SWORN AFFIDAVIT earginn. cde with identity number 1, the undersigned, feee| Gi residing at" hereby state under oath: 1 ‘The facts contained in this affidavit are to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and accurate, unless otherwise stated by the context. 2 Thave been requested by the Second Respondent to submit to this affidavit in respect of the Notice of Motion by Mr Martin Wingate-Pearse (“Applicant”) case number 29208/2015. 3. ‘have read the Notice of Motion containing the affidavit submitted by the Applicant in the Notice of Motion. 4 ' am not a party to the Notice of Motion by the Applicant and have no interest in the ‘outcome of the matter. In submitting this affidavit, | am solely guided by my personal conscience, my belief that justice should be served and because I believe it in the public interest. 5. By way of background | wish to record that | was a senior investigative journalist employed by the Sunday Times for a period of -yeor.. until | resigned on own accord on wi A. | resigned from the Sunday Times because I was not willing to be party to practices at the Sunday Times which I verily believed to have been unethical and immoral. In particular | am referring to a number of media articles that emanated from the Sunday Times since August 2014 onwards, and which related to allegations of a so-called “rogue unit” which was allegedly operating at the South &African Revenue Services (First Respondent). tn the result I have been unemployed for the major part of the period since my resignation at Sunday Times 6. -2013 | was approached by 2 close personal friend of mine, whom [have known for many years, one Advocate Rudolph Mastenbroek. At the time | During was aware that he had been an employee of the First Respondent prior. During this approach, Advocate Mastenbroek sought to inform me of certain instances which he ‘Sought to be published in the Sunday Times. He advanced a number of allegations which Sought to implicate a Mr Johann van Loggerenberg, and a Mr Ivan Pillay, the then Deputy-Commissioner of SARS. | pause to note that | did not know either, had only began to interact with Mr van Loggerenberg in his official capacity later on and never so with Mr Pillay. In essence, Advocate Mastenbrock sought to implicate them in having been involved in protecting the African National Congress and certain of their members by treating them advantageously and in an improper manner during the course of their duties of the First Respondent and whilst they were employed there. I was aware that in Advocate Mastenbroek doing so, he contravened his oath of secrecy as former SARS official as well as the relevant confidentiality clauses contained in tax legislation, On the other hand, receiving information not commonly available to the public that relates to wrongdoing in state agencies, the media relies heavily on sources who have access to and an understanding of such and therefore have an obligation to protect such sources. 7 "raised certain concerns regarding certain leaks about allegations pertaining to the First Respondent with the editor, Ms Phylicia Oppelt at Sunday Times. | point out that Ms Oppelt happens to be the former wife of Advocate Rudolph Mastenbraek. From August 2014 onwards, the Sunday Times began to publish a series of articles concerning Mr Johann van Loggerenberg, and Mr Ivan Pillay, alleging a range of acts of impropriety and in particular allegations about a “rogue u J was concerned about the veracity and accuracy of these articles and expressed my opinion to this effect at the Sunday ‘Times with Ms Oppelt and others. My comments were met with me being isolated and effectively ordered to not interfere with the journalists involved in working on the articles. | nevertheless continued to conduct my own discreet investigations into these @allegations, Eventually it became unbearable for me to remain in the employ of the Sunday Times because | was by then aware that many of the articles published contained untruths, 8. |! became particularly concerned when it was made public that the Minister of Finance (Fourth Respondent) had appointed an advisory board headed by retired Judge Kroon in 2015, assisted by a number of people which included Advacate Mastenbrock. In my mind Advocate Mastenbroek had already demonstrated to me in 2013 that he disliked Mr Johann van Loggerenberg and Mr Ivan Pillay and was then already attempting to advance allegations against them in the media. In my mind he should have excused himself from the board on the basis that he was severely conflicted. By this time Advocate Mastenbroek was practicing as an Advocate at the Johannesburg Bar of Advocates which I believed placed an even greater obligation on him to ensure that he at all times acted independently and as fit and proper person. As far as | am aware, ‘Advocate Mastenbroek never used formal platforms or channels to have his allegations against Mr Johann van Loggerenberg and Mr Ivan Pillay investigated and tested, but preferred that these matters be surfaced in the media. 9. Having toiled and troubled aver the moral and ethical dilemma | faced, and the fact that Twas aware that Advocate Mastenbroek had taken me in his confidence as a close friend in 2013 together with the fact that in me breaching that confidence would have an adverse effect on our relationship and my career as journalist, | made the d address a letter to the Fourth Respondent, wherein | set out my concerns in this regard. ion to did so because | was moved by my conscience, in the interest of justice and the public as.a whole. tattach a copy of this letter as annexure PJ. From a reading of this letter, | submit that there can be no doubt that Advocate Mastenbroek displayed 2 direct Personal bias towards Mr Johann van Loggerenberg and Mr Ivan Pillay in no uncertain terms and sought to advance this via the media since 2013. 10. Turther noted that it was made public in October 2014 by the First Respondent that the First Respondent's executive committee and Mr Pillay were suspended on the basis of Bthe Sunday Times articles that | have referred to, It concerned me greatly that the independence of the media was for all purposes and intents, in my mind, being abused. Itis my humble belief that much of what had been reported on in the Sunday Times was false and appears to have been an oxch to advance untested legatior Ili 5 ‘STASIE KOSS S Wis allegations in the public arena, si Konig ae 1 KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO TAKING THE PRESCRIBED OATH. 1 ACCEPT THE PRESCRIBED OATH TO BE BINDING TO MY CONSCIENCE, Q + Signed: eo—t at| Crk on__ tom