Admin
04 Jun, 2020
Bantu Holomisa writes to Wesbank CEO Chris De Kock re Mr Mzukisi Ndara’s case
Dear Mr De Kock MZUKISI NDARA: NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS CONFIRMS “MISREPRESENTATIONS AND CONTRAVENTION OF STATUTES” BY WESBANK The above subject matter bears reference. The first time I wrote to you was on 2 May 2018, just over two years ago, seeking justice in the form of restoration for Mr Mzukisi Ndara, and his family. Mr Ndara firmly believed that FirstRand bank was complicit in a fraudulent vehicle sale transaction in 2004 that caused him to suffer irreparable harm. Frankly, I also believed, hence I wrote to you in the manner that I did. The last of the four letters I have written to you hitherto, was written on 30 October 2019. I concluded the letter thus “I would simply urge you to take this matter seriously by engaging meaningfully and honestly to find solutions. It will not just go away instead it’s going to grow until it is entrenched in the psyche of South African society”. This will now sound prophetic given the latest developments. The National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Advocate Shamila Batohi, in a letter addressed to Mr Ndara dated 24 September 2019 (Annexure 1), places Wesbank squarely at the centre of the fifteen-year saga that has severely prejudiced an ordinary family. Mr Ndara unfortunately only received this correspondence on Friday 29 May as it was sent to his old email address. The NDPP in this letter writes: “3. Based on my analysis of the matter the fraudulent activities that are the subject of your representations, emanated out of an instalment sale agreement entered into between yourself and Wesbank. 4. Based on your statement filed with the police documentary evidential material as well as the circumstances of this matter, Wesbank and/or its employees committed a breach of contract in the form of misrepresentations and also acted in contravention of various statutes as alluded to in your reports. On the basis thereof, you are, as an aggrieved party entitled to approach courts for an appropriate relief.” These assertions by the top prosecutor in the country implicating the entity that you lead are now available for public consumption. I have been at pains over the last two years urging you to occupy moral high ground by resolving Mr Ndara’s matter. Time and time again I have been met with denials and apathy. Fundamentally in our first meeting with you in May 2018, you were adamant that the bank has done nothing wrong and in fact placed the blame squarely on Datnis Nissan dealership. The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) correspondence points to Wesbank and its officials as the people responsible. The correspondence distils that the two contracting parties are Wesbank and Mr Ndara. No one else. In the same meeting, after Mr Ndara had taken us through the details of how the deal was concluded and what he had since discovered in hindsight, you were the voice of reason as you said to him “If it’s true what you are saying and it is accurate then I must sympathise with you because you will have been done a grave injustice”. Those words remained with me and I asked myself what you will do when Mr Ndara’s utterances prove to be true. That moment is now upon us. The NDPP, who has been exposed to the case docket, with police evidential material, various internal reports and Mr Ndara’s presentations, has now confirmed that there is documentary evidence that points to misrepresentations by Wesbank. It is now time to replace your intransigence with relevance, you need to be abreast of the mood and to confront the reality that your conduct as a corporate citizen has fallen short of what is expected. It is time to accord this ordinary citizen respect, by engaging him to find a solution by sitting around the table. I am aware that you contemplated settlement on this matter in a letter to the former Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance, Mr Yunus Carrim dated 17 April 2019. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this letter (Annexure 2) read as follows: “However, your suggestion for me to meet personally with Mr Ndara in an attempt to reach some kind of confidential settlement is noted. The question of who is right or wrong in this matter is not the only issue at stake here. The other issue regards the actions that Mr Ndara, backed by the media could take to further express the anger and resentment directed at Banks based on alleged discrimination over the past number of years. On the advice of our legal team we have decided it would not be the prudent approach to personally meet with Mr Ndara in an attempt to reach a confidential settlement. As discussed, we have limited appetite to enrich the individual which does not take into account the time and effort that will be required to defend this matter in the courts and the in the private domain” Gleaning from these two paragraphs these are not the contentions of an innocent party. Gone are the vehement denials of big corporates that dismiss complains with contempt. For that matter whilst I write to you open letters that are transparent, also for public consumption, not once on the four occasions I have done so have you responded in kind. There is not a single letter where you have taken the public into your confidence regarding this matter and that of the Crusaders for Justice. There are over thirty people who have suffered similar fates to Mr Ndara whose lives are ruined because of the immorality of this bank. In all their cases, their tormentor is Wesbank. Surely we should now call time on this; it is time to do the right thing. I note, in fact, that you are amenable to a settle with Mr Ndara were it not for your legal team who needed more time to explore if there were any other seemingly unethical avenues to cause him greater harm. Notably there is again no outright denial. Paramount in your narrative in this letter is the point that “As discussed, we have limited appetite to enrich the individual”. This pregnant statement takes the cake. It says so many things all at once. In fact, I hear you loud and clear, Wesbank has turned Mr Ndara’s life upside down for over fifteen years, he has lost properties and lost all cars he had, owing to this transaction based on misrepresentations. As such, whilst you “have limited appetite to enrich the individual”, Wesbank has all the appetite to rid people of their hard-earned money and property. Wesbank has had the appetite to impoverish people as has been aptly demonstrated in this case. Will the real leaders of the First Rand Group please stand up. Your silence is deafening. Judge Buyiswa Majiki in an August 2018 judgement (Ndara and Another v Weir Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (3180/2013) (2018) at the Grahamstown High Court set aside a 2015 judgement that was in favour of Wesbank on the basis that it was erroneously sought and granted. This has been Webank’s modus operandi, hence Mr Carrim exhorts you to settle this matter. Judge Elna Revelas presided over a hearing on 18 August 2015 with only the bank’s legal team present. There were no papers served on Mr Ndara and his attorneys. Significantly there was not even a Notice of Set-down. Strangely, Judge Revelas proceeded to dismiss Mr Ndara’s leave to appeal with costs. When the bank’s representatives appeared before Judge Majiki in 2018; they conceded that they did not follow any of the applicable High Court Rules. The bank appealed Judge Majiki’s judgement and it was dismissed with costs around March 2019. A month or so later you wrote this letter to Mr Carrim. Quo Vadis? Whilst I applaud the NDPP, unlike Advocates Naicker, Goosen, Mrwebi and Govender she was much more forthcoming on what has really transpired in this David and Goliath battle. Advocate Batohi was prepared to call out the culprits – Wesbank. However whilst she identified the unethical and immoral conduct on your part, she did not have the courage to act (as the law allows her) in the interests of good governance, for justice to be served. That is really disappointing. 