1. We are instructed to respond to your letter dated 7 May 2018.

We do not intend
to reply to each and every statement contained therein. Our failure to so reply is
not an admission of the contents of the statements contained in your letter.

2. Our client does not believe that this is an appropriate time to ventilate the
discussions, held between the President and Mr Moyane, in private and in
confidence. Any impression created that the President has made up his mind
regarding the termination of your client’s employment is unfounded. Specifically,
the President has appointed Judge Kate O’Regan to make findings of fact and
recommendations on sanction, if any. Our client will be guided by these findings
and recommendations regarding any further decisions that may be taken against
your client.

3. Our client rejects the suggestion that the Presidency has been responsible for
the release of “unsolicited communication” which “compromises the confidential
employer-employee relationship and/or which is calculated to impair the dignity of
our client and to subject him to trial by the media”. Accordingly, no undertaking in
this regard will be given.

4. As for the manner in which the inquiry is to be conducted, we point out the
following:

a. The legal standard against which the inquiry is to be conducted is that it

must be rational and lawful. The current procedure adopted by our client
satisfies that standard. Your client has no right to dictate the process to be
followed. In particular, your client is not entitled to a process akin to a
criminal trial as you appear to ask for in your letter under reply.

b. As stated in the Terms of Reference, the inquiry into your client’s conduct
is required to be conducted urgently having regard inter alia to the critical
revenue collection role of SARS, the need for stability and certainty in the
leadership of SARS and the need for public confidence in SARS.

c. Furthermore, the charge sheet states that the inquiry will be conducted on
paper and that your client will be furnished with an affidavit in
substantiation of the charges in due course to which he will be required to
respond in writing. This process is not unfair and is in fact a standard way
in which motion court proceedings are conducted. In the event of any
dispute of facts, as we point out below, the process to resolve such
disputes can be determined by the presiding officer, including referring the
issue to oral evidence.
 d. However, as you correctly note in your letter, the Terms of Reference
entitle the Presiding Officer to take into account not only written evidence
but also oral evidence if she considers this necessary in order to
determine the issues before her. Oral evidence is therefore not precluded
or prohibited in the inquiry. Your client is not precluded from making
submissions to the Presiding Officer for oral evidence to be heard, and the
nature and extent of possible oral evidence in the inquiry will be
determined by the Presiding Officer.

5. Finally, SARS has no policy authorising the funding of legal representation for an
employee in disciplinary inquiries. The proposal that the State should pay your
client’s legal expenses is accordingly refused.

Yours faithfully,