---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG  DIVISION, PRETORIA)

Case Number: 60 723 / 20 17

 

 

In the matter between:

VLOK SYMMINGTON                                                                                        APPLICANT

And

SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES                                                   RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

Fabricius J,

1.

In this urgent application, the Applicant seeks the following   relief:

ii)    "Pending the outcome of the relief in Part B:

2.1            The Respondent is  interdicted  from taking  any disciplinary  action against

the  Applicant, that  in  any  way  relates  to  protected  disclosures  listed in

Part B;

2.2              The  Respondent  is  interdicted  from  suspending  the  Applicant  from his employment,  for  reasons  that  in  anyway  relate to  protected disclosures listed in Part B;

2.3            The Respondent  is  interdicted from engaging  in any  conduct  towards the Applicant  which  would amount  to  an  "occupational  detriment”  as defined in the Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000 (‘The PDA”).

iii)   The Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application".

In Part B, the following relief was  sought:

5.    "It  is  declared  that  the  following  disclosures   by  the  Applicant    constitute

"protective  disclosures " as defined in  s.  1 and  6  of  Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000 ("The  PDA" );

5.1            The lodging of a grievance  with the Respondent on or about  27    October 20 16;

5.2            The  participation  in  the  subsequent  investigation  into the  grievance, and the evidence  provided to the external  Attorneys  tasked  with investigating the grievance;

6.    It  is  declared   that   the  following   disclosures   by  the  Applicant   constitute "protected disclosures" as defined in s. 1,  8 and  9  of the  PDA:

6.1       The   disclosures   made   by   the   Applicant   to   the   Independent  Police Investigation  Directorate  ("IPID")  during the period October  to December 2016 ;

6.  2     The   disclosures   made   by   the   Applicant  to  the   National Prosecuting Authority  ("The NPA")  during the period October  to December  2016.

7.         The  Respondent  is  interdicted  and  restrained  from  subjecting  the employee to any  form  of  "occupational detriment"  as  defined  in  s.  1 (vi)  of  the  PDA, which is in anyway connected to any of the above disclosures.

8.      The Applicant is declared to be excluded from all civil  and criminal  liability   as a result of making the above disclosures, in terms of s.  9  ( 1) of the PDA."

A cost order was also  sought.

2.

The hearing  served before  me on 15 September  2017  and  the disciplinary  enquiry was  to  be  held  on  18  and  19  September.  During  the  hearing,   the    Respondent however  indicated  that  it  would not proceed  with any  hearing  before  my judgment had been delivered.

3.

In the Founding  Affidavit,  Applicant  alleged  that  he  made  several  disclosures which qualify  as  "protected  disclosures"  as  defined  in  s.  1,  5  and  9  of  the  Protected Disclosures Act.  As a  result of having made those disclosures,  he said, he   now faced a disciplinary  hearing  and probable dismissal from his employment  with  SARS. He added that the disclosures  related to events that took place on 18 October     2016. In order  to motivate  this allegation,  he  deemed  it  necessary  to  provide  an  account "of the larger events"  leading  up to the incident  on 18 October  2016 .  Most  of  those events  did not involve him  personally,  but he alleged  that  the  events  of  18 October 2016  must be understood  in the broader context of the issues of State Capture,    and the  attempts  to oust Mr  Pravin Gordhan,  a  former  Minister  of  Finance  from  his position. He then continued to describe the events that apparently  took place   relating to  the  removal  of  Minister  Nene  and  Minister  Gordhan  from  their  posts.  In    that particular  context  his involvement  was that  he had  drafted a  memorandum  in March 2009 ,  in which he  expressed an opinion  that  the  proposed  retirement  of  Mr Ivan Pillay,  a former  Deputy  Commissioner  of SARS,  was  lawful,  and in compliance with applicable laws and  regulations. Respondent   sought  an  order   striking  out  these   allegations   as  being irrelevant amongst  others,  but  at  the  hearing  of  this  application  I  was  not  invited  to  do so inasmuch  as the argument  pertaining thereto  would be presented to the  Court  in later proceedings  dealing with Part B of the Notice of   Motion. Respondent' s view in the Answering  Affidavit  was that  the particular  paragraphs were  in  the  form  of  a  political  treatise  based  on  unconfirmed  hearsay  and media reports.  They  could  well be  interesting  to read  as part  of  a  wider  dissemination of information  about political events which are playing themselves  out in  this country  at the moment, but it    was said that they were irrelevant and speculative in the context of the present application. They had no bearing as to how the Applicant conducted himself  at  a  particular   meeting  on  18  October  2016.  It  was  also  said  that     by referring  to  these  speculative  and  irrelevant  events and  Applicant's  conduct in general  after the incident on  18 October,  demonstrated  his tendency  for  melodrama and the exaggeration of his self-importance.

