The Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture has rubbished claims by previous detainment facilities manager Arthur Fraser that he was never allowed an opportunity to give proof before the commission.
In a letter addressed to the board led by previous Judge of the International Court of Justice Navi Pillay, on Tuesday, Fraser blamed the commission for denying him the chance to give proof, protect himself against witnesses who had embroiled him and interview observers at the commission.
He guaranteed individuals who had been involved in less genuine violations were offered the chance to affirm.
This, he said, showed Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo's absence of unprejudiced nature, and would subsequently settle on him a terrible decision for the country's next boss equity.
"The way that in three and a half years, Deputy Chief Justice Zondo didn't discover a day for me to affirm, shows his absence of fair-mindedness," composed Fraser on why Zondo ought not be designated to the position.
Notwithstanding, in an assertion on Thursday, the commission rubbished Fraser's cases and said he had been the person who never approached in spite of public solicitations by the commission between February 2018 and 2020, to over a wide span of time chiefs general and clergymen who knew about defilement to do as such.
"The Commission has an application by Mr Fraser for pass on to interrogate specific observers, which ought to have been chosen around two or something like that months prior, yet was not on the grounds that Mr Fraser recorded far reaching composed entries at that point, which should have been thought of. That application is to be chosen in a matter of seconds."
The commission further cases to have reached Fraser's lawyer in August last year following his explanations that he would unveil insider facts about presidents and judges.
His lawyer was purportedly uncooperative and let the commission's examiners know that he would utilize his "own channels and techniques" to share the data.
The commission has oaths to affirm the occurrence.
"Taking everything into account, it is just Mr Fraser who can clarify why he has never held up an application for pass on to give proof before the Commission assuming he needs to affirm before the Commission, especially on the grounds that he saw it fit to hold up two different applications including one for pass on to interrogate specific observers which is accommodated in the very Rule that accommodates an application for leave to affirm and the one for a request convincing the SSA to give him certain archives."
Content created and supplied by: Newsupdate04 (via Opera News )
Opera News is a free to use platform and the views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not represent, reflect or express the views of Opera News. Any/all written content and images displayed are provided by the blogger/author, appear herein as submitted by the blogger/author and are unedited by Opera News. Opera News does not consent to nor does it condone the posting of any content that violates the rights (including the copyrights) of any third party, nor content that may malign, inter alia, any religion, ethnic group, organization, gender, company, or individual. Opera News furthermore does not condone the use of our platform for the purposes encouraging/endorsing hate speech, violation of human rights and/or utterances of a defamatory nature. If the content contained herein violates any of your rights, including those of copyright, and/or violates any the above mentioned factors, you are requested to immediately notify us using via the following email address operanews-external(at)opera.com and/or report the article using the available reporting functionality built into our Platform See More