Lungisa Fuzile (Felix Dlangamandla)

• Former Treasury DG and Van Rooyen’s lawyer went back and forth over the appointment of the adviser and chief of staff.
• Fuzile and Van Rooyen have different versions of what took place at the swearing-in at Union Buildings in 2015.
• Fuzile believes Van Rooyen’s lawyer did not deal with the material issue during cross-examination.

Former Treasury director-general (DG) Lungisa Fuzile and Des van Rooyen’s lawyer engaged in a tense exchange over the irregular appointments of two advisers during the former finance minister’s infamous “weekend appointment” in December 2015.

This comes after Van Rooyen’s lawyer, advocate Kgomosoane Mathipa, raised the appointment of Mohamed Bobat as the minister’s adviser and Ian Whitley as his chief of staff.

Mathipa put it to Fuzile that Bobat was first introduced to him by Van Rooyen as his special advisor, during Van Rooyen’s swearing-in ceremony at the Union Buildings. Van Rooyen then asked Fuzile to “expedite” Bobat’s appointment, the commission heard on Tuesday.

Fuzile responded, saying this was not true and that it was Bobat who introduced himself, not Van Rooyen.

“I found him there, I got the impression that they did not know each other,” Fuzile said.

Mathipa said his client believed he had introduced the two, after the swearing-in ceremony.

“I deny that,” Fuzile said in response.

Mathipa then put to Fuzile that he had not told the truth around the matter of Van Rooyen confusing the roles of the two men in his office.

“Mr Fuzile [in your statement] you say, ‘Mr Van Rooyen instructed me to expedite the process of formalising the appointment of Mr Mohamed Bobat and Mr Ian Whitley as advisor and chief of staff respectively’.

“But the difference, though, is that when you went to testify at the commission, you then said he [Van Rooyen] confused their positions, in his very office.

“But in your statement, the only time you say that Mr Van Rooyen confused the positions of the two people was at the meeting with the executive management.”

Fuzile then responded to Mathipa, asking what his point was.

“You didn’t tell the commission the truth, that’s what I’m saying. Because he did not confuse them.”

Fuzile denied this and said what was important was the fact that due process hadn’t been followed in the appointments.

Fuzile responded saying:

Mathipa stood his ground, insisting Fuzile’s claims of Van Rooyen confusing the roles of both men was not true, and put it to him that he had lied to the commission.

READ: Des van Rooyen wants to cross-examine former Treasury DG Lungisa Fuzile

Fuzile also dug in his heels, saying the fact that he only mentioned the ‘confusing’ once in his statement did not mean it had not happened on other occasions.

“He may have confused them again… and I may not have mentioned it in my statement. Does it make it a lie simply because I don’t repeat it?

“I deny that simply because I don’t repeat it, that he confused them, it makes it a lie.”

Mathipa then moved to a part in Fuzile’s statement, where he had said that, as a director-general, he regarded himself as the chief advisor to the minister of finance.

He put it to Fuzile that, at no stage, did he advise Van Rooyen he was not entitled to appoint Bobat and Whitley until the process was formalised.

“You never said that to him?” Mathipa asked.

“I did not know that the minister does not know that people do not work without a contract. Twice, I reminded them of the ministerial handbook and I went further to ask them to familiarise themselves with it.

“You don’t consider that to be advice to him in your world?” Fuzile said in response to the Mathipa’s question, which he described as “misplaced”.

The commission continues with Van Rooyen’s evidence.