2) Whenever any manager, agent or employee of any credit grantor does or omits to do any act which it would be an offence under this Act for the credit grantor to do or omit to do, such manager, agent or employee shall be liable to be convicted and sentenced in respect thereof as if he were the credit grantor. The above extract is taken directly from the Credit Agreements Act 1980, that was in place when Mr Ndara’s credit agreement was concluded. In my book, “shall be liable to be convicted and sentenced”, refers to a criminal prosecution if one were to have been found to have contravened this statute. Furthermore, Advocate Tenjwa Sellem, who oversaw a seven-month investigation at the NPA on this matter, took a decision to prosecute and took warning statements. On receiving a copy of NDPP’s letter his response was “If Mr Ndara on purchasing a vehicle through Wesbank, had provided a false representations concerning his salary advice and place of domicile, was he not going to face criminal charges of FRAUD, the answer is in the affirmative”. He went on to say, in the investigation, evidence points to the following issues that anchor this matter • Wesbank delivered to Mr Ndara a USED Nissan X-Trail 2.2 Diesel, Manual with 6700 kilometres travelled valued at R270000-00 Then they processed and invoiced him for a BRAND NEW Nissan X-Trail 2.5 Automatic valued at R298000-00. • Wesbank processed and approved the sale agreement, relying on a fraudulent Offer to Purchase (OTP) that Mr Ndara had never had sight of nor signed. The OTP provided for him to sign firstly to tender his Nissan Almera as a trade in, and secondly to sign making the Offer to Purchase the Nissan X-Trail described therein. Instead Mr Jaen Van Aardt – the Dealer Principal signed on the document accepting an offer that had not been made. Despite the invalidity of the document Wesbank processed and concluded the deal as if it was above board. • Furthermore Wesbank approved fictitious extras to the value of R33000-00 that do not exist. These were insurance products as opposed to physical material enhancement in the vehicle that would have been requested by Mr Ndara. So in all the vehicle that he would have paid R270000-00 for, he was invoiced for R333000-00. • The Dealer Principal induced Mr Ndara into this deal under the pretext that he was redressing a wrong committed by a salesperson at the dealership, hence Mr Ndara believed him. He offered to do a special deal that will see Mr Ndara benefit from the Wesbank Senior Manager Scheme that he already qualified for. Noting that Mr Ndara is ignorant of the Scheme’s formula, he loaded 15,25% interest rate instead of 9% that he qualified for. Mr Ndara as a result had R8857 monthly instalment for a USED Nissan X-Trail in 2004, sixteen years ago. Advocate Sellem ended by saying he stands by his decision to prosecute this matter. To conclude my letter, Sir, I shall quote from the Regional Director of Public Prosecutions, Advocate Goosen, who was the only prosecutor to write to Mr Ndara giving reasons why they decline to prosecute. Advocate TC Goosen on 11 December 2015 writes as follows: “ “It is a fact that the vehicle was described on the transaction details document as a new one. I am of the opinion that this aspect does not assist in making a decision in your favour. Everyone including yourself knew at all times relevant that the vehicle was a demo model and therefore not brand new. Consequently the action to tick the ‘new box’ surely could not have been made with an intention to defraud you. I also consider a possible argument that being a demo model, the vehicle was definitely a used vehicle, but also new in the sense that ti has never been sold before. Another possible argument can also be that the ticking of the ‘new box’ was a mistake and that the person who made the tick is as much to blame as those who had signed the document.” The car was indeed sold to you at a price consistent with that of a new car. Essentially because of all that he advances above, Advocate Goosen then concludes that whilst there are all these permutations above, Mr Ndara’s case would not stand scrutiny in a court of law as he will be a single witness. I shall leave these two contrasting versions for your benefit and the public at large. Once more with all the respect I invite you to meet with Mr Ndara and resolve what is patently a grave injustice. Not only to Mr Ndara, but to all South Africans who believe in natural justice and the rule of law. Sir, I believe you owe this to yourself, FirstRand Bank and to all those who inflicted pain on Mr Ndara and his family throughout these years. It is never too late to mend. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President
Admin
03 Jun, 2020
Composition of PIC interim board: beneficiaries should not be members
Honourable Minister Mboweni QUESTIONS AROUND THE COMPOSITION OF PUBLIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION’S BOARD: BENEFICIARIES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SERVE 1. Some time has lapsed since the 995-page report of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into allegations of impropriety at the Public Investment Corporation, as lead by the Honourable Justice Lex Mpati (‘the Mpati Commission’), was handed over to President Ramaphosa and was released to the public on 12 March 2020. 2. One of the consequences of the Coronavirus lockdown is that I had the opportunity and time to read the voluminous Mpati Commission’s report and apply my mind to the size of the task of implementing its recommendations, over and above the management of the Public Investment Corporation’s (PIC) day-to-day business. 3. From my personal experience of the way the Mpati Commission functioned and reading its report, I believe that the commission did a sterling job. We will hopefully see sweeping changes that will lead to the PIC being a responsible organisation, as well as rooting out corruption and poor administration. South Africans will hopefully see the police, the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (Hawks) and the National Prosecuting Authority continue investigating and bring culprits to book. 4. Regarding the implementation of the Mpati Commission’s recommendations at the PIC, the complexity of the job ahead and the fortitude required to complete it requires the most competent, qualified, and trustworthy individuals. The PIC’s board and administrators must have the best interests of the PIC, and by extension the South African Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF), at heart. 5. This knowledge and given the poor track-record of past PIC boards brought me to my next exercise, which was to look at the composition of the PIC’s incumbent interim board which you appointed in consultation with cabinet almost a year ago. 6. To my surprise, in doing my quick study, I came across an individual who now sits on the PIC’s interim board, who is a past PIC beneficiary. 7. That person is Ms Irene Charnley; the company is her Smile Telecoms Limited, to which the PIC committed an investment of USD 100,000,000 in 2015. This is a little more than R1,7 billion when calculated at today’s Rand/Dollar exchange rate. The PIC Investment Details sheet where I obtained this information, is available at https://www.pic.gov.za/DocPresentations/95.-Smile-Telecoms-Holdings.pdf). 8. It is an interesting side-note that, at the time, the now disgraced former PIC CEO, Dr Daniel Matjila, said: “We are excited about our investment in Smile Telecoms as it provides us with an opportunity to accelerate and realise our mandate to invest in the rest of the African continent.” 9. Given this information I have provided thus far, I could not help but ask whether history was repeating; and it left me feeling quite uneasy. 10. This discovery piqued my interest and I also did a cursory internet search on Smile Telecoms Limited (‘Smile’) and found the following information, the context of which will become clear in my later questions to you: 10.1. “Capitalworks” is listed as Smile’s “partner” on its website but is named “CapitalWorks SSA” on the Investment Details sheet. Presumably, this name difference is due to there being different divisions of the same company. I then found an announcement that an entity called “Capitalworks Group”, in 2017, had launched “Africa Capitalworks”, an investment company, which aimed to raise USD 300 million to “…deploy permanent equity capital in mid-market companies in strategically selected sectors across Sub Sahara Africa (“SSA”) (excluding South Africa)”. This discovery in itself is not interesting, what however is, is that they had “… already secured early support and substantial investment, including from CDC, the UK’s development finance institution, and the Public Investment Corporation SOC Limited (PIC) on behalf of its client the South African Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF).” 10.2. I also found a PIC document called “ISIBAYA DETAILED INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS AT 31 MARCH 2017” which is available on, investigative journalism organisation, Amabhungane’s website at https://amabhungane.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/170331_PIC-Unlisted-assets.pdf. Under the column called “FRESG Performance” the following is written about Smile: • “Financially Underperforming – economic headwinds, devaluation of local currencies mainly Nigeria and stiff competition led to underperformance”, • “Owner Managed Companies – Corporate governance principles are compromised- Governance policy, Delegation of Authority, succession planning and risk management framework need to be in place” • “Establishment of Social and Ethics Committee to manage the Representatives of local people on the boards be increased to ensure legislation in countries that advocate local representation on the board.” 