment issues and Concourt Judgment and 13:00
penned the article: Why Advocate Mkhwebane Will Not
be Disbarred" which was published

25-31 July2019 Read Gordhan's Urgent interdict and Review documents; 22:00
Researched jurisdictional issues and interdict legal standards;
analyzed Poterills' judgment in Gordhan v Public Protector and
authored an article "Judge Poterill's Unethical and Incompetent
Judgment

Inv No: SS-KH.1-19 Wekunene BS (Pty) Ltd =R 120 000-00

Total (Billing Rate (R2000) X Billable Hrs(l35.00 hrs) =R 270 000 -00

Total Amount Due R 390 000-00

 186. 6

From: Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector) <MkhwebaneB@pprot ect.org>

Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2019 4:17 PM
To: Ntsumbeclzeni Nemasisi
Cc: Sibusiso Nyembe; Vussy Mahlangu; Futana Tebele; Muntu Sithole
Subject: Re: MAT 130297 - ANTONY LOUIS MOSTERT & OTHERS / THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR
& OTHERS

Cos please contact Ngobeni SC to check his availability

Busisiwe Mkhwebane

On 30 Jan 2019, at 16:14, Ntsumbedzeni Nemasisl <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr Nyembe

Kindly note b elow email from the attorneys, confirming that neither of the suggested
counsels are available.

kindly provide us with the alternative names of the counsels.

Regards,

Mr Ntsumbed2e11i Nemasisi
Senior Manager-Legal Services
PUBLIC PROTECTOR SOUTH AFRICA
Physical Address: 175 Lunnon Street, Hillcrest Office Park, Hatfield, Pretoria, 0083
Postal Address: Private Bag X677, Pretoria, 0001
Direct Tel: (012) 366 ns8
Cell.-
Email: [email protected]
Toll Free.: 0800 11 2040
Website: UTWW.publicprot.ector.org

<image004.jpg>

"If the only tool you have is hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail"

Please consider the environment before printing this email

From : Rakeeba Mahomed [mailto:[email protected]

- -------
Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2019 16:11
To: Muntu Sithole <[email protected]>
Cc: Ntsumbedzenl Nemasisl <[email protected]::.: [email protected]; 'Tebogo
Ramalekana' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: MAT 130297 - ANTONY LOUIS MOSTERT & OTHERS/ THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR &

1
 186. 7
4

From: Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector) <MlthwebaneB@pprotectorg>

s.nt: Thursday, 23 May 2019 4:12 PM
To: Sibusiso Nyembe; Muntu Sithole
Subject: RE: Political Mobilization of t he Judiciary in Vrede Dairy Judgment

Article is good he can published

--- -------------------·------- -----

From: Sibusiso Nyembe
sent: Thursday, 23 May 2019 15:22
To: Muntu Sithole
Cc: Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector)
Subject: FW: Political Mobilization of the Judiciary in Vrede Dairy Judgment

fya

From: Paul Ngobeni

sent: Thursday, 23 May 2019 15:38
To: Sibusiso Nyembe; Slbusiso Nyembe; Theophilus Seanego
Subject: Political Mobilization of the Judiciary In Vrede Dairy Judgment

Please share with relevant folks and give feedback.

MOBILIZING THE JUDICIARY FOR POLITICAL ATTACKS ON THE
PUBUC PROTECTOR: CAN JUSTICE BE DONE AMID EFFORTS TO
INTIMIDATE AND REMOVE OUR PUBUC PROTECTOR?
By: Paul Ngobeni

The Vrede/Fstina Dairy Project judgment that Public Protector failed in her duties
to investigate and report on the Vrede dairy project in the Free State will forever live
in infamy. Without doubt our country is blessed with an extraordinary group of
dedicated judges doing their level best to dispense justice to those appearing before
them. That independent judiciary does not allow their personal background, gender,
prejudices, sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before
~e court. That judiciary heeds the admonition of Chief Justice Mogoeng against
allowing themselves to be captured, against the temptation to be "celebrity" judges,
and against being lured by manipulative praises from politicians, analysts or the
media.

Sadly, there are exceptions like Judge Tolmay who allow vicissitudes of political
controversy, their policy preferences, shaped by an amalgam of factors that include
their race, and most importantly, ideology or partisanship to determine court
1
 186. 8

Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector) <[email protected]>

Thursday, 23 May 2019 9:04 AM
To:
Subject: Fwd: NOTICE OF APPEAL
Attachments: DA Heads.pelf; ATT00001.htm; DA v pp supplementary affidavit and Amended
NoM.pelf; ATT00002.htm; CASAC Heads of Argument.pelf; ATT00003.htm; CASAC v
PP - AMENDED NOM.pdf; ATT00004.htm .

Adv find all t he below documents

Busisiwe Mkhwebane

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Muntu Sithole" <[email protected]

To: "Advocate Buslsiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector)" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Sibusiso Nyembe" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: NOTICE OF APPEAL

Morning PP,

Herewith the applications by DA and CASAC. I also attach the heads which will assist Adv
Ngobeni in preparing the papers.

I am waiting for Mr Makaba so I can access Nemasisi's previous office to a look for the file
on the Motimela matter. PP will forgive me because at the time I was not part of Legal
Services therefore I don't have any electronic documents. I will search in his office once I
gain access.

Kind regards,
-------· ...-. "•- ·---•--------- ---..·- - -- -·--- ..._ __
From: Advocate Busislwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector)
, .... __
_..... "

Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2019 08:34

To: Muntu Sithole <[email protected]>
Cc: Sibusiso Nyembe <[email protected].>
Subject: Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL

can you send me the Casac and DA notice of motion to send to Adv Ngobenl

Did you get the Information from Nemasisi about Motimela?

I asked Ngobeni whether he can assist the senior junior to prepare papers for appeal

Busisiwe Mkhwebane

On 23 M ay 2019, at 08:23, Muntu Sithole <[email protected]> wrote:

Noted PP. I will conduct due diligence and check credible senior j uniors. PP can also
indicate any preference on the senior junior.

