Share

Gordhan vs Guptas: Both sides have ‘irrelevant’ smears struck from affidavits

accreditation
Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan walks with his deputy, Mcebisi Jonas, to the court hearing. Picture: Siphiwe Sibeko/Reuters
Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan walks with his deputy, Mcebisi Jonas, to the court hearing. Picture: Siphiwe Sibeko/Reuters

Both the Gupta family’s businesses and Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan saw multiple legally irrelevant assertions in their affidavits struck off the court record yesterday.

The infamous Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) certificate listing 72 suspicious transactions, as well as Deputy Finance Minister Mscebisi Jonas’ claims about being offered Gordhan’s job by the Guptas, were struck off.

So were the Guptas’ allegations that Gordhan is leading an elaborate political conspiracy to destroy their business empire, which has made up much of the Guptas’ responding court papers.

The full bench of three judges in the North Gauteng High Court repeatedly asked lawyers on both sides how any of these assertions were relevant to begin with.

Read: New Gupta lawyers devise fresh attack on Gordhan, Zuma joins in

The legal point to be decided is relatively simple: can or should the finance minister intervene in the relationship between banks and their clients?

Ultimately, both sides’ applications to strike out parts of the other side’s affidavits was granted.

“This side event of the FIC certificate, the conspiracy theory and whatever, have no bearing on the issues we have to decide,” said Gauteng judge-president Dunstan Mlambo, who presided over the hearing.

By including the FIC certificate in his court papers, Gordhan had “opened a can of worms”, said the judge-president.

The rest of the first day of the hearing of Gordhan’s application regarding the Guptas’ troubles with the country’s major banks mostly dealt with two last-ditch applications from President Jacob Zuma and Sahara Computers – the Guptas’ original company in South Africa.

Zuma ‘not in the fray’

The judges dealt swiftly with Zuma’s application to strike down Standard Bank’s more expansive application in the case.

Gordhan had originally only asked for a declaratory order that he, as finance minister, has no authority or obligation to intervene in the relationship between banks and their clients.

This was meant to end what was described as “badgering” by the Guptas for him to somehow make the banks reopen their accounts.

Standard Bank however filed supporting papers complaining about far more “unprecedented political interference” on behalf of the Guptas by senior ANC figures and cabinet members – including Mineral Resources Minister Mosebenzi Zwane.

It asked for a broader declaratory order – “that no member of the national executive of government, including the president and all members of Cabinet, is empowered to intervene in any manner whatsoever in any decision taken by [Standard Bank] to terminate its banking relationship with Oakbay”.

Yesterday the president’s counsel, Matthew Chaskalson, argued that this could lead “to the president having to take a position that a court order does not bind him”.

The president is not a party to the case and there is no basis to consider his request, said Mlambo.

Making Gordhan pay

Another last-ditch intervention came from Sahara Computers. It changed its legal team two weeks ago and immediately set out with a new legal strategy to challenge Gordhan’s right to be using the State Attorney as his representative in the case.

The argument was that he is not really acting as an official of the state, but as an individual pursuing a political vendetta. As susch, he should pay for the legal costs, argued Sahara.

The judges were dismissive of this argument, noting that Gordhan was obviously making the case as an official.

“We are going in circles,” said Mlambo.

“Do you accept that we decide who has authority?” he asked Sahara’s lawyers before dismissing their intervention.

The actual case

Hearing of the actual case only started after 2pm and in the last hour of proceedings, Gordhan showed up alongside his Jonas and Treasury officials – taking up the back bench of courtroom 8E.

Gordhan’s counsel, Jeremy Gauntlett, told the court that even though the Gupta companies now claim they do not dispute the order Gordhan is seeking, this was an half-hearted and opportunistic about-turn.

The Guptas “badgered” Gordhan to intervene in their banking woes until the minister launched the court application. Three weeks later they changed their tune, argued Gauntlett.

He also asked why the Guptas have not withdrawn their opposition to the application if they in fact agree with the minister.

Gauntlett likened the situation to Alice in Wonderland.

“They say yes, the answer is right, but don’t do it [ask the question].”

“Why not grant this uncontentious application. We see no harm, but see considerable potential good.”

The Gupta companies will make arguments starting at 10am today.


Dewald van Rensburg
Business journalist
City Press
p:0117139001
w:www.citypress.co.za  e: dewald.vrensburg@citypress.co.za
      
 
Sign up for City Press' morning newsletter On a Point of Order here


We live in a world where facts and fiction get blurred
Who we choose to trust can have a profound impact on our lives. Join thousands of devoted South Africans who look to News24 to bring them news they can trust every day. As we celebrate 25 years, become a News24 subscriber as we strive to keep you informed, inspired and empowered.
Join News24 today
heading
description
username
Show Comments ()
Voting Booth
Do you believe that the various planned marches against load shedding will prompt government to bring solutions and resolve the power crisis?
Please select an option Oops! Something went wrong, please try again later.
Results
Yes
21% - 103 votes
No
79% - 399 votes
Vote