Judges make short shrift of Molefe’s did, didn’t, did …

Every time advocate Garth Hulley uttered the three-word phrase, he put a figurative stop between each word for emphasis — “I. Go. Now.”

These were the words at the end of a public statement issued by then outgoing Eskom chief executive Brian Molefe in November last year, the advocate for the minister of public enterprises told the high court in Pretoria on Wednesday.

“He himself says: ‘I have decided to leave my employ at Eskom’,” said Hulley. “There is no scenario in which he can remain behind.”

But Molefe now contends he never left and so, legally, he should be allowed to return to the office and position that rightfully remains his.

The convoluted mess that was Molefe’s departure, under a cloud of state capture allegations, had been scheduled to take up three full court days.


On Tuesday, however, a full Bench — at times clearly annoyed with what they considered irrelevant legal arguments — concluded the hearing that will determine Molefe’s future without so much as a truncated tea break.

From a legal standpoint, the court has been asked to determine such matters as whether jurisdictional requirements for a review have been met, and what the legal consequences are of a contract entered into between parties who all share a fatal misunderstanding of the rules governing Molefe’s departure.

For the three major players involved, though, those questions are incidental to their objectives. The Democratic Alliance and trade union Solidarity, which took the matter to court, want to ensure respectively that Molefe cannot return as Eskom boss and to recover about R11-million in supposed illicit pension payments.

For all three parties, the central question is whether Molefe resigned. He, it turns out, firmly believes he never did, except when he did, but that doesn’t count.

The word “resign” was used when Molefe left, one of Molefe’s two senior counsel Arnold Subel told the court during argument, but “it is not Mr Molefe’s word”.

But it is true that Molefe had resigned, Subel said later.

“Factually that is correct. He resigned.”

But he did not resign so much as go on pension, Subel qualified. “He had resigned. He had resigned on the basis of early retirement.”

Except, of course, that Molefe now agrees with everyone else involved that the early retirement, which promised to land him more than R30-million, had been in breach of Eskom’s rules and so was invalid.

Which, Molefe’s team argued, in effect means it never happened at all.

This seemed to leave even hardened advocates, steeped in the minutiae of both Molefe’s departure and employment law, somewhat befuddled.

It was helpful that Molefe had now admitted “that what transpired here was a resignation”, Hulley told the court, before briefly explaining the implications.

But Molefe had done no such thing, Subel countered. “On the contrary, I said that there was no resignation.”

The idea that a retirement and a resignation is the same thing “is a novel concept”, said DA advocate Paul Kennedy drily, but not necessarily of import.

“What the court has to assess is not whether he resigned in his own mind; the court must assess on the basis of objective facts,” said Kennedy.

Those facts, as far as the DA could tell, is that Molefe told the world he was leaving Eskom (“now”, in the words of his statement) but then later, in effect in secret, asked Eskom to pay him out as if he was retiring.

Eskom accepted Molefe’s bid for retirement, even though it could not do so legally.

For Molefe, that means the entire sequence of events is undone, and he gets to move back into his office. For everyone else involved that means Molefe owes the Eskom pension fund about R11-million to which he was not entitled — and his resignation stands.

Sophistry aside, “if you say to your boss ‘I’m leaving’, you’re leaving”, said Kennedy.

To further complicate matters, Molefe’s contention that he never legally left Eskom meant he never legally returned to Eskom later in terms of a “reinstatement agreement” because it is impossible to return to a job you never left. If that is the case, his legal team argued, then there is no basis on which the DA and Solidarity can ask for court intervention.

In another baroque twist, Molefe further held that possibly criminal collusion to enrich him would count in his favour.

The DA and Solidarity were suggesting that Molefe, Eskom’s then board of directors, the Eskom pension fund and possibly Public Enterprises Minister Lynne Brown all conspired to land Molefe a golden handshake, Subel said.

That is not the case, he said, but, even if it was, the result would still be to return Molefe to office.

“If this was a disguised transaction then, with respect, it’s invalid. So being invalid you don’t then have a valid termination.”

Judgment was reserved. 

Subscribe to the M&G

These are unprecedented times, and the role of media to tell and record the story of South Africa as it develops is more important than ever.

The Mail & Guardian is a proud news publisher with roots stretching back 35 years, and we’ve survived right from day one thanks to the support of readers who value fiercely independent journalism that is beholden to no-one. To help us continue for another 35 future years with the same proud values, please consider taking out a subscription.

Phillip De Wet
Guest Author

Related stories

FNB dragged into bribery claims

Allegations of bribery against the bank’s chief executive, Jacques Celliers, thrown up in a separate court case

This is how the SIU catches crooks

Athandiwe Saba talked to the Special Investigating Unit’s Andy Mothibi about its caseload, including 1 000 Covid contracts

Eskom could be fined R5-million over pollution at Kendal power station

The power utility is being taken to court by the Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries in a first-of-its-kind criminal prosecution

Editorial: Crocodile tears from the coalface

Pumping limited resources into a project that is predominantly meant to extend dirty coal energy in South Africa is not what local communities and the climate needs.

DA leader bought wife a car with ‘corruption’ earnings

Senior Ekurhuleni councillor Shabangu purchased a Ford SUV from an alleged R1.2-million kickback

ANC: ‘We’re operating under conditions of anarchy’

In its latest policy documents, the ANC is self-critical and wants ‘consequence management’, yet it’s letting its members off the hook again
Advertising

Subscribers only

FNB dragged into bribery claims

Allegations of bribery against the bank’s chief executive, Jacques Celliers, thrown up in a separate court case

Dozens of birds and bats perish in extreme heat in...

In a single day, temperatures in northern KwaZulu-Natal climbed to a lethal 45°C, causing a mass die-off of birds and bats

More top stories

ConCourt asked to rule that Zuma must testify for 10...

It is Zondo's legal end game and will leave the former president, his supporters and those implicated in state capture to increasingly play fast and loose at imputing political motive to the commission

Carlos on Oozymandias’ goodbye grift

"Look on my works ye Mighty, and gimme 50 bucks!"

This is how the SIU catches crooks

Athandiwe Saba talked to the Special Investigating Unit’s Andy Mothibi about its caseload, including 1 000 Covid contracts

Richard Calland: Not much has shuffled in the political pack

Stocktake at the end of a momentous year shows that the ruling party holds all the cards but has little room for manoeuvre
Advertising

press releases

Loading latest Press Releases…