Advocate Rudolf Mastenbroek, who formed part
of a committee appointed by Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene to advise
him on the South African Revenue Service (SARS), was severely
conflicted, an explosive affidavit lodged with the Press Ombudsman has
revealed.
Mr Mastenbroek was part of retired judge Frank Kroon’s committee mandated with fixing the problems at the revenue service.
The committee has since found that the contentious "rogue unit" at the revenue service was illegal.
The
explosive affidavit, lodged by former senior investigative reporter
Pearlie Joubert was read out on Tuesday during a press ombudsman hearing
initiated by counsel for former deputy commissioner Ivan Pillay and
former SARS head of investigations Johann Van Loggerenberg.
It said Advocate Mastenbroek had tried to get damaging stories — falsely implicating the two officials — published before his appointment to the committee.
Mr Pillay and Mr van Loggerenberg have complained to the ombudsman about a story published in the Sunday Times last month, containing further developments in the long-running saga surrounding the "rogue unit".
Both men resigned from SARS after the disclousures about the "rogue unit" rocked the tax agency, resulting in a wide-ranging overhaul of the organisation.
If proven to be true, the allegations could raise doubts on the veracity of the committee’s findings and dent the Sunday Times’s image severely. The ombudsman will deliver his ruling on the Sunday Times matter next week.
Advocate Mastenbroek is former Sunday Times editor Phylicia Oppelt’s former husband.
The Kroon committee had rubber-stamped findings by an earlier investigation, which found "prima facie evidence" that the unit was unlawful.
In her affidavit, Ms Joubert alleged that Mr Mastenbroek, himself a former SARS employee, had sought in 2013 to get her to write certain stories in the paper, accusing Mr Pillay and Mr Van Loggerenberg of protecting the African National Congress and its members in the course of their duties at SARS.
Ms Joubert said she had raised concern about the issue to Ms Oppelt, but subsequently noticed that the paper was running stories on a "rogue unit" at SARS.
She again expressed concern over the "veracity and accuracy" of the stories.
Ms Joubert said she became "particularly concerned" when Mr Nene appointed Mr Mastenbroek to the SARS advisory panel.
"In my mind, Advocate Mastenbroek had already demonstrated to me in 2013 that he disliked (Mr Van Loggerenberg and Mr Pillay) and was then already attempting to advance allegations against them in the media.
"In my mind, he should have excused himself from the board on the basis that he was severely conflicted," she said. Advocate Mastenbroek had displayed a "direct, personal bias" against the two former SARS officials as far back as 2013 and the Sunday Times stories were "false" and appeared to be "orchestrated", she said.
"I resigned … because I was not willing to be party to practices at the Sunday Times which I verily believed to have been unethical and immoral," Ms Joubert said.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Sunday Times investigative journalist Piet Rampedi, under whose name some of these stories appeared in the paper, said he had never met Mr Mastenbroek and Ms Joubert’s "beliefs were not fact".
Contacted on Tuesday, Advocate Mastenbroek declined to "comment at this stage". Judge Kroon said he did not know the basis of any of the appointments to the committee, but added that he did not want to comment on mere allegations.
Times Media MD Andrew Gill said last night Ms Joubert’s allegations were not true.
"Not only was Mastenbroek not a source for any of our stories about SARS, but the central point of our reporting — the existence of a rogue unit within SARS — has been backed up by a number of independent investigations, most recently a KPMG report.
"Previously, an investigation by advocate Muzi Sikhakhane also confirmed the existence of the unit," said Mr Gill.
"Four reporters gathered information from their own sources with the intelligence community as well as within SARS and tested it before publication. We stand by our stories.
"We do not wish to speculate on the reasons Joubert might have for exposing a source and friend, but her perceptions about the sources and genesis of our stories are as fanciful as they are vindictive," Mr Gill said.
Mr Mastenbroek was part of retired judge Frank Kroon’s committee mandated with fixing the problems at the revenue service.
The committee has since found that the contentious "rogue unit" at the revenue service was illegal.
 |
| Ivan Pillay. |
It said Advocate Mastenbroek had tried to get damaging stories — falsely implicating the two officials — published before his appointment to the committee.
Mr Pillay and Mr van Loggerenberg have complained to the ombudsman about a story published in the Sunday Times last month, containing further developments in the long-running saga surrounding the "rogue unit".
Both men resigned from SARS after the disclousures about the "rogue unit" rocked the tax agency, resulting in a wide-ranging overhaul of the organisation.
If proven to be true, the allegations could raise doubts on the veracity of the committee’s findings and dent the Sunday Times’s image severely. The ombudsman will deliver his ruling on the Sunday Times matter next week.
Advocate Mastenbroek is former Sunday Times editor Phylicia Oppelt’s former husband.
The Kroon committee had rubber-stamped findings by an earlier investigation, which found "prima facie evidence" that the unit was unlawful.
In her affidavit, Ms Joubert alleged that Mr Mastenbroek, himself a former SARS employee, had sought in 2013 to get her to write certain stories in the paper, accusing Mr Pillay and Mr Van Loggerenberg of protecting the African National Congress and its members in the course of their duties at SARS.
Ms Joubert said she had raised concern about the issue to Ms Oppelt, but subsequently noticed that the paper was running stories on a "rogue unit" at SARS.
She again expressed concern over the "veracity and accuracy" of the stories.
Ms Joubert said she became "particularly concerned" when Mr Nene appointed Mr Mastenbroek to the SARS advisory panel.
"In my mind, Advocate Mastenbroek had already demonstrated to me in 2013 that he disliked (Mr Van Loggerenberg and Mr Pillay) and was then already attempting to advance allegations against them in the media.
"In my mind, he should have excused himself from the board on the basis that he was severely conflicted," she said. Advocate Mastenbroek had displayed a "direct, personal bias" against the two former SARS officials as far back as 2013 and the Sunday Times stories were "false" and appeared to be "orchestrated", she said.
"I resigned … because I was not willing to be party to practices at the Sunday Times which I verily believed to have been unethical and immoral," Ms Joubert said.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Sunday Times investigative journalist Piet Rampedi, under whose name some of these stories appeared in the paper, said he had never met Mr Mastenbroek and Ms Joubert’s "beliefs were not fact".
Contacted on Tuesday, Advocate Mastenbroek declined to "comment at this stage". Judge Kroon said he did not know the basis of any of the appointments to the committee, but added that he did not want to comment on mere allegations.
Times Media MD Andrew Gill said last night Ms Joubert’s allegations were not true.
"Not only was Mastenbroek not a source for any of our stories about SARS, but the central point of our reporting — the existence of a rogue unit within SARS — has been backed up by a number of independent investigations, most recently a KPMG report.
"Previously, an investigation by advocate Muzi Sikhakhane also confirmed the existence of the unit," said Mr Gill.
"Four reporters gathered information from their own sources with the intelligence community as well as within SARS and tested it before publication. We stand by our stories.
"We do not wish to speculate on the reasons Joubert might have for exposing a source and friend, but her perceptions about the sources and genesis of our stories are as fanciful as they are vindictive," Mr Gill said.
No comments:
Post a Comment