[ad_1]
Boyce Mkhize, a lawyer for the National Union of Public Services and Allied Workers’ Union (Nupsaw), said that The illegality argument could not be created by the state.
Mkhize said the state knew it was signing the agreement and that it was its duty to make sure it fulfilled its commitments.
However, Jeremy Gauntlett, the finance minister, said that, at its narrowest, the case was about whether public service regulations were being followed.
Gauntlett said regulation 79 appointed an official who needs to approve more funds, and this was the Treasury.
“The correct official did not exercise power. There can never be compliance if power is not exercised by the appropriate entity. Regulation 79 recognizes the minister of finance. This is not technical, ”he said.
One of the judges, Philip Coppin, said it was opportunistic that the question of the legality of the deal was raised so late, in the third year.
Gauntlett said that the illegality became very important when the Treasury began to think and began “using magnifying glasses” to ensure that it was enforced.
Tim Bruinders, for the minister of administration and public service, said that the minister signed the agreement on the basis that it would not exceed the tax envelope of R110bn.
He said the minister tried to bring the cost of the deal below the envelope, among other measures, by reducing the workforce.
The unions opposed the cost containment measures, Bruinders said.
The court reserved the judgment.
TimesLIVE
[ad_2]