11. Given the above information the following questions arose in my mind: 11.1. Were you aware that Ms Charnley had been a PIC beneficiary when you appointed her as an interim board member? If so, do you consider this to be a healthy situation and what were your reasons for continuing with her appointment despite the knowledge? 11.2. What was the agreement in terms of the USD 100,000,000 investment the PIC made in Smile and has investment paid dividends, especially given the PIC’s 2017 conclusion that Smile was “financially underperforming”? What were the implications of this lack of performance? Did the PIC write off this investment and if so, would this not constitute mere looting? 11.3. The PIC concluded that Smile’s “Corporate governance principles are compromised” whilst the company was squarely under Ms Charnley’s management. Would you agree that this casts doubt on Ms Charnley’s suitability to function at board level? 11.4. Did CapitalWorks SSA/Capitalworks Group/Africa Capitalworks receive PIC/GEPF funding? If so, what are the details, and would you consider it compromising that a board member has yet another link to a PIC beneficiary? The United Democratic Movement would argue that there is enough evidence that warrants that Ms Charnley must vacate her seat on the PIC board immediately. One other matter I would like to raise with you is the appointment of Mr Abel Sithole as the new PIC CEO. It would serve us well to remember that the GEPF wrote off billions of rands in investment losses, as was reported in 2018, whilst he was that entity’s Principal Executive Officer. Some of those so-called investments were quite dodgy and this scenario means that Mr Sithole is a man who failed at his job. Surely there were other competent individuals available for your consideration. We do not want to conclude that his appointment is to merely clean-up the mess he was part of and covering tracks in the process. We look forward to your response. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement
Admin
09 Apr, 2020
Holomisa writes to NCCC re COVID-19 lockdown review
Dear Chairperson of the National Coronavirus Command Council IMPORTANT MATTERS TO CONSIDER DURING THE COVID-19 LOCKDOWN REVIEW I wish to thank you for taking us, as political parties and stakeholders in South African society, for the confidence you showed in consulting us regarding the COVID-19 lockdown. We still endorse this critical move to find a lasting solution. We realise that this is a trial-and-error process and in line with your announcement that the decision for a lockdown will be reviewed, I ,yesterday, took it upon myself to do a snapshot survey asking South Africans the following on my social networks: “South African Review of Lockdown. We are past the halfway mark of the 21-day lockdown period and the government is busy reviewing the effectiveness of the lockdown in preventing the spread of Covid-19. Which regulations do you think should be reviewed and why? I intend compiling your suggestions and submit them to the President since he involved us as leaders of political parties right from the beginning in this coronavirus saga. I anticipate that he might consult us once more, if he intends to make changes. All the best.” Please note that, browsing through these comments, people, amongst others, are calling for government to carefully investigate the economic impact of the lockdown, given that the socio-economic conditions of South Africans are remarkably diverse and that no one solution can fit all. I submit these comments as is, but it should go a long way in finding a lasting solution; please see their comments and proposals on Twitter and Facebook. There are a number of well thought through ideas and comments from the people closest to this pandemic. Please also see the attached email from Ms Diane Redelinghuys for some additional suggestions. However, please note that the United Democratic Movement (UDM) is concerned that there are signs of maladministration regarding tenders during this time as evidenced in the City Press article: “Outrage over Gauteng’s 24-hour, R30m express tender” published on 5 April 2020. See also a Sunday Times article of 5 April 2020 “‘Sub-standard sanitisers, masks for soldiers’” and “Soldiers ‘forced’ to patrol streets during lockdown in ‘unsafe gear‘” regarding R10 million that had been spent on allegedly unsafe sanitisers and masks. There are also allegations of a R50 million tender allocated to a certain Kirinox non-profit organisation to provide services for the homeless and street children’s shelters (see the announcement by the Deputy Minister of Social Development on the left). We hear that this NPO has already submitted an invoice for R20 million. Regarding Minister Ndabeni Abrahams’ now infamous visit to Mr Mduduzi Manana’s house during lockdown, the jury is still out as to exactly what was being discussed in a situation where you have a minister and staff of the presidency present, and that the host had the temerity to say that the minister only came to fetch personal protective equipment, as a donation from his foundation. There are legitimate worries that this could be the tip of the iceberg and since Parliament and the provincial legislatures are shut down, there is no level of oversight and monitoring. In addition, people are concerned that there is no mechanism in place where any suspected maladministration and corruption can be reported. The UDM would therefore suggest that a small body be put in place, comprised of representatives of the Human Rights Commission, National Treasury, the Special Investigation Unit, the National Prosecuting Authority, the Auditor General, the Hawks and the police, to monitor government’s tendering processes during this time. This oversight and monitoring body, chaired by a judge, should be given the necessary powers to act, as ministers and deputy-ministers tend to give political directives to accounting officers. Given the history of this country, we cannot rely on the word of ministers and/or deputy-ministers in these matters. We hope that you and your colleagues will take our citizens’ and the UDM’s suggestions on board in the review of the COVID-19 lockdown. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President
Admin
10 Sep, 2019
Open Letter to President Ramaphosa: gender-based violence
Dear Mr President Recently, the country has been ravaged by news of gender based violence, women being abducted, raped and murdered. This is an everyday life for women in this country hence now we have the #AmInext movement, because honestly we are constantly stressing about who is going to be a victim of these atrocities ravaging our communities. The United Democratic Movement Women’s Organisation call on you Mr President, to speedily act on this, as women are under attack, the time for speeches and dialogues around these issues is over. We would like to see a government that implements change and not just talk about it. One of the things we would like to see is co-operation between the Departments or Ministries that fall under the cluster of peace and security. There seems to be no synergy and this is a contributing factor to the rise in violence in this country. If the SAPS manage to arrest the criminal; Justice will release him either on bail or on lack of evidence; if Justice sentence the criminal, Correctional Services will release him on parole. The UDEMWO call upon the government either amend the laws of this country as the law is currently favouring the criminals at the expense of the victims, or bring back the death penalty. Had it not been for Luyanda Botha, the late Uyinene Mrhwetyana’s murderer being released on parole from his previous convictions, the young girl would be still alive, pursuing her dreams. The question still remains, how did Luyanda end up working for a state owned enterprise with criminal records? Mr President, The Government continues to fail us! The Department of Women’s voice is not being heard, Minister Maite-Nkoana Mashabane is not vocal and not seen taking part in bringing about solution in the threatening situation, which is claiming lives of women especially in the past week. UDEMWO believes that when one tramples the other person’s rights, he must forfeit his rights. Enough with the lip service, Action must be taken NOW! Issued by Thandi Nontenja UDEMWO Secretary
Admin
08 Jul, 2019
Holomisa writes to PIC Commission re alleged R2.5m personal loan from VBS to Dr Dan Matjila, former PIC boss