Kind regards,
 186. 9 -

From: Muntu Sithole <[email protected]>

Sent Thursday, 23 May 2019 8:43 AM
To: Advocate Busisiwe Mlchwebane (Public Protector)
Cc: Sibusiso Nyembe
Subject: RE: NOTICE OF APPEAL
Attachments: DA Heads.pdf; DA v PP supplementary affidavit and Amended NoM.pdf; CASAC
Heads of Argument.pdf; CASAC v PP - AMENDED NOM.pdf

Morning PP,

Herewith the applications by DA and CASAC. I also attach the heads which will assist Adv Ngobeni In
preparing the papers. .... - -,,

I am waiting for Mr Makaba so I can access Nemasisi's previous office to a look for the file on the Motimela
matter. PP will forgive me because at the time I was not part of Legal Services therefore I don't have any
electronic documents. I will search in his office once I gain access.

Kind regards,

From: Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector)

Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2019 08:34
To: Muntu Sithole <[email protected]>
Cc: Sibusiso Nv.embe <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL

can you send me the Casac and DA notice of motion to send to Adv Ngobeni

Did you get the information from Nemasisi about Motimela?

I asked Ngobeni whether he can assist the senior junior to prepare papers for appeal

Busislwe Mkhwebane

On 23 May 2019, at 08:23, Muntu Sithole <[email protected]:> wrote:

Noted PP. I will conduct due diligence and check credible senior juniors. PP can also indicate any
preference on the senior junior.

Kind regards,

From: Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector)

Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2019 20:17
To: Muntu Slthole <[email protected]>
Cc: Stbusiso Nyembe <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL

Noted can you do due diligence about Platt? What does she stand for?

Let us consider senior Junior and junior also who can fight these with out interest at heart?

Busisiwe Mkhwebane

1
 186.10

Date: Thursday, 13 June 2019 at 16:40

To: 'Kim Heller' >. 'Oupa Segalwe' <[email protected]>, 'Sibusiso
Nyembe' <Sib_ysiso [email protected],>, 'Paul Ngobenl' , 'Sipho Seepe'

Subject: RE: Strategic Communication Consultancy

Dear l<im

Thank you for t he mail and the breakdown. Will seek guidance from the PP's office and revert.

Kindest Regards

From:
Sent: Thursday, Jun~ 13, 2019 4:09 PM
To: Theophilus Seanego <[email protected]>; Oupa Segalwe ( 9_ypai;~~!!l?i Sibusiso Nyembe
<[email protected]>; Paul Ngobeni >; Sipho Seepe
SUbJect: Strategic Communication Consultancy

OearTheo

As requested, please find a breakdown of our consultancy costs for strategic communication
services for the period 7 June to 4 July 2019.

Paul will send his costs under separate cover.

The Professor and I would like to arrange a meeting with the team at your soonest convenience
to concretise next steps.

Kind regards,

Kim Heller
 186.11

From: Sipho Seepe

Date: Thursday, 13 June 2019 at 15:53
To: Paul Ngobeni >, <Kh~ller
<Sibusisol\l@pprot ect.org>, Sibuslso Nyembe >, Theophilus Seanego
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Letter to Speaker In Opposition to BUSA Petition to Remove PP

Ntate

This is an e)(cellent Letter. Clearly BUSA has displayed not only its legal incompetence but also glaring ignorance of
fact. Importantly given that the stone throwers have dressed themselves In glory, this petition is self-serving.

we will be guided by colleagues on the way forward

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

0 : Thu rsday, June H , 2.01~, 3 .2?. PM, Faul Ngobeni " > wrote:

Dear Colleagues:
Ideally the letter should be sent by an NGO or activist outfit. It is not a good idea to send it on behalf
of the Public Protector. Please think it over and correct whatever errors spelling, grmmar and
substantive. It should read as follows:

Dear Honourable Speaker:

REPRESENTATIONS IN OPPOSITION TO INCOMPETENT, MISGUIDED AND

MISINFORMED CALLS FROM BUSA TO INSTITUTE REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS IN
RESPECT OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR MS BUSISIWE MKHWEBANE

1. Background to BLF* **

1
 186.12

From: "Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector)" <Mkbwe.baneB@pprotec:t.ora>

Date: Monday, 01 July 2019 at 14:05
To: Paul Ngobeni >, Theophilus Seanego <[email protected]>,
1
"ngobeni <sipho seepe "l(heller.c
<Kheller. Sibusiso Nyembe Slbusiso Nyembe
<[email protected]>
Subjed: RE: Advisory Opinion on Urgent Need to Litigate Matter of Sect. 194 Removal

Thanks Advocate noted

From: Paul Ngobeni

Sent; Monday, 01 July 2019 13:43
To, Theophilus Seanego; KtJeJler. Slbusiso Nyembe; Sibusiso
Nyembe
subject! Advisory Opinion on Urgent Need to litigate Matter of Sect. 194 Removal

Attached please find a discussion document l prepared in anticipation of our meeting. Unfortunately I could not make it due to
transportation issues.

1 linnly hold the view that the only solution to the incessant political atl'acks on the Public Protector by those MPs, politicians and
their allies being investigated or found guilty of co1TUpt or unethical behavior is a duclaratory action in court and an interdict
which would effectively bring to an end the cycle of retaliatory actions against the Public Protector and put an end to the abuse of
the process of Parliament. The PP or at least her effectiveness will not survive the current lynch-mob frenzy being seemingly
endorsed even by the Speaker. Please consider. Thanks.

