Gordhan warns MP over SAA deal
Minister insists he is within his rights to take parliamentary report on review
Public enterprises minister Pravin Gordhan has become embroiled in a war of words with a DA MP who objected to his use of public money to take a parliamentary report on review.
The minister insists he is within his rights to take a report, compiled by the portfolio committee on public enterprises, on review if it concludes there were irregularities in the proposed deal to sell a 51% stake of the government’s holding in SAA. The committee wants the SIU to investigate the deal.
The Sunday Times has seen a letter Gordhan wrote to DA MP Mimmy Gondwe this week telling her she will fail in trying to bring him down, and that he will have the report reviewed.
This is the second member of that committee Gordhan has fallen out with over the SAA deal. He previously accused ANC MP and committee chair Khaya Magaxa of playing to the gallery and politicising a parliamentary process that is supposed to be free of any such influence.
Gordhan said the committee’s report, which calls for the SIU to investigate the now-abandoned deal, was irrational, legally flawed and replete with factual inaccuracies and lies.
He said allegations of irregularities in the SAA strategic equity partner (SEP) transaction were unfounded.
Gordhan argued that the SAA SEP transaction was undertaken by the department of public enterprises as directed by the cabinet, and that he had been requested by parliament to appear before the committee and share information with it in his official capacity.
“I have not appeared before parliament in my personal capacity. As a result, a review of the report will be done in my official capacity as the minister of public enterprises.
“Further, it is my legal right to take the report on review if I am advised that there is a legal basis for that. No-one, including you, will threaten me not to exercise my legal rights to take the report on review.”
He reiterated that his department had always co-operated with the committee and submitted to it the documents it was legally able to provide.
“Furthermore, the department submitted other documents subject to a confidentiality regime and requested that the documents be evaluated in an in-camera meeting.
“Therefore, your assertion in the statement that I wanted to keep the terms and conditions of the deal secret is wrong.”
Gordhan said Gondwe’s accusation that he has little or no respect for the legislative oversight role of parliament was very unfortunate. “It is disingenuous that you have chosen to be completely silent when given an opportunity [to speak] at the portfolio committee meetings, and [you are] only playing politics on the eve of elections.
“Let me remind you that on March 6 2024 you released a statement [saying] that you [would] no longer participate in the process of the committee regarding the SAA SEP transaction. It is clear that you have been directed by your party bosses to behave in this undignified way to make whatever capital you can as part of your party’s campaign. You will fail.”
Gondwe hit back, accusing Gordhan of demeaning her and her agency as a public representative by calling her “undignified”.
“As a member of parliament, elected on my own merit and on the basis of my capabilities, I do not take kindly to the insinuation made in your letter, where you appear to imply that I am incapable of thinking for myself and have to take ‘directions’ from some ‘party bosses’ to do my parliamentary work.”
Gondwe said the basis of her political statement was the simple fact that parliament’s oversight function would be neutralised if every time a member of the executive was not happy about something that person simply rushed off to court.
“I further reasoned that you [would] be setting a bad precedent that would poison the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature ... and [that this would lead to] the unnecessary waste of taxpayer money on frivolous litigation.”
Gondwe said members of the executive would get along well with parliament if they remained aware of its constitutional duty to hold the executive to account, and not the other way around.
“Bullying and attempting to intimidate MPs are red lines that should never be crossed by anyone, let alone a member of the executive.”