INSIDE POLITICS TEAM|
IN a desperate bid to defend himself from explosive claims of interfering with the independence of the judiciary, Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan has denied ever trying to influence Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng to appoint his friend, Dhaya Pillay, to fill a position as a judge at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).
Gordhan’s denial comes on the day the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) opened a case of corruption against him with the Hillbrow police for abusing his authority by trying to influence the Chief Justice to appoint Pillay as a judge.
The case of corruption against Gordhan also comes at a time in South Africa where there are deep suspicions that the judiciary was ‘captured’ by powerful business interests, including senior members of the African National Congress (ANC).
Former president Jacob Zuma accused judges of the Constitutional Court of a personal vendetta against him, saying the Zondo Commission has become a complex project controlled by his political foes.
In a statement, Gordhan denied that he tried to influence the Chief Justice when they met in Cape Town, Western Cape.
“I do not have a complete recollection of the matter which I needed to discuss: it could have been receiving clarity on the judgement referred in 4 above and, or, the matter of the Tax Ombud,” said Gordhan in a statement.
He added: “I want to state emphatically that I would never, and nor did I in any way, seek to influence the Chief Justice or the JSC in the appointment of judges, whose independence I have always respected.”
“As a member of the Executive branch of the state, I am very conscious of the fact that our democracy is based on the separation of powers and the relative independence of the judiciary, legislature and executive. Any misrepresentation, willfully or not, of the 6 April 2016 meeting with the Chief Justice, by political actors who want to defend state capture and corruption, is highly regrettable.”
On Tuesday, Mogoeng revealed that Gordhan had met with him five years ago and asked about the performance of his close friend Judge Dhaya Pillay who was seeking a position at the SCA at the time.
Mogoeng made the claim while ‘grilling’ Pillay during interviews for Constitutional Court judge candidates.
However, Gordhan said the meeting with Mogoeng, which took place in April 2016, was not held to discuss judge Pillay’s interview with the JSC.
Gordhan, who was Finance Minister at the time, said his reference to judge Pillay during his 2016 meeting with Mogoeng was “purely incidental”.
“I did not meet the Chief Justice in April 2016 to discuss Judge Pillay. The enquiry about Judge Pillay was purely incidental to the purpose of the meeting. In any event, as the Chief Justice himself indicated, the JSC, by the time I met him: “It was public knowledge that you (Judge Pillay) did not make it”,” said Gordhan.
Meanwhile, Zuma, in a letter to the Chief Justice, condemned political comments made by judge Pillay in one of her judgments involving him.
“My decision not to participate in the contempt of court proceedings was based on my belief that my participation would not change the atmosphere of judicial hostility and humiliation reflected in its judgment against me,” said Zuma.
“It is my view or my feeling that the judges of the Constitutional Court do not intend to ensure that they address disputes involving me in a manner that accords with the independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility, and effectiveness of the Court.”
He added: “One of the astonishing facts is indeed the presence of Acting Justice D Pillay as a member of the panel of the Constitutional Court considering my dispute, a judicial officer whose judicial antipathy towards me is well recorded in a court judgment and an order for my arrest while I was in hospital, sitting comfortably as a panelist pretending to exercise impartial judicial authority in a case that would determine whether I should be arrested and imprisoned for not complying with a court order.”
“I found the participation of Acting Justice Pillay particularly disturbing and a clear indication of her unmitigated lack of discretion and a deeply irresponsible exercise of judicial power. Her gratuitous comments in a judgment against me in a dispute involving my comments on Derek Hanekom and her subsequent refusal to accept a medical note from a qualified doctor justifying my absence from a court in which my criminal trial was not scheduled to begin are a matter of public record.”
- Inside Politics
