Daily Dispatch
Abrahams fails to convince
FINANCE Minister Pravin Gordhan was given until 5pm yesterday to make representations to the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Shaun Abrahams as to why he should not be prosecuted for fraud and theft.
The deadline was set after Abrahams publicly announced the criminal charges against Gordhan, former SA Revenue Services commissioner Oupa Magashula and Gordhan’s former deputy, Ivan Pillay.
Rightfully Gordhan made it clear he would not accede to Abraham’s request, primarily because he had “no confidence in Abrahams’s ability to afford him a fair hearing”.
No one is saying Gordhan is above the law. In fact, his decision not to make representations to Abrahams demonstrates his willingness to subject himself to the courts. But are the prosecutors on solid ground?
Increasingly it would seem that the decision to charge the minister has more to do with politics than with law.
And Abrahams’ ostensible olive branch to Gordhan looks to be nothing but an insincere attempt to save face after the public outcry at the news of Gordhan’s charging.
Now Abrahams would have the country believe he had nothing to do with the decision to charge Gordhan.
He told journalists and also the National Assembly portfolio committee on justice that the decision to charge Gordhan had been taken by the acting Special Director of Public Prosecutions Torie Pretorius and the Gauteng director of Public Prosecutions, Advocate Sibongile Mzinyathi.
He went on to tell MPs he was open to receive representations from Gordhan’s legal team as per Section 22 (2) of the National Prosecutions Act.
Perhaps Abrahams thought this aboutturn would absolve him of all responsibility. If anything it shows his weakness as a leader and his unsuitability for the position he holds.
As a seasoned prosecutor one would have expected Abrahams to consider representations from the accused before proceeding to announce the charges – especially given the stature of those involved and the consequences of charging the sitting finance minister of Africa’s most developed economy.
Also, if Abrahams was not convinced about the strength of the case against Gordhan and the others, why did he agree to charge them at all? Even if the decision to press charges was made by his subordinates, the ultimate decision to prosecute or not rests with Abrahams.
Once again we must ask, why charge first and then seek answers thereafter?
Abrahams’ behaviour lends itself to the narrative that he is a pliant pawn in the Jacob Zuma machinery, a useful instrument to target the president’s enemies, real or imagined.
His belated invitation to Gordhan and the others comes after the damage has been done – to Gordhan’s and the country’s reputation and to the currency.
At a time when our economy is under so much pressure, the last thing we need is a finance minister having to face frivolous charges that should never have come before a court to begin with.
And there is the not so small point that if anyone should be making representations before Abrahams it should be the man who has 783 counts of fraud and corruption hanging over his head.