Parliament appoints new Deputy Public Protector amid political controversy

Parliament officially recommended Advocate Dinkie Portia Dube as the next Deputy Public Protector on Thursday.

This comes after a protracted parliamentary selection process which has received both praise and criticism from various political parties.

Dube will fill the position that was left by Advocate Kholeka Gcaleka, who was appointed as the Public Protector two years ago.

While the resolution was met with broad support, it was not without contention.

The MK Party voiced objections by calling for a division of the House.

A total of 240 votes were cast in favour of the recommendation, while 42 opposed it.

 “The question is agreed to and Advocate Dinkie Portia Dube is accordingly recommended for appointment as the Deputy Public Protector,” announced National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza, confirming the decision that would see Dube’s name forwarded to President Cyril Ramaphosa for formal appointment.

Advocate Dube brings a wealth of experience and notable qualifications to the role, having previously served as director at Public Protector South Africa and as an ombud at several state institutions.

She was one of eight candidates shortlisted for the position.

ANC MP Nomasonto Motaung said Dube brought with her sound academic qualifications and many years of experience in the public service.

“Our firm belief and hope is that Advocate Dube will discharge her responsibilities as the deputy Public Protector, conscious of the mandate of Public Protector South Africa as outlined in the constitution,” Motaung said.

The DA echoed similar sentiments, with MP Damien Klopper stressing the gravity of the appointment.

“This appointment should not be seen as an exercise in legislative compliance but as one of the most important appointments by this house to ensure the integrity of the Office of the Public Protector,” Klopper said, adding frustration over the lengthy selection process which extended beyond two years.

In stark contrast, the MK Party’s Mzwanele Manyi condemned the process as flawed.

“We reject the process that was inconsistent, manipulated, contested and constitutionally compromised. We reject the expectation outcomes and political interference. South Africa deserves both an independent nominee and an independent process,” Manyi said.

EFF MP Rebecca Mohlala lashed out at the attempt to silence her party because they did not sit in the interviews.

Mohlala said EFF was satisfied that Advocate Dube met the legal and professional requirements for appointment as a Deputy Public Protector.

“Experience and credibility give this house reason to expect a stronger, more focused institution as deputy Public Protector, she must not become an observer,” she added.

Didiza said members of the Justice and Constitutional Development Portfolio Committee should undertake some reflection on why the process took long, particularly in the seventh administration.

“I also want to remind all of us the obligation we carry as MPs to ensure we strengthen our institutions. This is but one but there are other appointments where one is observing a similar trend of delays,” she said.

“I really ask members in various committees, where we have such responsibility, we take them seriously in order to ensure our institutions can be functional as we would like them to be,” she said.

The process to find the new Deputy Public Protector started in December 2023 when the matter was referred to the then Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services.

It was started afresh after former EFF MP Busisiwe Mkhwebane did not declare her relationship with two of the candidates and refused to excuse herself when they were interviewed.

When the appointment process was started after August 2024 during the seventh administration, 27 nominations were received but two candidates withdrew their applications.

In April 2025, the Justice and Constitutional Development Portfolio Committee resolved to recommend Dube.

This adoption of the report on the recommendation was deferred amid calls for exclusion of the EFF, which had not participated in the interviews.

It was only on November 12 that the report was adopted despite legal advice obtained in April that no member of the committee could be excluded from the deliberations.

mayibongwe.maqhina@inl.co.za