Pearlie Jo ubert

Journalist

For attention: Judge Frank Kroon

The finance minister, Nhlanhla Nene
The deputy finance minister, Mcebisi Jonas

Dear sirs
My name is Pearlie Joubert. I'm a senior journalist with 26
years journalistic experience. I started my journalistic
career in 1989 working at Vrye Weekblad newspaper.

In the early part of my time as a journalist, I personally

saw how the apartheid regime abused and used the
media to achieve their own ends.

The erstwhile "Stratcom-operations" of the apartheid era

proves a good example of the absolute abuse of power
and access to the media - aimed at discrediting and
destroying people; whole communities and ideas through
distortion of facts in order to uphold the political status
quo.

I hold my profession and the rules and conventions

guiding us, in the highest regard.

The confidentiality of sources is central to the ethics of

journalism. As a journalist, we rely on and expect people
to tell us things that others would like to keep hidden.
It's common for people to ask that their identities not be
revealed to others - it's often an implicit understanding.
It's not easy to write this letter. Mainly because I have
always believed that arguably the most sacred of our
"rules of engagement" is that we don't reveal our
"sources". I have always felt myself bound by and
believed in the code of ethics that guide our profession.
The media code requires of a journalist to not divulge the
names of a source - a notion wholeheartedly supported by
me. The Code similarly makes provision that under certain
rare circumstances, the names of sources can in fact be
revealed.
In writing to you, I am consciously breaking that
journalistic code under a strong morally compulsion that I
would like to place the following on record. I am fully
cognisant of the repercussions - it would probably be fair
to say that I'm committing journalistic suicide. Why would
anybody believe me again after writing this letter? It's a
fair question and one I can't answer.
But it is also exactly because I'm a journalist, and not a
hired-gun with loyalties to the corporation paying my
salary, that I'm writing to you.
It is exactly because I'm a journalist believing that the
misuse of power should be exposed, that I'm writing to
you. Journalists aren't mercenaries. We're not wrecking
balls. I am not.
Our currency is fact and although I know that one man's
fact is another's fiction, as a journalist I've tried always to
be fair; open-minded; open to criticism and always resist,
above all, attempts to "be played" and be manipulated by
the powerful.
Protecting one’s sources should never provide cover for
intentional deception. I can't protect a journalistic source
when my gut tells me I'm allowing individuals to make
personal attacks while hiding behind a wall of anonymity.
Until February 2015 I was part of the "investigative unit" at
the Sunday Times where I was full time employed as a
senior journalist for almost two years.
I resigned from the Sunday Times then because I found it
morally untenable to stay and be part of the paper's
investigative unit and be associated with the newspaper.
I feel compelled to bring the following under your attention:
I had a personal friendship with advocate Rudolph
Mastenbroek stretching back some 26 years.
Mastenbroek is the x-husband of my former boss and
editor at the Sunday Times, Phylicia Oppelt.
Advocate Mastenbroek served on the Kroon Commission
who issued a statement saying that the now infamous
intelligence unit within Sars was indeed "unlawful".
The Kroon commission also recommended that the
disciplinary proceedings against suspended SARS
commissioner, Ivan Pillay and group executive, Peter
Richer “should be finalised as a matter of urgency”.

