Former SAA board chairperson Dudu Myeni is appealing her delinquency case. She will bring an application in which she wants the Pretoria high court to grant her leave to introduce new evidence pertaining to the testimony of the airline’s former board member, Yakhe Kwinana, at the state capture inquiry.
Myeni intends to introduce the new evidence in her appeal against the judgment which declared her a delinquent director. In May, the Pretoria high court ruled that Myeni was a delinquent director. This means Myeni is barred from becoming a director at any entity.
The ruling came after an application launched in 2017 by the Organisation Outdoing Tax Abuse (Outa) and the SAA Pilots’ Association (Saapa), to declare Myeni a delinquent director in terms of the Companies Act, based on her actions while she was chairperson of the SAA board.
They accused her of plunging the SAA into financial chaos while she was its board chairperson. The court found she was dishonest, reckless and actively involved herself in operational matters.
In October, the former SAA board chairperson filed a notice to appeal the judgment. The matter is set down for hearing on Thursday and Friday. On Tuesday, Myeni’s lawyers filed a notice of an interlocutory application in which she seeks an order granting her leave to introduce new evidence.
She also wants an order granting her condonation for the late filing of the same application. In her affidavit supporting the interlocutory application, Myeni said the new evidence she wants to introduce is relevant to the issues to be adjudicated by the Pretoria high court in her appeal.
“I, therefore, seek to introduce the evidence of Mrs Kwinana’s testimony at the Zondo commission as I believe it supports a number of points raised in the leave to appeal application, which include: the learned judge erred in granting the joinder application, and Outa’s claim to act in the public interest is disingenuous given that they acted selectively in deciding against whom to launch delinquency proceedings.”
According to Myeni, based on Kwinana’s evidence, Outa did not make full disclosure to the court in the joinder application about why they refused to join Kwinana in the case.
“There is no escaping the conclusion that Outa had struck some sort of deal with Mrs Kwinana which Outa sought to hold Mrs Kwinana to by ensuring she did not testify as a defence witness in the trial,” reads Myeni’s affidavit.
Outa, Myeni said, had “actively” concealed the deal it had apparently made with Kwinana. “When the issue of the non-joinder of inter alios [among others] Mrs Kwinana was mentioned, pertinently all sorts of reasons were advanced by the plaintiffs in their heads of argument,” Myeni argued.
She said the new evidence she wanted to present showed that Outa was not acting in the public interest. “It could never be in the public interest to single out one person fully knowing there were other qualifying persons and that the decision to exclude them was based on illegally obtained evidence which is false,” said Myeni.