Dear Advocate Lubbe SC DR DAN MATJILA’S EXPECTED TESTIMONY AT THE MPATI COMMISSION: FURTHER GERMANE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM A WHISTLE-BLOWER I herewith acknowledge receipt of your email, dated 6 July 2019, wherein you informed me that – according to the rules of the commission of inquiry into allegations of impropriety regarding the Public Investment Corporation (‘the Commission’) – I may today be implicated in evidence to be submitted by Dr Dan Matjila, former Chief Executive Officer of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC). I wish to inform the Commission about information that has been provided to me by a whistle-blower regarding an alleged forensic review report (dated 15 April 2019) (‘the report”) as commissioned by the PIC board from Nexus Forensic Services regarding a VBS Mutual Bank investment transaction. 1. According to the alleged report, Dr Matjila, together with the PIC’s former chief risk officer Paul Magula and the head of legal Ernest Nesane received loans from VBS Mutual Bank. The allegations about the loans to the latter two gentlemen have been widely reported on in the media. 2. Dr Matjila has never declared a VBS Mutual Bank loan allegedly extended to him, to the value of R2 456 761.66, as required, which may constitute a conflict of interest and even possible criminal conduct. 3. The term of Dr Matjila’s loan is alleged to be a thirty (30) year period, which raises the questions whether a) the loan was extended at arm’s length and b) such a lengthy repayment period was the standard for VBS Mutual Bank? 4. In terms of the conditions of the loan, it is allegedly unclear whether the loan was intended to ever be repaid, or whether it is/was in fact being repaid. The only way to establish the veracity of this allegation is to scrutinise the dates of disbursement and repayment. 5. If there is any truth in these allegations, it raises serious concerns about Advocate Terry Motau SC’s report called: “The Great Bank Heist”. Why did Advocate Motau’s report omit Dr Matjila’s alleged loan, especially given his position as PIC CEO? 6. Why did Advocate Motua’s report exclusively focus on Messrs Magula and Nesane? Common sense would dictate that Advocate Motau would have declared Dr Matjila’s alleged loan even if no wrongdoing was apparent. 7. The alleged report apparently states that Dr Matjila holds ten directorships, but according to the whistle-blower, around two have not been disclosed as required. 8. As we all know, Advocate Terry Motau’s report revealed that a cash sum of R5 million was apparently “stolen” from VBS Mutual Bank, allegedly to bribe Dr Matjila to obtain his cooperation in facilitating the funding of VBS Mutual Banks’ requirements by the PIC. Famously, the money was reportedly carried by helicopter from Makhado to Lanseria Airport. If the alleged report is anything to go by, one could argue that Dr Matjila had personally benefitted from nearly R7.5 million of VBS Mutual Bank money. 9. Nexus Forensic Services’ alleged report apparently recommended that the PIC board should pursue criminal investigation. If that is true, the question is what has the board done about this recommendation and if nothing, why? Lastly and with respect, given the information the whistle-blower has imparted to me, I wanted to establish whether the Commission is aware of this alleged report and if not, could the Commission make enquiry into obtaining the said report to assist in its investigation. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President
Admin
01 Apr, 2019
UDM’s concern over the it service providers employed by the IEC
Mr VG Mashinini Chairperson of the Electoral Commission Private Bag X112 Centurion 0046 Dear Mr Mashinini UDM’s CONCERN OVER THE IT SERVICE PROVIDERS EMPLOYED BY THE IEC The United Democratic Movement (UDM) is extremely concerned over the information technology (IT) service providers, and systems, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) employs to run the 2019 National and Provincial Elections. We have, in the past, said much about the selection of these IT companies, their vetting and the security of the entire system, especially where it pertains to the capturing of results. As we stand at the door of these eminent elections, those grave concerns resurface. We would like to establish the following: 1. Has only one IT company been appointed through a tendering process? If so, can the IEC share this information (including its name) and confirm that it has been vetted and cleared? 2. If not, how many IT companies have been appointed through a tendering process; can the IEC share this information (including their names) and tell us whether they have been vetted and cleared? 3. At which stages and levels, of the process of the capturing of results, are each of these companies involved? Sir, it is of paramount importance that the political parties, as stakeholders in these elections, be provided with this information. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President Copied to: Political parties contesting the 2019 National and Provincial Elections Mr Sy Mamabolo, IEC Chief Electoral Officer
Admin
21 Mar, 2019
UDM lodges complaint with IEC re alleged ANC attack on members campaigning in Mbizana
Mr VG Mashinini Chairperson of the Electoral Commission P/Bag X112 Centurion 0046 Dear Sir LODGING OF COMPLAINT: ALLEGED ATTACK ON UDM MEMBERS BY PERSONS DRESSED IN ANC REGALIA Earlier this week, United Democratic Movement (UDM) members were campaigning in Ward 7, Khaleni Administrative Area, in the Mbizana Local Municipality (Eastern Cape). Four of our members were allegedly assaulted by persons wearing African National Congress regalia. One of our members was admitted to hospital with injuries sustained in the attack. One of the alleged assailants is known to our members and a case has been opened with the police. We understand that two suspects have been arrested for common assault in the meantime. It is ironic that political parties have just yesterday signed the Independent Electoral Commission’s (IEC) Code of Conduct, and the Code has, allegedly, already been infringed upon by the aforementioned party. The UDM condemns political intolerance and violence in the strongest terms and we call on the IEC to play its role in taking action in terms of its powers to enforce the Code of Conduct. We will not accept another scenario where we, as in the past, lodged complaints with the IEC and, in our opinion, nothing was done. We look forward to your response. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President Mr Sy Mamabolo, IEC Chief Electoral Officer
Admin
26 Feb, 2019
Bantu Holomisa writes to the President re backdated salary payments of KwaZulu-Natal indunas
Mr CM Ramaphosa President of the Republic of South Africa PO Box 15 Cape Town 8000 Dear Mr President Yesterday, upon my visit to Isizwe Sakwampukunyoni at Mtubatuba, KwaZulu-Natal, under Nkosi Mzokhulayo Mkhwanazi, I met with over thirty indunas at the Mgeba Traditional Council offices. They alleged that all indunas of this province have not received their back-pay from 2013 up to 2017. It is alleged that former President Jacob Zuma had approved such payments on 18 April 2013. According to them, the indunas of the entire Kwa-Zulu Natal feel that they are being treated differently from traditional leaders in other provinces. We appeal to your good offices, and those of the other relevant authorities, to investigate the veracity of these claims and, should there be merit to these allegations, we request that you act upon such finding/s. For any additional information required, please call Prince Ntuthuko Mkhwanazi at and Prince Musawenkosi Qhina Mkhwanazi. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement
Admin
09 Jan, 2018
State Capture Inquiry should look into R350m Hlano deal to ascertain ANC & Zonkizizwe involvement
Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo Private Bag X1 Constitution Hill Braamfontein 2017 Dear Sir STATE CAPTURE INQUIRY: INVESTIGATION NEEDED INTO AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS AND ZONKIZIZWE INVESTMENTS’ INVOLVEMENT IN GAUTENG ROU HOUSING LOAN PORTFOLIO DEAL BETWEEN HLANO FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS To provide context, we refer you to a 2016 agreement between Hlano Financial Services, Nimble Collection Services and the Department of Human Settlements regarding the resolution of Hlano Financial Services’ ROU housing loan portfolio – see attached. We in particular refer you to a November 2015 collection mandate between Hlano Financial Services, and Nimble Collection Services and NMI Housing Solutions in respect of the Gauteng ROU housing loan portfolio. We point you to a “bulk settlement” of R350 million, specified on page 6 of the document, which government was requested to consider and approve as the aggregate outstanding balance of R443 million in respect of 5,159 properties located in the Gauteng region over which Hlano held mortgage bonds. On a Zonkizizwe invoice, dated 16 August 2018, (attached) African National Congress (ANC) Treasurer General Paul Mashatile, was invoiced for “consultancy services” rendered in terms of “collection of Hlano Financial Services; Gauteng Housing Loan Portfolio at 3% of R350,000,000.00”. It is clear that something untoward is going on here. The origins of Zonkizizwe Investments are common knowledge and like with former ANC Treasurer General Dr Zweli Mkhize’s involvement in the Afric Oil/Public Investment Corporation loan mess, it seems as if the incumbent ANC Treasurer General is also involved in odd transactions involving the ANC, Zonkizizwe Investments and government. I further draw your attention to a letter dated 22 March 2017, regarding a further 2016/2017 budget adjustment request, from the national department of human settlements to its Gauteng counterpart which lists an approved amount of R200 million for “Hlano Financial Services”. What is the connection between this R200 million-item to the aforementioned R350 million? What was the money used for and, if it relates to the same deal, where did the balance of R150 million go? Perhaps Zonkizizwe’s management and Mr Mashatile should be made to explain if they had any involvement in this? Given the above information, it is clear that there might be some elements of state capture in this deal and the United Democratic Movement humbly requests that the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture also investigates this matter. Lastly Sir, even if claims were to be made that any or all pertinent documents were lost in last year’s fatal fire that destroyed Gauteng Health, Human Settlements and Co-operative Government and Traditional Affairs’ office building, it would be easy enough to have a look at the bank statements to see how much money were paid into whose bank accounts. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President
Admin
06 Sep, 2018
Status of the UDM as part of the co-governance agreement; setting the record straight
Rev Kenneth Meshoe, MP President, African Christian Democratic Party Mr Mosiuoa Lekota, MP President, Congress of the People Mr Mmusi Maimane, MP Leader, Democratic Alliance Dr Pieter Groenewald, MP Leader, Freedom Front Plus Dear Colleagues STATUS OF THE UDM AS PART OF THE CO-GOVERNANCE AGREEMENT; SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT Straight off the bat I wish to inform you that I take exception to the four signatories’ giving me a deadline to respond to your letter dated 1 September 2018 as if I am a schoolboy to be ordered about. This is not the collegial manner of communication I would expect amongst peers. For your information, I was contacted by both the City Press and the Business Day on the 1st of September, that asked for comment on your letter, which I only received yesterday afternoon. A question also arose in my mind as to why the United Democratic Movement (UDM) was not invited to the 31 August meeting of the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), the Congress of the People (Cope), the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Freedom Front Plus (FF+). Your letter clearly states that the meeting was “…to consider a number of issues relating to coalition led governments across South Africa.” I would be obliged if you could furnish the UDM with the other agenda items and explain why we were not invited. That said, it seems as if the signatories suffer from collective amnesia given the history that led us to this point in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality (NMB Metro). The United Democratic Movement (UDM) herewith sets the record straight. 1. The three-person commission The co-governance agreement clearly stipulates what should happen in the case of discord between the coalition partners. I therefore remind you that the three-person commission – the coalition partners had tasked to make inquiry when the first differences within the coalition arose – had fingered both Mr Athol Trollip and Mr Mongameli Bobani. This inquiry also found that Mr Trollip had undermined the coalition and disobeyed the coalition partners’ collective instructions and by implication his own national leader. Despite these facts, the DA refused to act against Mr Trollip and yet expected the UDM to do so. This is an obvious double-standard. 2. The PricewaterhouseCoopers saga It was the DA which used the so-called draft report, that PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) had compiled, to discredit and defame Mr Bobani who at the time served as the NMB Metro’s Deputy Mayor. The DA refused to deal with Mr Trollip after he came up with wild accusations about Mr Bobani. At that time, the UDM stated that we would not take Mr Trollip’s word on these allegations and that the matter should be investigated and tabled at council. We were satisfied that council would apply its mind, once it received a report, and determine whether Mr Bobani was guilty of any wrongdoing. PwC’s interim report never reached council nor were the coalition partners privy to it. Instead the DA’s leaders Mr Mmusi Maimane, Mr James Selfe as well as Mr Trollip ran around the country blackening Mr Bobani and the UDM’s name. After we read in the media that such a report existed, the coalition partners had to demand a copy from the DA. There was no mention of Mr Bobani. The final PwC report was last year given to Mr Trollip, yet it remains in his hands. The coalition partners, council and even the media asked for its release and he has not done so. However, Herald eventually got hold of the report and reported that there were no findings that implicated Mr Bobani in any wrongdoing. We understand that this DA project cost the taxpayer millions of rands, which it used for their own nefarious purposes. What kind of political party uses public funds to attack its coalition partner? We have written to Mr Maimane in the past to demand that the DA and he must apologise to the UDM and Mr Bobani. He has not responded. 3. Regarding the DA’s “side deal” with the Patriotic Alliance It was the very same DA that brought some questionable characters through the back door and arranged that the Patriotic Alliance (PA) move for a motion of no-confidence against Mr Bobani. We wondered at this PA/DA “side-marriage” that was clearly outside the coalition. It seemed like an old apartheid style move to play brother off against brother. Our other coalition partners did nothing, and you clapped hands as you got rid of Mr Bobani. You chased us away and today have the temerity to ask about the status of the UDM as part of the coalition in the NMB Metro. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Now that you are out in the cold, you suddenly notice the UDM and try to blame us; yet you know very well that the DA is the sole reason for your fall. The UDM says stew in your own juice. The onus is on you to convince the UDM to remain in what has turned out to be nothing else but a coalition of thugs and liars. Lastly, he past two years paints a clear picture of the road that has led us to this juncture and I am surprised that the ACDP, Cope and the FF+ still tolerates the DA. Maybe you are still on a fool’s quest? The UDM calls on the coalition partners to be honest with themselves and acknowledge that the DA has treated all of us like we are second class citizens and junior partners in the coalition. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement CC: Mr Julius Malema, Commander in Chief of the Economic Freedom Fighters
Admin
04 Sep, 2018
The Public Investment Corporation: concerns regarding time being taken to institute commission of inquiry and the PIC board appointing forensic auditors
Dear Mr President This matter has reference. The United Democratic Movement is very concerned that there is no movement in terms of the appointment of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) commission of inquiry. Sir, in this matter, we want to remind you that Minister Nene had initially, in his court papers, said that he saw nothing untoward at the PIC. This raised some eyebrows at the time. His lack of action now raises the question as to why Minister Nene is dragging his feet in instituting the inquiry and appointing the commissioners. Our main concern is that Minister Nene, who once was a PIC Chairperson, is acting like a person who may himself, or maybe a family member, have been captured. Regarding Minister Nene’s instruction on a forensic audit at the PIC, the minister has not stated which aspects or transactions such an investigative team will audit. In fact, Sir, the entire matter is shrouded in secrecy. Mr President, we herewith ask that you take this matter away from Minister Nene and appoint the commission yourself. We also ask that you appoint the forensic auditing team i.e. not by the PIC board whose members may be compromised themselves. Kindly advise. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement
Admin
04 Jun, 2018
Round 2 of Mr Ndara’s ordeal with @WesBank. #WesBank vacillates on the immoral alliance between banks and car dealers. Where to now Mr De Kock?
