‘Moy­ane not en­ti­tled to lead SARS, Zuma's sup­port ir­rel­e­vant'

Observer on Saturday - - News -

Axed SA Rev­enue Ser­vice (SARS) com­mis­sioner Tom Moy­ane is "not en­ti­tled to lead SARS" and is "con­flat­ing his own per­sonal in­ter­ests with those of the coun­try," Pres­i­dent Cyril Ramaphosa says in his af­fi­davit re­spond­ing to Moy­ane’s court chal­lenge of his de­ci­sion to re­move him, Busi­ness Live re­ported.

Ramaphosa re­port­edly dis­missed former pres­i­dent Ja­cob Zuma’s in­ter­ven­tion in the case, de­scrib­ing Zuma’s af­fi­davit in sup­port of Moy­ane as "ir­rel­e­vant". He said he had com­pletely lost con­fi­dence in Moy­ane, who had "shown no re­spect" for his of­fice, ac­cord­ing to Busi­ness Live.

Zuma en­tered the fray over the fir­ing Moy­ane, say­ing Judge Robert Nu­gent was not asked to deal with the in­di­vid­ual con­tracts of em­ploy­ees at SARS, and there­fore could not rec­om­mend that Moy­ane be fired, News24 re­ported.

Zuma, in an af­fi­davit filed to the Con­sti­tu­tional Court on Novem­ber 18, con­firms that it was he, and not Ramaphosa, who called for a com­mis­sion of in­quiry into SARS.

The former pres­i­dent agrees with ar­gu­ments put for­ward by the cur­rent


pres­i­dent that Ramaphosa merely im­ple­mented the com­mis­sion. Ear­lier this month, Ramaphosa ac­cepted the rec­om­men­da­tion of Nu­gent, who headed up the in­quiry to look into the ad­min­is­tra­tion of the rev­enue ser­vice, that Moy­ane be axed.

Nu­gent's in­terim re­port found Moy­ane did not have the char­ac­ter of a per­son fit to lead SARS and should be im­me­di­ately re­moved from of­fice.

On Mon­day, the Con­sti­tu­tional Court dis­missed an ap­pli­ca­tion by Moy­ane to have the Nu­gent Com­mis­sion of In­quiry set aside, and his dis­missal over­turned, Fin24 re­ported.

The court or­der, dated Novem­ber 21, states, "The Con­sti­tu­tional Court has con­sid­ered this ap­pli­ca­tion, the an­swer­ing af­fi­davit, the re­ply­ing af­fi­davit of the ap­pli­cants and the af­fi­davits of Mr [Eric] Mabuza and the former pres­i­dent [Ja­cob] Zuma filed in sup­port of this ap­pli­ca­tion and de­cided to dis­miss the ap­pli­ca­tion be­cause ground for the en­gage­ment of its exclusive ju­ris­dic­tion have not been es­tab­lished. "Nor has a ba­sis been laid for di­rect ac­cess in view of the fact that the ap­pli­cant has other av­enues avail­able. The court has de­cided not to award costs."News24

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Swaziland

© PressReader. All rights reserved.