Van Rooyen, during his testimony at the state capture commission of inquiry, accused Madonsela of making findings against him without giving him an opportunity to answer.

“All this happened because of this expeditiously compiled report by the former Public Protector. It is interesting chairperson, but not surprising, to note that at the centre of this court of public opinion is a political narrative that is driven by a bias white-owned media controlled by white capital,” he said.

Earlier, one of his lawyers, Advocate Kgomosoane Mathipa, cross-examined former National Treasury Director-General Lungisa Fuzile.

Fuzile told the commission that he thanked God that Van Rooyen did not stay long at the Treasury.

This after Advocate Mathipa argued that there was no danger of a security breach when Van Rooyen’s then adviser, Mohammed Bobat, sent a Cabinet document to the Guptas.

Fuzile maintained that Bobat was already a danger to security even before his appointment was confirmed. He said that Bobat was in breach of protocol by sending the document to the Guptas.

“And to that, I say thank God he didn’t stay long at Treasury,” he said.

Meanwhile, Van Rooyen said that it did not matter to him that Bobat worked for Regiments Capital, which was linked to allegations of malfeasance.

Van Rooyen said that it was his personal decision to appoint Bobat because he had helped him with tax assignments once or twice when he was studying finance.

“Just because someone is coming from a company where there are not even substantiated allegations of corruption, I don’t think it was going to be important for me to deny the person the opportunity and for me to use that as my determining criteria,” he said.

But Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo had a difficult time understanding this.

Van Rooyen said that he informed Bobat about his decision to appoint him adviser on the day that he was sworn in as minister.

Fuzile earlier said that it appeared that Bobat knew more about his appointment than Van Rooyen did.

EWN