Dear Mr De Kock EXPRESSION OF CONCERN: CONDUCT OF THE BANK IN THE MATTER OF MR NDARA The email from Mr Mahoney to Mr Ndara dated 29 May 2018 bears reference. Mr Ndara has since brought the contents of this email to my attention, which came as a complete surprise. I had simply requested Mr Ndara to establish the exact date for the agreed upon meeting with Mr Mahoney where all parties would be present to take this discussion forward. I had already received communication from WesBank confirming the same, seeking suitable dates for all concerned where the dealership employees would also be present. The initial view was to meet in East London, but we were later advised of Gauteng as an alternative venue and we chose the latter. Subsequently there was an undue delay upon which I asked Mr Ndara to follow up. In his email, Mr Mahony also advised that the dealer could not engage in a meeting whilst Mr Ndara was present, yet he was present in all other meetings, there seems to be something very strange going on here? DISCUSSION I must admit that this whole episode has left me perplexed. You ought to remember that in the first instance our meeting was not informed by a change of heart on the part of the bank, but it was in reaction to the exposure of the situation in the public domain. Hitherto you have not offered anything contrary to what the complainant has presented. You, and legal counsel, confirmed that either parties do not even know and had not seen papers related to this matter and yet you pronounced on how the bank have done nothing wrong in as much as you pleaded ignorance in our presence. The dealer is clearly defying your suggestion that “we get their side of the story” and strangely for us, who are from the outside looking in, this meeting was supposed to clear Wesbank and therefore confirm that it is the dealer who may be at fault. So, when the meeting is in the balance what do you really expect us to think? Here is what comes to mind: • Should the meeting proceed, the bank knows that it is in an untenable situation as the facts are not in dispute. • Now that we have presented WesBank with the necessary documents, which proves that in your own words, a grave injustice was done, there suddenly is backtracking regarding the meeting. • There is an illogical proposal to exclude the complainant from the discussions. • As the person who brought this into the public domain, and as such initiated these discussions, I still await communication from you that unequivocally confirms WesBank’s position. • Similarly, if there is none forthcoming I shall assume this sudden change of events has your stamp of approval. • The assertion about WesBank not having done anything wrong is increasingly, without merit given the posture of the bank. WAY FORWARD Sir, I would like to reiterate that our meeting on the 10th of May 2018 was not informed by a meeting of minds or a change of heart. You yourself mentioned in the meeting that the matter has dragged on for such a long time and that it has been a source of frustration. Now that I have satisfied myself that, whilst I gave you the benefit of the doubt, you have chosen to demonstrate that you do not take this matter seriously, I therefore take this to be an invitation to see how best to deal with this matter and that you are no longer open to discussion in an environment that will safeguard the bank’s reputation. I shall henceforth petition the institutions that should by law take an interest in this matter, as well as other institutions that by their virtue are there to advance our constitutional democracy and the justice that we seek for all. I appreciate having engaged with you and look forward to further engagements albeit on different platforms. Yours faithfully Mr Bantu Holomisa Member of Parliament President of the United Democratic Movement
Admin
04 Jun, 2018
Allegations of misconduct against the Nelson Mandela Bay city manager Mr Johann Mettler
OPEN LETTER TO NMBM SPEAKER LAWACK The Speaker of Council NMBM Attention: Councillor Lawack RE – ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT AGAINST THE CITY MANAGER: MR JOHANN METTLER This correspondence serves to inform you that the UDM has brought some serious allegations of misconduct against the City Manager, Mr Johann Mettler to the attention of the Executive Mayor, Councillor Trollip on 22 May 2018. A copy of such a letter was copied to you as a Speaker of council. The UDM’s intention was for such allegations against the current City Manager to be tabled and considered by a municipal council as provided for in regulation 5 (1) of the Disciplinary Regulation for Senior Managers, 2010 promulgated in terms of the Municipal Systems Act, 2000. The Executive Mayor is, in terms of regulation 5 (2) of the above-mentioned disciplinary procedure, legally obliged to table these serious allegations of misconduct against the City Manager in council within seven (7) days of receipt thereof. The Executive Mayor has unfortunately not yet directly responded to my correspondence as to the way forward on these serious allegations against the City Manager other than conceding in the Herald dated 25 May 2018 to the fact that an act of misconduct has indeed been committed by the City Manager. I am therefore addressing this correspondence directly to you based on the provisions of both the Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers, 2010 and the Municipal Regulations on Financial Misconduct Procedures and Criminal Proceedings, 2014. The above two (2) pieces of municipal regulations are extremely significant as they constitute a cornerstone for dealing with all forms of misconduct committed by municipal senior managers. Relevant sections of these regulations are outlined here below. Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers, 2010 Regulation 5 (1) clearly stipulates that any allegation of misconduct against a senior manager must be brought to the attention of a municipal council. Regulation 5 (2) stipulates that any allegation referred to in sub-regulation (1) must be tabled by the mayor or municipal manager, as the case may be, before municipal council not later than seven (7) days after receipt thereof, failing which the mayor may request the speaker to convene a special council meeting within seven days to consider the said report. Municipal Regulations on financial misconduct Procedures and Criminal Proceedings, 2014 Regulation 3 (1) states that any person must report an allegation of financial misconduct against the Accounting Officer; a senior manager or chief financial officer of the municipality to the municipal council, the Provincial Treasury and the National Treasury. Regulation 3 (2) states that the mayor, the accounting officer or chairperson of the board of directors, as the case may be, must table an allegation referred to in sub-regulation (1) before the municipal council or board of directors in the case of a municipal entities, not later than seven (7) days after receipt thereof or at the next sitting of the council or the board of directors. Regulation 10 (2) states that if there is a likelihood of further financial loss for a municipality or municipal entity as a result of a financial offence, the accounting officer, council, board of directors must report the matter without delay to the South African Police Services and not wait the completion of any investigation referred to in regulation 5 and 6 related to the financial offence. The above regulations are in line with section 173 (1) of the Municipal Finance Management Act, 2003 which clearly stipulates that the Accounting Officer of a municipality is guilty of an offence if that Accounting Officer fails to take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorised, irregular or fruitless and wasteful expenditure. In view of the above, the UDM unequivocally re-iterates its demand of tabling and considerations by council of all the following allegations of serious misconduct against the City Manager, Mr Mettler: a) Unlawful extension of scope of work of Mohlaleng Media b) Irregular appointment of the former Acting Executive Director: Corporate Services through her company – Logodisa c) irregular termination of employment contracts of senior managers d) Irregular appointment of Senior Managers (section 56 managers) e) Misappropriation of municipal funds for the implementation of M-SCOA f) Irregular appointment of Sebata Municipal Solutions g) Irregular appointment and improper conduct of Gray Moodliar Attorneys h) Political Interference in municipal administration particularly on forensic investigations and human resources management matters (h) Irregular purchasing of Murray and Roberts building by a municipality (i) Misappropriation of funds on N.U 29 Housing demolition Project (j) Irregular commissioning of Wi-Fi Project through High Mast Light All the above allegations of serious misconduct against the City Manager, Mr Mettler have been elaborated upon in my letter dated 22 May 2018 addressed to the Executive Mayor and copied to you Your attention is specifically drawn to the fact that the Executive Mayor has already conceded in public that the act of irregular conduct by both the City Manager and Ms Zitumane has been committed. It is with this in mind that the UDM directs this correspondence to you as the Speaker of council so as to ensure that a report containing all the allegations of serious misconduct against the City Manager, Mr Mettler are tabled in council for its consideration as provided for in both the Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers, 2010 and the Municipal Regulations on Financial Misconduct Procedures and Criminal Proceedings, 2014. I also wish to remind you that the continuation of the alleged irregular expenditure as highlighted above in respect of all the allegations against the City Manager is costing this municipality ernomous amounts of money and the sooner these allegations are tabled in council, the better. I must not hesitate to mention that this is a legal requirement which must be adhered to by everyone and not an individual opinion seeking exercise. Your response is awaited in this regard Yours Sincerely Councillor M. Bobani Copy: Head of Special Investigation Unit: Adv L. Mothibi MEC: Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs : MEC Xhasa Auditor-General of South Africa: Mr Makwethu Director-General: National Treasury – Mr Dondo NMBM Executive Mayor: Councillor Athol Trollip EFF: Councillor Vena AIC: Councillor Buyeye COPE: Councillor Sijadu ANC: Councillor Suka PA: Councillor Daniels United Front: Councillor Mtsila ACDP: Councillor Grootboom SAMWU: Mr Nodongwe
Admin
31 May, 2018
@PresidencyZA, UDM writes to #PresidentRamaphosa abt #corruption in #PIC: Mr President plz walk the talk! Scandal bigger than #Guptas?
