Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
83 Central Street
of South Africa Houghton
Mr MC Ramaphosa 2198
Private Bag X1000 PO Box 55045
Northlands 2116
PRETORIA Tel: +27 11 483-2387/483-0476
0001 Fax: +27 11 728 - 0145
Direct e-mail: eric@mabuzas.co.za
Email: nokukhanyaj@presidency.gov.za
angeline@presidency.gov.za
sibongile@presidency.gov.za
Your Ref:
Our Ref: Mr. ET Mabuza
Date: Monday, July 02, 2018
2. Our client has sharply raised in both proceedings, the gross unfairness of being
simultaneously subjected to both processes when the subject matter enquired into,
as it pertains to him, is substantially the same and/or largely overlapping. A second
objection, raised only in the Commission of Inquiry, is your unlawful appointment
of Prof Katz as an assistant and thereby a decision maker therein, despite the
close personal relationship and association you enjoy with him more specifically
but not limited to him being your personal and business attorney in respect of past
and present legal proceedings. This renders Prof Katz as an assumed agent or
extension of yourself.
3. In the circumstances, our client reasonably perceives and/or suspects bias on the
part of Prof Katz, inter alia, because you are (and by logical extension he is) the
complainant in the parallel Disciplinary Inquiry. At the appropriate stage the
concepts of conflict of interest, reasonable apprehension of bias and recusal will
be more fully elaborated on.
4. At this stage, suffice to say that, based on such perceptions as well as the patent
unfairness and irrationality (not to mention the waste of taxpayers’ money)
associated with your simultaneous appointment and/or institution of both inquiries
as well as your appointment of Prof Katz, we are instructed to demand, as we
hereby do that the President must:
4.1. Disestablish or stay one or both of the inquiries. (Your legal advisors might
inform you that in terms of our law it is the later proceedings which should
be stopped, but there are exceptions to that general rule which may or may
not apply in the present situation);
6. Our client was advised nevertheless to make the submissions to the Commission
of Inquiry, which he duly did on Friday 29 June 2018, in the spirit of exhausting any
internal remedies which may have been available. This having been done, this
letter of demand is intended to allow you to exercise your choice to either remedy
the alleged unlawfulness or to face the court action referred to in paragraph 4.3
above.
7. For the sake of completion, we wish to bring to your attention that a separate but
related objection has been lodged in the Disciplinary Inquiry. The relevance of that
fact is obviously that there is a symbiotic relationship between the two sets of
objections in so far as:
7.1. they pertain to the two enquires as they relate to each other;
7.2. both inquiries were ostensibly appointed and instituted by the same state
functionary, i.e. the President of the Republic; and
8.3. A copy of the objections in terms of Rule 6(5)(d)(iii) submitted to the Chair
of the Disciplinary Inquiry on Friday 29 June 2018.
Yours faithfully
MABUZA ATTORNEYS