This appears aimed at questioning the process by which the NRG was disbanded and the termination of the employment contract of its leader, Skollie van Rensburg.<\/p>\n
The initial conception for the unit in 2006-2007 was that it would fall under the then National Intelligence Agency (NIA), but be paid for by Sars. All the players admit that such a capacity for gathering intelligence in the illicit economy is needed, now as then.<\/p>\n
The NRG was recruited on that basis, but the factional battles in the NIA in the run-up to the Polokwane conference (which ousted Thabo Mbeki as ANC president) meant that the plan was never implemented.<\/p>\n
Sars was left with a unit that needed to operate under its own wing, according to a more restrictive legal mandate.<\/p>\n
At the same time, Van Rensburg suffered a double family tragedy and was paid out for the rest of his contract in March 2008. Whether this payout was legitimate or was \u201cto keep him quiet\u201d has been the subject of speculation and innuendo.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0Were there any inputs you gave for the establishment of the NRG or the HRIU?<\/strong><\/p>\n This is not a serious question.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0Who were the stakeholders who would form part of the new unit?<\/strong><\/p>\n Stakeholders? Really?<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0Do you still remember yourself as the commissioner of Sars recommending the funding model to the then minister, Trevor Manuel, in February 2007 for \u201cfunding of an intelligence capability within National Intelligence Agency (NIA) in support of Sars\u201d?<\/strong><\/p>\n (Erm \u2026 Yes, I remember it fondly.)<\/p>\n Manuel signed approval for the proposal in February 2007. Sars would recruit and train (in tax and customs law) people who would be transferred to the NIA, paid for by Sars. The transfer was never implemented.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0How were the members of the unit recruited\/selected? Were Sars recruitment processes followed?<\/strong><\/p>\n This might be a matter for debate, but hardly for criminal investigation.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0How is it possible that you recruit even before funding approval is granted for such a capability to exist?<\/strong><\/p>\n It appears Sars relied on its own budget and resources to recruit 14 external candidates and transfer 12 existing Sars employees to the\u00a0new unit.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0Kindly share with us or provide a copy of the agreement between the NIA and Sars.<\/strong><\/p>\n It is unlikely that Gordhan would be in possession of such a document. According to former head of investigations Johann van Loggerenberg, memoranda of understanding were signed between Sars and the NIA, the Asset Forfeiture Unit, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and others. Van Loggerenberg states that he was even registered on the NIA system to create a legal mechanism to exchange information between the two institutions.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0What were the aims and objectives (mandate) of the new unit and subsequent operating environments as it changed its name?<\/strong><\/p>\n As pointed out already, Sars had a legitimate interest in financial intelligence. Gordhan has publicly stated that the NRG, and subsequent investigative units, have \u201cdone commendable work in disrupting activities in the illicit economy and raising revenue from high-risk sectors of the economy\u201d.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0Who was heading the unit and who was it responsible and accountable to?<\/strong><\/p>\n (Erm \u2026 which unit and when? Special projects unit? National research group? Illicit economy research unit? High-risk investigation unit?)<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0Who were Janse van Rensburg, Johan de Waal, Johann van Loggerenberg and Helgard Lombard at Sars, and what were their positions, roles and responsibilities within\u00a0<\/strong>the unit?<\/strong><\/p>\n These are operational questions and have been covered in previous inquiries. If Gordhan knows the answers, they will hardly take the Hawks investigation further.<\/p>\n 11. As the commissioner (accounting officer) for Sars at the time, were you briefed about all key strategic operations?<\/strong><\/p>\n 11.1. Do you know anything about operation code-named \u201cSunday Evenings\u201d? The bugging or installation of sophisticated surveillance equipment at National Prosecuting Authority offices?<\/strong><\/p>\n 11.2. Who authorised it? Is this in line with Sars\u2019s mandate?<\/strong><\/p>\n 11.3. What were its objective and targets?