The ANC’s integrity commission says it sees no reason why Gordhan should be called to appear before him



[ad_1]

Minister of Public Enterprises, Pravin Gordhan.  (Photo: Jeffrey Abrahams)

Minister of Public Enterprises, Pravin Gordhan. (Photo: Jeffrey Abrahams)

  • Phapano Phasha, an ANC member at Brian Bunting’s branch, wrote to the party’s integrity commission, requesting that Pravin Gordhan appear before him.
  • According to Phasha, the minister had discredited the party.
  • He wrote two letters to the commission, one in May 2019 and one this year.

The ANC’s integrity commission has decided that complaints made by Brian Bunting’s branch member Phapano Phasha against Public Enterprise Minister Pravin Gordhan do not justify being called.

Phasha wrote to the commission with complaints against Gordhan on various issues, including, among others, his approval of early retirement and the rehiring of former SARS Deputy Commissioner Ivan Pillay; alleged participation in the so-called “Rogue Unit of SARS”; alleged involvement in the appointment of his niece as a trustee of the Eskom Pension Fund; and racial discrimination in appointments made in the Department of Public Companies and state entities.

Phasha wrote two letters to the commission, one in 2019 and one in July 2020, where he relayed his complaints about the minister, claiming that he was discrediting the party.

FIRST TAKE | The death of the fictional ‘rogue unit’ of SARS and the evisceration of Busisiwe Mkhwebane

In its response, dated October 15, 2020, which News24 has seen, the commission said it considered all allegations against Gordhan, but did not believe there was any justification for holding the minister to account.

On Saturday, Phasha confirmed to News24 that he received the commission’s response to his complaints “a while ago.”

He said he had written a follow-up letter this year, after the commission failed to respond to the previous one he presented in May 2019.

In response to the complaint against Pillay’s retirement and rehire minister’s approval, the commission said the National Tax Authority dropped criminal charges of fraud against Gordhan in the matter, and said it was not aware of any court findings. criminal that the minister was engaged. in a corrupt relationship with Pillay.

The commission said:

The Public Protector did not discover that Comrade Gordhan had a generally corrupt relationship with Comrade Pillay. The integrity commission is aware that the public protector’s report of May 2019 and its conclusion that Comrade Gordhan’s approval of Comrade Pillay’s early retirement was irregular is the subject of a review process before the Division of the North Gauteng Superior Court. The review was argued on September 30 and October 1, 2020.

“The implementation of the corrective measures directed against the president, that is, that the president take appropriate disciplinary measures against Comrade Gordhan for not respecting the values ​​and principles of public administration in article 195 of the Constitution, has been prohibited until the review to be completed.

“The integrity commission will wait for the review request to be finalized before deciding whether it is necessary to call Comrade Gordhan to account for his decision.”

In her complaint, Phasha also made a statement that, despite continued media reports, “investigations by five independent institutions, bodies and courts found Gordhan guilty of having established a rogue and illegal unit,” leading her to commission pointed out that he was wrong.

The commission said that SARS conduct issues were the subject of a review process in the higher court and that Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane had found Gordhan guilty of mismanagement for approving the illegal unit.

“The Public Protector relied on the now discredited Inspector General report for its conclusion that an illegal covert intelligence gathering unit existed in SARS.

“The review was argued at the same time as the review of Comrade Gordhan’s decision to approve Comrade Pillay’s early retirement. A decision is pending. The integrity commission will wait for the review request to be finalized before deciding whether it is necessary. call Comrade Gordhan to report his approval of the SARS unit.

“The integrity commission does not wish to speculate on the outcome of the review. But, given the extent to which the Sikhakhane Panel Report has been discredited, there is no credible evidence that an illegal covert intelligence gathering unit existed in SARS. nor any basis for calling Comrade Gordhan to account for it, “he said.

Regarding the complaint about Gordhan’s alleged involvement in corruption in the adjudication of IT systems in the National Treasury and SARS, the commission said there were no details involving the minister, adding that it was also not aware of any investigation linking him. with irregularities in the bids in the offices.

Phasha said he would question the commission’s decision, adding that he found the opening statements in his response “condescending and very condescending.”

He said he has forwarded the document to his legal team for investigation.

The commission’s initial response reads:

The integrity commission has taken note of the fact that you are filing your complaint as a member of the Brian Bunting branch of the ANC. We recognize your right, as a member of the ANC, to complain about the alleged unethical conduct of any member of the ANC, including Comrade Gordhan. We further note the fact that your two letters of complaint include the official ANC logo. It is not clear to us from your letters of complaint on what basis you have the authority, as an ordinary member of the ANC, to use the official ANC logo. Please notify us accordingly.

Phasha said the commission’s response appeared as if it had already reached a conclusion on all the issues it raised in its complaint against Gordhan.

“And, for me, this [decision] it reinforces the notion that the committee itself ignores the issues. I don’t even think it was the chairman of the commission who wrote this.

“They are saying that they are waiting for the judicial processes to end. [and] so that means the “step aside” does not apply anyway. My other issue is consistency, but I’ll take care of them. I’m going to answer you now, “he said.


We know it was a long read and your time is precious. Did you know that now you can listen to articles? Subscribe to News24 to access this exciting feature and more.

[ad_2]