The Lion roars once more
25 May 2006
Former South Afircan Rugby Union president Brian van Rooyen has broken his silence.
The following is a press statement released by Van Rooyen on Thursday afternoon:
We refer to a recent press statement by SA Rugby, to recent statements by certain individuals and to a so called disciplinary hearing being held in Bloemfontein.
For some considerable time Mr van Rooyen has refrained from commenting on these matters in the press but can no longer stand by and allow such unwarranted attacks on him to go unanswered.
As usual, the SA Rugby press statement and the statements by these individuals on the matter are economical with the truth. We intend to set the record straight.
The first time we learned of the date of this so called hearing was through a phone call from a member of the press during the afternoon of Monday, 22 May 2006.
We wish to point out that at no stage did Mr van Rooyen or his legal advisors receive any notification that the disciplinary hearing was to be held on Tuesday, 23 May 2006.
In our view, this is a gross abuse of Mr van Rooyen’s rights to a fair hearing and administrative justice. For the person subject to a disciplinary hearing not to even be informed of the date of the hearing demonstrates a complete disregard for the principles of fairness and justice let alone of good governance.
This failure to inform us of the date of the hearing is particularly malicious, because Mr van Rooyen has always been fully prepared to participate in any properly constituted disciplinary hearing as articulated in our letter to this effect dated 14 April 2006. This so called disciplinary hearing was not properly constituted.
Mr van Rooyen’s attendance was also subject to the proviso that SARU covered his legal costs. This position has been made clear repeatedly in writing to SARU and the officials involved in the so called disciplinary hearing.
In its press statement SARU incorrectly conveys the impression that legal costs were the only reason why Mr van Rooyen was reluctant to participate in the so called disciplinary hearing. This is totally disingenuous and purposely misleading. They knew perfectly well that this was only one of a range of issues.
As has been repeatedly pointed out to SARU in correspondence from us, the process leading up to the so called disciplinary hearing has been characterised by a series of major irregularities. These irregularities relate to the appointment of the chairman, former Mr Justice Hefer, to preside over the hearing, the appointment of the prosecutor Advocate Nic Treurnicht and the selection of the venue for the enquiry.
Bloemfontein arbitrarily being chosen as a venue for a hearing by an organization based in Cape Town against an ex official based in Johannesburg is an example of the arrogance of the process. Most fundamentally, the investigation conducted by Adv. Jannie Lubbe (also based in Bloemfontein) which gave rise to the institution of the hearing was conducted in breach of the requirements of natural justice, which are guaranteed by clause 4.2 of the SARU Code of Conduct.
In particular, during that spurious investigation Mr van Rooyen was never asked for a response to the allegations against him. How can one conduct such an investigation without interviewing the “accused”?
SARU has now seen fit to purportedly rescind its resolution to cover Mr van Rooyen’s legal costs and then to proceed without informing us of the date of the hearing. No reasons have been provided for the decision to rescind the resolution previously made for the payment of Mr van Rooyen’s legal costs and we were not given an opportunity to make representations on this issue – hardly fair or reasonable.
But even if this decision were permissible, it in no way excuses SARU from at least informing us of the date of the disciplinary hearing. We have not waived any of our rights and do not understand how SARU could have proceeded without even notifying us.
We wish to add that in our view it is unreasonable and unfair to expect Mr van Rooyen to personally fund lawyers to defend his actions when he was the President of SARU. There is ample precedent for the principle that former officials should not have to personally bear legal costs arising out of enquiries into their conduct while in office. It would be grossly unfair and prejudicial for him to have to defend himself without adequate legal representation.
We are now awaiting the output of the so called disciplinary hearing and will then decide on an appropriate action despite impressions created to the contrary we want to state unequivocally that Mr van Rooyen was never a subject of a judicial enquiry or a criminal investigation and for that reason we reserve our right to seek redress in an appropriately constituted forum.
