Cape Town - A senior investigator at the Public Protector South Africa (PPSA) told the Section 194 inquiry that it was incorrect that a court judgment suggested that the institution relied on “other” reports when conducting an investigation into the so-called rogue unit.
Bianca Mvuyana said it was also incorrect for a judgment to set aside the report on the unit as having transplanted and regurgitated information from discredited reports.
“In investigations, you find that they conducted forensic investigations. That is submitted to us. We don’t take reports, or copy and paste them into the report.
“We also request evidence and even an annexure that led to an investigation coming to a conclusion,” Mvuyana said.
She was giving testimony while being led by Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s legal counsel advocate Dali Mpofu SC on Monday.
Mvuyana said she knew of no discredited report, except one done by the auditing firm KPMG. She said she was not aware that the Sikhakane report was reviewed and found to be invalid.
Mvuyana said the Sikhakane, KPMG and other reports had found the establishment of the so-called rogue unit unlawful. She told the inquiry that they had obtained evidence that showed the existence of the unit.
Mvuyana said they had accessed evidence about the unit and also had a bit of information from a complaint that was lodged with PPSA.
She stated that they had considered supporting evidence that was submitted by SARS during their probe. “That was taken into consideration when coming to that conclusion.”
Mvuyana told the inquiry that people who were the primary focus of the so-called rogue unit investigation were Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan and former SAS commissioners Irvin Pillay and Oupa Magashula.
Asked to explain why they were the primary focus of the investigation, she said it was alleged that Gordhan had violated the Executive Member Ethics Act, which provided for Mkhwebane to investigate a minister when a complaint was made by an MP. “I think we are aware what the complaint was and the Public Protector was bound to investigate.”
She said the trio had been accounting officers at SARS “involved in alleged maladministration and improper conduct”.
Mvuyana told the inquiry that former SARS official Johann van Loggerenberg was not implicated in the report.
“Mr Loggerenberg was part of the alleged SARS unit but did not take part in decision making, the establishment and recruitment of staff. He would not have approved a memorandum to implement certain decisions.”
However, Van Loggerenberg’s involvement in the SARS unit was to be part of the second part investigation of the unit, she said.
“Our main focus was whether legislation was adhered to in conducting those operations, especially the establishment of the operation.”
Giving his testimony to the inquiry last year, Van Loggerenberg accused Mkhwebane of disregarding information and documents he provided during her probe into the “rogue unit”.
Mkhwebane had in her report stated that she had subpoenaed Van Loggerenberg but could not find him at his last address.
Van Loggerenberg said Mkhwebane could have contacted any of his two attorneys whose email addresses were on the email he sent to ask him to come to her office.
He said his residential address remained the same since 2010 and his cell phone had been the same for two decades.
on Monday, Mvuyana told the inquiry of efforts by PPSA to track down Van Loggerenberg and sought his address in order to subpoena him without luck and their driver-messenger, David Linda, went to his address. “He went and came back. He could not find Mr Loggerenberg. He went the next day,” she said, adding that a caretaker at the address had told Linda that “he will never find that guy”.
Mvuyana said Mkhwebane was not responsible for tracking and tracing individuals identified during the investigation.
Mvuyana said she took offence at an allegation that they deliberately did not serve Van Loggerenberg the subpoena. “What would have been the motive? I take offence to that allegation,” she said.
Cape Times