MEDIA STATEMENT

Date: Monday, 12 November 2018

For immediate release

Attention: Editors/ News desks

Subject: Public Protector clarifies her investigation into the conduct of Minister Gordhan

Public Protector Adv. Mkhwebane notes the weekend media statement attributed to an attorney,
who says he acts on behalf of the Minister of Public Enterprises, Mr. Pravin Gordhan. Adv.
Mkhwebane wishes to reiterate that her office wrote to the Minister four times between February
2018 and July 2018, requesting the Minister to respond to the allegations that he irregularly
approved Mr. Ivan Pillay’s retirement, bought off his pension balance and later allowed him to
be re-employed by the South African Revenue Service (SARS) in 2010.

On 02 October 2018, Adv. Mkhwebane subpoenaed Minister Gordhan to appear before her on
14 November 2018. This was after the Minister failed to provide the Public Protector with a
response to these allegations as requested in the preceding correspondences. The Minister,
through his attorney, responded to the subpoena on 22 October 2018, indicating that he would
present himself to the Public Protector as per the subpoena.

A number of questions have since been raised around these events and related public
utterances. Adv. Mkhwebane wishes to offer clarity as follows:

1. The Public Protector is empowered by the law to conduct a preliminary investigation for
the purpose of determining the merits of complaints, allegations or information, among
other things. The investigation into the alleged conduct of Minister Gordhan is therefore
at a preliminary stage. Accordingly, the Public Protector is affording him an opportunity
to respond to the allegations or the complaint;

2. During the preliminary investigation stage, the Public Protector gathers all relevant
evidence from any person who may be in a position to assist;

3. The law empowers the Public Protector to investigate any conduct alleged or suspected
to be improper or to result in any impropriety or prejudice. This includes allegations
emanating from media reports. Members of the public and political parties regularly ask

1
 the Public Protector to investigate purely on the basis of the news reports. In such
instances, the Public Protector is not provided with evidence supporting the allegations
but this never stops her from investigating;
4. The Public Protector expects nothing but full cooperation from public officials and
Members of the Executive when conducting investigations. The constitution provides in
section 181 that other organs of state must assist and protect the Public Protector to
ensure the institution’s independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness;

5. The Public Protector has powers in terms of the law to direct any person to submit an
affidavit or appear before her to give evidence or produce any document, which has a
bearing on a matter under investigation. She may also examine the person;

6. The law further provides that any person, who, without just cause, refuses or fails to
comply with such a direction or refuses to answer questions put to them or gives
answers which they know to be false, shall be guilty of an offense. Any person convicted
of such an offense shall be liable to a fine not exceeding R40 000 or imprisonment for a
period not exceeding 12 months or both;

7. Regarding the use of attorneys and advocates during appearances before the Public
Protector, the law provides for legal assistance and not legal representation. This means
that attorneys or advocates cannot speak on behalf of the person appearing before the
Public Protector.

8. With regard to confusion over the fact that a criminal case into issues similar to those
before the Public Protector has been withdrawn, the attention of the public is drawn to
the fact that the Public Protector’s mandate is essentially to investigate any conduct
alleged or suspected to be improper or to result in any impropriety or prejudice,
maladministration and/or abuse or unjustifiable exercise of power. Not all improper
conduct or maladministration constitute a criminal conduct or offence; and

9. It has also been insinuated that the subpoena was timed to coincide with the Minister’s
appearance before the Zondo Commission of Inquiry. This is false. When responding to
the subpoena on 22 October 2018, the Minister, through his attorney, revealed to the
Public Protector that he was scheduled to appear before the Zondo Commission of
Inquiry on 15 November 2018. This was not known to the Public Protector when she
served the subpoena on the Minister twenty (20) days earlier.

Adv. Mkhwebane does not wish to comment further on this matter. She looks forward to Minister
Gordhan’s appearance before her this week so that she can execute her constitutional mandate
independently, impartially and without fear, favour or prejudice.

*The law referred to above is the Public Protector Act 23 of 1994, particularly relevant provisions
of sections 6, 7 and 11.

For more information, contact:

Oupa Segalwe
2
Acting Spokesperson
Public Protector South Africa
(012) 366 7035
072 264 3273
oupas@pprotect.org
www.pprotector.org