4.

The  broad  purpose  of  the   Protected  Disclosures  Act  is  to  encourage whistle

blowers  in  the  interests  of  accountable  and  transparent  governance  in  both the public and private sector.  That engages an important constitutional value and  such values  must  therefore be given  full weight in  interpreting  the particular  legislation. A general protected  disclosure  must be made under  the circumstances  it  described in s 9 of the Act. A "disclosure" is also defined in s. 1, and so is the "occupational detriment”   which   is   prohibited   by  the  provisions   s.   3   which   reads   as follows: " Employee   or  worker   making   protected   disclosure   not  to  be   subjected to occupational  detriment. -   No  employee  or   worker   may   be   subjected   to any occupational  detriment  by  his  or  her  employer  on account,  or  partly  on  account, of having  made  a  protected  disclosure".  Any  employee  who  has  been  subjected,  is subjected  or may  be subjected  to an occupational  detriment  in  breach  of  s.  3 has certain remedies  set out in s.  4  of the  Act,  which would include  an approach  to this Court and the Labour Court for appropriate   relief.

5.

Before dealing  any further  with questions arising from this Act in the present   context, it is necessary to revert to the  facts. On  18   October   20 16,  Applicant  met  with  certain  officers  of  the  HAWKS  in  a boardroom. He  was    asked   to   provide   further    details   regarding   his    2009 memorandum.  He returned to his office to work on the required affidavit  and    was later  confronted  by  a Mr  Thabo  Titi,  who demanded  that  he hand  over  a  certain document  to him.  He objected to that  and Mr Titi  allegedly  then  locked  the door   to the boardroom, refused to allow him to leave or phone for assistance. He called his secretary  and  SARS  security  for such  assistance  however,  but they  were refused access  to the  boardroom.  He then  called  10111 to  report that  he  was  being  held against his will. At some point he then began a video and audio recording of the events  using his cell phone.  At  some  stage,  also  his  superior  Mr  Louw  joined the meeting and other  SARS colleagues,  and he described  how an altercation   occurred, which  included  him  being  grabbed,  his  arm  being  twisted  and  certain documents being   wrestled   from  his   hand.   He  alleged  that   he   was   extremely   upset and traumatized  by what had transpired  and thereafter  made disclosures  which are now alleged to be protected  disclosures in terms of the  Act.

In the Founding  Affidavit he says that the first protected disclosure    was an email that

he  sent  to  Mr  Robert  McBride,  Head of  IPID on  21 October  2016 ,  setting  out   a

summary of the events  on 18 October and enquiring as to whether IPID    could assist him. IPID was  presented with a full statement together with access    to  the audio and video recordings on his cell  phone. The second  protected  disclosure  was a Supplementary  Affidavit made 14 December 2016, which he submitted  to  IPID.

The  third protected  disclosure  was a  formal complaint  raised  against  Mr Titi  on 27 October 2016.

6.

After  some  time  he  was  informed  that  an  independent   firm  of  Attorneys would investigate  his  grievance  and  it  is  clear  that  the  firm  Mothle  Jooma  Sabdia then provided   two   memoranda   recommending   ultimately   that   he   be   charged with misconduct. It  is for present purposes not necessary  to deal with the contents these reports and on which basis  they were produced.  Applicant  has certain complaints   in respect thereof which were fully dealt with in his Founding Affidavit.

7.

