/ 9 January 2008

Govt’s submission on Pikoli ‘too bare’

The government revised its submission to the Ginwala inquiry into the suspension of National Prosecuting Authority boss Vusi Pikoli after its first draft did not contain enough information, Business Day reported on Wednesday.

The report said Pikoli’s advocate Wim Trengove had complained that the government’s submission was ”too bare”. He had asked for more detail.

”Advocate Pikoli has the right to a fair hearing which requires a substantiated case”, he told the paper.

Inquiry chairperson Frene Ginwala on Monday denied that she had sent the government’s first submission back to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.

She said in terms of the rules of the inquiry, the government had an opportunity to provide a further submission by Tuesday next week.

Pikoli would then have until January 31 to respond. Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Brigitte Mabandla had until February 12 to reply.

The report said this meant Pikoli would only be told before the inquiry began on February 25 whether the proceedings would be held behind closed doors.

Ginwala had said the decision on whether it would be closed or not would be made once the commission had ”considered the reports from government and Advocate Pikoli”.

”National security issues of the republic” would be among issues considered as the commission mulls over whether it should close the inquiry to the public, it said.

”We would obviously like the inquiry to be open, and will present arguments to this effect when asked,” Trengove said.

”But we do not know at this point whether government is even requesting that it be closed.”

He also told the paper both sides would know whether witnesses would be called and who would be called only after Ginwala had received all the documents.

Pikoli was suspended in September last year. President Thabo Mbeki cited an ”irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship between Pikoli and Minister Mabandla”.

Mbeki then appointed Ginwala to head an inquiry into two broad areas, namely Pikoli’s fitness to hold office and the breakdown of the working relationship between him and Mabandla.

The terms of reference included questions on when deciding to prosecute offenders, Pikoli had sufficient regard ”to the nature and extent of the threats posed by organised crime to the national security of the republic”.

The terms also questioned whether when he granted immunity from prosecution — or entered into plea bargain arrangements with people involved with organised crime — ”he took due regard to the public interests and the national security interest”.

Two senior lawyers — senior counsel Ishmael Semenya, and Dines Gihwala, the Cape Town attorney who is also co-curator of Fidentia — have been appointed to advise Ginwala ”as and when necessary”. – Sapa