Ramos hits back after Public Protector guns for ABSA

A

Adrianax

Banned
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
2,336
Reaction score
33
https://www.fin24.com/Companies/Fin...after-public-protector-guns-for-absa-20171128

Cape Town – ABSA CEO Maria Ramos said the bank will seek a punitive cost order if Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane continues to defend the Bankorp/CIEX report.

This was revealed in ABSA’s responding affidavit in the North Gauteng High Court on Monday, which accused Mkhwebane of unlawful conduct in her legal defence of the report.

The affidavit follows that of SARB’s responding affidavit on Monday, which accused Mkhwebane of making false statements in a back-and-forth legal tussle over her report into SARB’s Bankorp bailout in the 1990s.

Mkhwebane's 2017 report deemed that SARB’s R1.125bn bailout of Bankorp between 1985 and 1995 was unlawful and that ABSA – which bought the bank in 1992 – should pay back the money.

The report saw ABSA and SARB seek a court review to set aside the report, which has seen a back-and-forth of court papers.

Ramos, representing ABSA in the affidavit, said Mkhwebane’s “continued defence of the final report is manifestly unsustainable.

“Accordingly, if she continues to oppose this application in the face of the evidence of her unlawful conduct, ABSA intends to seek a punitive cost order.”

In its affidavit, SARB asked the court to order Mkhwebane to pay costs out of her own pocket and a declaratory order from the court that she has abused her office.

Ramos said that Mkhwebane’s answering affidavit retreats from the report and “seeks to introduce novel justifications and reasoning in support of the unlawful remedial action”.

Ramos said legal advice reveals that the “introduction of new reasons and evidence that did not inform the decision under review is not permissible”.

She said that the “belated attempts to reconstruct a basis for the remedial action and the findings in the final report cannot succeed”.

In her answering affidavit, Mkhwebane insists that Absa benefited from the bailout of Bankorp in the 1980s, and that the 2002 expert panel led by Judge Dennis Davis simply got it wrong.

However, Ramos said this was not so.

“It is not correct for the Public Protector to assume that the mere fact a merger took place was in itself a benefit – either at all, or at least a benefit caused by financial assistance.

“The fact that the financial assistance would continue was taken into account in determining the price of the acquisition: the price ABSA paid took account of the financial assistance.

“The bad debts owing to Bankorp were therefore off-set by the provision of the financial assistance – ABSA paid for this and hence did not benefit from the financial assistance.

“Furthermore, the immediate financial impact of the acquisition of Bankorp was that ABSA had to write off a further R288m of Bankorp bad debts. The acquisition was therefore financially detrimental for ABSA in the short term.”

Ramos said that Mkhwebane had never sought to evaluate or obtain ABSA’s response on the overall benefit or detriment caused to ABSA over the long term due to the acquisition of Bankorp.

In the responding affidavit, SARB accused Mkhwebane of breaking “virtually every rule that applies to an organ of state when its decision is taken on review”.

“This conduct is unbecoming of the important office that Ms Mkhwebane occupies,” Johannes de Jager, SARB’s general counsel in its legal services department, said on behalf of SARB in the affidavit. “It amounts to an abuse of her office.”
Click to expand...
 
I say ABSA should go for it and drain the state, economy and the office of the public protector until they close it down.

This guptstan is misusing her position and the office she holds. The office of the public protector must be ruled and null and void and an enemy of the people of South Africa.
 
To think Mkhwebane is officer of the law (Advocate).

She keeps making blunder moves. It clearly shows she is being remote controlled.

Can she be reported for being accessory to causing instability in one of organ of state institution (SARB)?

If she's reported to body that deals with dishonorable lawyers and found guilty, surely her name will be removed from the lawyer rolls and she'll be unfit to continue as public protector.

She's tiring.
 
Wish I could be at that court hearing next month, when SARB and ABSA will destroy her without mercy.
 
oscarlets said:
To think Mkhwebane is officer of the law (Advocate).

She keeps making blunder moves. It clearly shows she is being remote controlled.

Can she be reported for being accessory to causing instability in one of organ of state institution (SARB)?

If she's reported to body that deals with dishonorable lawyers and found guilty, surely her name will be removed from the lawyer rolls and she'll be unfit to continue as public protector.

She's tiring.
Click to expand...

She is not, at least not in my eyes.

She is an uneducated fool who got a free degree, as well as a BEE / AA appointee. She has no work experience, let alone legal experience. Her actions to date is 100% evidence of this. Her ties to the Guptas and the fact that she works for them was the only thing that got her the job.
 
Look at her CV: “Nationality: African”

https://www.parliament.gov.za/storage/app/media/PRandNews/content/B_Mkhwebane_1.pdf

She pretty much has 0 legal experience on the field (wether in court or advising) but only technical functions in government departments.

This clearly shows in her reports, you can be of bad faith in a smart fashion, she is just blatantly bad at lying.

Now look at Madonsela’s experience, it’s definitely another caliber. http://apps.ufs.ac.za/media/dl/user...2_03/Brief profile of Adv Thuli Madonsela.pdf
 
Am I the only one concerned that R1.2b of taxpayers money (which is probably more than R10b in today's terms) was used to finance a private company with private shareholders?
 
rza said:
Am I the only one concerned that R1.2b (which is probably more than R10b in today's terms) was used to finance a private company with private shareholders?
Click to expand...

Pretty much yes, because you are drinking from the same crap coolaid she drinks from.
 
Adrianax said:
She is not, at least not in my eyes.

She is an uneducated fool who got a free degree, as well as a BEE / AA appointee. She has no work experience, let alone legal experience. Her actions to date is 100% evidence of this. Her ties to the Guptas and the fact that she works for them was the only thing that got her the job.
Click to expand...

She's a political appointee, based on party affiliation. Her apathy is worsened by her general lack of technical experience, arrogance and powerful lobbying that got her there in the 1st place. As things stand, shes untouchable.
 
rza said:
Am I the only one concerned that R1.2b of taxpayers money (which is probably more than R10b in today's terms) was used to finance a private company with private shareholders?
Click to expand...

That’s the concept of the bailout.

Without this aid, Bankcorp would have collapsed and created much more damage to the economy.

The benefits of the bailout actually went to Sanlam
mutual owners and not to ABSA.
 
f2wohf said:
That’s the concept of the bailout.

Without this aid, Bankcorp would have collapsed and created much more damage to the economy.

The benefits of the bailout actually went to Sanlam
mutual owners and not to ABSA.
Click to expand...

The US bailed out the banks and got shareholding in return back in 2008/09, so why did we get nothing?
 
Feel nothing for ABSA. Let them burn. In Busisiwe Mkhwebane's corner on this one.
 
Solarion said:
Feel nothing for ABSA. Let them burn. In Busisiwe Mkhwebane's corner on this one.
Click to expand...

On what legal grounds would you be in her corner considering she has been given multiple legal beatdowns over this....
 
ToxicBunny said:
On what legal grounds would you be in her corner considering she has been given multiple legal beatdowns over this....
Click to expand...

The fact that she's incompetent doesn't change the fact that two judges (and CIEX) found the bailout unlawful. ABSA and SARB have no chance of winning this one at Constitutional Court.
 
rza said:
The fact that she's incompetent doesn't change the fact that two judges (and CIEX) found the bailout unlawful. ABSA and SARB have no chance of winning this one at Constitutional Court.
Click to expand...

What about prescription ?

What about the fact that the public protector has 0 competency to investigate since it happened before the creation of her office.

Legally, it doesn’t stand and it’s too late to challenge it.

In addition, the unlawful beneficiaries are the SANLAM policy holders at the time, not ABSA. That means going after hundreds of thousands of individuals.
 
f2wohf said:
What about prescription ?

What about the fact that the public protector has 0 competency to investigate since it happened before the creation of her office.

Legally, it doesn’t stand and it’s too late to challenge it.
Click to expand...

Prescription can only run when both parties acknowledge that there is a debt owing. Both Absa and SARB still deny that there is a debt owing. When the court rules that there is a debt owing then prescription can run.

Of course she has proven to be incompetent, but the chances of her being reviewed successfully are slim since three decision makers (two judges and a consultancy firm) have already came to the same decision that the bailout was unlawful although they disagreed about whether it should be recovered or not.
 
rza said:
The fact that she's incompetent doesn't change the fact that two judges (and CIEX) found the bailout unlawful. ABSA and SARB have no chance of winning this one at Constitutional Court.
Click to expand...

Your law courses aren't helping you here.

It won't get to ConCourt, she will lose and be made to look like an idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X