Inquiry wanted

It is rushed and will delay justice, inevitably. I’ve now thrown my hands in the air after warning her about imminent legal action if that report is released without my clients being adequately represented.”

Madonsela’s report, billed as an investigation into “state capture”, emanates from a Democratic Alliance request on March 18 to investigate breaches of the executive ethics code by Zuma, allegedly enabling the Guptas to offer ministerial positions on his behalf.

The public protector’s office could not be reached for comment.

Responding to M&G questions before news of interdict broke, Ngqulunga said the president “has not used his position to inappropriatelybenefit any company, individual or group of persons. Any suggestion to the contrary is malicious and cannot be corroborated by facts.”

Correspondence between Madonsela and Zuma shows that, four days after the DA request, on March 22, she wrote to the president informing him of the investigation and asking for his input.

The scope of Madonsela’s investigation involves:

Minister Mcebisi Jonas and former ANC MP Vytjie Mentor (who chaired the portfolio committee on public enterprises) that they were offered Cabinet positions by the Guptas. Both have publicly confirmed that they had rejected the offers. Mentor had previously said Zuma was on the property when the Guptas allegedly offered her a Cabinet post;

claims that Mbalula had told confidants that he first learned of his

beforehand that Van Rooyen be appointed as minister of finance on December 9 2015 when Nene was controversially axed.

The‘special advisers’

Allegations against Van Rooyen’s “special advisers” have been aired in a titanic court battle between two fund managers, Regiments Capital and Trillian Capital Partners.

Regiments owners Litha Nhyonyha and Magandheran Pillay are locked in a bitter battle to protect their company’s interests from the clutches of a former partner whom they describe as nothing short of a Gupta mole. The pair claim that Eric Wood, who cofounded the company with them, allegedly diverted millions of rands in lucrative Transnet deals to his new company before they split up.

They have brought a delinquency application against Wood, who they claimed had leaked secret company information to third parties including his new business partner, Salim Essa, a Gupta associate. Papers were filed at the high court in Johannesburg this week.

Court papers contain startling allegations of how Wood, a director of Trillian Capital Partners — a company in which Essa owns a 60% stake — hatched a back-door plan to score off Regiments’ Transnet contracts.

Wood has denied any wrongdoing and has confirmed that he will oppose this application.

In court papers, Nhyonyha and Pillay say they had refused an offer by the Guptas to buy a majority stake in their company last year.

The next thing they knew, Wood, after joining Essa in the new company, was writing speeches for Van Rooyen after he was moved to the cooperative governance ministry.

Court papers allege that:

input in his first-ever speech as a minister on December 14, a day after he was removed as minister of finance;

the minister of rural development and land reform, Gugile Nkwinti, found its way to Wood through Bobat on December 12 2015, who sent Wood “an apparent PowerPoint presentation”; and

exist between Van Rooyen and his “special advisers” through Wood, who would then keep Essa in the loop on government business.

Van Rooyen, citing the “sub judice” rule, declined to comment on the Regiments claims and said he would not comment on Madonsela’s investigation until it was concluded.

Regiments only became aware of Bobat being appointed as Van Rooyen’s adviser through the media.

Court papers state that, when the media questioned Bobat about his appointment, the questions were forwarded to Wood who, six minutes later, sent them to Essa.

Wood is challenging the application to have him declared a delinquent director and said he has a similar application pending against his former partners.

Meanwhile, Zuma has made demands of his own before he will respond to Madonsela’s request for information on “evidence implicating him”.

The presidency issued a statement earlier this week, before the interdict was issued, urging Madonsela not to release her report until such time as she has complied with his requests, which include questioning witnesses in the case.

The public protector’s probe centres largely on Zuma’s relationship with the Guptas and whether he has done anything to favour their business dealings. The interdict application is scheduled to be heard at the Pretoria high court on Tuesday. “It all looks quite suspicious and, of course, concerning, because of its impact on the South African economy but also the impact on the credibility of the ANC and its standing in the public. He shouldn’t resign if all those suspicions he holds about the shenanigans might be accurate … because this might precisely be the intention of the charges.”

ANC NEC member and Deputy Health Minister Joe Phaahla:

“It’s a shame. [What’s happening] is not different to what happened in 2003, when the NPA [National Prosecuting Authority] said they have a case [against Zuma] but not a winnable case. This thing does not have credibility. He [NPA boss Shaun Abrahams] is under pressure. Fruitless expenditure is the competence of the auditor general. I have no doubt in my mind that somebody has put pressure on Abrahams. This is about getting rid of Pravin.”

ANC chief whip in Parliament Jackson Mthembu:

“We will be with him, some of us all the way, to wherever he’s going. We will accompany him there if need be‚ to the courts‚ as an ANC com- “To threaten to arrest him at this time, when the economy is in trouble, is bloody foolish. The minister is driving the economy in the right direction … Why threaten to arrest somebody who is doing a good job? Pravin has my support. I have faith in him.” — City Press, October 13

South African Communist Party:

“The party has noted the denial of any political involvement in this matter, but also that after assuring Gordhan that he was not a suspect and then pausing for the local government elections, the matter was suddenly back on the table just after the elections. The timing has an eerie similarity with the events that unfolded between 2003 and 2007, when the timing of another prosecution against a senior politician appeared to be co-ordinated around a political calendar.”