Molefe makes mockery of our laws – lawyer

Lawyers representing trade union Solidarity‚ the DA and Public Enterprises Minister Lynne Brown took turns shredding former Eskom boss Brian Molefe’s argument that his return to Eskom was not re-instatement but a continuation of his contract. The parties to the application before the Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) want Molefe’s re-instatement and the decision to grant him a R30m pension payout declared unlawful and set aside, notes a TimesLIVE report. Advocate Anton Katz SC‚ for Solidarity‚ said Molefe had publicly said he was stepping down in the interest of good governance but returned without then Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s State of Capture report implicating him in state capture having been set aside. Katz said Molefe did not care what this statement‚ that he was stepping down‚ meant to the public and the world. He said Molefe resigned but realised that he had made a mistake and returned. ‘He makes mockery of our laws … he realised his mistake‚ that he is not getting the R30m (early retirement package)‚’ he charged. Earlier‚ Molefe’s lawyer‚ Arnold Subel SC‚ said the case against his client was ‘high on emotions but low on facts’. The crux of his argument was that Molefe never resigned from Eskom but took an early retirement so there was no re-instatement but rather a continuation of employment. Subel said based on these facts‚ there was no administrative action to be set aside. But Brown’s lawyer‚ Garth Hulley, said Molefe’s exact words were that he had decided ‘to leave my employ at Eskom’ and that ‘I leave now’. ‘That is the end of the matter. That is resignation. Whether he uses the term ‘resignation’ is neither here nor there‚’ he said. Advocate Paul Kennedy‚ for the DA‚ said Molefe stepped down and Brown used the term ‘resigned’ in her public announcements but Molefe never corrected her.

Subel also raised the 'grand conspiracy' theory. If the DA and Solidarity are correct that there had been some grand conspiracy to land Molefe his golden handshake, which he denies, then the case should be dismissed anyway, Subel contended, according to a Mail & Guardian Online report. ‘If this was a disguised transaction, then with respect it is invalid,’ said Subel. ‘So being invalid you don’t then have a valid termination … If there isn’t a valid termination, then his re-entry in 2017 is not in terms of a new administrative act.’ Instead, Molefe would simply have been returning to an office he had never legally left, and is now due to occupy, and the DA and Solidarity would have nothing to review. Judgment was reserved.