Myeni’s refusal to give SAA-related evidence could work against her – expert

Former SA Airways (SAA) chair Dudu Myeni’s refusal to give SAA-related evidence before Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo at the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture – for fear of incriminating herself – could work against her when Zondo presents his final conclusion, according to a legal expert.

This follows Myeni’s testimony before Zondo yesterday, when she came under pressure from evidence leader advocate Kate Hofmeyr for failure to answer SAA-related questions and give a response on her qualifications.

“Chairperson, I prefer not to answer questions relating to SAA. Any questions arising, we will deal with them as we go,” Myeni told Zondo during her video-linked testimony, due to her receiving treatment for Covid-19.

Asked whether it was within her rights for Myeni to refuse to answer certain questions at the commission, Accountability Now director Paul Hoffman said that would ultimately work against her.

“She should be answering all the questions and Deputy Chief Justice Zondo is treating her failure to answer questions as an inability to do so without incriminating herself,” said Hoffman.

“When questions are put to her, she says she is not prepared to incriminate herself and the judge is then able to draw his own conclusions. What she has to remember is that she is not on trial in the commission, which is a fact-finding exercise carried out on behalf of the executive branch of government – the Cabinet and the president.

“This is all done with a view to ascertain what happened and to later make recommendations about possible remedial steps to be taken.” Hoffman said if Zondo came to the end of the inquiry, “he will say he has had evidence from witnesses, accepting evidence of complainant witnesses – rejecting that of implicated witnesses, adding that those guilty should be brought to book”.

He continued: “I expect him to touch on such matters as bringing an end to party cadre deployment in the administration and exercising caution on how people are appointed to positions of authority without relevant qualifications.

“What he finds as a fact and what he recommends as a solution is not binding – this goes for Cabinet or government. “Anyone who is unhappy with his factual findings can challenge him on review for drawing irrational conclusions.

“Not giving evidence is something that will eventually work against Myeni.” Human rights lawyer Nqobizitha Mlilo saw things differently. If someone refuses to answer questions, which may or may not be used in future legal proceedings, or if there is reasonable suspicion that the answer given may be used in future criminal prosecution, the constitution provides for your right to remain silent,” he said.

“It is perfectly legal for someone to do so, because the constitution is the supreme law of the country. The drawing of the conclusion is a matter that is becoming a problem as far as the commission of inquiry is concerned in terms of the nature of evidence witnesses are giving. “Witnesses are giving evidence in silo and that evidence is not tested.”

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