Share this article:
The director of the organisation which allegedly benefited irregularly from the national lotteries grant will approach court for an order interdicting the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) from questioning her.
Denzhe Primary Care’s Liesl Moses of Garsfontein filed papers this week in the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, in which she first asked that the SIU be barred from investigating or questioning her.
In the second part of her application, she is asking that Section 2 of the Special Investigating Units and Tribunals Act be declared unconstitutional to the extent that it does not afford persons the right to remain silent.
Moses was due to face the SIU on Monday this week to answer questions about the more than R27 million which Denzhe Primary Care received from the lotteries fund.
She instead opted to turn to the court for an urgent order barring the SIU from questioning her.
Many questions arose after the sudden lotteries award to this drug rehabilitation centre and how the money meant for this NPO was allegedly misused and said to be hijacked.
In a bid to establish the facts, the SIU is conducting an investigation, which includes the questioning of Moses.
But she made it clear in her affidavit filed in her urgent application that she would not be questioned.
According to her, the manner of the SIU investigation and its questioning of her, as outlined by the notice to appear before the unit which she had received, goes beyond its mandate.
Moses also cited President Cyril Ramaphosa as well as Justice and Correctional Services Minister Ronald Lamola in her application as respondents.
She was first told to appear before the unit on May 31, but the hearing was postponed to June 14.
She could not attend on that day as she was ill, she said.
She then obtained legal advice that her appearance before the SIU may “most probably than not, be legally defective… it would be the worst type of wasteful expenditure of public resources for the respondents to continue with the process that could possibly be ruled to be illegal at a later stage”.
“I have never been an employee of the National Lotteries Commission and neither have I been responsible for any process, in any way whatsoever, that was within the commission which could be said to have been improper.”
Moses said she was therefore not qualified to be investigated by the SIU.
She said if there was any criminality suspected on her part, she realised that she was not immune from investigation by members of the SAPS within all its divisions, including the Hawks.
“The notice (to appear before the SIU) says that ‘unsolicited evidence’ will be admissible against me and that same will not be protected by any recognised privilege.
“There is, however, no clear description of what is meant by ’unsolicited’.”
Moses said she was advised that lack of a clear description of what constitutes unsolicited evidence, amounts to a deliberate attempt by the SIU to create a pseudo dummy criminal trial against her, whereby her constitutional right against self-incrimination and the right to remain silent are effectively suspended.
The SIU must, meanwhile, still file their answering papers to the application.