Category Archives: Pravin Gordhan

ANC Veterans Leauge


The ANC Veterans League is shocked and dismayed at the vulgar display of thuggery by EFF members of Parliament on Thursday, July 11-2019 , during the budget presentation by minister Pravin Gordhan.

While the country has become used to EFF rowdiness in the chambers of Parliament over the years, the crude attempt at intimidating a cabinet minister in Parliament marks a step-change in the EFF’s long-standing war on constitutional democracy. The EFF now stands thoroughly exposed as a party that has embraced far right wing principles and methods to attack the democratic doctrines that masses of our people fought and died for.

The EFF is indistinguishable from the violent Far-right movements sweeping across the world, replete with phoney militarism and racial hate as its key organising principle, reminiscent of the late and unlamented AWB. Any pretence at being an organised force of the left is now in tatters.

The behaviour of the EFF is emblematic of the paucity of intellectual and political gravitas in the ranks of the EFF. The gross narcissism and venality characteristic of its public ‘representatives’ is embodied in the self-regarding personality cult of its leaders, who clearly directed this cynical and contemptable assault in Parliament.

Left unchallenged, the Red Shirts may well turn into the Black shirts who brought war and misery to Europe and much of the world.

The ANC Veterans League condemns the behaviour of EFF unruly elements who have disgraced the people’s parliament and if not stopped on their tracks this will definitely undermine the authority and stature our parliament.

Comrade Pravin Gordhan is an ANC veteran and a champion in the fight against State Capture, for which the ANC Veterans League salutes him. He and other brave comrades have exposed and fought the rot that has infested the democratic state, including the theft by the EFF’s top leaders of pensioners money held by VBS Mutual Bank.

As veterans and stalwarts of the movement who stood up to the agents of state capture even within the ranks of the ANC, the EFF’s alleged corrupt leaders and fellow travellers are put on notice that Comrade Pravin and other ANC leaders enjoy the full support and protection of the Veterans League as they pursue the criminals and political fraudsters in the ranks of the EFF and elsewhere.

The ANC VL calls on the Secretary General of the ANC to publicly and emphatically denounce this attack on Comrade Pravin Gordhan and assure him of the unqualified support of the movement.

Moreover, the SG should urgently direct the ANC Parliamentary Caucus to invoke Parliament’s most stringent rules of sanction against the EFF for this violation.

The EFF ‘s disruptive and despicable behaviour should not be allowed to continue as it undermines our values and is a threat to our hard earned constitutional democracy.

Issued by Snuki Zikalala
President of the ANC Veterans League

Minister Pravin Gordhan


1.On behalf of our client, Min Gordhan, we lodged an urgent application today to suspend and interdict enforcement of the remedial orders by the Public Protector and also to review her Report, No 36 of 2019/20 – “Report on an investigation into allegations of violation of the Executive Ethics Code by Mr Pravin Gordhan, MP as well as allegations of maladministration, corruption and improper conduct by the South African Revenue Services” (sic) (“the Report”).

2. In summary, the application is undertaken for the following reasons:
In terms of the Public Protector Act, the Public Protector must justify or provide “special circumstances” to entertain any complaints regarding events or conduct that is more than two years old. Despite repeated requests for an explanation on what “special circumstances” she relied on for this investigation of matters from as far back as 2007, none has been forthcoming;
The Public Protector misunderstands the law to arrive at a pre-determined outcome relating to the powers of intelligence services. There is no legal obstacle to SARS establishing an investigative unit to deal with the tax implications of organized crime and illicit trade like cigarette smuggling. In fact, this capacity is being re-established thanks to the findings and recommendations of the Nugent Commission of Inquiry;

The Report ignores facts and their significance to reach its findings regarding the establishment of the SARS investigative unit. Among these are the discredited Sikhakhane panel report and its erroneous legal reasoning, the Sunday Times’ apology in April 2016 for its reporting relating to the SARS unit, Judge Kroon’s apology to the members of the unit for not interrogating the issues and making wrong findings, KPMG’s withdrawal of its report and refunding of the fees earned for it.

The Public Protector misapplies the provisions of the Constitution and applicable legislation when making adverse findings. For example, section 209 of the Constitution regulates the establishment of intelligence services. It does not prevent SARS from establishing an investigative unit.

