FRIDAY, 4.00PM:
FORMER Sarfu vice-president Brian van Rooyen, author of the dossier that spurred a commission of inquiry into the South African Rugby Football Association’s affairs, said he will urge the government to appeal the Pretoria High Court’s decision to set the commission aside. “This decision doesn’t vindicate Sarfu by any means,” he said, and “it doesn’t alter the fact that Luyt and his executive must go.” Rugby sponsor M-Net Supersport’s chief executive Russell MacMillan said the court’s decision will allow Sarfu boss Louis Luyt to make an “honourable” exit from rugby. MacMillan has urged the controversial Sarfu boss to step down.
FRIDAY, 11.30AM:
THE South African Rugby Football Union on Friday won its case, with costs, to have President Nelson Mandela’s commission of inquiry into Sarfu’s affairs set aside.
The verdict must still be confirmed by the Constitutional Court.
Judge William De Villiers gave no reasons for his judgment, saying they will be furnished later. Sarfu president Dr Louis Luyt was smiling after the verdict, but has offered no comment.
Mandela’s legal adviser Fink Haysom said the verdict comes as no surprise, and that it will most likely be appealed, after the case has been examined.
Sarfu’s counsel, Mike Maritz SC, said the ruling is a victory for rugby, for sport and for true democracy.
During the case, Sarfu argued that Mandela “did not apply his mind” when authorising the commission and abdicated his authority to Sports Minister Steve Tshwete.
Though the case was originally expected to end quickly in January, it became protracted when the judge ruled that affidavits from Mandela were inadequate and ordered the President to appear in court to give oral evidence. This Mandela eventually did on March 19, against the advice of his lawyers and those who feared establishing a precedent for executive decisions to be questioned in court.
In giving evidence, Mandela said he regarded the affairs of rugby as being of national importance and suggested Sarfu president Dr Louis Luyt had resisted the inquiry because he “has something to hide”.
Sarfu in turn argued that it would have co-operated with an earlier ministerial task team had it first been presented with the specific allegations made against it.
15