Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan‘s legal team says they will early next week submit court papers to review and set aside Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane reports, including where she finds that Gordhan violated the constitution when he established the so-called SARS “rogue unit”.
Gordhan was SARS Commissioner at the time.
A statement prepared on Gordhan’s behalf says Mkhwebane continues to get her facts wrong.
The statement continues to say that Gordhan learnt of Mkhwebane’s findings through the media and while he respects the Office of the Public Protector, he has serious misgivings about her partiality.
Gordhan’s lawyer Tebogo Malatji says, “Neither the office of Minister Pravin Gordhan, nor anyone in his legal team had received a formal notice, correspondence or report from the Public Protector about alleged findings and remedial actions prior to these being announced by her to the media today, including on YouTube live streaming.
“Minister Gordhan has stated unequivocally that he is unreservedly committed to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. Whilst respecting the Office of the Public Protector – and cooperating with their investigations – Minister Gordhan, like many others, has recorded his serious misgivings about the incumbent, her conduct and her partiality.”
The Public Protector earlier said she had evidence in her possession that confirms the existence of intelligence equipment that was procured for use by the so called SARS “rogue unit”.
Mkhwebane has told journalists in Pretoria that Gordhan should have established the unit with the involvement of the State Security Agency.
She adds that the procurement process was flawed. “It is extremely impossible that the unit carrying such outside investigation on behalf of SARS would not procure these equipment’s, the only contention by SARS being that it was not conducting illegal operations.”
“However if its operations were lawful, it is unclear why SARS and its former employees would keep procurement of equipment such a secret. I can only come to the conclusion that proper procurement processes were not adhered to.”
Read below the full Public Protector’s report:
