Read more
State Capture: Zondo commission denies Van Rooyen’s claims on rule 3.3 notice
The commission says it has done nothing wrong and Van Rooyen was served with a Rule 3.3 notice in respect of Dr Dahwa’s affidavit.
Chief Justice Raymond Zondo during the interviews for South Africa’s next Chief Justice at Park Hotel on 4 February 2022 in Sandton. Photo: Gallo Images/Daily Maverick/Felix Dlangamandla
The State Capture Commission, chaired by Acting Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, has refuted claims made by former finance minister Des van Rooyen challenging the commission’s first report handed over to President Cyril Ramaphosa in January.
Van Rooyen wrote to the commission about some of the allegations levelled against him in the report, which deals with the South African Airways Soc Limited (SAA) and its subsidiaries.
“We refer in particular to the evidence of Dr Dahwa at the Commission in relation to Mr Van Rooyen. In paragraph 264 it is stated that Dr Dahwa testified that Mr Van Rooyen explained that the Mkonto weSizwe Military Veterans Association (MKMVA), wanted to do business with SAA and particularly with respect to two contracts, namely security provision and the Amadeus contract extension…” reads the letter.
“We wish to put it on record that our instructions are that Mr Van Rooyen did not receive a rule 3.3 notice from the Commission in regard to the evidence of Dahwa, which implicated him.”
The commission on Monday released a statement refuting the claims by Van Rooyen.
ALSO READ: Zondo Commission confirms it’s asking for another two month extension
“Last week Mr Des Van Rooyen gave interviews to TV channels and newspapers in which he complained that in Part I of its Report the Commission made findings against him based on Dr Dahwa’s evidence without having served him with a Rule 3.3. notice in regard to Dr Dahwa’s evidence,” reads the statement.
“To this end Mr Van Rooyen has demanded that the Commission should withdraw its findings against him that are based on Dr Dahwa’s evidence.
“The Commission’s response to Mr Des Van Rooyen’s complaint is simple and straightforward… Van Rooyen was served with a Rule 3.3 notice in respect of Dr Dahwa’s affidavit.
“The notice and Dr Dahwa’s affidavit were emailed to Mr Van Rooyen’s email address which he still uses as his email address. Attached to this statement are the Rule 3.3 notice and Dr Dahwa’s affidavit as sent to Mr Des Van Rooyen at the relevant time… Van Rooyen was served with a Rule 3.3. notice and he elected not to respond to the Rule 3.3 notice.”
The Commission said that it has done nothing wrong.
