Latest Fox News
- The Public Protector wants the court docket to squawk the candidates in the Ivan Pillay pension saga in breach of Share 9 of the PP Act.
- Her correct group of workers submits that remarks made by Pravin Gordhan represent criminal contempt in phrases of Share 9(1) of the PP Act.
- The high court docket is hearing an application to study and assign aside the Public Protector’s file on the approval of Pillay’s retirement.
Public Protector Busiswe Mkhwebane launched a counter application in the North Gauteng Excessive Court docket on Wednesday, which asks the court docket to squawk the candidates in the “Pillay pension saga” in breach of Share 9 of the Public Protector Act.
“We put up that the overwhelming majority of the identified remarks made by Minister [Pravin] Gordhan, and fully inherited or adopted by Mr [Ivan] Pillay, represent criminal contempt in phrases [of] Share 9(1) of the Public Protector Act,” suggest Dali Mpofu argued on behalf of Mkhwebane on Wednesday.
The North Gauteng Excessive Court docket was as soon as hearing an application to study and assign aside the PP’s file 24 of 2019/20.
The file stumbled on, among others, the allegation that then finance minister Pravin Gordhan irregularly licensed the early retirement of outmoded deputy commissioner at SARS, Ivan Pillay, with fleshy retirement advantages, and his subsequent retention at SARS was as soon as substantiated.
The court docket earlier heard that the PP’s conclusion in the topic was as soon as “irrational” because an error of law didn’t equate to heinous conduct.
Mpofu pointed out that the Public Protector Act offered that no particular person insults the Public Protector or Deputy Public Protector.
As smartly as, the Act states that no particular person shall, “in connection with an investigation or attain something which, if the said investigation had been in complaints in a court docket of law, would have constituted contempt of court docket”.
In the 77-page heads of arguments, the PP’s correct group of workers notes quite a lot of remarks [to name a few] attributed to Gordhan which would be examples of “unacceptable conduct and language adopted by the candidates”.
These embrace nonetheless are no longer diminutive to:
– – The “unsubstantiated and pretend” allegation that the timing of the free up of the file was as soon as “suspicious” and indicates that the file was as soon as politically motivated;
– – The allegation that the file was as soon as issued with “unseemly haste”;
– – The “unsubstantiated” allegation that the file was as soon as told by heinous (and ulterior) motives;
– – The “unsubstantiated” allegation that the PP “neglected” Gordhan’s submissions; and
– The “severe” allegation that the file was as soon as issued “in picture to enable a renewal of the ongoing political advertising campaign” against Gordhan by opponents of “divulge take” and defenders of corruption.
Mpofu argued that the tone and language adopted by Gordhan, with “which Mr Pillay says he fully pals himself with is condescending”.
“[It is] unnecessarily insulting, combative, inaccurate and condescending in opposition to the Public Protector. It additionally amounts to unlawful and prima facie criminal conduct,” Mpofu urged the court docket.
The topic continues on Thursday.