3. The application by Min Gordhan also seeks to review and set aside the Report and have it declared unlawful, unconstitutional, irrational and invalid. (Part B of the Notice of Motion)

Part A
4. Among other things, the court is asked to:
declare that the Public Protector’s remedial orders are suspended, until the judicial review of the Report is concluded; and
interdict the Office of the Public Protector (first respondent) and Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane (second respondent) from enforcing the remedial orders until a judicial review of the Report is concluded.

Part B
5. In terms of Part B an order is sought in the following terms:

It is declared that the Public Protector, and Advocate Mkhwebane personally, acted in breach of their constitutional duties to be independent and to exercise their powers and perform their functions without fear, favour or prejudice.
It is declared that the Public Protector, and Advocate Mkhwebane personally, dishonestly or, alternatively, recklessly made her findings in the Report against Min Gordhan, in that they knew that the findings were false or were reckless as to their truth.
The Public Protector, and Advocate Mkhwebane personally, are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the applicant’s cost on the scale of between attorney and client.

6. As Min Gordhan states in his affidavit:

“228 Finally, whilst I have great respect for the Office of the Public Protector I doubt the competence, integrity, legal literacy and constitutional grasp of its incumbent of her powers, duties and functions.

“229 Whilst it is unfortunate that these sentiments must be expressed, I maintain that the suspension and interdict will be in the overall interests of justice because I strongly doubt the bona fides of the Public Protector in investigating and issuing the Report. The Public Protector has confirmed that I am the subject of three ongoing investigations by her office, I am not aware of anyone who has been singled out and pursued by her Office in this way…

“231 Instead of dealing with the pressing complaints of citizens, she is using the office for ulterior motives or the political motives of others. My belief is that the resources of this esteemed office are best employed doing what it was constitutionally envisioned to do i.e. protect the public from ongoing maladministration and not abused for improper and blatantly political motives.

“232 The competence and credibility of the Public Protector and her understanding of the Constitution have already been negatively pronounced on by Courts. Above, I discuss in detail the adverse costs order that has been made in respect of her, the scathing critique by the Courts made against her and the applicants who have successfully interdicted the release of her reports, because she denied them procedural fairness, or have had those reports set aside on the basis that her findings were unconstitutional and unlawful…


“234 In light of what is set out above, Adv Mkhwebane should be ordered to pay the costs of this review application personally and on a punitive scale.

“234.1 Once again, she has demonstrated that she is unfit to hold the Office of Public Protector.

“234.2 She continues to ignore her constitutional mandate, act without regard to the provisions of the law and seemingly in service to some other motive or agenda.

“234.3 Her conduct is the latest example of her now lengthy history of acting incompetently, unlawfully, unconstitutionally, unfairly and unjustifiably.

“234.4 An adverse costs order would be one way for this Court to join in those earlier efforts to correct her approach to her important work.

“234.5 Indeed, her seeming lack of reflection on her role and powers in light of those other decisions is a further basis for the costs order against Adv Mkhwebane.

“234.6 The taxpayers of South Africa should not have to continue to fund her unlawful conduct.



In response to a request from the chairperson of KPMG International, Mr John Veihmeyer, Mr Pravin Gordhan and Mr Mcebisi Jonas met with a KPMG delegation led by Mr Veihmeyer. The new CEO for KPMG South Africa, Ms Nhlamu Dlomu, also attended.

Mr Jonas and I indicated that while we have agreed to meet KPMG, we reserve our legal rights. We shared our strong feelings and disapproval of the manner in which KPMG SA has been involved in the validation of state capture and corruption in respect of both the South African Revenue Service (SARS) and companies of the Gupta family. KPMG has a moral duty to account for their conduct to the South African public and they have to be frank and transparent in their disclosures if they wish to restore their own reputation.

We insisted on full and proper disclosure of the role of various parties in the state capture project and the manner in which KPMG staff seem to have colluded in these processes – including the complete disregard shown by the management of KPMG. The KPMG delegation asked that we recognize their commitment to SA.

Clearly, given the inadequacy of their earlier statement on Friday last week, further steps need to be taken by KPMG to be more open and frank with South Africans. This will determine whether KPMG can earn the respect and confidence of both corporates and the audit profession on the one hand, and the South African public on the other.