Finally, we point out that SARU no longer has any jurisdiction to conduct a disciplinary enquiry against Mr van Rooyen without his consent. He is no longer an office-bearer of SARU and the disciplinary hearing therefore ought properly to have fallen away when his term as President came to an end. Obviously there are other agendas afoot!
Mr van Rooyen had the following comment: “It is clear to me and my legal advisors that this whole process has been flawed from start to finish – its purpose being to put back the course of change in SA Rugby and to re-establish power once more in the hands of the “old guard”. If nothing else the composition of the members and witnesses of the “hearing” should attest to this. I have no intention of giving up the fight and will continue to struggle on for change and justice”.
31 Comments
25 May 2006, 17:05 pm
i win?
25 May 2006, 17:05 pm
i won, yeeeehaaaaa
25 May 2006, 17:29 pm
van Rooyen shouldn’t be angry – it is his legacy (as President) that is coming back to bite him!
His legacy:
Supreme arrogance
Supreme stupidity
Appaling corporate governance
Van Rooyen was a blight on South African rugby. Good riddance!
25 May 2006, 17:29 pm
****
25 May 2006, 17:37 pm
I can’t believe I actually started to read this!!! I should be ashamed of myself!!!
Blah blah blah blah yawn. . . . .
25 May 2006, 17:39 pm
No way?!?!?!?!
Saru fighting its battles in the media?
Incompetent?
Unfair?
Old Gaurd?
Misleading Statements?
Never!!!
I will not believe it, not my beloved Saru!
However much he screwed up, he deserves a fair hearing were the truth can come out once and for all.
This of-course is not the Saru way is it?
*******.
25 May 2006, 19:21 pm
Started feeling sorry for BVR here for a second……
Wait…awake now.
Tar and feather him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
25 May 2006, 22:08 pm
what a load of ****! van rooyen never intended to subject himself to a disciplinary hearing. just wriggling himself out of this one. you got to hand it to him; he’s good and it will take someone twice as sly as he is, to nail his lying ***.
25 May 2006, 23:36 pm
Despite supposed allegations of mismanagement -none of them actually being aired (excpt for an expensive lunch)- I still believe that he actually was a strong president and kept the overall concept of performance as SARU’s watchword. A good coach was chosen, the Boks went from 6th to 2nd in the rankings, and Andre Markgraaf disposed of. Not a bad period of rule – This despite all the wrong pressures and undermining that a presidency can take.
Sure he was an autocratic ruler, and sure, power normally does go to the head, but rugby is professional now, and should not be democratic- it should be run like a business. Businesses as you will remember, are led by strong leaders who take tough decisions. The ones that take the right tough decisions normally end up staying, but the amateur bodies voting for the presidency would not recognise anythng good fro rugby if it bit them on the arse.
26 May 2006, 01:22 am
Ja Van serves you right for not reading Keo on a regular basis, if you did you would have known about the hearing long before the 22nd!
Natural justice? Tell you what, let him loose with a dozen or so rugby supporters and then see if he enjoys ‘natural justice’.
26 May 2006, 01:53 am
van rooyen didn’t appoint jake white; a panel, which included markgraaff, did. jake white wasn’t even on the original panel being interviewed. he only came into contention after heyneke meyer withdrew his application.
van rooyen and his sly legal team only got a loophole in the notification process; he knew bloody well about the hearing long before. if he really only found out on the 22nd, he is not just sly but stupid as well.
where the hell do employers pay for the legal costs of disciplinary hearings?! i know of one case where an employee was found not guilty and was only then reimbursed some of his legal costs.
as for having the hearing in bloem; makes perfectly sense to have the hearing where the legal eagles are. at over R500/hour, you don’t want to waste their time.
read carefully: “He is no longer an office-bearer of SARU and the disciplinary hearing therefore ought properly to have fallen away when his term as President came to an end”. again trying to wiggle himself out of this one. but then his claim: “I have no intention of giving up the fight…” bla, bla, bla, bla….
and, off course, no feeble argument would be complete without claims of racism; his reference to the “old guard”
26 May 2006, 02:04 am
having said all of that, saru shouldn’t be wasting good money on bad sh@t like van rooyen. he’s gone and it’s good riddance.
