McBride, Pillay and Dramat vow to fight state corruption
Robert McBride, Ivan Pillay and Anwa Dramat have vowed to fight corruption that targeted the independence of state institutions, such as those they formerly headed.
|||Johannesburg - Robert McBride, Ivan Pillay and Anwa Dramat have vowed to fight corruption that targeted the independence of state institutions, such as those they formerly headed.
Their joint statement followed immediately after a Constitutional Court hearing in which suspended Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid) boss McBride sought to clarify whether Police Minister Nathi Nhleko had the power to suspend him without consulting cabinet members.
Speaking outside the court, McBride and his spokesman, Adrian Lackay, said that what had happened in Ipid was being mirrored in other state institutions, where leaders had resisted the government's interference.
“What has happened to Ipid, McBride and others is no different to what is happening to many other state institutions under this administration, where people who have stood up to try and defend their institutions and the independence of their institutions have been hounded out without due legal process,” said Lackay.
Nhleko suspended McBride in March last year after alleging that he doctored the report of an Ipid investigation into the alleged rendition by the Hawks of Zimbabwean nationals to protect the then head of the unit, Dramat.
Dramat has since resigned, despite his suspension having been deemed unlawful by the Constitutional Court.
McBride argued that the ability of the police minister to suspend him rendered meaningless the independence of Ipid, whose mandate is to investigate police wrongdoing.
A joint statement by McBride, Dramat and former South African Revenue Service deputy commissioner Pillay said: “Since the latter part of 2014 we have seen, in quick succession, the removal of high-ranking state officials who had previously served government with distinction.
“A key part of all of our mandates was to investigate cases of corruption. A common thread is that cases under investigation involved individuals or entities with questionable relationships to those in public office.”
Meanwhile, McBride’s lawyer, advocate Steven Budlender, asked the Constitutional Court to confirm the orders made in the high court in Pretoria in December.
The high court found that Nhleko had acted unlawfully in instigating a disciplinary hearing against McBride, and his suspension was set aside.
The order was set aside for 30 days, allowing Parliament time to institute action against McBride under the provisions of the SAPS Act, if they felt it necessary.
The court said its decision would need to be validated by the Constitutional Court. Budlender asked the court to confirm that the Ipid Act, which allowed the minister to suspend or remove the head of the institution, was unconstitutional, saying these powers had “profound political implications”.
The Helen Suzman Foundation supported McBride's application.
Advocate Carol Steinberg, on behalf of the organisation, argued that Ipid’s independence and the public's perception of the independence of the institution were vital.
“Whatever the merits of the minister's process, if he is allowed to be both complainant and the authority that initiates the disciplinary against McBride, the perception that Ipid is free from political interference will surely be undermined,” she told the court.
She asked for the high court ruling allowing Parliament 30 days to make a decision about McBride to be upheld.
Nhleko’s lawyers, William Mokhari and Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, however, expressed doubt at the Cabinet's capability to deal with McBride's case and were concerned that if it failed to do so, McBride would return to his position at Ipid after the 30-day suspension was lifted.
Ngcukaitobi requested that, should the court rule in favour of McBride’s application, his suspension be extended to 90 days to allow Parliament time to take steps against him.
Judgment was reserved.
gabi.falanga@inl.co.za
@Gabi_Falanga
The Star