Gordhan ‘acted lawfully’ when appointing chief of staff, Public Protector finds

Public Enterprises Minister, Pravin Gordhan, did not violate the law when he appointed his chief of staff, Nthabiseng Borotho.

This is according to the office of the Public Protector.

On Friday, acting Public Protector, Kholeka Gcaleka released an investigative report into Borotho’s appointment following a complaint laid by Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) deputy president, Floyd Shivambu in November 2020.

The Public Protector’s office had also investigated on whether the Department of Public Enterprises followed proper procurement processes when it appointed Abacus Financial Crime Advisory.

Abacus had been hired to investigate public servants suspected of leaking information about Borotho’s appointment.

‘Not inconsistent’

In the report, Gcakela concluded that Gordhan “did not act in violation of the Executive Code of Ethics when he appointed Borotho as chief of staff”. 

“The minister appointed Ms Borotho to the position in question in line with Regulations 66 Subsection 2 and subject to Regulation 67 Subsection 5 of the Public Service regulation, whereby he sought approval from former minister Senzo Mchunu by way of a deviation for Ms Borotho’s lack of formal qualifications,” she said.

Therefore, Gordhan’s conduct, the acting Public Protector said, was not inconsistent with Section 96(2)(b) of the Constitution and was not in breach of the Code.

ALSO READ: Pravin Gordhan announces Mpho Makwana as chair of new Eskom board

In addition, Gcakela also found that the department acted lawfully when it appointed Abacus to investigate the information leak.

“According to the evidence and information submitted during the investigation, the appointment of Abacus was in compliance with the constitution, preferential procurement policy and broad-based black economic empowerment [BBBEE] legislative framework.

“Evidence submitted noted compliance with the department’s supply chain management policy in that a quotation sourced from the department’s panel of forensic instigators was sought and evaluated,” she said, adding it did not amount to improper conduct or maladministration.