I believe that you will agree with me that the Kroon

findings appear to be based almost exclusively on the
"Sikhakhane report", compiled under leadership of
advocate Muzi Sikhakhane, while also referring to other
unnamed reports.
The particular findings made by the Kroon Commission -
as well as the Sikhakane commission - dovetails with the
exact same narrative as published by the Sunday Times
since August 2014 written by my former colleagues from
the Sunday Times investigative unit.
It is my firm believe that Rudolf Mastenbroek is not
unbiased when it comes to his personal and professional
views on the SA Revenue Service and his particular and
expressed dislike in particular individuals who formerly
held senior positions within SARS - especially Ivan Pillay;
Johann van Loggerenberg and Adrian Lackay.
Adv Mastenbroek has been actively soliciting the media
with information of a particular hue and slant regarding
SARS since 2013 after he left the employ of SARS. It was
clearly his intention to discredit certain persons by way of
the media as early as April 2013.
I am of the firm opinion that Mastenbroek has played an
active and decisive role in "influencing" the very particular
and devastating biased my former employer has shown on
the stories relating to the co-called "rogue spy unit" within
SARS.
Rudolf Mastenbroek "briefed" me in April 2013 on various
"SARS-stories" he thought we (the Sunday Times
investigative unit) should pursue. I shared Mastenbroek's
information, as an anonymous source, with my colleagues
(and later with the editor) at the beginning of May 2013
per email.
I no longer believe that it is in the interest of honesty and
openness to protect my old friend Rudolf Mastenbroek as
a journalistic source.
In April 2013, Mastenbroek told me the following:
1. Johann Van Loggerenberg is an "old security
policeman" and "an apartheid spy".
(This is not true and a devastating allegation to make
against somebody given the devastating role spies played
during apartheid.)
2. Ivan Pillay, unilaterally, has withdrawn cases against
ANC councillors in order to protect them. Pillay "makes
(Sars) cases disappear" if he wants to.
"The SARS investigation between 2006 and 2008 of some
27 ANC councillors, with ringleader Kenny Fihla, which
was investigated by SARS... They were defrauding the
Gauteng municipality of millions (?) or hundreds of
thousands of rands. The cases were already on the desk
of the NPA's Mona Naidoo; done by investigator Nico van
der Westhuizen when IP (Ivan Pillay) heard about ANC-
councillors about to be charged. He simply asked for the
files and that's it," Mastenbroek told me.
(Ironically this appears to have been the very breach of
SARS laws that Adrian Lackay and others stand accused
of - leaking tax payer's information.)
3. Ivan Pillay leaked the Oupa Magashula-transcripts (of
the telephone conversation) between Magashula,
convicted drug dealer, Panganathan "Timmy" Marimuthu,
and a woman who then worked at KPMG, to the media in
an explosive jobs-for-palls scandal that costed Magashula
his job as the head of SARS.
(It's in the public domain that this is not true.)
4. Ivan Pillay, illegally, withdrew charges against a man
called Hamilton Hlela. According to Mastenbroek, "Hlela
was charged (2007 - 2009) by the NPA after a SARS
fraud-investigation.
"IP heard (of the investigation) and simply insisted that the
docket comes to him and charges were withdrawn ... Hlela
was Jackie Selebi's close ally and was tipped to succeed
him. He was also involved that in building-corruption with
Roux Shabangu," he told me.
5. "Shauwn Mpisane's preservation order was withdrawn
on insistence of" Ivan Pillay. "This is (Shabir) Shaik all
over again. She's biggest crook in Durban today (and)
Ivan Pillay personally withdrew charges against her.
Millions of rands (were) returned to her," he said.
(Publicly available material on the case will demonstrate that in
fact the NDPP withdrew the case after Mpisane made
representations to the NPA.)
6. Rudolf Mastenbroek said that Adrian Lackay "controls"
the media. "Adrian Lackay makes sure that not too much
negative publicity comes out and not too many questions
are asked."
7. Mastenbroek said Pillay "is not straight". I understood
that to mean that he is crooked.
8. Mastenbroek said Pravin Gordan, then the minister of
Finance, is indeed "straight", "but ... very close to him
(Pillay) and wouldn't cut him loose, although he probably
knows that all is not well.
"Ivan Pillay is Pravin Gordan's bagman. He does the dirty.
But he also has his own man who is literally doing all of
his bidding: Johann van Loggerenberg. This is the key
man behind Ivan Pillay," Mastenbroek said.
9. Mastenbroek described Van Loggerenberg as an "old
security man; very close to Selebi who had (a) particular
liking for those old Bantustans cops and security types
and who testified in Selebi trial".
10. In April 2014, Rudolf Mastenbroek, asked me to
"contact Oupa Magashula" saying "he is keen to talk now
about Pillay".
There are scores of agenda's; individuals and factions
lurking in the shadows around the various newspapers
since the Sunday Times published, in August 2014, the
first stories concerning SARS under leadership of Ivan
Pillay.

The Kroon advisory committee was set up to advice you,

the Finance Ministers (and the SARS commissioner), on
strategic and governance matters for a period of one year.
One of the tasks of the committee is "to review the events
that have been reported on by the media in recent months
and advise the Minister and the Commissioner about the
best way to prevent such from occurring again".
In my humble opinion, I don't think
Advocate Mastenbroek is in the best position to have
advised you on matters pertaining to Ivan Pillay, Johann
van Loggerenberg or Adrian Lackay.

As an advocate he should have considered his personal

bias against the people mentioned and declared such to
Judge Kroon. I don't know if he has.

It is for this reason that I am addressing these facts to you

in the manner that I am and not making this public. I am
doing so in the hope that you will apply the necessary
considerations to what I have disclosed to you and ensure
that it is dealt with properly because I honestly believe that
it's in our country's interest to reveal why the media - the
Sunday Times in particular - pushed a very specific
agenda concerning SARS.

I believe that by placing this knowledge in your hands, you

have the moral and legal obligation to deal with this
knowledge in the interests of all concerned.

I wish to state to you that I do not know Ivan Pillay and

Van Loggerenberg personally. They are not my friends. I
have had limited interactions with them as a journalist.

Mastenbroek spoke to me because he believed that I

would protect his identity as a source. His trust in me was
implicit. I acknowledge this.
I'm now destroying that trust - not only of a journalistic
source, but of a friend. I am doing this because I believe
it's more important to be truthful to my own moral
compass. I cannot stand by when a "stratcom-job" are
elevated to fact and truth using the media.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and advise me
on what you intend doing with the information I have
provided to you.

Kindest regards
Pearlie Joubert