<\/strong><\/p>\n This, perhaps, is the unspoken heart of the matter, the dirty secret that could be embarrassing for both sides, but more so for President\u00a0Jacob Zuma. The story goes like this. During the Scorpions investigation into former police commissioner Jackie Selebi, it became apparent that the Scorpions (the now disbanded specialised unit of the NPA) were under heavy surveillance by crime intelligence. It also became clear that the police had recruited assistance from within the NPA \u2013 notably, it subsequently emerged, from prosecutor Nomgcobo Jiba.<\/p>\n In response, Scorpions Gauteng boss Gerrie Nel apparently obtained approval for the installation of internal video surveillance cameras in offices at the Scorpions\u2019 Pretoria base. A private company was contracted to install the equipment.<\/p>\n Although Nel was unaware of this, a director of the company was well known to members of the Sars unit. Skollie van Rensburg was informed\u00a0of the internal surveillance and is said to have regularly obtained copies of the NPA security tapes.<\/p>\n The knowledge and transcription of the material was restricted to a handful of people.<\/p>\n The material Van Rensburg gathered was sifted for information relating to the two politically explosive Scorpions investigations \u2013 the Zuma corruption case and the Selebi probe.<\/p>\n Transcripts of recorded conversations by NPA staff were provided to Sars deputy commissioner Ivan Pillay, to whom Van Rensburg reported at that time.<\/p>\n A source sympathetic to Pillay has previously told amaBhungane that the information was handed over to \u201claw enforcement\u201d, but there is circumstantial evidence suggesting that it found its way back to the Zuma camp and informed Zuma\u2019s various efforts to lobby the NPA to withdraw corruption charges against him.<\/p>\n Details of the process could prove embarrassing in the light of the Democratic Alliance\u2019s current legal efforts to have charges against Zuma reinstated.<\/p>\n 1<\/strong>2. Do you know or still rem-ember the HRIU mandate?<\/strong><\/p>\n This is not a serious question.<\/p>\n 13. Did the minister of intelligence (Ronnie Kasrils) approve the establishment of and identify members of the NIA to work within HRIU? Provide evidence.<\/strong><\/p>\n It is not clear how Gordhan is expected to know or respond to this question.<\/p>\n 14. Were there things at Sars (when you were the commissioner) that would have happened without your knowledge?<\/strong><\/p>\n (Erm \u2026 Ya think? And does that include unknown unknowns?)<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0Did members of HRIU appear on Sars\u2019s normal employees\u2019 payroll? Please explain why some, if not all, unit members had two Sars identification cards [one with fake employee details].<\/strong><\/p>\n According to Van Loggerenberg, the creation of false identification cards was one of the reasons for Van Rensburg\u2019s departure and the cards were recalled.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0If this unit was operating\u00a0legitimately, why were they operating from guesthouses, hotels, restaurants and their\u00a0<\/strong>private dwellings? Further, why were they not provided with Sars laptops to store confidential information?<\/strong><\/p>\n The unit did operate semi-undercover. Members were not openly identified with Sars. It is not clear whether this was illegal.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0How was the funding of the unit\u2019s operations managed? Which cost centres were employed?<\/strong><\/p>\n These are operational questions.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0Who was the head of the unit and who was it reporting to?<\/strong><\/p>\n (Erm \u2026 see question nine.)<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0Were there any members of HRIU who did not have personal files at Sars? Can you tell us why, if any?<\/strong><\/p>\n These are operational questions. Gordhan is unlikely to know.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0Who authorised the procurement of the surveillance equipment to be utilised during the unit\u2019s operations?<\/strong><\/p>\n Van Loggerenberg has stated: \u201cNone of these units, not the [special projects unit], nor NRG or HRIU, acquired any specialised or listed equipment that could be used for \u2018intelligence gathering\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n It appears the equipment detailed this week in a briefing by the minister of state security was actually obtained by the Sars anti-corruption unit, which was an unrelated entity with powers to investigate and monitor Sars\u2019s own staff members.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0What were Ivan Pillay\u2019s functions at Sars from the period he started working until he retired? The functions must also include the period he was rehired after submitting an early retirement from Sars. And what are his academic qualifications?