1
 186.13

Date: 26 August 2019

Our Reference: PUB1/0014/TNS
Your Reference:

Public Protector of South Africa

175 Lunno n Street
Hillcrest Office Park
Pretoria
0083

IOur VAT No l Your VAT No: Invoice No: 004569/TNS I

TAX INVOICE

Date Description Fees Dlsbmts VAT

Travelled to Pretoria and met with client. Mr. Ngobeni, Prof.
Seepe and Ms. Kim Heller to discuss how to counter the
04-06-19 12,000.00 1,800.00
Onsllght on the media on the Public Protector.
Director CTNS) - (6 hours 30 minutes)
04-06-19 Tra11elllng costs pl!r kilometet (71.40 kms) 370.17 55.53
Received documents form client perusal and consideration,
05-06-19 various telephone calls to client. 2,250.00 337.50
Director (TNS) - 11 hour 13 minutes)
-
Travelled t o Pretoria to meet w ith client, Prof. seepe and
01-07-19 Kim Heller. 8,250.00 1,237.50
Director (TNS) • (4 hours 28 minutes)
01-07-19 Travelling costs per kilometer (77 .40 kms) 370.17 55.53
Ngobeni Executive Consultants' Fee 390,000.00
SUBTOTAL 22,500.00 390,740.34 3,486.06

fees 22,500.00
Disbursements 390,740.34
VAT 3,486.06
TOTAL 416,726.40

Suite C, 1•· Floor, S3 Ky•lam1 Boulevard, Ky.ilamf Buslne~s Park, Mldrand, 1686, Tel: (011) 466 0442,
Fax. (011) 466 0464, Emall: [email protected]
 186.14

From: Sibusiso Nyembe

Date: Thursday, 04 July 2019 at 17:22
To: Sibusiso Nyembe <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Letter to Speaker of Parliament

- -- Forwarded message---- -
From: Paul Ngobenl
Date: Thu, 4 Jui 2019, 16:51
Subject: Letter to Speaker of Parliament
To: Theophilus seanego <[email protected]>, ngobenil <sipho scep~
<l<heller. Sibuslso Nyembe

Herewith Is the letter to the Speaker. It is deliberately detailed and long because we need to put an end to the abuse
of the parliamentary process. The Speaker is the gatekeeper under the Rules of Parliament and the
constitution. We are asking for a rescission of the decision to refer the matter to a Committee as this was done in
violation of the Public Protector's due process rights. We leave open room for constructive engagement with the
Speaker and to assist her In putting an end to the abuse of the Section 194 process. Thank you.

1
 186.15

From: Paul Ngobenl

Date: Monday, 22 July 2019 at 18:53
To: ..Advocate Buslsiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector)11 <[email protected]>
Cc: Muntu Sithole <S1tholeM@pproteg:.org>, Oupa Segalwe <oypas@pprotect .ors>, Alfred Mhlongo
<[email protected]>, Sibuslso Nyembe <[email protected]>, 11 l(heller.
<l<heller. "sipho secpe@ <sipho seeu_g
Subject: Re: Advoctae Busisiwe Mkhwebane -mero motu disciplinary proceedings required

This is actually rubbish. We must ask for reconsideration:Failure to accord the Public Protector decisional
Independence exactly equal to that afforded the judiciary effectively nullifies the provisions of Section 181 of the
Constitution.The PP's ability to function without •fear" is destroyed as she must view every case as a potential
financially ruinous risk that may bankrupt her.The PP must request reconsideration In the Concourt to revisit the
practical effect of the judgment on her work. The 4 acting Judges will be gone and regular judges including
Madlanga, Zondo etc. will deal with the matter.As for Paul Hoffman he is just giving us a chance to revive a case that
was swept under the rug by the GCB after they decided he was to be presented in Court for a striking off application.
He benefited from that favour and now he is making noise. We shall vigorously deal with his nonsense.

On Mon, Jui 22, 2019 at 1:31 PM Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector) <[email protected]>
wrote:

Busislwe Mkhwebane

Begin forwarded message:

From: Paul Hoffman

'.. Date: 22 July 2019 at 13:14:33 SAST
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Subject: Advoctae Buslslwe Mkhwebane -mero motu disciplinary proceedings required

Dear LPC,

We assume that the Legal Practice Council will take note of the findings of the Constitutional Court
in the matter between the Public Protector and the SA Reserve Bank in which judgment was
handed down this morning:

http://www.saflii.orgh.a/c2ses{6ACC/2012a9..JJ.tml.

There are serious, final and unappealable findings reflecting on the honesty, integrity and
competence of the Public Protector, who is a duly admitted advocate of the High Court.

Kindly confirm that the Council is looking into the matter with a view to bringing an application for
the striking off the roll of advocates of Ms Mkhwebane as part of its legislated disciplinary
functions. We have copied her on this email.

1
 186.16

From: Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector) <[email protected] >

Sent Monday, 22 July 2019 1:31 PM
To: Muntu Sithole; Oupa Segalwe; Alfred Mhlongo; Sibusiso Nyembe;
~g sipho_seepe
Subject · Fwd: Advoctae Busisiwe Mkhwebane -mero motu disciplinary proceedings required

Busislwe Mkhwebane

Begin forwarded message:

From: Paul Hoffman

Date: 22 July 2019 at 13:14:33 SAST
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Subject: Advoctae Buslslwe Mkhwebane -mero motu disciplinary proceedings required

Dear LPC,

We assume that t he Legal Practice Council will take note of the findings of the Constitutional Court
in the matter between the Public Protector and the SA Reserve Bank in which judgment was handed
down this morning:
http://www.saflii.org/za/cases[ZACC/2019/29.html.
There are serious, final and unappealable findings reflecting on the honesty, integrity and
competence of the Public Protector, who is a duly admitted advocate of the High Court.
Kindly confirm that t he Council is looking Into the matter with a view to bringing an application for
the striking off the roll of advocates of Ms Mkhwebane as part of its legislated disciplinary functions.
We have copied her on this email.

As you know, it is intolerable that an officer of the court should be found to be lying on oath. Our
highest court has so found in respect of Ms Mkhwebane. Her response that the judgment of the
court creates a bad precedent is contemptuous of the court and does her no credit.

Yours in accountability,

Paul Hoffman SC
Director
Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa
Campaigning as Accountability Now

~
Twitter: paulhoffmansc

1
 186.17

From: 11Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector)" <[email protected]:>

Date: Monday, 05 August 2019 at 16:26
To: Alfred Mhlongo <[email protected]>
Cc: Theophilus Seanego <[email protected]>, Muntu Sithole <[email protected]>, Sibuslso
Nyembe <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Case No. 48521/19

I agreed provided we use Ngobeni to support Masuku

Busislwe Mkhwebane

On OS Aug 2019, at 16:12, Alfred Mhlongo <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Mr. Seanego

I have just spoken to the cos and he has confirmed with the PP that we are retalnins Adv. Masuku
SC in this matter.

