Ramaphosa’s ‘buddy-buddy’ approach holds SA to ‘ransom’ for Gordhan, Mpofu argues

At the High Court in Pretoria on Thursday, President Cyril Ramaphosa is attempting to interdict Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane from forcing him to carry out the remedial action against Minister of Public Enterprise Pravin Gordhan, stipulated in a recent report which found him guilty of having irregularly approved the early retirement of former Sars deputy commissioner Ivan Pillay.

Advocate Dali Mpofu, acting for Mkhwebane, accused the president of acting on Gordhan’s behalf using a “buddy-buddy” approach and suggested that Gordhan was holding South Africa to ransom.

Mpofu stressed that he was appearing not in his capacity as Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) national chairperson, but as the public protector’s advocate, although the EFF is supporting Mkhwebane in her defence.

“Nothing will stop the bloodbath on our democracy” if the interdict was successful, Mpofu said, adding that the whole country “might as well” be closed up if Ramaphosa succeeded.

Mpofu brought up past cases in an attempt to prove that an interdict is “designed to protect the rights of the complainant” rather than “some third party”.

The law did not support a “buddy-buddy approach, cover my back here, I’ll cover yours there”, Mpofu said.

Mpofu asked whether the country should be held to ransom for “months to years for the convenience of one man, Mr Gordhan”, and suggested that the office of the public protector would be “killed and blunted” if her remedial action were to be successfully interdicted.

READ MORE: So … you think Mkhwebane is fighting White Monopoly Capital, do you?

Mpofu also gave his opinion on Sulet Potterill’s recent judgment in Gordhan’s favour which granted him an interdict to prevent remedial action from being taken against him until the legal process surrounding his attempt to take another report from Mkhwebane was concluded.

This report found him guilty of violating the constitution over the so-called Sars “rogue unit”.

Potterill’s judgment, according to Mpofu, is a “mess” and should “never be referred to again”.

He added that, in his view, it was “clearly wrong” and “embarrassing”.

Mpofu also described Ramaphosa’s application as “a complete mess”.

The advocate said Potterill had relied on documents relating to the case over Ivan Pillay being discussed currently, rather than the “rogue unit” case which was at the centre of the interdict application.

Mpofu also called Ramaphosa’s legal team’s argument, that an implementation plan on the remedial action against Gordhan did not have to be approved by Mkhwebane, “some kind of joke”.

He said this plan was meant to be submitted “for the approval of the public protector within 30 days of her report being made public”.

EFF Julius Malema entered the courtroom during Mpofu’s arguments.

(Compiled by Daniel Friedman)

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.