Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan’s refusal to make representation to National Director of Public Prosecutions Shaun Abrahams is not a violation of the law, a legal expert says.
On Monday‚ Abrahams said Gordhan’s co-accused Oupa Magashula and Ivan Pillay‚ through their legal representatives‚ had made representations to him in which they requested him to review the decision taken by the Acting Special Director of Public Prosecutions Torie Pretorius, to charge them.
Abrahams said he was currently considering the representations and extended the invitation to Gordhan to make representations by no later than 5pm on Tuesday.
He also called for representations from Hawks head Berning Ntlemeza and South African Revenue Service (SARS) commissioner Tom Moyane, and said he would consider all representations before deciding whether to review the fraud case against Gordhan.
The charges Gordhan faces relate to his approving an early retirement package for SARS deputy commissioner, Ivan Pillay.
Speaking on Radio 702 on Wednesday, criminal law expert Tyrone Maseko said that there was no legal provision that forced Gordhan to make representations.
Maseko said it was an avenue available to an accused to influence the prosecution.
Lawyers for former SARS commissioner Oupa Magashula and Pillay made their representations to Abrahams, asking him to review the charges against them.
Maseko said that it was up to Abrahams to consider all the representations and decide whether to accept or reject them. If he accepted the representations of Magashula and Pillay and dropped the charges against them, he would also have to drop the charges against Gordhan because they were interrelated, Maseko said.
National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) spokesperson Luvuyo Mfaku also told Radio 702 that Abrahams had no say over charges laid, but was a final arbiter when an aggrieved party made representations about charges levelled against them.
Mfaku said the decision to lay charges was made by the special director of public prosecutions in consultation with the director of public prosecutions (DPP).
The national director did not get involved with decisions handled by the DPP so that he could make an impartial review.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.