He accordingly has to deal with t hree aspects of the matter namely:

1. The application for leave to appeal in respect of the urgent interdict from Judge Poterril;
2. The review application in the main (Part B); and
3. The interlocutory application from the Minister of State Security to exclude the intelligence
report from forming part of the court protesses.

We will revert to you regarding a junior for him shortly given Adv. Mangke's recusal during her
acting stint on the bench. Kindly do not hesitate to contact me should I not revert t o you before it
becomes necessary for us to Involve t he Junior.

Kind regards
Alfred

From: Theophilus Seanego [mallto:[email protected]

Sent: Monday, OS August 2019 10:41
To: Alfred Mhlongo <[email protected]>
Cc: Muntu Sithole <[email protected]>; Sibusiso Nyembe <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Case No. 48521/19

Good Morning Mr Mhlongo

I hope you are well.

Further to your mail of Friday 2 August 2019, kindly advise on the counsel you would like t o brief
for t he appeal. Would you like the new Counsel to work on his own or to work with Adv Masuku SC?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

<image001.jpg>
1
 186.18

From: Alfred Mhlongo <[email protected]>

Date: Monday, 05 August 2019 at 16:36
To: Theophilus Seanego <[email protected]>
Cc: Muntu Sithole <[email protected]>, "Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector)"
<[email protected]>, Sibusiso Nyembe <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Case No. 48521/19

Good afternoon Mr Seanego

I confirm the emails below from the PP and t he COS.

We will accordingly have Adv. Thabanl Masuku SC assisted by Adv. Hangwi Matlhape with Adv. Paul Ngobenl SC
providing support In the background.

I trust that you will find this to be in order.

Kind regards
Alfred

From: Sibusiso Nyembe

Sent: Monday, 05 August 201916:32
To: Theophilus Seanego <[email protected]>
Cc: Alfred Mhlongo <[email protected]>; Muntu Sithole <[email protected]>; Advocate Busisiwe
Mkhwebane (Public Protector) <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Case No. 48521/19

Good day Mr Seanego

Kindly contact Adv Hangwl Matlhape ) as replacement for Adv. Mangke.

Best regards,

From: Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector)

Sent: Monday, OS August 201916:26
To: Alfred Mhlongo
Cc: Theophilus Seanego; Muntu Sithole; Sibusiso Nyembe
SUbject: Re: Case No. 48521/19

I agreed provided we use Ngobeni to support Masuku

Busisiwe Mkhwebane

On 05 Aug 2019, at 16:12, Alfred Mhlongo <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Mr. Seanego

I have just spoken to the cos and he has confirmed with the PP that we are retaining Adv. Masuku
SC in this matter.

He accordingly has to deal with three aspects of the matter namely:

1
 186.19

From: Paul Ngobeni

Date: Tuesday, 06 August 2019 at 09:29
To: Oupa Segalwe <[email protected]>, Sibuslso Nyembe Sibuslso Nyembe
<5ibuslsoN@pprotec,t.org>, "Advocate Buslslwe Mkhwebane {Public Protector)"
<n,[email protected]>, 11ngobenjlaw@ <sipho seepe(
<Khe11er. Theophilus Seanego <[email protected],a>
SUbJect: RESPONSE ON HOFFMAN INQUIRY

I suggest that we develop standard responses for lunatics like Hoffman and not waste much
time trying to be reasonable with them - we know their evil agenda.

RESPONSE ON HOFFMAN INQUIRY

Please be informed that we no longer take I loffinan very seriously based on his disgraceful
conduct and track record of attacking senior black public servants including judges, the
Public Protector and others. We note that Paul Hoffman and his outfit Accountability Now
have publicly called for Parliament's investigation into the Public Protector's fitness to hold
offic-e. It is ludicrous for him to now seek discussions with the Public Protector's office on
the same matters pending before Parliament.

We note that Paul Hoffinan has a well-established record for bigotry and irresponsible
utterances. He has been found by senior judges to be "disingenuous" and his behavior has
been labeled "shocking."
During the course of August 2013, the disgraced Andrew Paul Hoffman, SC, filed with the
Judicial Services Commission (JSC) a complaint of gross judicial misconduct against the
Chief Justice, Mogoeng Mogoeng. Needless to state, Hoffman's complaint is bristling with
insults aimed at the Chief Justice, whom he unfairly labels a racist, unethical and a criminal.

Ho:ffman's filing of a frivolous, racially motivated and retaliatory complaint of unethical

conduct and "gross" judicial misconduct against the Chief Justice Mogoeng was based on
Hoffman's dislike of the Chief Justice's stance on transformation of the judiciary and the
legal profession. On 9 September 2013, the JCC issued a decision dismissing Hoffman's
frivolous complaint.LU The two senior judges on the JCC (including a Judge President .Musi)
unanimously rejected Hoffman's false allegations that CJ Mogoeng engaged in a public
political debate about a pending case. They ruled that the subject of the chiefjustice's
speech was "not a case but an issue that had been publicly debated/or a long time. The
institution ofthe IISF case did not have the effect ofstopping that debate. Moreover the
issue is a practical, on-going one.for the JSC, which it will continue to grapple with
notwithstanding the pending case." Further, the JCC rejected Hoffinan's claims that the
~hief!ustice p~i~i~ated in a ~ublic debate in a_manner that undermined the standing and
~te~nty of the Jud1c1ary. The Judges ruled that 1t "was perfectly legitimate for the [chief
Justice] to participate in a debate about transformation ofthe judiciary and to express·his
views on what he perceives to be resistance to it. His frankly expressed views were bound to
 186.20

From: <kheller.
Date: Thursday, 15 August 2019 at 10:58
To: Paul Ngobeni
Cc: 11nggbe11ilaw@ <sipho seepe Sibusiso Nyem~e
<[email protected]>, Slbusiso Nyembe , Oupa Segalwe
11
<[email protected]>, "Advocate Buslslwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector)
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: APPEAL IN GORDHAN vs PUBLIC PROTECTOR

Very powerful. Painful observations on a compromised judiciary.

