- The Public Protector wants the court docket to relate the applicants in the Ivan Pillay pension saga in breach of Share 9 of the PP Act.
- Her correct personnel submits that remarks made by Pravin Gordhan constitute criminal contempt in phrases of Share 9(1) of the PP Act.
- The high court docket is hearing an utility to overview and voice apart the Public Protector’s document on the approval of Pillay’s retirement.
Public Protector Busiswe Mkhwebane launched a counter utility in the North Gauteng High Court docket on Wednesday, which asks the court docket to relate the applicants in the “Pillay pension saga” in breach of Share 9 of the Public Protector Act.
“We submit that the gigantic majority of the identified remarks made by Minister [Pravin] Gordhan, and fully inherited or adopted by Mr [Ivan] Pillay, constitute criminal contempt in phrases [of] Share 9(1) of the Public Protector Act,” imply Dali Mpofu argued on behalf of Mkhwebane on Wednesday.
The North Gauteng High Court docket changed into hearing an utility to overview and voice apart the PP’s document 24 of 2019/20.
The document came across, amongst others, the allegation that then finance minister Pravin Gordhan irregularly approved the early retirement of earlier deputy commissioner at SARS, Ivan Pillay, with corpulent retirement benefits, and his subsequent retention at SARS changed into substantiated.
The court docket earlier heard that the PP’s conclusion in the topic changed into “irrational” because of an error of law did no longer equate to monstrous conduct.
Mpofu identified that the Public Protector Act provided that no one insults the Public Protector or Deputy Public Protector.
Moreover, the Act states that no one shall, “in reference to an investigation or form one thing which, if the said investigation had been in court docket cases in a court docket of law, would accept as true with constituted contempt of court docket”.
Within the 77-page heads of arguments, the PP’s correct personnel notes several remarks [to name a few] attributed to Gordhan that are examples of “unacceptable conduct and language adopted by the applicants”.
These comprise nonetheless are no longer restricted to:
– – The “unsubstantiated and fraudulent” allegation that the timing of the discharge of the document changed into “suspicious” and implies that the document changed into politically motivated;
– – The allegation that the document changed into issued with “unseemly haste”;
– – The “unsubstantiated” allegation that the document changed into told by monstrous (and ulterior) motives;
– – The “unsubstantiated” allegation that the PP “no longer renowned” Gordhan’s submissions; and
– The “extreme” allegation that the document changed into issued “in command to enable a renewal of the continuing political marketing campaign” in opposition to Gordhan by opponents of “voice elevate” and defenders of corruption.
Mpofu argued that the tone and language adopted by Gordhan, with “which Mr Pillay says he fully friends himself with is condescending”.
“[It is] unnecessarily insulting, combative, vulgar and condescending in direction of the Public Protector. It also portions to unlawful and prima facie criminal conduct,” Mpofu advised the court docket.
The topic continues on Thursday.