MEDIA STATEMENT
1 Our client, Ivan Pillay, notes the publication of a report by the Public Protector in regard to his retirement during 2010.
2 On Tuesday this week Mr Pillay responded in detail, in the form of a sworn affidavit, to a notice sent to him by the Public Protector setting out her intended findings. In her published report the Public Protector has dismissed Mr Pillay’s detailed response out of hand.
3 Other implicated parties - Minister Pravin Gordhan and former SARS commissioner, Mr Oupa Magashula - also submitted their detailed rebuttals to the Public Protector in the past few days. Their contentions were similarly rejected out of hand by the Public Protector.
4 Mr Pillay has requested us to publicly release his affidavit which was submitted to the Public Protector. For ease of reference that is attached.
5 It is well documented that the issue of Mr Pillay's pension pay-out has been the subject of several processes and investigations that have all found nothing untoward with it at all. Among these are:
5.1 Before the then SARS Commissioner, Mr Magashula, submitted the proposal to the then Minister of Finance, he sought the advice of several pension experts and most importantly the advice of the Public Service Commission, who endorsed his proposal.
5.2 Before the Minister of Finance approved the Commissioner's proposal, the Minister sought the advice of pension experts other than those consulted by the Commissioner and the advice of the Minister of Public Administration at the time.
5.3 When Mr Tom Moyane took office as the SARS Commissioner in 2014, he commissioned a legal opinion from his attorneys who advised him that the pension pay-out was regular and lawful.
5.4 The National Prosecuting Authority sought to charge Messrs Pillay, Gordhan and Magashula in 2016. The National Director of Public Prosecutions, however, withdrew the charges in October 2016 on the ground that the intended prosecution had no prospect of success.
5.5 The Nugent Commission also considered the matter and found that the pension pay-out was regular and lawful.
6 All of this information, and more, was presented to the Public Protector in the course of her investigation. The Public Protector has, however, arrived at findings which are entirely at odds with this weighty body of legal opinion.
7 Mr Pillay emphatically disagrees with the findings made by the Public Protector. He believes that her findings are reviewable inasmuch as they are both factually and legally flawed. He intends to seek recourse in the courts. We are confident he will find justice there.
Statement issued by Mr Bernard Hotz, Director Werksmans Attorneys, 24 May 2019