Sent from my iPhone

On l~Aug 2019, at 08:24, Paul Ngobeni < wrote:

Herewith is my draft of the appeal argument in the ilbove matter shared with the attorney and
relevant advocates. In a normal well-functioning judicial system I would predict a clear-cut victory
but now In the face of the political mobilization of the judiciary I am Just no sure.
Clear-cut l.egal issues on which the Public Protector must win are the following:
1. Judge Potterill deliberately misread the Executive Members Ethics Code and claimed that it only
prohibits "willfuln misleading of Parliament. see, paragraphs 22-24 of the judgment. Her judgment
even shows she purposely omitted the part where even "inadvertent misleading" is mentioned.
Ordinarily this alone would render her entire judgment vulnerable on appeal.
2. On the PP's jurisdiction to Investigate Gordhan, Potterlll's deliberately misread the statute S6 (9) of
the PP Act which reads as follows: "Except where the Public Protector in special circumstances, within his or
her discretion, so permits, a complaint or matter referred to the Publfc Protector shall not be entertained
unless It ls reported to the Public Protector within two years ofthe occurrence ofthe incident or matter
concerned." Gordhan misled Parliament In 2016 and the complaints were timeously filed In 2018. But
the judge states that the operative date Is 2010 when Gordhan attended a meeting with the Guptas.
I have addressed other legal stuff which may be boring to some. All In all I strongly believe the
matter must be appealed on an urgent basis to the Concourt to deal with the emerging pattern of
deliberate Judicial sabotage of the PP's work. Thanks.

.
'
\

<GORDAN VS PP APPEAL CONCOURT.docx>

 186.21

From: Theophilus Seanego <[email protected]>

Date: Thursday, 15 August 2019 at 01:15
To: 'Alfred Mhlongo' <[email protected]>, 'Muntu Sithole' <[email protected]>, 'Sibusiso
Nyembe' <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Argument on Appeal -Gordan vs Public Prot ector

FYI

From: Paul Ngobenl

sent: Wednesday, August 14. 2019 9:33 PM
To: Adv T Masuku · Theophilus Seanego <[email protected]>
Subject: Argument on Appeal -Gordan vs Public Protector

Please find the attached Argument on Appeal in the Gordan vs Public Protector matter. I have done no spell
check as time is of the essence.

l
 186.22

From: Alfred Mhlongo <8lfrgdMCti>pprotact.org>

Date: Tuesday, 27 August 2019 at 13:24
To: 'Thembeka Kumalo' <[email protected]>, Theophilus Seanego
cc: Muntu Sithole <[email protected]>, Sibusiso Nyembe <[email protected]>, "Advocate
Buslsiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector)" <Mt<[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Draft Affidavit in Minister of State Security v PP

Good afternoon Mr. Seanego

we acknowled5e receipt of t he att ached dratt and t he emaifed input below from Adv. Ngobeni.

we request that you kindly forward the input to Adv. Masuku Sc and Adv. Adv Matlhape to incorporate into the
answer.

I am a bit concerned about timeframes. By when do we have to file?

l<ind regards
Alfred

From: Theophilus Seanego [mailto:[email protected]}

Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2019 13:14
To: Alfred Mhlonso <[email protected]: Munt u Slthole <[email protected]>; Slbusiso Nyembe
<[email protected]>; 'Thembeka Kumalo' <thembeka@~eanego.co.za>
Subject: FW: Draft Affidavit in Minister of State Security v PP

From: Paul Ngobenl

Sent: Tuesday, August 27. 2019 12:49 PM
To: Hangwl Matlhape
Cc: Theophilus Seanego <[email protected]_a>; Thabani Masuku
Subject: Re: Draft Affidavit in Minister of State Security v PP

Dear All:
I have attached the Atlidavit with the few corrections I made. All in all, it is very well
articulated but I would suggest that the legal theory of the Public Protector's defence be made
more explicit. I would remind the court of the fo1lowing:

1. Minister Dlodlo is stalling rather than assisting the Public Protector.

As you know, Section 181(3) of the Constitution requires that "other organs of state, through
legislative and other measures, must assist and protect these institution.ti[Public Protector/
to ensure the independence, impartiality, dignity and effectivene~· ofthese
institutions." Obviously, Section 181(3) require executive branch rules and practices which
"must assist and protect these institutions to ensure the independence, impartiality, dignity
and effectiveness of these institutions." That would preclude unwarranted shielding of
l
 186.23

From: "Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector)" <[email protected]>

Data: Monday, 19 August 2019 at 16:35
To: Alfred Mhlongo <[email protected]>1 Theophilus Seanego <[email protected]>, Muntu Slthole
<[email protected]>, Sibusiso Nyembe <[email protected]>
cc: Hangwl Matlhape < Oupa Segalwe <[email protected]
Subject: FW: JUDGE POTTERILL'S UNETHICAL AND INCOMPETENT JUDGMENT IN CORDHAN V. PUBLIC
PROTECTOR.

Good Afternoon

Please incorporate the below arguments by Ad" Ngobeui,

Alfred , collect my handwritten notes on the affidavit to be incorporated ,

Further , page 50 of the report and 134 of the court papers, Ire,erred to the IGI recommendations, and not the
whole report to protect the agents or their operations, and Isaid Legal must make sure rule 53 included only the
pages relating to the recommendations

Further Rodney, check whether we gave the correct recording of those who confessed?

Please work on incorpcrating some of these issues

From: Paul Ngobenl

Sent: Thursday, 01 Ausust 2019 08:23
To: Advocate Busislwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector)
Subject: Re: JUDGE POTTERILL'S UNETHICAL AND INCOMPETENT JUDGMENT IN COROHAN V. PUBLIC PROTECTOR.

What angers me is that Poterill wrongly convicted and sentenced black guys in 11 judgment the SCA described as one where
'there has been such a gross departure from the established rules of procedure that the appellants have not been
properly LTied, this Is per sea failure of Justice (Sv Moodie 1961 (4) SA 7S2 (A) at 758E·G),As tbeconYlctlonswere a
clear miscarriage of Justice,"
But she is not viewed as incompetent!

