[ad_1]
- Pravin Gordhan’s belief that he has been subjected to a series of illegal and unfair investigations by the Public Protector was reinforced by a recent court ruling.
- The court struck down Mkhwebane’s report on the early retirement of former SARS Deputy Commissioner Ivan Pillay.
- But he also dismissed Gordhan’s claim that Mkhwebane was politically motivated as “suspicious and mere speculation.”
Former Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan welcomed a ruling in which an entire Pretoria High Court court annulled the Public Protector’s report on his role in the early retirement of former Deputy Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service (SARS), Ivan Pillay .
Last year in May, the day before Cyril Ramaphosa assumed the presidency after the national elections, Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane released her report on the Pillay affair.
Their report found, among other things, that Gordhan’s prosecution irregularly approved Pillay’s early retirement with full retirement benefits, and her subsequent retention in SARS, was corroborated, and that Gordhan’s conduct was inappropriate as provided by the law. Public Protection Law.
READ | Court criticizes discredited source documents Mkhwebane relied on for SARS unit findings
In his corrective action, he recommended to the President that he take appropriate disciplinary measures against Gordhan for failing to respect the values and principles of public administration enshrined in Section 195 of the Constitution, and the duty conferred on Cabinet members to act in accordance with the Constitution. in terms of Section 92 (3) (a) of the Constitution.
Subsequently, the findings and recommendation formed much of the basis for the EFF’s insistence that Ramaphosa should fire Gordhan.
Gordhan filed a court request to review and annul the report.
delivered
On Thursday, Judges Elizabeth Kubushi, Mpostoli Twala and Norman Davis issued their sentence.
The court found that Mkhwebane “was wrong in the law and that Minister Gordhan’s decision was perfectly legal.”
“She was the one who made an error of law. That error of law is material and makes her findings irrational.
“There is nothing in the report that establishes that Minister Gordhan, as a Cabinet member or not, has violated any of the basic values and principles that govern public administration or that he has acted against any of the duties of the members of the Cabinet. Cabinet provided for in the Constitution.
“It is, therefore, irrational for the Public Protector to issue a remediation order ordering the president to take appropriate remediation measures against Minister Gordhan on the basis of contravention of the Constitution.”
READ | High Court annuls Mkhwebane’s report on Pravin Gordhan and ‘rogue unit’
Gordhan’s attorney, Tebogo Malatji, said in a statement released Sunday: “In our opinion, this judgment reinforces our client’s belief that he has been subjected to a series of unfair and illegal investigations by the Public Protector’s office. “.
However, the court accepted Mkhwebane’s request to delete the record comments made in Gordhan’s affidavit regarding Mkhwebane’s motives.
“I believe the report was issued when it was issued, with the findings and corrective measures it contained, to allow for a renewal of an ongoing political campaign against me by advocates of ‘state capture’ and advocates of corruption, “reads Gordhan’s affidavit. .
The ruling dismissed this as “suspicion and mere speculation” and “casting aversions that are not supported by evidence.”
“Additional accusations that she was politically motivated and ulterior motives reported in the report are also unfounded. There is no evidence to substantiate the accusation, none at all,” the sentence reads.
“The applicants want to argue that Minister Gordhan provided inferential reasoning drawn from the surrounding circumstances, for example, the haste with which the report was issued and the timing, to support his argument that the Public Protector was politically motivated and, as Such, the report was issued ‘to enable a renewal of the ongoing political campaign’ against Minister Gordhan by opponents of ‘state capture’ and advocates of corruption.
“However, we find that such a proposal cannot be approved in the circumstances of this request.”
Mkhwebane is expected to comment on the ruling after he has had time to study it.
