‘This attitude (against her) should not be allowed’

He added: “Can she (the public protector) walk freely without being called an enabler of state capture? This attitude should not be allowed.”

He added that Gordhan had a right to review the decision without tarnishing the image of the Public Protector.

Representing Ramaphosa, advocate Matthew Chaskalson, SC, maintained that Mkhwebane’s instruction for the president to take action against Gordhan and provide her with an implementation plan at a set time to avert a “constitutional crisis” was indicative of her “forcing” him to act and violate his duties as president.

Also jumping into the fray, Pillay, who is the eighth respondent in the matter and who is currently out of the country, through his lawyer, Ross Hutton, protested that his rights had been adversely affected by Mkhwebane’s reports, saying he supported Gordhan’s application.

Mkhwebane implicated him in misconduct, maladministration and criminality for establishing the alleged rogue unit.

Advocate Piet de Jager, speaking on behalf of former Sars head of human tesourced Oupa Magashula, said the finding by Mkhwebane against his client that he was guilty of perjury was far-fetched and irrational and should be set aside.

Magashula maintained that despite him informing Mkhwebane that he was not aware that a rogue unit existed when he was at Sars, her insistence that it did and to rope him into the saga had also tarnished his reputation.