On Wed. Jui 31. 2019 at 11 :46 PM Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebanc (Public J>rotector)
<Mkhwcbancli<di.pprotect.org> wrote:
The anicle is perfect Adv , though the language used in very complex for her to understand

Should have used simple language so !!he can get the message

Busisiwe Mkhwebane

On 31 Jul 2019. at 17:51, Paul Ngobeni wrote:

------- Forwarded message -····-

From: Paul Naobeni <
Date: Wed, Jui 31, 2019 at 6:16 PM
Subject: JUDGE PO'ITERlLL·s UNETHICAL ANO INCOMPETENT nJDGMENT IN
 186.24

CORDHAN V. PUBLIC PROTECTOR.

To: Clyde N.S R~laine
I,

JUDGE POITERILL,S UNETHICAL AND INCOMPETENT

JUDGMENT IN CORDHAN V. PUBLIC PROTECTOR.
By Paul Ngobeni

Judge Potterill' s ruling in Gordban v Public Protector and Others is

emblematic of an overwhelming miasma of fake law untethered to the
record. Preliminarily, the judgment portrays a judge who is either ignorant of
basic judicial ethics or is blithely insouciant about ethical judicial opinion
writing. Judge Gerald Lebovits and others, opine in " Ethical Judicial Opinion
Writing'' that in a democracy, judges have legitimacy only when their words
deserve respec~ and their words deserve respect only when those who utter
them are ethical. Because judicial opinions offer a glimpse into a judge's mind,
they must be credible, impartial, dignified, and temperate and must meet these
high ethical standards. A judge must ensure accuracy and honesty in research,
facts, and analysis. Sadly, Potterill' s judgment is replete with false and
dishonest conclusions and lacks candor, respect, honesty, and professionalism.

In a haste to get on the "Pro-Pravin" bandwagon Potterill overreached. As the

Public Protector's office succinctly put it, "instead of confining herself to
matters relating to minister Gordhan's application for the staying of the
implementation of remedial action, the judge went beyond her scope and dealt
with merits of the review application." A judge who uses abusive and
contumacious language against a head of a Chapter 9 institution and
characterizes her rulings as '~onsensical" fails to follow the law, treats
litigants inappropriately, and publicly displays contempt for the judicial
system.

Sadly, a careful perscrutation of Potterill's unenviable judicial record exposes

her inveterate bigoted behavior and incompetence. Indeed her current
judgment was simply a rehash of an earlier judgment against Thuli Madonsela,
South African Bureau of Standards v The Public Protector (27 March
2019); in which she ruled the Public Protector "should not have after a 1O -12
year period investigated the complaints in the manner she did, and acted
irrational in doing so.'' She concluded that "the process followed by the Public
Protector was unfair and irrational'' and reviewed and set aside Madonsela's
report. The Public Protector was ordered to pay the costs.

Just last year, in Gumbi and Others v S the SCA set aside convictions and
sen~enc~s ~mposed by Potterill. The SCA noted t her lack of compliance with
basic crmunal procedures and stated: "In this case none of that occurred.
Potterill J simply picked up where Webster J had left off That was
impermissible and the failure to follow the steps outlined above meant that no
new trial was commenced and the proceedings were invalidfrom the outset.
2
 186.25

Nonetheless, it is desirable to deal with the approach of Potterill J to ss 214 and

21 S of the Act." The SCA ruled that Potterill convicted the appellants upon
improperly admitted evidence and that "neither the appellants nor their counsel
could by their acquiescence validate the invalid procedure adopted by the
learned judge." Accordingly, the SCA concluded: "[14] It is manifest that
convictions resulting from proceedings conducted in this way cannot stand.
Where, as here, there has been such a gross departure from the established
rules of procedure that the appellants have not been properly tried, this is per
sea failure of justice (S v Moodie 1961 (4) SA 752 (A) at 758E-G). As the
convictions were a clear miscarriage of justice, it is open to the prosecution
to re-indict the appellants, if so advised." Without doubt Potterill's judgments
have reached such notoriety for incompetence that Counsel for the State was
forced in two appeal cases, Mndebele v S ( 173/2015) [2016] ZASCA 7 (3
March 2016) and Mchunu v The State (20770/14) [2015] ZASCA 115 (09
September 2015 [6] to concede that Potterill' s judgments were
indefensible. In the former, Counsel conceded that the sentence of 8 years'
imprisonment imposed by Potterill was 'inappropriately harsh'. Potterill is a
white woman and her gross incompetence does not bother the frenzied white
mob baying for Advocate Mkhwebane's blood. A different yardstick is applied
depending on the race of the person targeted.

The litany of gross etTors Potterill routinely makes in her judicial decisions
also highlight that she does not observe the principle that in reversing the
opinion of a lower court or quasi-judicial tribunal such as the Public Protector
she must not insult the hallowed rule that the function of her Court is to see
that justice is done according to law. Judge Magruder of the First Circuit Court
of Appeals of the United States once said: "We should never unnecessarily try
to make a monkey ofthe judge in the court below, or to trespass on his feelings
or dignity and self-respect. .." Magruder, The Trials and Tribulations of an
Intermediate Appellate Court, 44 Cornell L.Q. 1, 3 (1958). From this
vantage point Potterill is an unethical, bullying and incompetent judge guilty of
transgressing the limits of these boundaries in her decisions. Her resort to
injudicious language blasting others for "nonsensical" rulings says more about
her own insecurity and incompetence.

Potterill dealt with the Public Protector's jurisdiction and ruled she is barred to
entertain the complaints under S6 (9) of the PP Act which reads as follows:
"Except where the Public Protector in special circumstances, within his or her
discretion, so permits, a complaint or matter referred to the Public Protector
shall not be entertained unless it is reported to the Public Protector within two
years of the occurrence of the incident or matter concerned." Contrary to
Po~erill' s ~is~uided ~d twisted interpretation the statute is not setting forth a
strict prescr1pt1on period. Rather, the Public Protector is given unbridled
discretion to permit in special circumstances a complaint not reported within
the two year period of the occurrence of the incidence. Potterill blithely
overl?oks the abecedarian proposition that the Public Protector's investigations
are triggered, for the most part, by complaints filed by citizens the majority of
3
 186.26

whom are laypersons. Potterill ignores that the time lag between a citizen's
acquisition of knowledge of maladministration sufficient to justify a complaint
to the Public Protector and the actual occurrence of the incident will never
perfectly fit the two year time limits. She baldly and falsely asserts that the
complaints relating to Gordhan flows from a meeting in 2010 and the
establishment of an investigative unit in 2007. She concludes that the Public
Protector was not entitled to entertain these complaints. Not so. It is perfectly
within the encincture of her discretion to accept these matters for investigation
and she needs only articulate special circumstances to do so.

