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 reinstatement but rather a continuation of employment.
Subel said based on these facts‚ there was no administrative action to be set aside.
But Lynne 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 Minister Brown used the term ‘resigned’ in her public announcements but Molefe never corrected her.
He said Eskom also stated his departure as resignation.
Kennedy said Molefe could have said he was standing down‚ subject to the approval of his early retirement application but said Molefe said he was stepping down in the interest of good governance.
He asked the court to order Molefe to pay back the money‚ which he said was a “pot of gold”.
Judgment was reserved in the matter.
Brian Molefe making mockery of law‚ court told
Image: FREDDY MAVUNDA
Former Eskom boss Brian Molefe on Wednesday sat in the public gallery of the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria with his arms crossed as his assertion that he never resigned was shredded.
Lawyers representing trade union Solidarity‚ the DA as well as public enterprises minister Lynne Brown took turns rubbishing Molefe’s argument that his return to Eskom was not reinstatement but a continuation of his contract.
The parties want Molefe’s reinstatement and the decision to grant him a R30.01-million pension payout declared unlawful and set aside.
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 R30-million (early retirement package)‚” he charged.
'Where do Eskom mistakes leave me?' asks Molefe
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 reinstatement but rather a continuation of employment.
Subel said based on these facts‚ there was no administrative action to be set aside.
But Lynne 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 Minister Brown used the term ‘resigned’ in her public announcements but Molefe never corrected her.
He said Eskom also stated his departure as resignation.
Kennedy said Molefe could have said he was standing down‚ subject to the approval of his early retirement application but said Molefe said he was stepping down in the interest of good governance.
He asked the court to order Molefe to pay back the money‚ which he said was a “pot of gold”.
Judgment was reserved in the matter.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Related articles
Latest Videos