Court judgments on ‘lying’ Gigaba could colour his testimony to MPs
When DA MP Natasha Mazzone raised this point at the inquiry, Gigaba said the judgments were sub judice as they were being appealed
A recent series of court judgments branding Malusi Gigaba a liar could colour the way the Home Affairs Minister’s testimony to Parliament’s state-capture inquiry is received. Gigaba appeared before Parliament’s public enterprises committee on Tuesday, amid allegations that he stacked the boards of state entities with Gupta proxies. When DA MP Natasha Mazzone raised the point of the judgments at the inquiry, Gigaba said: “The judgments are sub judice because they are being appealed. The judgment was based on a minute that was formulated by one party and not concurred with by another party. That we are going to appeal those issues is without any doubt.” The latest blow in his court battle came on March 7, when the Constitutional Court denied him leave to appeal against a ruling that found he’d lied under oath in his bruising legal battle with the Oppenheimer family. The first judgment, delivered by Judge Sulet Potterill on December 8 last year, found Gigaba’s arguments "disingenuous ...
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Subscribe now to unlock this article.
Support BusinessLIVE’s award-winning journalism for R129 per month (digital access only).
There’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in SA. Our subscription packages now offer an ad-free experience for readers.
Cancel anytime.
Questions? Email helpdesk@businesslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now.