On  25 July  2017,  the  senior  manager  of  workplace  relations  at  SARS,  sent the following  email  to  him  and  Mr  Titi:  "I had indicated  in my  emails  to  you that the Thipe Mothle of Mothle Jooma Sabdia was requested to provide a conclusive   report on all findings related to the incident that gave rise to the  grievance.

He has  now  concluded  that exercise and has provided his  addendum  report with recommendations to the organization.  A copy of this  addendum  report is   attached.

The report has been considered by the organization which has elected to accept   the findings  and recommendations made. Key amongst the recommendations made was that charges be brought against   both of  you  for  possible  misconducts  highlighted  in  the  report.  Due  to  the dynamics involved in this matter it has been decided  that a disciplinary  process be run by external parties.  An  external chairperson  as well as  external initiator  be appointed  to conduct  the  process.  Details   of  the  proceedings  will  be  shared  with  you  by  your HRBP once the parties are  appointed".

8.

On   29  August   20 17,  a  notice  of  a  disciplinary   hearing  was  presented to   the Applicant and it is necessary that I quote  it: "You  are hereby  given  notice to attend a disciplinary  hearing  in terms of Clause  10 of the Disciplinary  Code and  Procedure.

The alleged misconducts  are (a detailed description of the misconducts  is  attached):

INTRODUCTION

You are employed by SARS as senior legal advisor, with an obligation to, inter alia,

•      Obey all lawful and reasonable instructions issued to  you;

•      Act in the best interests of SARS at all  times;

•      Respect your fellow employees;

•      Treat all your fellow employees with dignity; and

•      Not bring the image and name of SARS into  disrepute.

It is alleged that you have committed gross misconduct by breaching all of the above

duties as set out hereunder:

CHARGE 1:

•      GROSS INSUBORDINATION, ALTERNATIVELY,

•      INSUBORDINATION, FURTHER ALTERNATIVELY,

•      REFUSAL TO OBEY LAWFUL AND REASONABLE INSTRUCTIONS

1.              It is alleged that you are guilty of misconduct as set out above  in     that on 18 October  2016  and at  Lehae  la SARS,  Brooklyn,  Pretoria,  you repeatedly, unreasonably  and  obstinately  refused  to  comply  with  repeated  lawful  and reasonable  instructions  given  to  you separately  by Mr Thabo Titi, acting  on behalf  of  the  Commissioner  of  SARS,  Mr  Kosie  Louw,   your  line manager, and  Brigadier  Xaba,  acting  on behalf of  the HAWKS,  to surrender  and hand over  to  them,   separately  and/ or  jointly,  documents   which   were  in   your possession  and under your  control at the time consisting of a letter from    the National  Prosecuting  Authority  ("NPA")  and  email  attachments,  the  latter having been erroneously been attached to the letter from the  NPA.

CHARGE 2: CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF AN EMPLOYEE OF  SARS

2.           It is alleged that on 18  October  2016  and inside Boardroom  1A, at Lehae  la SARS,   Brooklyn,   Pretoria,   you  conducted   yourself  in  an  unbecoming, belligerent and    disgraceful manner by becoming visibly    agitated, argumentative, obstinate and disrespectful  while interacting with members   of the  Hawks,   including   Brigadier   Xaba   and  Colonel   Maluleke,   and  SARS employees, including Messrs. Louw,  Titi, Clifford Smith and Mark  Kingen.

CHARGE    3:    USE    OF    ABUSIVE    AND    INSULTING    LANGUAGE    AND

AGGRESSIVE  CONDUCT

3.              It is alleged that on 18  October  2016  and inside  Boardroom  1A at Lehae  la SARS,  Brooklyn, Pretoria,  you verbally  insulted,  abused  and undermined the dignity of Mr Thabo Titi by uttering and directing the following words towards him  ':. .your own bloody phone you  f... ng phone yourself  or words  to   that effect,  and  by  aggressively  pointing  and shoving  a  cell  phone  towards his face.

CHARGE 4: BRINGING THE NAME AND IMAGE OF SARS INTO  DISREPUTE

4.             .   It is alleged that  on 18 October  2016  and inside  Boardroom  1A, at Lehae  la SARS,   Brooklyn,   Pretoria,    you   recorded   interactions   between    yourself, members of the HAWKS and employees of SARS on your cell phone.    You thereafter,  shared  the  recorded  footage  with  unknown  third  parties,    which resulted in the footage being broadcast on public media,  which    had the result of bringing the name and image of SARS into   disrepute.

The hearing will take place  on:

DATE:	TIME:	VENUE:
18  & 19  September 2017	09:00	LEHAE LA SARS BOARDROOM  4

If  you do not attend and cannot give reasonable grounds  for failing to    attend, the hearing will be held in your absence.

You have the following  rights:

•          To be  represented  by  a  fellow  employee  or a  union  representative of a recognized  trade union;

•          To have  reasonable  access  to documents  and/ or information  to prepare for the hearing;

•          To  be  allowed   reasonable  time  to  full  pay  and  benefits  away  from     the workplace to prepare for the  hearing;

•          To have an interpreter  if  so desired;

•         To  present  evidence  on  your  behalf  in  the  form  of  documents  or through witnesses;

•         To cross-examine witnesses of the employer;

•         If   found   guilty,   present   any   relevant   circumstances    in   mitigation    in determining the disciplinary sanction, and

•          To apply for an Appeal against  the outcome of the disciplinary   hearing".

9.

It  is  clear  from the charges  that  they  all relate  to  the  events  that  occurred  on 18

October 20 16 .

10.

In this context the following was said in the Respondent's Answering Affidavit having regard  to  the  relief  sought  and  the  relevant  allegations  made  by  the  Applicant  in Founding Affidavit:

1.               The  relief  sought  was  incompetent  in  that  Applicant   was  not  under     any eminent  threat  of suspension.  Also,  nowhere in his Founding Affidavit did   he claim  that he had been  threatened  with  suspension  pending  the outcome  of the disciplinary  hearing.  The notice of the disciplinary  hearing  also makes  no reference to any  pending  or contemplated  suspension.  Applicant  himself also does  not allege that any  such intention  was ever  communicated  with him  by Respondent.   Accordingly,   any   claim   for   an   interdict   relating   to    such suspension  of the Applicant  was baseless  and without  any factual support;

2.              A  proper consideration of the notice  of disciplinary  hearing made  it    patently clear that the charges which form the subject matter of the proposed hearing related to  events of 18 October  2016.  The  charges  of  misconduct  relate   to the manner  in which the Applicant conducted  himself during the events   which led to the investigation  that  was  conducted  by Mathie  and reported  on  it   in the report submitted by him and the addendum thereto;

3.              The  alleged  "protected disclosures"  referred  to  in  Part  B  of  the  Notice  of Motion  and elucidated  upon in  the Founding  Affidavit  make it  clear  that they relate  to  reports  made  by  the  Applicant  after  18  October   20 16 . Properly construed,  the alleged protected  disclosures bear no relation to the charges as formulated  in  the  notice of  disciplinary  hearing. It is beyond  dispute   that the investigative  report  prepared  by  Mathie  was  as  a  result  of  a grievance lodged  by the Applicant himself;

4.             In the report it  was  said that having regard to the various versions    presented as to what occurred  on 18  October  2016, these conflicting  versions  ought to be tested in the hearing;

5.             Respondent was entitled to exercise its powers and responsibilities as set out in s. 9 (2) (c) of the South African Revenue Act 34 of 1997as amended, which provided   that   the   Commissioner of the Respondent had the responsibility in particular for the maintenance of discipline of the employees of Respondent;

6.              There  was  also  no  allegation  by  the  Applicant  that  the  respondent  was not entitled to discipline  its employees  in respect  of allegations of misconduct.  At the hearing Mr Unterhalter  SC, on behalf of Applicant,  also submitted    that  he did not  seek  to attack  the fairness  or  otherwise  of the envisaged disciplinary hearing;

7.              Applicant  had also  not  suggested  or  offered any  basis  in  terms  of  which it could be concluded  that an independent  chairperson  who would preside  over the   disciplinary   hearing   would   not   conduct   such   in   a   fair   manner as contemplated  in  labour legislation and Respondent's  disciplinary  code and procedure.  An  independent   Advocate  was  appointed  to  preside  over    the hearing as well as an independent initiator .