26 May 2006, 02:39 am
Brian van Rooyen may be the biggest crook to have run SARU (although I doubt it), but that doesn`t mean SARU doesn`t have to follow due process.
The notification to an opposing party is an essential element of fairness. They have to give him the date and the specific charges, so he can prepare a defence. (NO, the charge sheet in the press doesn`t count)
If SARU did not notify him, it is an indication that they have already decided that he is guilty before the hearing began.
If SARU carries on with their bungling, he may go to court and have their “hearing” overturned. He might even get a costs order against them. HaHaHa -:)
26 May 2006, 03:57 am
When was the last time anyone actually got convicted of fraud or fruadulent activities in SA?
Waste of time and money…
26 May 2006, 04:03 am
What a total waste of money that can rather be spend on a million other things, like technical support for the Boks. A disciplinary hearing to discuss what? They can’t fire him, he’s not in office anymore. They can’t suspend him, he was legitimately voted out of the presidency. The only possible reason for a hearing could be, if found “guilty” the SARU can then maybe wriggle themselves out of any “unto do” promises or contracts approved by van Rooyen.
26 May 2006, 04:24 am
US of SA, I think the idea is that if they find him ‘guilty’ to hand him over to be tried in a court…but like you say, total waste of money.
26 May 2006, 04:30 am
I think they are trying to get out of the messes they are in. They want to walk away from the Spears, solve the Griqwa problem etc.
They can say Brian acted on his own and distance themselves from deals that were done under him.
They have no spine: constantly changing their position on issues.
26 May 2006, 04:46 am
badger
you don’t honestly believe that saru would spend thousands of rands on a hearing and not follow due process? like i said, van rooyen probably got a loophole in the notification.
howzit koos!
jou kaartjies gekoop vir die 15de julie?
26 May 2006, 05:09 am
Nog nie GCC en ek weet ek hardloop uit tyd uit!
26 May 2006, 06:42 am
ja-nee, die cheap seats is al naby aan uitverkoop. die brons kaartjies is binne ‘n uur uitverkoop; ons moes maar settle vir die silwer kaartjies.
26 May 2006, 08:14 am
Gcc 11
Your paragraph starting “read carefully” also caught my eye.
I cant believe the arrogance of this guy, what he is basically saying is that he could have done what he wanted to (legally and illegally) while in office but now that he no longer is a part of SARU he cannot be held accountable for those actions, pathetic Something like diplomatic immunity.
26 May 2006, 08:35 am
Like so many others in our corporate society today, Van Rooyen is just another failed AA apointment.
And as Hoskins was also appointed primarily on the fact that he is non white, I really don’t have much hope for things to get better soon.
26 May 2006, 08:36 am
I don’t want him to go on trial. Somebody should shove a blunt, rusted, serrated edge knife into his belly.
26 May 2006, 08:44 am
Hang the idiot.
26 May 2006, 09:33 am
Ya and the white rugby admin have done wonders for the game. think before you write stupid kak like in post 22.
26 May 2006, 09:46 am
GCC
To be fair old van rooyen and his cronies did hire jake white , the panel just interviews all the candidates and presents their finding on the suitablity of each candidate then its up to the sarfu exec to select the coach.
26 May 2006, 10:57 am
you cant keep a good man down.
Just shows how f***’en stupid the employees of SARugby are.
26 May 2006, 13:20 pm
Amazing comments from people on this site who are perfect and know everything. SARU is so messed up it aint a joke…
26 May 2006, 13:21 pm
redox, SA also won U19, U21 World Cups as well as the TN under his reign…
26 May 2006, 15:44 pm
I have never heard something as dumb as leitz’s comment. South Africa will never progress with dumb f*#@s like that. A lot of people are trying so hard to be positive about our country, only to be pulled back by such stupid people.
27 May 2006, 20:45 pm
Dear KEO sorry to see your mate and mentor go down the toilet.
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.