<\/strong><\/p>\n The answers to these questions are presumably in Pillay\u2019s file at Sars.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0Do you still remember which year Ivan Pillay took an early retirement?<\/strong><\/p>\n (Erm \u2026 not right at this moment, no.)<\/p>\n 23-25 Is it normal in terms of treasury or pension fund regulations for any department to accept its employee\u2019s early retirement? Why did you authorise that Sars must pay Ivan Pillay an early retirement penalty to the tune of R1.2?million? Kindly explain why Sars re-employed Ivan Pillay for three years and then extended his contract to five years. In short, he was offered an additional eight-year employment contract \u2013 why?<\/strong><\/p>\n Gordhan will have to answer these questions \u2013 and the answers will probably turn on the need to retain Pillay\u2019s deep institutional knowledge and skills. Pillay is a former ANC underground operative who worked closely with Gordhan during Operation Vula in the late 1980s\u00a0and early 1990s. He is widely regarded as a significant contributor to Sars\u2019s success.<\/p>\n 26. We believe you are aware of the KPMG forensic investigations into the existence of a rogue unit at Sars. Do you perhaps have a clue as to why such an investigation is conducted?<\/strong><\/p>\n This is not a serious question. Gor\u00addhan may be tempted to say this probe was conducted as a witch-hunt to get rid of a unit and individuals whose investigations were a threat to politically exposed persons.<\/p>\n 27. Did the minister of finance receive the KPMG report? If yes, have you read it since you took office, or did you request to be briefed about its contents by the deputy minister or the commissioner? Have you made any contact with Judge (Frank) Kroon, the chair of Sars\u2019s advisory board on this matter, who is supposed to advise both yourself and the commissioner?<\/strong><\/p>\n (Erm \u2026 what has this got to do with you, General Ntlemeza?)<\/p>\n The exact legal authority the Hawks relied on in sending the list of 27\u00a0questions to Gordhan remains a mystery.<\/p>\n But according to both an experienced police officer as well as a criminal\u00a0attorney, it is in fact quite clear that the questions posed are devoid of due process and any consideration to Gordhan\u2019s constitutional rights.<\/p>\n Ntlemeza sent Gordhan the controversial\u00a0questions on February 19, shortly before the minister gave the country\u2019s\u00a0budget speech.<\/p>\n They relate to an investigation of a so-called \u201crogue spy unit” that\u00a0allegedly operated within Sars\u00a0while Gordhan was commissioner.<\/p>\n amaBhungane\u2019s police source said it was clear from the way the\u00a0questions were \u201cformulated\u201d that the Hawks were treating Gordhan as a\u00a0suspect in the investigation.<\/p>\n This is despite Police Minister Nathi Nhleko\u2019s assertion this week that\u00a0the questions were merely part of an ongoing Hawks investigation into\u00a0the unit.<\/p>\n Nhleko told a media briefing on Wednesday that it was \u201ccommon cause\u201d\u00a0that the questions were \u201cquestions of clarity \u2026 precisely because they\u00a0are issues the Hawks are looking at\u201d.<\/p>\n Yet he provided no clarity on what charges or legal authority the\u00a0questions were guided by.<\/p>\n “<\/strong><\/em>If one is a suspect, Section 35 of the Constitution prescribes that a\u00a0warning must precede questions”<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Nhleko said it was \u201cstrange\u201d that he had to clarify these matters,\u00a0\u201cbecause the police are governed by both the Constitution and the\u00a0Police Act to do their work\u201d.<\/p>\n While this is technically correct, Gordhan\u2019s rights, like every South\u00a0African, are protected by the Constitution, a criminal lawyer explained.<\/p>\n He added that the tone of the questions indicated that they were written for a\u00a0suspect, in which case investigators have to warn Gordhan before he answers\u00a0anything.<\/p>\n Section 35 of the Constitution protects the rights of an accused and the\u00a0rights of suspects \u2013 those under investigation and those who are\u00a0suspected of committing an offence.<\/p>\n The section stipulates, amongst other things, that an accused person\u00a0has the right \u201cnot to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence\u201d.<\/p>\n On his reading, the police source said it was obvious that \u201cthere was no\u00a0legal consultation\u201d in preparing the questions. \u201cBecause if there had\u00a0been, it would be clear if the minister [was] a suspect or an ordinary\u00a0witness\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cIf one is a suspect, Section 35 of the Constitution prescribes that a\u00a0warning must precede questions. In this matter there are no cautions\u00a0that are advanced except to say the minister may consult his legal\u00a0representatives.