Gordhan accuses public protector of acting in bad faith

Dennis TApril 24, 2019

12 2 minutes read

Gordhan late on Tuesday evening released correspondence between himself and Mkhwebane’s office, saying he was doing so in the public interest.
Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan on Tuesday said Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane was behaving in a manner not befitting her office by falsely accusing him of colluding with others on how to respond to her questions about a so-called rogue unit in the South African Revenue Service (Sars).

Gordhan late on Tuesday evening released correspondence between himself and Mkhwebane’s office, after consulting with lawyers, saying he was doing so in the public interest.

He said that she had failed to respond to a letter from him and instead issued a media statement that was factually incorrect on at least two counts.

First, it was not true that he had only approached her on Monday to seek an extension of the deadline by which he had to respond to questions from her, the minister said.

Second, her claim that parties at Sars implicated in the probe met shortly after she issued them with subpoenas and as a result of this “the kind of responses she received from the institution and the minister were co-ordinated”.

Mkhwebane made the claim in a media statement on Tuesday in which she announced that she had granted Gordhan an extension until May 3 to respond to her questions.

“We take serious issue with any suggestion by the Public Protector that there was collusion by ‘implicated parties who were served with subpoenas’ to coordinate how our client responds to her office” the minister’s office said.

“These unfortunate remarks, in her statement to the media earlier today, have no basis in fact and represent conjecture which impugns on the Office of the Public Protector.

“Minister Gordhan has not met with any person subpoenaed by the Public Protector nor with any official of the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) in relation to the subpoena issued by the Public Protector.

“We will be challenging the Public Protector to provide the factual basis for the statement suggesting that [the] Minister is acting in concert with others and why he is referred to as an implicated party.