[ad_1]
By Loyiso Sidimba 
2h ago
Johannesburg – Public Enterprise Minister Pravin Gordhan and Public Protector Defender Busisiwe Mkhwebane returned to North Gauteng High Court on Wednesday.
This time it was because of Gordhan’s approval of the former interim commission of the SA Revenue Service (Sars), Ivan Pillay, of early retirement and subsequent re-employment when he was still finance minister.
Gordhan’s lead attorney, Wim Trengove, told the court that Mkhwebane’s decision was irrational, irregular and illegal.
“That was an error in the law and the error in the law made his decision irrational,” Trengove said.
Gordhan asked the high court to declare that Mkhwebane’s investigation and the completion of his report published in May last year did not comply with the Public Protection Act and the Constitution.
It also requested that it be reviewed and annulled and declared unconstitutional, illegal, irrational and invalid, since the exercise of its jurisdiction over the complaint was based on the fact that its decision was improperly exercised.
Gordhan wants the court to overturn Mkhwebane’s corrective action, which ordered President Cyril Ramaphosa to take disciplinary action against him, and order him to pay the costs on a punitive scale in his personal capacity.
According to the minister, Mkhwebane’s report is fatally flawed and should be set aside as it is riddled with reviewable errors.
“It imposes incompetent, inappropriate and inappropriate corrective measures on the president, (former Sars Oupa commissioner) Magashula and the (current) commissioner,” Gordhan said.
Pillay took early retirement in 2010 to access her pension fund to finance her children’s education.
The following year he was hired on a fixed term for five years.
Gordhan said Mkhwebane did not meaningfully consider or reflect on the content of his submissions to her before the report was released in unseemly and suspicious haste just 48 hours after delivering their submissions.
He believes that the rush to publish the report was due to inappropriate and irrelevant considerations or ulterior motive or purpose.
Gordhan blames his political opponents for using the complaint to attack his integrity.
He said that the public protector has once again shown that it is not in a position to hold a position and continues to ignore its constitutional mandate, acts without taking into account the provisions of the law and apparently at the service of some other motive or agenda.
According to Gordhan, Mkhwebane’s conduct is an example of his long history of acting incompetent, illegal, unconstitutional, unjust and unjustifiable.
“Taxpayers in South Africa should not have to continue to fund their illegal conduct,” Gordhan said in his motivation for a personal costs order on a punitive scale.
Mkhwebane dismissed Gordhan’s allegations of the alleged unnecessary rush as unfounded.
The public protector asked the court in a countersuit to strike out parts of Gordhan’s presentation that she believes his tone and language is unnecessarily insulting, combative, rude and condescending towards her and also amounts to prima facie and illegal criminal conduct.
She also said that she could not and should not be placed in a position where she had to fear personal orders of adverse costs, as this simply stifles her effectiveness in meeting her constitutional obligations.
Political Bureau
[ad_2]
