Suspended SARS commissioner Tom Moyane wants the misconduct inquiry against him to start “as soon as possible‚ even tomorrow”.
And he’s again expressed unhappiness over Ramaphosa’s refusal to fund his legal defense to the 12 misconduct charges against him‚ arguing that this decision was unfair.
“We note that the president has hired‚ at taxpayers’ expense‚ FOUR advocates to represent him in these disciplinary proceedings‚” Moyane’s lawyers stated in a letter to the president.
“That alone is the clearest indication of the importance and perceived complexity of the issues involved. It cuts both ways. More importantly‚ it symbolises the unfair inequality of arms to which we have been referring.”
Ramaphosa has flatly refused to fund Moyane’s legal costs in fighting to keep his job – on the basis that “SARS has no policy authorising the legal funding of an employee in disciplinary inquiries”.
And‚ in a letter written by the State Attorney‚ he’s slammed Moyane for trying to “dictate the process to be followed” in the inquiry against him. He’s also suggested that the commissioner – in demanding that Ramaphosa testify against him – is pushing for a “process akin to a criminal trial”.
Moyane‚ however‚ makes it clear that he will push for the president to take the stand and give evidence about why he has lost confidence in him.
The Presidency had previously suggested that the 12 misconduct charges against Moyane‚ which include his alleged failure to act on evidence of criminality against his former second-in-command Jonas Makwakwa‚ could be decided without calling witnesses.
Moyane’s lawyers have rejected that suggestion. “Your proposed attempt for a subverted process where evidence is given on affidavit and oral evidence is the exception and left to the ‘discretion’ of the chair‚ presumably upon application‚ is accordingly rejected for reasons which should be obvious. For the record‚ our client disputes and rejects the entire factual basis on which all the charges are premised‚” attorney Eric Mabuza writes.
In Moyane’s latest letter to Ramaphosa‚ he summarises his demands as follows:
– “The disciplinary enquiry must be convened as soon as possible‚ preferably within the next few days;
– “In line with the proposal of the … president‚ the issue of the unfair procedure must be decided upfront by the chairperson of the enquiry;
– “Depending on the ruling or outcome‚ the employer must call its witnesses‚ including the president‚ who informed the commissioner that he had lost confidence in him based‚ inter alia‚ on grounds which have miraculously disappeared from the charge sheet‚ alternatively the enquiry may proceed in line with the ruling;
– “Thereafter‚ the commissioner will call his witnesses‚ followed by legal argument by both parties as to why he should or should not be urgently reinstated to his position‚ as the case may be;
– “Any other process subsequent thereto will obviously be dependent upon the outcome of the enquiry and the normal provisions of South African law”.
Ramaphosa has yet to respond to these demands.