In his quest to delay Ramaphosa, Moyane’s getting personal with Judge O’Regan

When it became clear that a settlement agreement in lieu of his resignation is firmly off the table, Tom Moyane and his legal team dived into the second phase of their defence. They are apparently trying to buy time as they prepare to take Ramaphosa to court and at the same time they have picked a bone with the judge chosen to head the disciplinary inquiry, Kate O’Regan.

Moyane’s legal team wrote two letters on Thursday: one was addressed to Kate O’Regan and the other to the State Attorney who is acting on behalf of Ramaphosa. In short, Moyane has accused O’Regan of a conflict of interest and has demanded that she recuse herself from chairing his disciplinary inquiry. While that may be the demand, it seems as if this is another ruse to delay the inquiry from deciding Moyane’s fate.

O’Regan has been given until the end of business on Friday to recuse herself because of her association with Corruption Watch – a civil society organisation that has taken a keen interest in the misgivings at SARS. Moyane’s lawyer Eric Mabuza argued in a letter to O’Regan on Thursday that they do not believe she will be objective and unbiased in the inquiry. They claim that her appointment to preside over the inquiry is “wholly unwarranted and undesirable”. Corruption Watch has long lobbied for Moyane’s removal, laid criminal charges against him and welcomed a decision by Ramaphosa to subject him to a disciplinary inquiry.



It is important to note that O’Regan has not made any public pronouncement of her own on Moyane, but despite this, his legal team is arguing that her association with Corruption Watch is enough to warrant a conflict of interest. Mabuza wrote in the letter:

“He (Moyane) does not believe that you will be able to bring an objective and unbiased mind to the inquiry. Given the obvious importance of this matter, Mr Moyane wants nothing more than to appear before a judge who has no iota of bias against him. Regrettably, he does not believe that you can discharge such responsibility in the circumstances of this case.”

“In fact, to put it bluntly, given the obvious and palpable perception of bias and conflict of interest on your part, it is rather surprising that you still accepted the appointment.”

“It beggars belief how the President, out of all available options, appointed a person who is so clearly conflicted as a member of Corruption Watch, a body which has adopted an openly hostile and unfair public posture against our client.”