IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT PRETORIA CASE NO. 8550/09

In the matter between:

PIKOLI, VUSUMZI PATRICK Applicant

And

THE PRESIDENT First Respondent
THE SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY Second Respondent
THE CHAIR OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES Third Respondent

SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT: BS MABANDLA

I, the undersigned,

BRIGITTE SYLVIA MABANDLA

do hereby make oath and state that:

1. I am an adult female, and the Minister of Public Enterprises in the Government of the Republic of South Africa I held the position of Minister in the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development until 25 September 2008.

2. The facts deposed to in this affidavit fall within my personal knowledge and are both true and correct, unless otherwise stated or the converse appears from the context.

3. I understand that the applicant seeks to review and set aside the first respondent's decision to relieve him of his responsibilities as National Director of Public Prosecutions. I furthermore understand that the decision was based -

3.1. on the report of the Ginwala Commission of Enquiry into his suspension from office

3.2. and on the written representations submitted to him by the applicant following an invitation to this effect.

4. In the founding affidavit, the applicant makes certain factual averments about the nature and content of his relationship with me and the officials in the Department. I am advised that it is unnecessary for me to deal with these averments since they are relevant only to the extent that they are reflected in the materials that served before the first respondent when his decision was made. The nature and content of the relationship was made the subject of careful consideration in the Ginwala enquiry and her conclusions of fact are recorded in her comprehensive report. In these proceedings I see no reason to differ from those conclusions and I am simply content to record that, insofar as the applicant makes allegations at odds with them, I do not accept those allegations as correct

5. At paragraph 244.1 of the founding affidavit, the applicant alleges that I was guilty of a ‘blatant and grossly unlawful attempt to stop the arrest and prosecution of Mr Selebi (cf paragraph 112). For this allegation, no facts are alleged that travel beyond the terms of the letter itself. My motive in writing this letter was fully considered in the Ginwala enquiry and the conclusion to which the Commission arrives does not bear out the intemperate language used by the applicant, still less the insinuation that I was bent on bringing a complete halt to the Selebi prosecution. The standpoint I was taking emerges clearly from the letter itself.

6. These allegations are made in a section of the founding affidavit headed ‘the President's ulterior purpose'. It is for this court, of course, to pronounce on whether such a purpose existed when the first respondent made his decision, and this is a matter on which I have nothing of evidential value to contribute. Given the context in which the averments concerning me are being made, however, I must firmly record that I personally harbou red no such a purpose. I must also record that I know of no one who did. Personally, I have no reason to doubt that the first respondent made his decision on the grounds recorded in the letter of termination (Record 563).

7. In paragraph 244.2, the applicant says that I was aware that there was no breakdown in the relationship between us. At a personal level, this is true, since there is no personal animosity between us; but it is not true at the professional level. The way that the applicant communicated with me was not satisfactory, and ultimately I could not be sure that he understood how his role properly articulated with mine. On this score I fully endorse the findings of the Ginwala Commission and say, as a matter of tact that at the time of the suspension, I no longer entertained confidence in the applicant's handling of his portfolio.

8. More generally, I should say that I have read the affidavit tiled by the first respondent and can confirm the allegations he makes concerning the process leading up to Ginwala enquiry and the content of the enquiry itself.

DEPONENT

PRETORIA, May 11 2009

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter