ConCourt to rule over the powers of Mkhwebane, once and for all – The Citizen

D-day has arrived for Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane and the South African Revenue Service (Sars). The question of whether Mkhwebane has the power to cite Sars’ taxpayer information will be decided once and for all by the Constitutional Court today. They have disagreed on the issue since Mkhwebane moved to cite the tax records of former President Jacob Zuma. This was part of an investigation into allegations that during the early days of his presidency, Zuma was on the payroll of Royal Security, a KwaZulu-Natal-based company owned by controversial businessman Roy Moodley. ALSO READ: Protect the public from …

D-day has arrived for Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane and the South African Revenue Service (Sars).

The question of whether Mkhwebane has the power to cite Sars’s taxpayer information will be decided once and for all by the Constitutional Court today.

They have disagreed on the issue since Mkhwebane moved to cite the tax records of former President Jacob Zuma.

This was part of an investigation into allegations that during the early days of his presidency, Zuma was on the payroll of Royal Security, a KwaZulu-Natal-based company owned by controversial businessman Roy Moodley.

READ ALSO: Protect the Public from the Public Protector

In March, the Pretoria High Court ruled that the public protector could not subpoena the Sars for taxpayer information. Judge Peter Mabuse found that his powers did not override the provisions of the Tax Administration Act, which requires that taxpayer information be kept confidential.

Mabuse lashed out at Mkhwebane for his refusal to accept a legal opinion obtained from Hamilton Maenetje and his subsequent decision to obtain another opinion, from Muzi Sikhakhane, without advising Sars.

ALSO READ: Another blow to Mkhwebane as High Court annuls rogue unit report

Mkhwebane addressed the Constitutional Court in a desperate attempt to overturn Mabuse’s findings, arguing that upholding them “would only serve to embolden rogue public officials, who often make all sorts of” legal “excuses to avoid accountability. for an incalculable number of unpleasant or even neutral reasons, such as laziness or some other indefinite reluctance to comply ”.

When the case reached the country’s highest court in September, Mkhwebane’s lawyer, lawyer Dali Mpofu, also argued that the personal costs order “has no place in this type of litigation.”

“This does not end there. The chilling effect of that order of costs, the extreme and articulation in which it is carried out, contributes, or at least, must contribute, to the global assessment of the exceptional circumstances that concern this matter,” he said. .

– [email protected]

For more news your way, download The Citizen app to iOS and Android.