Você está na página 1de 4

R C Krause/mv Not available

06 March 2018

Parliament of the Republic of South Africa


P O Box 15
Cape Town
8000

FOR THE ATTENTION OF : MS. L. MNGANGA-GCABASHE

CHAIRPERSON: PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE


ON PUBLIC ENTERPRISES

PER EMAIL : dmocumi@parliament.gov.za

Dear Ms Lungi Mnganga-Gcabashe,

1. We act for Mr Ajay Gupta, Mr Atul Gupta and Mr Rajesh Gupta.

2. We refer to your letter of invitation dated 1 March 2018, addressed to Mr Ajay Gupta, Mr
Atul Gupta and Mr Rajesh Gupta respectively, inviting them to appear on 13 March 2018
at 09h30, before the Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises.

3. Please be advised that Messrs Gani Mayet Attorneys no longer act for our respective
clients. They are not mandated to accept service of any documents on behalf of our said
clients and remain not so mandated.

4. This firm is also not mandated to accept service of any process in relation to your inquiry
or at all.

5. However, your abovementioned invitation has been drawn to the attention of our clients
and we are instructed to answer on their behalf as follows:-

5.1. The record of the evidence of the witnesses, referred to in your invitation, was not
attached to the invitation. It would therefore not have been possible for our clients
to discern therefrom the issues to be dealt with by them in either written or verbal
representations or evidence.

5.2. The fact that Parliament would apparently ask our clients to trawl through evidence
of other parties themselves to discern the issues to which they should respond and
which are relevant to the inquiry before the Portfolio Committee, speaks volumes
for the vague, disordered, uncontrolled and untrammelled nature of the inquiry.

5.3. Our clients have had occasion to view the substance of the proceedings of the said
Portfolio Committee in relation to the so-called Eskom inquiry. The proceedings
are conducted with no effective guidance from the chairperson or anyone with a
measure of control over the proceedings, in such a way that identified issues are
probed in a sensible, fair and controlled manner. The proceedings are to a large
extent an exercise in political show-boating by Parliamentarians intent either on
making political speeches, insulting witnesses or otherwise questioning witnesses

Page | 2
in a manner which is not conducive to the resolution of identified or identifiable
issues.

5.4. Witnesses are subjected to unfair questioning in relation to issues which are totally
irrelevant to the oversight inquiry. The witnesses are confronted with allegations
which amount to nothing but conjecture, speculation and biased conclusions
without any underlying evidence.

5.5. The questioning of witnesses is allowed in circumstances where the presiding


officer appears to be completely unable and unwilling to ensure that the
proceedings before the committee are conducted with any form of decorum or
control. Witnesses are humiliated and belittled at the will of politicians.

5.6. The workings of this committee, televised for the dramatic effect thereof, are
clearly a platform for political grandstanding and expedience. The conduct of the
proceedings is manifestly unfair and improper.

5.7. To make matters worse, the Directorate of Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) of
the South African Police Service has informed the public in media releases during
the beginning of February 2018, by virtue of its spokesperson, that warrants had
been issued for the arrest of Mr Ajay Gupta, Mr Atul Gupta and Mr Rajesh Gupta.
The subject matter in respect of which these warrants have been issued remain a
mystery as the DPCI bluntly refuses to provide our firm with any information
relating to the basis for the alleged issue of any warrants of arrest and to provide
copies thereof.

5.8. The recent experience of our clients in the Free State High Court in an application
for the reconsideration of certain preservation orders, gives our clients substantial
concern and confirmation that the storm of allegations made against them is not
rooted in, or based upon, adequate and responsible investigation. Our clients are
not willing to subject themselves to an irresponsible investigation.

Page | 3
5.9. In the event of warrants of arrest having been issued for our clients in respect of
issues that might arise before the Portfolio Committee, our clients would not know
whether such issues are covered by the warrants of arrest allegedly issued, and
therefore would not be able to guide themselves with regard to whether or not to
make use of their right to silence, or not.

6. As it happens, our clients are not presently in the Republic of South Africa, being absent
for business reasons. Accordingly, our clients decline the invitation to appear before the
Portfolio Committee. In the circumstances, we cannot advise Messrs Gupta that their
view is not an incorrect one.

Yours faithfully,

MR R C KRAUSE
DIRECTOR

BDK ATTORNEYS
DAVID H BOTHA, DU PLESSIS & KRUGER INC.

Page | 4