Bid by former SARS officials to stay criminal charges against them

Former South African Revenue Service officials Ivan Pillay‚ Johann van Loggerenberg and Andries Janse van Rensburg have approached the High Court for an urgent application to stay the criminal charges brought against them.

The three were summonsed last month to appear in court on April 9 in connection with the alleged bugging of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) offices in 2007.

This follows the suspension of SARS commissioner Tom Moyane by President Cyril Ramaphosa last month.

Moyane had laid the charges that led to the investigation and subsequent summons against the three.

In a founding affidavit by Van Loggerenberg‚ he argues that there would be “substantial prejudice” to him and his co-accused‚ Pillay in particular‚ should they appear in court on April 9.

“It has been widely reported that (Pillay) ... is being very seriously considered for reinstatement as a senior official of SARS‚ in order to restore public confidence in and respect for SARS as an institution. (Pillay) is both willing and and able to return to SARS in this capacity if so requested‚” the affidavit reads.

The application is aimed at staying the prosecution of the three‚ pending the the completion of a review of the decision to prosecute in which the they are requesting an opportunity to make representations on the matter.

The counts the three are set to face are contravening the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Transactions Act‚ and contravening the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act.

Van Loggerenberg says the three had written to National Director of Public Prosecutions Shaun Abrahams asking him to withdraw the summons‚ give them an opportunity to make representations‚ and reconsider the decision to proceed with the prosecution. But he received no response‚ he says.

He says Abrahams appeared before Parliament’s standing committee on public accounts after that and told the committee that he had merely been “briefed” on the decision to prosecute and had played no part in it.

Van Loggerenberg says in the affidavit that‚ given Abrahams’s comments to the committee‚ it was clear he had not been afforded an opportunity to apply his mind to the merits of the decision.

The three then instructed their attorneys to write to Abrahams a second time. A detailed second letter with annexures was submitted to him on March 23‚ with a request that he respond by March 27.

Abrahams failed to respond on time‚ and failed to make a decision on whether representations could be submitted and the matter reviewed.

The matter is set to be heard in the High Court on Tuesday on an urgent basis.