8.              Accordingly,  there  was no reasonable  prospect  of  the Applicant  succeeding in the relief sought in  Part B of the Notice of Motion  which would warrant the granting of the interim relief sought in Part   A.

The crux was that the Applicant  was not charged in respect of any of the disclosures that  he  made  subsequent to 18 October 2016.

11.

In any  event,  Applicant  had all  the statutory  remedies  at his disposal  were he to be found   guilty   and   if   he   was   dismissed   because   of   any   protected disclosures contemplated  by the  Act, he  would be  entitled to  full  retrospective  reinstatement by the Labour  Court in  terms  of s. 187  (h), read with  s.  193  (1)  (a)  of the  Labour Relations Act of 1995 as amended. It was also submitted  in the Answering    Affidavit and argued by Ms K. Pillay SC, on behalf of the Respondent, that Applicant had not shown  a  prima  facie  right  open  to  some  doubt,  would  not  suffer  any  irreparable harm,  and  was not entitled to an interim  interdict on the  basis  of  the balance  of convenience  being  in  his  favour  either,  inasmuch as  the  Respondent  is  entitled to exercise its prerogative  to discipline its employees who have engaged in   conduct that is prohibited by Respondent ' s disciplinary code.

12.

It  is  clear  that   s.   3   of  the   Protected  Disclosures  Act   makes   it   clear   that an employee  may  not be subjected to  any occupational  detriment  "on account,  or  partly on  account"  of  having  made  a  protected   disclosure.  There  must  therefore   be    a discernible link between a disclosure made and "any occupational detriment". In the present  instance,  such  would  include  being  subjected  to  any  disciplinary     action, having  regard  to  the  definition  of  "occupational detriment”  in  s.  1 of the  Act. Mr Unterhalter  submitted  in this  context  that this link meant  something  lesser  than legal causation, having regard to the fact that interpretation issues  pertaining to this   Act should  be  done  in  a  manner  that  would  result  in  the  broadest  possible protection given to a whistle blower. In this context reference  was made to    City of Tshwane Municipality  v Engineering  Council of South Africa 2010 (2) SA  333 SCA at  par.42. I have no difficulty with this interpretation which seems to be enforced by specific reference to "partly on account". In both instances however an analysis of the factual situation remains  important.

13.

The  charges  must  therefore  be  analysed   vis-a-vis  the  relief  sought  in  respect thereof. Applicant, in the Founding  Affidavit  referred to  the disclosures  made by him and   I have mentioned them. Ms Pillay argued that none of the disclosures  relied upon   by Applicant were disclosures as defined by the Act. Also, she argued that   Applicant' s Founding Affidavit failed to  set out the factual basis on which it was contended   that the three disclosures relied upon by him constituted protected disclosures. I prefer to leave these topics for the Court hearing Part  B  of the application.  At present  I   am concerned  about the three disclosures  that Applicant  has pleaded in the  Founding Affidavit, which forms the basis of this application. The question now is whether the charges  were  brought  "on  account  or  partly  on  account  of,  of  having  made  a protected disclosure?"

14.

In the Replying  Affidavit,  Applicant purports  to make  out  a  new  and/ or  additional case  concerning  "constitutional  issues  raised  in  this  application".  I  do  not know exactly which issues he has in mind, but he puts this new case as   follows:

13.1           'T his application raises serious constitutional matters of significant  public importance, relating to the Rule of Law and principle of legality  generally, and in  particular the spectre  of a State  Capture  and the  obstruction   of justice and the use of selective prosecutions by public institutions   tasked with law enforcement.

13.2            Furthermore,  the  application  raises  novel and  constitutionally important questions  regarding  the  application  of  the  PDA, and  the  admission of hearsay evidence on grounds of public interest, in matters of this nature". None of these issues has been pleaded as they ought to have been, and  Applicant's urgent application  is certainly  not based thereon, as it  appears  from  the Founding Affidavit. It is impermissible to plead a particular    case and then to seek to establish a different case, either in reply or at a hearing. It is equally impermissible for a   Court to have recourse to issues falling outside the pleadings.

