MPs defy minister’s threat
• Public enterprises committee reacts strongly to threat to report state-capture inquiry leader to the Bar council
MPs on the public enterprises committee — which is conducting an inquiry into state capture at Eskom, Transnet and Denel — have rejected what they see as an attempt at intimidation by Public Enterprises Minister Lynne Brown.
They reacted strongly to a letter from the state attorney on behalf of the Department of Public Enterprises that threatened to report the evidence leader at the inquiry, Ntuthuzelo Vanara, to the General Council of the Bar for the allegedly procedurally unfair manner in which he is conducting the inquiry.
On Wednesday, MPs expressed confidence in Vanara, who has rejected the allegation.
Senior counsel Wim Trengove has advised Parliament that committees are empowered to undertake investigations and to determine their own processes, procedures and methods of work, limited only by the requirement of rationality. Brown expressed concern about the inquiry even before it began.
Brown and Deputy Public Enterprises Minister Ben Martins reiterated their concern after suspended Eskom legal and compliance head Suzanne Daniels alleged Martins had attended a meeting with Ajay Gupta and Gupta associate Salim Essa earlier in 2017. Martins has denied the claim.
The committee’s view was that Brown and Martins’s comments were an unjustified attack on Parliament.
Those implicated by evidence would be called to present their case, the committee has said. ANC chief whip Jackson Mthembu agreed that the attacks on Vanara were “unwarranted, misplaced, unfair and must be condemned”.
In his legal opinion, Trengove noted that Brown had addressed two letters to the committee in August and October, raising possible conflicts of interest of members of the committee, such as former finance minister Pravin Gordhan.
Trengove said he saw no reason why Gordhan should withdraw from the inquiry as “the committee does not perform a judicial or adjudicative function. Its members are … not subject to any requirement of independence or impartiality.
The mere fact that a member of the committee has expressed strong views about or has particular knowledge of the matters under investigation does not disqualify him or her.”
Brown also cautioned against the inquiry contravening the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary as former Eskom CEO Brian Molefe’s court case is due to be heard in the high court at the end of November. Trengove noted that Parliament and the judiciary were institutions of equal standing, with neither one trumping the other. “There is no rule that says that Parliament may not inquire into and report on a matter merely because it also happens to be before the courts.
“The portfolio committee is … not in any way restricted in its inquiry into the conduct of Mr Brian Molefe, even if it overlaps with the issues before the court,” Trengove said.
Brown also suggested that Vanara might be conflicted in that he was a member of the ethics committee dealing with her parliamentary reply on the money Eskom paid to Trillian.
MPS EXPRESSED CONFIDENCE IN VANARA, WHO HAS REJECTED THE ALLEGATION MEMBERS ARE … NOT SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENT OF INDEPENDENCE OR IMPARTIALITY