Dudu Myeni invokes right to silence at State Capture Commission

Former South African Airways (SAA) chairperson Dudu Myeni has invoked her right to silence when answering questions at the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture on Wednesday.

Myeni, who is testifying via Zoom after she was exposed to a Covid-19 positive person, told the chairperson of the commission Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo that she would like to exercise her right to “answer where I can and be silent where I can”.

In her affidavit to the commission, Myeni indicated that she would invoke her right to silence due to her pending appeal of a court order directing that she should be charged after she was declared a delinquent director.

Myeni explained to Zondo that while she respected the commission and wished to assist it, the court order had placed her “in a very different position”.

“I am anxious that I am compelled to forgo my constitutional right not to incriminate myself,” Myeni said.

She said that in her affidavit, she had referred the commission to the documents relevant to the issues it raised.

UPDATE: Dudu Myeni flags Zondo commission files used in delinquent director case

“I did that, chairperson because I highly respect this commission. I always act responsibly and I am willing and I am committed to present myself to this commission so that we deal once and for all with everything that has been said,” Myeni said, labelling the testimony at the commission which implicates her as “false accusations and insinuations” made in her absence.

Myeni told the commission that she has been advised that she should appeal the court judgement and, therefore, would like to exercise her right “and answer where I can and be silent where I can”.

Zondo told Myeni that the commission would not seek to deliberately and intentionally infringe her constitutional rights, that all of her constitutional rights remain applicable and will be respected at the commission.

Zondo said two other witnesses, including former ANC MP Vincent Smith, had invoked the same rights and that in the end, both witnesses had refused to answer one or two questions following advice from their legal representatives.