‘EFF grabs any opportunity to attack Gordhan’
THE intentions of Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng have been questioned after he raised an issue that happened almost five years ago.
Last Monday and Tuesday, the chief justice was presiding over the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) interviews with the candidates vying for two spots in the Constitutional Court.
One of those interviewed was Judge Dhaya Pillay.
Justice Mogoeng had said that in 2016, Pravin Gordhan, who was the finance minister at the time, had approached him on matters that he could not recall. He said that in passing, Gordhan had asked him how his friend, Judge Pillay, had performed in an interview with the JSC for a post on the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Following the chief justice’s claims, Julius Malema, the leader of the EFF, who was representing his party at the JSC, questioned Judge Pillay on her relationship with Gordhan.
She said they were friends.
“Do you think it enhances the good image of the judiciary to have judges befriending politicians?” asked Malema.
Judge Pillay said Gordhan was someone she had known for a long time.
“My association with him has never affected my work and will not, going forward. I have made judgments against the Treasury and against Sars and it has never been a problem.”
Last Wednesday, the next day, members of the EFF went to Hillbrow police station in Joburg where Floyd Shivambu, the party’s deputy president, laid corruption charges against Gordhan.
In a statement released by the EFF, Gordhan is accused of attempting to influence the appointment of Judge Pillay. “… His undeniable backing of Judge Dhaya Pillay to assume one of the two vacancies at the Constitutional (Court) reveals as premeditated capture of the judiciary of South Africa by a corrupt cabal of lapdogs.
“... If judges are friends with prominent politicians and have these politicians inquire about their career aspirations while holding shares in major banks that are frequently in dispute with ordinary citizens, then we must fear for the worst.”
The EFF believes that Gordhan orchestrated the meeting with Justice Mogoeng in 2016. The party warned that it would report Gordhan to the public protector for breaching the Executive Ethics Act, in that he attempted to
unduly influence a sitting chief justice.
The EFF also said it would report Judge Pillay for misconduct and bias to the Judicial Conduct Committee.
“These two individuals are indicative of a possible rot in our judiciary that must be speedily exposed, and part of this is the unsealing of the CR17 documents.”
Gordhan sent a letter to the JSC last Wednesday to provide clarity on his meeting with the chief justice.
He said the meeting was to discuss, among others, matters relating to recommendations of the commission on the remuneration of public office bearers, and the separation of the budget of the judiciary from the Department of Justice.
It was also to discuss the judgment of the Constitutional Court in the matter of the EFF and the DA against the Speaker of the National Assembly.
“Judge Pillay is a friend and comrade of long-standing. She was also the partner of the late Mr Yunus Mahomed (who died in 2008), a close comrade in the anti-apartheid Struggle and with whom I worked in the formation of civics, in the UDF, and in the ANC underground in the 1970s and 1980s.
“As I recall, after the completion of the cordial discussion on the matter for which the meeting was requested, I, in passing, did refer to Judge Pillay’s interview with the JSC. The CJ (chief justice) responded. I then left.”
He said the inquiry, at the time, was purely incidental to the purpose of the meeting.
“I want to state emphatically that I would never, and nor did I in any way, seek to influence the chief justice, whose independence I have always respected.”
Professor Bheki Mngomezulu, a political analyst, said Gordhan’s question to Justice Mogoeng on Judge Pillay seemed like an honest question about a friend.
“It seemed as though it was a by the way thing, just to check on his friend and not to push a political motive,” said Mngomezulu.
“If the chief justice felt that it was unacceptable, he would have raised it at that time. Why keep quiet for so long if you felt it odd? My question would be, what would you accomplish by raising it now? He should have told the JSC earlier if it really bothered him.”
Mngomezulu said the charges brought by the EFF were the party’s way of attacking Gordhan.
“If you look back at the history of the EFF and Gordhan, you will notice that the party grabs any opportunity that comes its way to pounce on Gordhan.”
Speaking on Pillay, Mngomezulu said while she was acting at the Constitutional Court, it did not mean she was set to get the JSC position.
“The general assumption if a person is acting is that they would be fit for the position. However, the position was open and others applied and maybe someone who was seen to be better equipped got the position.
“Judge Pillay is very skilled and knowledgeable but she was also questioned about other factors in her life and that could have impacted on her not getting the position. Sometimes people don’t just take your academics into consideration but also the surrounding circumstances.”
Sanusha Naidu, another analyst said the timing of the incident was interesting.
“We were not in the room when the conversation happened. We are told they met to discuss certain topics but other than that we don’t know what was said.”
She said the EFF was raising a critical question on the separation of powers.
“In our democracy, we need to have a separation of powers and a judicial inquiry should evaluate the situation.”
Ashok Chandrika, the convener of the Merebank Justice Network, said: “The charges may have unintended consequences for the chief justice as he may be required to testify or at least clarify his comments. He will then have to improve his recall of the events to clear the air and set the record straight.”