By Gordan's own admission, the establishment of the investigation unit was

secretive or at least not a matter of public knowledge. It carried out its spying
functions for a considerable period of time after it was created and the
equipment it purchased for such purposes are still not accounted for. The
"continuing violation" doctrine overrides the statute of limitations bandied
about by Gordhan and Potterill. It is alleged that the implicated persons ran a
covert unit within SARS, unlawfully revealed taxpayer information, were
engaged in unlawful interception and other wrongs from the inception of the
rogue unit until at least 2014. It is simply ridiculous for a judge to assume that
ordinary citizens would have sniffed out these covert activities or uncovered
sufficient facts within two years from 2007.

As if to underscore her legendary gross incompetence Potterill ignores

admissions contained in Pillay's Affidavit submitted to Public Protector that
"the events to which certain allegations pertain span a period of between ten
and twenty years ago." Para. 26. Some of the unlawful activities of Von
Loggerenberg and other affected officials only became known through a
whistelblower report addressed to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Finance "which was leaked to the media by a.Member of Parliament in April
2015." Pillay Affidavit. Para. 29.9. Potterill deliberately distorts facts when
she asserts that ''the complaints relating to Gordhan flows from a meeting in
2010" when the allegations are that he misled Parliament later when asked
about meeting the Guptas.

Potterill is woefully ignorant of another legal doctrine applicable to the "Rogue

Unit" matter, that is when a party has concealed his misconduct, the limitations
period does not begin to run until after the duped party discovers, or with due
diligence should have discovered, his c]aim against the deceitful party. A good
illustration in government matters is Smith v. Nixon, 606 F.2d 1183, 1190
(D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 912 (1981). Smith sued former US
President Nixon, fonner National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, former
Attorney General John Mitchell, and former presidential aides including H.R.
Haldeman and John Erlichman for illegally tapping his pho.ne in connection
with effo~ to plu~ leaks _of information to the press.. In view of the secrecy
surroundmg the w1retappmg, the cou1t held that Smith could avail himself of
the fraudulent concealment doctrine. Id at 191 & n.44. The doctrine also has
been advanced in other cases such as Barrett v. United States, 689 F.2d 324
4
 186.27

(2d Cir. 1982), where the plaintiffs father was the unknowing subject of
chemical warfare experiments conducted by the Army in 1953. and had died as
a result of an injection of a mescaline derivative. The tolling claim was
premised on the Army's suppression of information concerning its involvement
until 1975.

Potterill's bizarre legal reasoning has weakened the war against corruption,
impoverished our jurisprudence and is guaranteed to make us the laughing
stock of the world. It is in the public interest that we not recognize artificial
barriers in the war against corruption. S v Sbaik & Others [2006] the SCA
held that "The seriousness of the offence of corruption cannot be over
emphasized. It offends against the rule of law and the principles of good
governance. lt lowers the moral tone of a nation and negatively affects
development and the promotion of human rights. As a country we have
travelled a long and tortuous road to achieve democracy. Corruption threatens
our constitutional order We must make every effort to ensure that corruption
with its putrefying effects is haltered. Courts must send out an unequivocal
message that corruption will not be tolerated and that punishment will be
appropriately severe." In South African Association of Personal Injury
Lawyers v Heath the Constitutional Court held that "Corruption and
maladministration are inconsistent with the rule of law and the fundamental
values of our Constitution ...Ifallowed to go unchecked and unpunished they
will pose a serious threat to our democratic State." In S v Yengeni [2005]
ZAGPHC 117; 2006 ( 1) SACR 405 (T) at 427 b to c it was stated that "To
state that corruption and other crimes of dishonesty on the part of elected
officebcarers and officials in the public service have become one of the most
serious threats to our country's well being, is to state the obvious. Their
incidence may well be charecterised as a pandemic that needs to be recognized
as such and requires concerted and drastic efforts to combat it."

To state the obvious corrupt transactions in state agencies are often cloaked in
secrecy and are sometimes discovered many years after the event. In
Ponerill's world, the Public Protector must allow the corrupt to keep their loot
and leave them undisturbed so long as they manage to beat the two year
limitations period.

Sun11ingdale, Cape Town 744J

5
 186.28

Disclaimer

The Information contained In this <:0mmunlcatlon from the sender Is confidential. It is Intended solely for use by the recipient
and others authorized to receive It. l f you are not the recipient, you are hereby notmed t hat any disclosure, copying,
distribution or taking action in relat1011 of the contents or this ini-ormallon Is st1 lctty prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for vlrUS<!S and matware, and may nave been automatically archived by Mlmecast Ltd, an
innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS} for business. Providing a tiafar and more useful place for your human generated
data. Speclc1lizlng In; Security, archiving and rompl1ance. To finl'.1 out morol Cl!gs Here,

1 I I ~ I I 1 14 I i
4

6
 186.29

From: Paul Ngobenl

Date: Wednesday, 28 August 2019 at 16:59
To: "Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector)" <MkhwebaneB@pprotec:t.org>, Sibuslso Nyembe
Sibusiso Nyembe <[email protected]>,
<sipho secpe , <Kheller.c
Subject: Fwd: Can Judgment in the Jiba Dismissal Case Provide Grounds for Impeaching President
Ramaphosa?

------- Forwarded message - -

From: Paul N1obenl
Date: Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 4:53 PM
Subject: Can Judgment in the Jiba Dismissal Case Provide Grounds for Impeaching President Ramaphosa?
To: Clyde N.S Ramalaine

Can Judgment in the Jiba Dismissal Case Provide Grounds for Impeaching
President Ramaphosa?
By Paul Ngobeni - Legal Analyst
In firing Jiba as Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions, Ramaphosa made
history- albeit of a dubious kind. He flagrantly violated an explicit court order,
transgressed the limits of his constitutional powers and, above all else messed with
a wrong woman. Ramaphosa assumed, incorrectly as it turned out, that if he fired
Jiba the next step would be a vote in parliament where the ANC MPs would hold the
party line, rubber-stamp his decision, and his firing of Jiba would be a sure thing.
Unfortunately Ramaphosa's calculus contains a significant error - namely, the
assumption that Jiba would sheepishly submit herself to a tainted process amidst
revelations that Ramaphosa's enormous wealth and donations from his filthy rich
white supporters were used to bribe voters at Nasrec and some opposition MPs
later.

