In the latest move in her Stalingrad defence against being held accountable by Parliament, Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has lodged a court application for an interdict to force National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula to halt her impeachment and prevent President Cyril Ramaphosa from suspending her.

This is the first part of her application to the Western Cape High Court.

In the second part, she wants the court to declare Mapisa-Nqakula's letter "instigating" her suspension unlawful and to set it aside. This is in reference to the letter Mapisa-Nqakula sent to Ramaphosa informing him that the Section 194 Committee dealing with the impeachment is continuing with its work.

In February, the Constitutional Court effectively gave Parliament the green light to go ahead with the impeachment, provided that Mkwhebane is afforded an attorney.

Mkwhebane has since approached the Constitutional Court to ask it to rescind that order.

Before she lodged the rescission bid, she informed the Section 194 Committee – so-called after the section of the Constitution that deals with the removal of Chapter 9 institution heads – that she intended to do so and insisted it halt its proceedings.

But the committee decided to forge ahead.

She then lodged the rescission application and again insisted that the committee stop its work.

After getting legal advice, the committee decided to continue its work earlier this week because nothing prevents it from doing its work.

Meanwhile, Ramaphosa asked Mkhwebane to motivate why she shouldn't be suspended, triggering what Section 194 Committee chairperson Qubudile Dtyantyi called a "festival of letters".

Mkhwebane argues that Ramaphosa has a conflict of interest and therefore can't suspend her. This assertion is also contained in her court papers.

Mkhwebane argues that Mapisa-Nqakula's letter to Ramaphosa is "illegal" because she "failed to take into account or apply her mind to a relevant consideration, namely the actual delivery of the rescission application and took into account an irrelevant consideration, namely the earlier decision of the committee, which had been significantly overtaken by events".

"The president committed and repeated the same consequential mistake."

Mkhwebane further argues that the Section 194 Committee "breached the Constitution" when it decided to continue with its work earlier this week.

She said the committee failed to take her rescission application into account in contravention of the National Assembly's Rule 89. Rule 89 reads as follows: "No member may reflect upon the merits of any matter on which a judicial decision in a court of law is pending."'

Incidentally, it's the same rule that the African Transformation Movement (ATM) quoted when it insisted its motion of no confidence in Ramaphosa should be postponed.

"Furthermore, the desire by the speaker and/or committee to act irrationally and outside the ambit of the law does not end with all the reasons mentioned above, it extends to flouting its own rules. The National Assembly has rules in place which ought to govern its process. These rules enjoy a status of subsidiary legislation. For instance, Rule 89 prohibits the National Assembly from discussing an issue which is sub judice."

"I submit that the committee will be acting unlawfully by reflecting or proceeding with the impeachment process whilst the constitutionality of the relevant rules is pending in court."

"I also point out that the rushed nature of the committee process is improper also because the exact manner and procedure of [it], by which my legal representatives will participate, has not yet been determined, decided by the committee and/or communicated to me so that I can prepare for the removal process," Mkhwebane complained.

"Neither has any related communication in that regard been directed at me, even as a matter of...common decency, let alone legal obligations and the requirements of fairness."

Mkhwebane's seven-year term ends in October 2023.