Van Der Merwe Associates releases letter on behalf of Mr. Ajay Gupta requesting the Public Protector follows proper process

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa, October 11, 2016/ -- Van Der Merwe Associates has released a letter on behalf of Mr. Ajay Gupta addressed to the Public Protector. Highlights include:

There has been full, proactive cooperation by Mr. Ajay Gupta with the Public Protector’s investigation

Mr Ajay Gupta’s evidence was given at his/his lawyer’s initiative – not the Public Protector’s

There is a significant anomaly: an investigation into the President, that involves and implicates the Gupta Family, didn’t even subpoena the Gupta brothers

The Public Protector’s Act clearly allows the questioning and cross-examination of witnesses who have given evidence before the Public Protector, and which is in Mr. Gupta’s rights. The Public Protector ignored this request and entitlement

The Public Protector still hasn’t provided a transcript of the interview with Mr. Ajay Gupta and Mr. Gupta was within his rights when this was requested

Mr. Gupta’s lawyer argues that the conduct of the Public Protector creates the impression that the Public Protector’s Office had a clear, pre-determined view of how its report would look and evidence gathered was window dressing for a decision reached long before Mr. Gupta’s version was heard or the Public Protector’s version could be tested

The Public Protector’s Office has ignored the Act responsible for its very existence

Any Report issued cannot be in good faith, and rather is an attempt to publicise Advocate Madonsela’s own views

The publicising of this letter is not an attempt to threaten or intimidate the Public Protector – instead it comes out of despair at the lack of proper process being followed – and the contravention of the Public Protector’s own Act - in an investigation of the utmost importance.

Letter from Van der Merwe and Associates to Public Protector Thuli Madonsela 11 October 2016

Dear Advocate Madonsela, Advocate Kanyane and others,

INVESTIGATION INTO IMPROPER AND UNETHICAL CONDUCT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AND OFFICIALS OF STATE ORGANS REGARDING THEIR ALLEGED INAPPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIP WITH MEMBERS OF THE GUPTA FAMILY: MR AJAY GUPTA

I have persistently indicated to your offices over the past few weeks that I am concerned about the fact that you have decided to side-line the Gupta family and witnesses in support of their version from your investigation and your report.

You are aware of the fact that you chose not to subpoena anyone of the three Gupta brothers to give evidence despite the fact that you intend to conclude a report which will in all likelihood have severe conclusions contained therein.

I approached your offices with correspondence and tendered the assistance and evidence of the Gupta brothers and it was on my initiative that Mr Ajay Gupta gave eviofc!nce on 4 October 2016 for several hours. Your Advocate Madonsela appeared agitated and irritated with our client and it is on record that I objected against various irregularities during these proceedings including my discomfort with your refusal to listen to the answers given by Mr Gupta whilst you had your eye on the clock in order to ensure your attendance at the media conference which was scheduled for 14h00. This is all on record and I have requested you to give us a transcribed version of the evidence of Mr Gupta, same still outstanding.

You have been aware of the fact that Mr Gupta would be out of the country from 6 October 2016 for approximately 1O(ten) days and despite the fact that I have insisted on your offices giving me the information I require to respond in detail to certain allegations the information was not given to me timeously and those facts are common cause and contained in correspondence I have sent you over the past few days.

I have indicated on numerous occasions that I would like to have the opportunity to address the witnesses who gave evidence before you and I insisted to be afforded the opportunity to exercise my client's rights for which provision is clearly made in the Public Protector Act, 1994.

You have brushed my correspondence off and did not even respond thereto.

I have warned constantly against your approach and the processes followed, all in vain just to be advised earlier this morning that you will issue your report on Friday.

It is obvious that you had a pre-determined view of how your report should look and I submit that the evidence you have gathered was gathered as window-dressing for your decision that you have taken before my clients' version_ could be heard or your version could be tested. You seem to ignore the Act responsible for your very existence and it leaves me flabbergasted.

I have considered launching an interdict application on an urgent basis but since the exact adverse conclusions you intend to make are only speculation at this point in time I do not want to put my client at risk and thereby create a fresh media hype which will in all likelihood be interpreted as an attempt to "threaten or intimidate" your offices.