Pravin has the last laugh

NPA head Shaun Abrahams’ flip-flop on prosecuting Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan for fraud and theft has backfired – with calls mounting for his removal and a judicial commission of inquiry into the events leading up to Gordhan being formally charged.

The national director of public prosecution’s decision was hailed yesterday by civil society as a victory in the fight against “state capture” and political interference.

Business leaders also came out in support, with the SA Chamber of Commerce saying: “This matter has occupied the psyche of the public and international markets, and has caused unnecessary uncertainty and disruption.”

Three weeks after telling South Africa that his prosecutors had “applied their minds to the facts” and “considered all factors” in the charging of Gordhan and former SA Revenue Services commissioners Ivan Pillay and Oupa Magashula, Abrahams announced the charges against the trio had been dropped.

They were charged over Gordhan’s approval of a decision to grant Pillay early retirement and to be rehired as a consultant. The early retirement saw Pillay receive a R1-million payout.

In his announcement Abrahams threw the Hawks under the bus, suggesting the charges would not have been laid had there been “proper engagement and cooperation” between the trio and the Hawks.

Abrahams said the case was blown out of the water by the surfacing of a 2014 legal opinion by SARS director of law Vlok Symington, which saw Pillay’s early retirement approved.

The three were scheduled to appear in court tomorrow.

Abrahams said he only became aware of the opinion from submissions made by Pillay, Freedom Under Law and Helen Suzman Foundation on October 17 and October 18.

“If the Hawks submit a docket to us and they say the investigation is complete, it is incumbent upon us to analyse the material and to direct further investigations,” he said.

The Hawks have been reluctant to respond to Abrahams’ accusation.

“The decision was taken after more information came to light.

“This is normal process. We accept and respect the decision of the director,” said Hawks spokesman Brigadier Hangwani Mulaudzi in an SMS.

Abrahams denied any incompetence on his part, saying he will have to “look into whether someone’s head must roll in connection with this matter”.

However, a number of commentators have suggested it is Abrahams whose head should be on the chopping block.

Chairmen of the Law Society of South Africa, Mvuzo Notyesi and Jan van Rensburg, said they would call on parliament to initiate an investigation into the Hawks actions or alternatively for a judicial commission of inquiry to be established.

“We are gravely disappointed that a matter of such magnitude and implication was decided without first obtaining all necessary information and that the charges were instituted in the first place.”

They said the about-turn appeared to be consistent with the perception that it was politically motivated.

“The Society urges Abrahams to consider his position in the light of the severe consequences his actions had on our economy.

“Abrahams seems oblivious to and unrepentant for the damage – both at home and internationally – caused by the unsubstantiated charge of fraud brought against Gordhan.

“When the charges relate to fraud or theft by a high-profile individual such as the Minister of Finance, the prosecutions director should have made doubly certain of the facts before inflicting the trauma he has on the economy and the image of the country as well as the public,” they said in a statement.

Freedom Under Law said: “We are profoundly disappointed that Abrahams still does not understand the enormity of what the Hawks and his staff have done.”

The lobby group say there was never any proof of intention to commit a crime.

Criminal law expert Ulrich Roux said Abrahams had failed the basic necessity of prosecution.

“He says he only became aware of the on October 18 but the report has been available since 2014.

“It is pure incompetence.”

Wits University law professor James Grant said: “The crucial question they should have asked, and did not, was what was Gordhan’s intention at the time of his decision to allow Pillay early retirement.

“Any reasonable prosecutor would have insisted that their investigators thoroughly investigate the basis for Gordhan’s decision.”

Political analyst Steven Friedman said the saga surrounding the charges against Gordhan should be viewed in light of battles within the ruling ANC for access to the Treasury.

“They have failed and will never succeed. There are just too many obstacles, also because we have courts that work. This also happens in other countries where people try to have access to Treasury,” he said.