Mr CM Ramaphosa President of the Republic of South Africa Union Buildings Private Bag X 1000 Pretoria 0001 and Deputy Chief Justice RMM Zondo Chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture Private Bag X1 Constitution Hill Braamfontein 2017 Dear Mr President and Deputy Chief Justice THE PUBLIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION, THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE PENSION FUND AND SUSPECTED CORRUPTION; A SCANDAL BIGGER THAN THE GUPTA-FAMILY’S STATE CAPTURE? 1. I refer to the below information which is a summary of the alleged corruption involving, in main, the Chief Executive Officer of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) Dr Daniel Matjila. 2. The allegations contained therein describes serious corruption, dodging of due diligence, misrepresentation, money laundering and purging of staff (possibly for a cover-up) in deals of the PIC, which could only be the tip of the proverbial iceberg. 3. The extent of the rot could in fact be worth billions of rands, which makes it potentially bigger than the Gupta Scandal. Through PIC, Dr Matjila appears to have tentacles across various sectors of society – from unions, political parties and possibly parts of the fourth estate. He seems to have built a platform that has so far protected him from scrutiny and they have been protecting him against accusations of serious corruption. 4. There are many other nauseating examples of corruption which the media (like amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism) have uncovered and have put in the public domain. Yet we have not seen the authorities do anything about the allegations of corruption and irregular deals, especially those within the past nine years. 5. It is therefore the United Democratic Movement’s urgent request that this matter forms part of the inquiry into state capture, because of the potential scope of the corruption. The commission’s terms of reference could be widened to include these allegations, especially considering that this could only be the tip of the iceberg and that more corruption will be exposed in its investigations 6. Because of the sophistication with which this alleged wheeling and dealing in the PIC was done, we suggest that a team of specialist professionals (including but not limited to forensic auditors, as well as finance and investment experts), should speedily investigate this matter, before proof of these misdeeds are ferreted away. 7. Mr President, you have categorically stated that you will root out corruption in government, which includes State Owned enterprises; but in this instance it will also directly affect hundreds of thousands of families for whom this is a life or death situation. Yours in stamping out corruption Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President Re: Investigation of CEO, Dr Daniel Matjila, with regards to irregularities at PIC Background Public Investment Corporation (PIC) is one of the largest asset manager managing South African government public funds. Its biggest client is the Government Employee Pension Fund (GEPF), which constitute approximately 90% of its fund under management. GEPF is a defined benefit fund, which means it is guaranteed by the employer. Employer, with regards to GEPF, is the South African Government. Any shortfall in member benefits or liabilities are therefore guaranteed by the government. It is for this reason that any maladministration from the asset/investment management is detriment to both the members of the fund and the fiscus. There have been several irregularities that have been raised in the media which are of concern and could impairment the ability of GEPF to meet its obligations over the long-term, such eventuality could trigger support from the fiscus. The following deals need further investigations by an independent party: Steinhoff Steinhoff on the unlisted side where PIC gave R 9.3 billion to an entity led by Jayendra Naidoo called Lancaster01. The shareholding of Lancaster01 is as follows is as follows: GEPF 50%, J Naidoo, 25% and community trust 25%. (Why such a narrow-based BEE structure with one person getting 25% of the deal? Does the community trust a front?). The transaction was done in two phases: • Phase 1 PIC gave Lancaster R 9.3 billion secured by both shares and collar structure if share price decline for capital preservation. • Phase 2 was the restructuring of the transaction wherein PIC was to partially forego its security to another lender Citibank. Citibank funded Lancaster02 Investment in STAR worth over R 6 billion. • Compromising of the security package in favour of J Naidoo in phase 2 resulted in impairment amount worth billions of rands. (could be up to R 5 billion possible loss for doing a favour to J Naidoo and Citibank) Ayo Technologies Ltd • Ayo Technologies Ltd, a start-up company, listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and due diligence was waived. Funds were disbursed without a condition precedent – put option being in place. Put option is an insurance instrument that would protect PIC if the share price declines. • PIC was the only material participant in the private placement despite media reports of oversubscription. • Lack of market participation could be indicative of the poor underlying investment value. The share price has remained below listing price and have experience very limited liquidity. • PIC invested R 4.3 billion, current market value is R 3.3 billion. Already lost R 1 billion on market to market basis. Sagarmantha Technologies • The CEO lobbied the investment committee members even by using letters from unions and convenient press release from a political party. Has the CEO allowed governance processes within PIC to breakdown to such a level that he felt better outsourcing the function of PIC Investment Committee to the political and union formations? Why did he deem it fit to have the letters from unions be sent to investment committees if he believes in the internal process that they will do the right thing? What was his intention to have these letters given to members of investment committee? • Despite the lobbying, the deal was declined due to critical media scrutiny. • Sagarmatha technology proposal lacked investment rationale and largely mirrored the same methodology used to get R 4.3 billion for AYO technology and backed by the same sponsor –Iqbal Surve. • GEPF was expected to invest a minimum of R 3 billion. S&S Oil Refinery • S&S Oil Refinery in Mozambique. PIC funds are tied in an asset that is currently not producing much of what have been projected? And the sponsor-Momade Rassul is alleged to be an underworld figure. Rassul is based Nacala in Northern Province of Mozambique was arrested on 29 June 2017 facing an assortment of serious charges including money laundering, illicit enrichment, tax fraud, foreign currency manipulation, smuggling and misappropriation. • Total investment at risk of full write down is R 1 billion. Erin Energy Media reported on a dodgy deal concluded with an American – Nigerian businessman – Kase Lawal. The ownership of the underlying oil asset by Erin Energy was disputed at the point of PIC investment, but the PIC proceeded. Erin Energy failed to get full ownership of the asset. Considering the PIC’s $270-million equity investment and the fact that Erin had drawn $65.6-million against the $100-million PIC-backed loan but held $9.1-million in cash security, the PIC could lose roughly R 4 billion. The girlfriend story • PIC utilisation of CSI budget to fund the project introduced by the girlfriend of the CEO. • CEO asked an Investee company to financially assist the girlfriend. Note that the CEO has not disputed this. It borders on money laundering and serous conflict of interest, this is subject to Police investigations. Other issues for further investigations: Corporate finance Advisory on deals seem to be for selected few. • Sao Capital has been an advisor on many deals. Why does the company have such a great strike rate within PIC? How many deals have they done through PIC? • Kurhisani has been an advisor in many deals – MOGS, Distell, etc. Why does the company have such a great strike rate within PIC? How many deals have they done through PIC? Recent purging of staff Head of risk is fired. Head of IT, IT security and Company secretary are under suspension. Over the last few years the PIC has victimised a lot of black professionals. Independent investigations of the staff issues will show the extent of the rot.
