Public Protector rejects OCCRP report as malicious and defamatory

1. MEDIA STATEMENT
Date: Tuesday,July30,2019
For immediate release
Attention:Editors/Newsdesks
Subject:PublicProtectorrejectsOCCRPreportasmaliciousanddefamatory
PublicProtectorAdv.Busisiwe Mkhwebane rejectswithcontemptthe claimscontainedinareportby
donor-fundednon-profitorganisation,OrganisedCrime andCorruptionReportingProject(OCCRP),that
she was “flagged”byinternational bankinginstitution,HSBC,ashavingfinancial linkstothe Gupta
family.
Adv.Mkhwebane wouldlike toplace onthe recordthe fact thatshe heardforthe firsttime fromthe
OCCRPlast Thursdaythat she hadbeen“flagged”.HSBChas neverbroughtthis“flagging”toher
attentionandshe has absolutelynolinkswiththe Guptas.
It isimportantto highlightthatbythe OCCRP’sownadmissionintheirwrittenrequesttothe Public
Protectorfor comment,“there isnoindicationthatthe source of the fundswere fromthe Gupta
network,simplythatshe wasflaggedas partof it bythe bank.”It isstrange that, today,the organisation
reportsthat she was“flagged”as havingfinancial tiestothe Guptas.
Adv.Mkhwebane saidina speechdeliveredataneventhostedbyan organisationof sheriffsin
Mpumalangalastmonth thateversince she startedinvestigatingthe conductof certainpowerful
people,she hasbeenthe targetof dirtytricksfromsome figuresandtheiralliesincivil society,political
circlesandin the media.Thisisyetanotherexample of the onslaught.
In April,informationcame toherattentionthata certainpoliticianwaspushingforherarrestonthe
false claimsthatshe was involvedinthe passingof herhusbandandmoneylaundering.Thiscame ina
formof an enquirybya Sundaynewspaper.Itwasexplainedtothe paperthat Adv.Mkhwebane’slate
husbandhadsufferedfromdepressionandtookhisownlife andthe involvementinmoneylaundering
was denied.
A source subsequentlyindicatedtoAdv.Mkhwebane thatforeignexpertisehadbeenbroughtintothe
countryto lookintoher bankaccounts andthe circumstancessurroundingthe passingof herhusband.
In the same month,twopublicationswere approachedbyaninformer,whoclaimedthatAdv.
Mkhwebane hadpresentedformerNorthWestPremier, SupraMahumapelo,withawristwatch.The
publicationsdemandedtoknowthe make of the watch, the value andthe reasonfor the “gift”.They
saidtheywere inpossessionof acopyof a giftregisterinwhichMr. Mahumapelodeclaredthe gift.
It was subsequentlyexplainedtothemthatthe PublicProtectorpresentsall visitingdignitarieswith
PublicProtector-brandedpromotionalmaterial,whichincludesstationery,caps,umbrellasandwall
clocks,one of whichisthe watch that wasreferredtobythe informerwhosoldthe informationtothe
publicationsinquestionasproof of improprietyonthe partof Adv.Mkhwebane.

2. In June,anotherinformerpeddledaclaimthatAdv.Mkhwebane wasseenata flowershopsaidto be
ownedbythe wife of formerSARSCommissioner,TomMoyane,receivedabouquetof flowersandheld
talkswithMr. Moyane.Twopublicationsenquired,demandingtoknow the value of the flowers,where
the “gift” hadbeendeclaredandwhetherthe visitwasappropriate giventhe PublicProtector’s
investigationof the “Rogue Unit”matter.It wasexplainedtothemthatthe PublicProtectordidnot
knowthe flowershopinquestion,didnotknow Mr.Moyane’swife,didnotmeetwithMr.Moyane and
was certainlynowhere nearthe vicinityof the shoponthe day in question.
In the same month,an online publicationpublishedastorythat the PublicProtectorwassittingonan
investigationinwhichformerState SecurityMinisterBongani Bongowasimplicated.The publication
indicatedthatDemocraticAlliance Chief WhipJohnSteenhuisensaidhe hadlodgedthe complaintand
was unhappythatthe case had gone cold.
The inference wasthatAdv.Mkhwebane wasprotectingMr.Bongoas they,accordingto the
publication,enjoyedaclose relationship.Itwasexplainedtwicetothe publicationthatthe Public
Protectordidnot have sucha complaint.Itlaterturnedoutthat Mr. Steenhuisenhadinfactlodgedthe
matterwitha parliamentarycommitteeandnotthe PublicProtector.The publicationrefusedto
apologise.
Thismonth,a picture of a politicianwhoappearedtobe ina meetingwithanunidentifiedwomandid
the roundson social media.Again,one publication,whichwasinvolvedinthe three casesabove,
approachedthe PublicProtectorwitharequestforcomment.The requestwaspremisedonthe false
conclusionthatthe personinthe image concernedwasindeedAdv.Mkhwebane.Itwasindicatedtothe
publicationthatAdv.Mkhwebane hasneverinherlife metthe politicianinthe image.The politician
himself identifiedthe womaninthe picture onhisTwitterpage.However,the publicationstill went
aheadand publishedthe story.
Adv.Mkhwebane seesall of these eventsaspartof an orchestratedcampaignandconcertedeffortsin
political circles,civil societyandthe mediatodiscredithermerelybecause she hasbeenable tomuster
enoughcourage to holdthose seenas“untouchable”toaccount.She will notbe discouraged.Instead,
these attacksgive herstrengthto discharge herfunctionswithrenewedvigour,withoutfear,favouror
prejudice.
END