TELITA SNYCKERS: BAT needs to win its ban challenge – but let’s not forget its complicity
Loading player...
British American Tobacco’s (BAT’s) challenge to the tobacco ban is an important one, not just for smokers, but for all of us. Its challenge is not about smoking – it is about the government’s ability to exercise discretions wantonly, with little regard to facts or consequences. It is about ensuring that the government complies with the rules of administrative justice and with the constitution, particularly in times of crisis. Its arguments are cogent and well crafted, and it is difficult to see it not being successful in its challenge.
To the extent that BAT seeks to hold the government to account, it deserves our support. But as we do so, let’s not forget its complicity, in supplying the illicit market, in running an illegal spy ring, and in bringing about the downfall of the SA Revenue Service (Sars).
As we flit from scandal to scandal, as we are collectively shocked by new revelations of yet more outrageous examples of capture and corruption, it’s far too easy for individual instances to fall off our radar and fade from our consciousness – as indeed seems to have happened to the scandalous behaviour of BAT.
Evidence is unambiguous about BAT having run an illegal corporate espionage ring, along with some friends at the State Security Agency, with the purpose of running its smaller competitors out of business. Evidence is also unambiguous about how this unholy alliance crafted the “rogue unit” narrative as a way of seeking to discredit evidence Sars had obtained about this spy ring BAT was running. There is a direct line between its agent, Belinda Walter, and false allegations of impropriety at Sars. On the back of the events in SA, a money-laundering and corruption investigation was launched by the UK’s tax and customs office and the European Commission’s anti-fraud office.
As the story got legs in the media, BAT SA’s CEO expressed his shock at the allegations and committed to appoint a law firm to investigate. That was in 2016.
Ten months after BAT appointed Linklaters to conduct an “investigation”, the media storm died down, and the oddest thing happened: BAT announced that it had cancelled the brief for Linklaters. Why? “For matters of efficiency.” We don’t know what Linklaters did, or what it found. Linklaters was ostensibly replaced by law firm Slaughter & May. We don’t know what Slaughter & May did, or what it found. It was ...
To the extent that BAT seeks to hold the government to account, it deserves our support. But as we do so, let’s not forget its complicity, in supplying the illicit market, in running an illegal spy ring, and in bringing about the downfall of the SA Revenue Service (Sars).
As we flit from scandal to scandal, as we are collectively shocked by new revelations of yet more outrageous examples of capture and corruption, it’s far too easy for individual instances to fall off our radar and fade from our consciousness – as indeed seems to have happened to the scandalous behaviour of BAT.
Evidence is unambiguous about BAT having run an illegal corporate espionage ring, along with some friends at the State Security Agency, with the purpose of running its smaller competitors out of business. Evidence is also unambiguous about how this unholy alliance crafted the “rogue unit” narrative as a way of seeking to discredit evidence Sars had obtained about this spy ring BAT was running. There is a direct line between its agent, Belinda Walter, and false allegations of impropriety at Sars. On the back of the events in SA, a money-laundering and corruption investigation was launched by the UK’s tax and customs office and the European Commission’s anti-fraud office.
As the story got legs in the media, BAT SA’s CEO expressed his shock at the allegations and committed to appoint a law firm to investigate. That was in 2016.
Ten months after BAT appointed Linklaters to conduct an “investigation”, the media storm died down, and the oddest thing happened: BAT announced that it had cancelled the brief for Linklaters. Why? “For matters of efficiency.” We don’t know what Linklaters did, or what it found. Linklaters was ostensibly replaced by law firm Slaughter & May. We don’t know what Slaughter & May did, or what it found. It was ...