<\/p>\n \u201cThese questions are crafted in a form of cross-examination, which is\u00a0designed for suspects,\u201d the police officer said.<\/p>\n \u201cIf Gordhan is just a witness, [the Hawks] must say so. Surely, this\u00a0is not a Section 205 of the Criminal Procedures Act where a recalcitrant\u00a0witness is compelled to answer by a court?\u201d<\/p>\n “…\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>he is [being treated as]\u00a0a suspect…\u00a0“<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The criminal lawyer who preferred not to be named said if Gordhan\u00a0were his client he would advise him not to answer the questions unless\u00a0he was subpoenaed.<\/p>\n \u201cIf a case docket been registered and if he is a suspect he will answer\u00a0the questions in terms of a warning statement\u201d. He said that while there\u00a0was nothing necessarily \u201cunusual in the questions\u201d, the proper channels\u00a0\u201cfor which to do this\u201d have to be followed.<\/p>\n The questions, he said,\u00a0\u201cinsinuate that [Gordhan] is involved in what they ([he\u00a0Hawks] allege they are investigating. I infer that he is [being treated as]\u00a0a suspect. He needs to be informed if he is a suspect and that he has\u00a0rights in terms of Section 35 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n “He needs to ask, \u2018Am I a suspect? What am I a suspect in? What is the\u00a0basis for the questions?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Gordhan\u2019s attorneys have asked what authority the Hawks\u00a0relied on in \u201c directing these questions to the Honourable Minister\u201d, and\u00a0also if the Hawks are investigating an offence. And if they are, what the\u00a0offence is.<\/p>\n At the same time his lawyers have requested an extension to respond\u00a0to the questions \u2013 Ntlemeza had given Gordhan a March 2 deadline.<\/p>\n …\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>Ntlemeza states that he \u201cdeems it fit\u201d to allow Gordhan a\u00a0\u201creasonable amount of time\u201d to consult with his lawyers\u201d.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Although Nhleko tried to skirt the issue, an information note Ntlemeza\u00a0sent to State Security Minister David Mahlobo, provided specific details\u00a0of the case.<\/p>\n In the note marked “secret” and\u00a0 published by City Press<\/em> last week,<\/a> Ntlemeza states that a case of \u201ccorruption, fraud and contravention of\u00a0Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of\u00a0Communications Related Information Act, 2002\u201d was opened after Sars\u00a0Commissioner Tom Moyane lodged a complaint in May last year.<\/p>\n The Hawks boss added that his unit was \u201cpursuing the investigation into\u00a0unlawful activities allegedly perpetuated by the Sars disbanded Rogue\u00a0Unit\u201d.<\/p>\n Despite the availability of this information, none of it is contained in\u00a0Ntlemeza\u2019s letter to Gordhan \u2013 he only references the case number.<\/p>\n While the only hint that the questions are legally significant to Gordhan\u00a0is where Ntlemeza states that he \u201cdeems it fit\u201d to allow Gordhan a\u00a0\u201creasonable amount of time\u201d to consult with his lawyers\u201d.<\/p>\n * Got a tip-off for us about this story? Click here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n What\u2019s with the Sars “rogue unit” and the 27 questions sent to Pravin Gordhan?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":22666,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4250","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-stories"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4250","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4250"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4250\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30750,"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4250\/revisions\/30750"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22666"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4250"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4250"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4250"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Questions of legal authority surround Hawks’ questions<\/strong><\/h4>\n
![](\"https:\/\/amabhungane.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/94x94.jpg\")
<\/a>The M&G<\/em> Centre for Investigative Journalism (amaBhungane) produced this story. All views are ours. See www.amabhungane.co.za <\/a> for our stories, activities and funding sources.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"