Des Van Rooyen. Picture:Itumeleng English
Former finance minister Des van Rooyen has written, through his lawyers, to the State Capture Commission about some of the allegations levelled against him in the first part of the State Capture report.
It was addressed to Professor Itumeleng Mosala, which was handed to President Cyril Ramaphosa on January 4 this year. The letter refers to paragraphs 260 to 266, which appear in Volume 1 of the report and which deals with the South African Airways Soc Limited (SAA) and its subsidiaries.
“We refer in particular to the evidence of Dr Dahwa at the Commission in relation to Mr Van Rooyen. In paragraph 264 it is stated that Dr Dahwa testified that Mr Van Rooyen explained that the Mkonto weSizwe Military Veterans Association (MKMVA), wanted to do business with SAA and particularly with respect to two contracts, namely security provision and the Amadeus contract extension,” the letter read.
The lawyer's letter said that the paragraph concludes stating that van Rooyen insisted that the two tenders be awarded to two particular companies related to MKMVA.
The letter further stated that paragraph 266 of the report read that van Rooyen received a rule 3.3 notice ahead of Dr Masimba Dahwa’s evidence.
Van Rooyen’s lawyer’s said he did not make any application in terms of rule 3.4 of the Commission’s Rules and that Dahwa’s evidence on this aspect is therefore uncontested.
“We wish to put it on record that our instructions are that Mr Van Rooyen did not receive a rule 3.3 notice from the Commission in regard to the evidence of Dahwa, which implicated him,” added the letter.
It further said that neither Van Rooyen nor his attorneys at the Commission received any communication from the Commission in regard to the evidence of Dahwa.
Van Rooyen’s lawyers said that it was only after reading the report that they became aware for the first time that Dahwa gave evidence at the Commission, which implicated him.
“It is also important to note that whilst Mr Van Rooyen testified at the Commission, he was asked questions both by the Commission’s legal team and the chairperson of the Commission. He was not asked any questions in relation to the evidence of Dahwa. In the above regard, we have instructions from Mr Van Rooyen to demand that the Commission provides us with proof that he received a rule 3.3 notice as stated in paragraph 266 of Volume 1 of the Report within 14 days from the date of this letter. This letter will be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission by means of an email,” said the letter.
The attorney’s letter said that the Commission does not have proof that Van Rooyen received a rule 3.3 notice from it. They have instructions to demand that the report be corrected within 30 days of the date of this letter -- failing which Van Rooyen may approach a court of law for the review of the relevant part of the report -- without any further notice.
“We accordingly request that this letter be brought to the attention of the chairperson of the Commission with immediate effect.
“We wish to let you know that this letter is a follow-up to an email, which we addressed to Mr Sakhile Masuku for the attention of the Secretary of the Commission on January 5, 2022 at 13:12, requesting proof that Mr Van Rooyen was served with rule 3.3 notice as alleged in the report,” the letter said.
The lawyer said that Masuku replied to their email on the same date at 21:41, informing us that the email had been forwarded to the Secretary of the Commission. On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 09:48, they said that they also sent a follow-up email to Masuku , requesting an urgent progress report to our request of January 5, 2022. We did not receive any reply to that email. Hence this formal letter.
“We are looking forward to receiving your reply at your earliest convenience and as stated in paragraph 6 of this letter, not later than 14 days from the date of this letter,” the letter concluded.
Related Topics: