When Oupa Magashula, the former Commissioner of Sars, was found by Justice Zak Jacoob to have placed his institutions credibility at risk through a potential jobs-for-friends scandal. He did the right thing. He resigned. On the other hand, adv Pantsy Tlakula refuses to do so after two independent investigations - one by a fellow Chapter 9 institution - the Public Protector, and later by PWC. Although opposition parties feel this is an elections credibility matter - I think its more than that. Its an ethical issue. Why would the advocate, guilty or not, have to wait for another guilty verdict before she leaves or at least wait for the final outcome at home...?
Posted on: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 18:10:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015