Inspired by her victory at the Constitutional Court Jiba hit back rapidly and placed
her dismissal case squarely before the judiciary. The court, not the compromised
politicians will turn the spotlight on Ramaphosa's egregious constitutional violations
which would provide a solid basis for his impeachment.

For starters, Ramaphosa deliberately violated an extant court order in Freedom

Und_er Law v NDPP 2018(1) SACR 436 (GP) which expressly stated he was to
await the outcome of the GCB appeals to the SCA and Constitutional Court before
he could suspend Jiba or institute a fitness inquiry. It stated: "The President is
directed to institute disciplinary inquiries against Jiba and Mrwebi into their fitness to
 186.30

From; Theophilus Seanego fmajlto:[email protected]

Sent: Sunday, 06 October 2019 07:33
To: Alfred Mhlongo <[email protected]>; Muntu Sithole <SitholeM@pl'lrotect.o_rg>; Sibusiso Nyembe
<[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Advisory Opinion· Accountability Now vs Public Protector

Gentlemen

As discussed in our last meeting, we need to resolve this matter as soon as possible.

Regards
Theo Seanego

From: Paul Ngobenl l

Sent: Saturday, October 5, 2019 3:53 PM
To: Alfred Mhlongo <[email protected]>; Theophilus Seanego <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Advisory Opinion- Accountablllty Now vs Public Protector

---------- Forwarded message ---··-·

From:Paul Ngobenl <
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2019, 13:33
Subject: Advisory Opinion- Accountability Now vs Public Protector
To: Sibusiso Nyembe , Sibusiso Nycmbe <fil.hllSisuNra..!lll'rokcr.org>.
<Khclls;r.c ngobenilnw a <siphu ~epe' >, Oupa Segalwe
<oupas(g~pprotect.oi:g>

Dear All:
l have not been favoured with the complete sel of the papen. in the Accountability Now cas\l, In summary, we can and must
defeat the Accountability Now C&lie based on the following:

o Jurildittional grounds: Section 194 of the Constitution reserves the duty ofdctcnnining the Public Protector' s fitness to the
National As.'lembly. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision allowing judicial Involvement in determining matters
assigned exclusively to the N:itional Assembly, A judge moy not make an asi;essment of whether the Public Protector i5 indeed
guilty of" mlseonduct, lneapaclty or incompetence" envisaged under the Constitution bccau.11e that is a task reserved
exclusively for the National Assembly. A judge may not pnmouncc on ..fimess" of the Public Protector in the abstract without
re&ard to what Parliament may or may not ultimately lind.

o The litigation ii,; frivolous ond vexatious and the 11pplic11nlll muy not benefit from the Biuwatch principle.

c We are entitled to a vexatious litigant order as we can prove that the allegedly vexatious litigant ho.-; 'persi,,tent(v and without
any rea&onuhle ground imtil11ted /ef!.tJ/ proceedings' whether against the same person or against different persons. By his
own admission, Hoffinan has pursued criminal complaints against the Public Protector and has tiled disbarment complaint'I with
the Legal Practice Council "to investigate whether or not she is a fit and proper person to be an advocate." Hoffman has also
been very vocal about the need for Parliament to impeach the Public Pmtector pursuant to Section t 94 of the Constitution. But he
appears unwilling to let even the processes he initiated take their course.Failure to deal effectively with Hoffman through a
counter-application may prove to be a costly mit.take.

2
 186.31

From: Theophilus Seanego <[email protected]>

Date: Monday, 18 November 2019 at 09:18
To: 'Alfred Mhlongo' <[email protected]>, 'Muntu Sithole' <[email protected]>, 'Sibusiso
Nyembe' <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Overdue invoices

From: Paul Ngobeni

Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 7:49 AM
To: Theophilus Seanego <[email protected]>
Subject: Overdue invoices

Dear Mr. Seanego

May I kindly have a prompt response to my previous queries which have gone unanswered. It is quite
unsettling that I must repeatedly nag folks or lobby t:ach time j ust lo gel my invoices paid. On 30 August
2019 I sent my invoice and about two months later made a follow-up inquiry never responded to. May you
kindly respond with clear indication of when I will get paid. Thank you.
 186.32

From: Ephraim Kabinde <[email protected];>

Date: Thursday, 19 December 2019 at 09:08
To: Betty Ngobenl <[email protected]>, Tozama Xosheni <[email protected]>, Meambrey
Mbatha <[email protected]>. Lethabo Mamabolo <[email protected]>
Cc: "Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane (Public Protector}" <[email protected]>, Sibusiso Nyembe
<[email protected]>
Subject: Schedule: 19 December 2019

19 DECEMBER 2019 - THURSDAV

MEETING : Kim Heller & Team
TIME : 9:00 - 11:00
VENUE : PP's Boardroom
PP's TEAM : COS, CEO & Oupa Segalwe, Legal
CONTACT :

MEETING
--------- -----
: Leadership Meeting & (OASHBOAtffl fJEGTING)
TIME : 11:00
VENUE : PP's Boardroom
PP'sTEAM : COS, CEO, CFO & EMs
CONTACT : Lethabo Mamabolo

Kind Regards
Ephraim l(abinde
Personal Assistant-PP
PUBLIC PROTECTOR SOUTH AFRICA
175 Lunnon Street, Hillcrest Office Park, PRETORIA 0083
Tel: 012 366 7108
Email: Ephraiml<@pqrotect.org

Ephraim Kablnde
PA to Public Protector
Public Protector South Africa: Private Office of the PP
(T) 0123667108 I (C)
[email protected]
Taking the Mrvlcee of the Public Prolector to the granroot&
www.publlc;protllctiOr,org
Tollfrff: OIOO 112040
m.ubllc Protector 8oulb Africa
~llcPrvllletOr