Johan van Loggerenberg, the former Group Executive Head of the South African Revenue Service has spoken about the toll that he had to carry with the ‘rogue unit’ label. Not only did he lose his job, but the charges against him, SARS Deputy Commissioner Ivan Pillay and Andries Janse van Rensburg of illegally intercepting communications at SARS led to the deterioration of his health and Van Loggerenberg could no longer afford to pay for his mother’s home. Last week the criminal charges against the three were finally withdrawn by the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Shamila Batohi. The so-called ‘Rogue Unit at SARS’ was a narrative used by the state capturers since 2014 and became the weapon of Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, who is accusing Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan of illegally establishing the unit when he was SARS Commissioner. But, the fable of the rogue unit at SARS is slowly being deleted as the fightback against state capture gathers momentum. Bernard Hotz from Werksmans Attorneys who represented the three former SARS employees told Alec Hogg that the National Prosecution Authority was hopefully being restored under Batohi’s guidance. – Linda van Tilburg
Bernard Hotz said the saga between the NPA and his three clients had been going on for far too long and it is very encouraging that the case had been dropped. His clients welcomed the decision. Hotz said it was taken after they considered the detailed written representations that were submitted to Batohi’s office. Once the NPA had the opportunity to peruse black and white evidence as to why the case “should never ever have come out of the starting blocks at the outset”; they unanimously resolved that the charges should be withdrawn. He said the new NDPP is hopefully taking the NPA in a direction to restore the office to the strength that he would hope all law-abiding citizens in South Africa were yearning for.
Asked what this said about Batohi, Hotz said it was no secret that his clients were the victims of state capture. He said it was pure politicking and if you looked at the case as presented by the state, “there’s nothing , absolutely nothing… no evidence to back it up.” He said there were lists of witnesses that where going to testify against his clients, but if you looked at the docket; “there is not a smidgen of evidence.” He said when Batohi came in, he and his clients took the opportunity to put forward thorough representations which dealt with each and every aspect of the charges and the charges should never have arisen at the outset.
___STEADY_PAYWALL___
Responding to a question by Biznews founder Alec Hogg on why the “rogue unit” narrative was still being used by the Public Protector; Hotz said it begged the question as to why it was started in the first place and he re-iterated that his clients were the victims of state capture. ‘‘One can see clearly, you only need to read the Nugent report to see what happened to SARS and to see that what you have in my clients were loyal, dedicated, intelligent civil servants who were doing their job in the best interests of the country. That didn’t unfortunately gel with the agenda of those who were behind the decimation of SARS.”
Hotz said he had not had the opportunity to discuss the possibility of suing the state with his clients which could help to pay for the big legal bills they had to settle. He said if there had been a malicious prosecution, if people had behaved unlawfully; the law did allow one to seek justice. But he thought it was premature to consider compensation. He said his clients “were heaving a huge sigh of relief because justice at long lost had prevailed notwithstanding the traumatic past that each and every one of them and their families has had to navigate.”
Responding to calls by the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters Julius Malema that the case should go to court and that it should be presided over by a judge, Hotz said that according to the Criminal Procedure Act, an accused is afforded the opportunity to submit representations to the NDPP’s Office to reconsider whether or not a case should proceed. “And in fact, Malema has availed himself of this very opportunity on at least two occasions that have been well publicised.” He did this when there was an alleged case of assault, as well as the firing of a firearm.
“Why on earth should the court’s time be wasted when it is clear that there was not a smidgen of evidence put forward in the docket”, he said. Hotz said anybody with a legal mind who actually analysed the docket properly as a lawyer and the legal representations that had been put forward, would come to the unanimous resolution that the NDPP’s office came to. “Why should a court be burdened with such a matter that should never have started at the outset.” He said that was precisely what Malema was seeking to do in relation to the presentation that he put forward to the NDPP’s office.
