Cape Town - Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane said on Wednesday her investigation into the SA Revenue Service (Sars) dealt with whether procurement of the equipment for the so-called rogue unit followed proper procedures.
Giving her testimony before the Section 194 inquiry into her fitness to hold office, Mkhwebane said Sars failed to provide her with documents relating to the procurement of equipment for the unit.
She said such conduct was in violation of the Constitution, which provided for organs of state to co-operate with her office.
“Failure to provide documentation by Sars led to the violation of that section. It leads to contempt of the Public Protector Act, applicable to those who refuse to co-operate and provide information,” she said.
Mkhwebane also said she wondered whether the revenue service could have done the same thing if the auditor-general asked for documents.
She also said it was extremely unlikely that a unit carrying out investigations on behalf of Sars would not procure the equipment necessary for the fulfilment of its duties and functions.
“It is unclear why Sars and/or its former employees would keep the procurement of the equipment such a guarded secret. Without proper explanation, I can only infer that the procurement processes were not adhered to,” she said.
Asked by her legal counsel advocate Dali Mpofu why she made inference for their refusal to account for the equipment, Mkhwebane said it was based on evidence before her that revealed there was equipment procured and that it was being utilised.
“From Sars and implicated parties we don’t get that information. We had information that they had equipment kept at the Sars building somewhere and that the equipment was being utilised.”
The public protector could not understand why Sars kept information away from her.
“Surely a state institution, which has assets, surely needs to account for that. If there is a donation, there is a process to follow.”
Mkhwebane also said the existence of the unit is a non-disputable fact and therefore the buying of equipment was an obvious consequence.
“I am of the view that the failure and blatant refusal of Sars and its former employees to provide me with records of the procurement and whereabouts of the said equipment is unwarranted and undermines my ability to perform my constitutional functions.”
Mkhwebane said the failure by Sars and denial by the former employees of the existence and purchasing of the equipment was a clear indication that such equipment was utilised for activities falling outside Sars’s investigative mandate.
However, she said she had no intention to interfere with the mandate of the revenue service.
“We need to deal with those that conduct illicit trading impacting on the economy, but do so within your mandate.”
She noted that the Nugent Commission had no gripes with Sars enjoying an investigative mandate, but that it had to do so within limits.
“That means doing within your mandate,” Mkhwebane said.
“I see no reason why Sars can’t establish a unit and if they do it will be within their mandate.”
Her investigation put the amount at R40 million to purchase the “sophisticated” equipment, though Sars referred to R1m only.
During her testimony, she read to the record a letter from the current Sars boss confirming the equipment that formed part of the unit was securely stored in Sars premises under supervision of the Hawks and the State Security Agency and that it was to be relocated to a new secure location.
Mkhwebane said her remedial action was that the equipment related to the SSA mandate and that it should be taken over by the spooks.
“I believe that due to our investigation finally they are implementing our remedial action. It is the same equipment we independently got evidence that it was procured,” she said about the relocation of the equipment.
Cape Times