You are on page 1of 4

The Honourable President of the Republic 1st Floor

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:


Your Ref:
Our Ref: Mr. ET Mabuza
Date: Monday, July 02, 2018

Dear Hon President,



1. As you know we act on behalf of Commissioner Tom Moyane in both the

Disciplinary Inquiry and the Commission of Inquiry chaired by Advocate Azhar
Bham SC and Retired Judge Robert Nugent. Both were appointed by you and both
are ongoing. In the Commission of Inquiry chaired by Judge Nugent the President
went on to appoint, inter alia, Professor Michael Katz as one of the assistants to
the Commission.

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

Eric T Mabuza B.Proc (Unin) LLB (Wits)

Page 2

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);

4.2. Remove Prof Katz as your appointed assistant to Commissioner/ Judge

Nugent; and/or

4.3. Respond to the aforesaid, in compliance with our client’s demands, as

soon as possible but no later than 16h00 on Friday 6 July 2018, failing
which our client will have no option but to enforce his constitutional rights
including but not limited to approaching the High Court or the Constitutional
Court on an urgent basis to seek appropriate relief.

5. In respect of the Commission of Inquiry, written and oral submissions regarding

the issues raised in 4.1 and 4.2 above were made and a ruling was reserved and
handed down at 14h00 today, 2 July 2018. Judging from Judge Nugent utterances
and as anticipated, he has adopted the attitude that these are issues which do not
fall under his jurisdiction but that of the President. His attitude seem to be that he
Page 3

is obliged to follow the instructions of the President irrespective of whether those

instructions are lawful or unlawful. This is colloquially known as the Nuremberg
defence. It will properly be addressed in due course and in good time.

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

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

7.3. it remains to be determined whether both or one, and if so which one, of

the two inquires ought to be terminated. What is clear is that to hold both
simultaneously is, in the circumstances, grossly unfair, unlawful and
constitutes a violation of the Constitution.

8. For your convenience and ease of reference we attach to this letter:

8.1. A copy of our submissions made at the Commission of Inquiry on Friday

29 June 2018;

8.2. A copy of the ruling of Commissioner Nugent, acting in his administrative

and not as a member of the judiciary; and
Page 4

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.

9. We await your urgent response.

Yours faithfully