See: Molusi and Others v Voges N.O. 2016 (3) SA 370 (CC) at paras. 27 to 28.

He continued to say that for the purposes of adjudicating  Part    A of this application, the Court should take cognisance of the broader background information, and should accept, at least on the prima facie level, that it constitutes a fair summary    of events that are largely within public knowledge, and which are of critical importance to the country.

15.

I  have  briefly  referred  to  the  "broader  background",  but  in  my  view  it  must be emphasized  that this broader  background,  which  may indeed one day become   of critical  importance  to the country,  has at present  nothing  to  do  with the  question whether or not I should grant Part A of the application on an urgent basis, and the question  whether  or not the disclosures that  he  made after  the altercations  in  the office on 18 October  20 16 ,  are now the subject  matter of the charges as they    have been framed.

16.

In   the   Replying   Affidavit,   Applicant   furthermore   attacks   the   integrity   and   the credibility  of Mr T.  Moyane,  the Commissioner  of SARS  in the context  of  whether or not  he  had  been  the  complainant  in  the  criminal  case  against   Mr  Gordhan,     the

previous Minister  of  Finance.  I  must  emphasize  that this question is  not  the subject matter  to  be decided  herein,  and it is  unfair to the  Respondent  as well that  that debate  was raised  in  some  detail  in  a  Replying  Affidavit to  which  the Respondent could   not  ordinarily   answer  to.   That   particular   debate   is   for   present purposes irrelevant. Other issues, also irrelevant, are raised in Replying Affidavit in the context of the  fairness  or otherwise  of Respondent's  instructions  to the  firm of Attorneys which produced the two reports. That is also not the subject matter of the present proceedings.  Other  irrelevant  issues  are  whether  or  not  SARS  has on previous occasions    ignored   the   findings    of   independent    chairpersons    and   dismissed employees  regardless  of  the  fact  that  the  chairperson  imposed  a  lesser sanction, whether  or  not SARS fails to comply  with the provisions  of its own disciplinary    code and whether  or not members of the National  Prosecuting  Authority  and the   HAWKS acted  mala fide in certain  instances.  Those issues  may  or may not become  relevant during  disciplinary  proceedings  against the Applicant,  but for present  purposes   they are not.

17.

Applicant  also,  together with the Replying Affidavit,  filed a notice in terms of Rule 16A which purported to raise certain constitutional issues which, as I have said, are not  the subject  matter  of the present  proceedings  and have  not been  pleaded. In any  event, the notice  is so broad  and vague that it  for  practical  purposes   becomes meaningless,  certainly in these proceedings, if not in   general.

18.

In the Replying Affidavit, Applicant also says the   following:

34.3    "In  broad  strokes,  my  defence  is  that  I  acted  in   the  manner  that  I     did, because  I  was  subjected  to  unlawful  kidnaping,  intimidation  and  assault by the HAWKS, assisted by Titi, and that in the circumstances, my conduct  was reasonable, and I am not guilty of misconduct".

That  defence  is  one that  ought  to be put before  the envisaged  disciplinary  enquiry. Applicant' s own  version of  the events  in the office on 18  October  2016,  and the findings  of Attorney  Mathie,  certainly  show conflicting  facts  as to who  did what  and when and why during  the particular  altercation,  or scuffle. In my  view,  those   events ought to have been  settled with a handshake  and a discussion  over  a  beer. Mr    Titi was   prepared  to  accept   an  apology,   whilst   Applicant   demanded   his  dismissal. Respondent's comment that Applicant is inclined to melodrama is borne out by   his assertion that he was "subjected to unlawful kidnapping". The persons on that day in the  boardroom  conducted  themselves  in  a  less  than  dignified  manner  and  that is about  it.  The disciplinary  enquiry  will have to determine whether  or not the   charges raised against the Applicant have any merit and whether they are serious. In my view the charges are not brought "on account, or partly on account, of ... ", having

20.

As a result of all of the above considerations I am of the view that the  Applicant has not made  out a case for  an interim  interdict,  and accordingly  the  application is dismissed with costs, including costs of two Counsel.

_____________________________

JUDGE H.J FABRICIUS

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

---