Admin
24 May, 2018
UDM’s Thandi Nontenja on Mtubatuba by-elections: voter registration ahead of by-elections is a recipe for disaster as the results proved
Mr Sy Mamabolo Chief Electoral Officer Independent Electoral Commission Private Bag X112 Centurion, 0046 Dear Mr Mamabolo MTUBATUBA BY-ELECTIONS: VOTER REGISTRATION AHEAD OF BY-ELECTIONS IS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER AS THE RESULTS PROVED The United Democratic Movement (UDM) hopes that the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) is happy and it appreciates the current state of affairs in the Mtubatuba Municipality following our continuous warnings against the registration of voters when there are by-elections. We warned that such registration might 1) have a negative impact, that 2) the results might not be accurate and that 3) there might be loopholes for the manipulation of the voters’ roll. The UDM has, for time immemorial, warned at the National Party Liaison Committee meetings that this practice must be stopped. Unfortunately, the IEC is hellbent in continuing on doing this. What happened in Mkhanyakude District during the by-elections in Ward 4 in the Mtubatuba Municipality, where it was found that some voters who are not residents in that particular ward – and were residents of adjacent wards – who voted. This could have been prevented if the IEC had listened to the UDM’s counsel. The UDM hopes that the IEC will now take our position on this matter seriously. The IEC is expected to be responsive and listen to the voice of political parties as they are important role players in the electoral process. The results in the by-elections of Ward 4 have been compromised and it cannot be credible. Yours in nation building Mrs Thandi Nontenja UDM Representative on the National Party Liaison Committee thandi@udm.org.za
Admin
11 May, 2018
Open letter to Wesbank CEO re meeting about banks and car dealers’ relationships
Dear Mr De Kock LETTER OF GRATITUDE Our meeting of the 10th of May 2018 refers. I wish to express my gratitude that you convened us in the manner that you did. We are particularly grateful that you took time out of your busy schedule to prioritise this matter and to listen to us and allow us to engage with you. I believe it was a worthwhile and valuable exercise, where both sides of the story were expressed and pondered. Given yesterday’s deliberations it also became quite evident that something was amiss; all considered there is certainly a problem that needs to be attended to. 1. Observations Against the backdrop of the meeting I would also like to make the following observations: • I noted your firm response that the bank is not responsible or that it cannot be held accountable for the dealer’s actions. • As a layman, I had difficulty staying abreast of your perspective in this instance. The reason being that at all, if not most dealerships, there are bank representatives, who actually perform and participate in the acquisition process of a vehicle, liaising with and on behalf of banks. • It hence becomes difficult for me to grasp if the bank will now want to exonerate itself, when there is a problem. • Mr Ndara outlined to all of us in detail how the problematic deal came to be. I must say again I appreciate your frankness when you responded to him by saying “If what you are saying is true and accurate, then I must sympathise with you because you will have been done a grave injustice” • In all honesty anyone who would hear and intimately understand how the deal was concluded, can only sympathise with the situation in which he now finds himself. You will have noted the scathing comments made on my social media platforms; it was clear that the majority of responders either sympathised or empathised with him. • The other significant point that came from the meeting was that, he could have obliged and continued to make payments towards the vehicle, and had he not spent it on lawyers perhaps he would have settled the balance of the debt, but the principle superseded all. • In fact, Sir, Mr Ndara did not take a decision to pay himself. His lawyer at the time, Mr Ben Du Plessis, based in Pretoria, wrote to the bank in October of 2007 requesting documentation that de facto amended or cancelled the original agreement of 2004 that had been signed by both parties. When a month went by without a response, he advised Mr Ndara of his rights in terms of payments especially in view of the two reloaded agreements. 2. Facilitation of a meeting with the dealership I also believe that in view of master agreements between banks and dealerships, it is rather unfortunate that in this case the bank and the dealership worked together in the courts pursuing Mr Ndara. That is what makes me rather uncomfortable with your having to preside over the matter. Nevertheless, now that you have made this suggestion and also your response to Mr Ndara’s narration I do believe that you are engaging with us in good faith. I would therefore suggest that you proceed and arrange the meeting with the dealership so that everyone involved is present. Given that this is a credit agreement and to give more clarity and to lend credence to the meeting, you must also invite a representative from the National Credit Regulator, the custodian of credit agreements. Such a move would allow all of us to gain clarity and help us to move in the right direction. This by no means stops anyone who wants to go to court, but in the spirit of yesterday’s meeting I believe it is very important that we meet as such. 3. Way Forward At the end of the day, the bank is licensed to operate and as such it is obligatory that it also operates within the parameters and conditions of the license that it has been granted. We have various bodies like the Parliamentary Committee on Finance, the Financial Services Board, Ombudsmen, National Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Reserve Bank Disciplinary Committee who may take a particular interest in this matter. However, given our engagement yesterday I am convinced if we soberly apply our minds we may well be able to find one another here, as we are not only dealing with our opinions but more fundamentally we are also dealing with the laws that govern this country. As a member of parliament and the president of a political party it is my duty to see this matter through. I have no intention of abandoning this process. I intend to follow through until this matter is resolved either way. Once more I appreciate your leadership yesterday and I look forward to further engagement on this matter. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa Member of Parliament President of the United Democratic Movement
Admin
02 May, 2018
Open Letter to Wesbank CEO re corruption in motor vehicle sales – immoral alliance between banks and car dealers
Mr Chris de Kock WesBank Chief Executive Officer Enterprise Road Fairland 2170 Dear Mr De Kock CORRUPTION IN MOTOR VEHICLE SALES – IMMORAL ALLIANCE BETWEEN BANKS AND CAR DEALERS Background In November of 2004, a senior government official, Mr Mzukisi Ndara is induced into buying a 2004 Nissan X-Trail 2.2 Diesel S.E. with approximately 7,000 kilometres distance travelled on the odometer, with a registration number DFR 613 EC. Mr Ndara was led to believe by the Dealer Principal, Jean Van Aardt, of Datnis Nissan in King Williamstown, that he offered him a “special deal” as a form of redress following a complaint of dishonest and unethical conduct by an employee, Sandra who was reporting to Van Aardt at the time. This deal was concluded on the 25th of November 2004 and financed by the FirstRand bank trading as Wesbank. Mr Ndara brought this matter to my attention, with the words, “General I have been everywhere in the last twelve years now I come to you seeking your help”. Whilst I am not a legal practitioner nor a judge for that matter, having gone through the documentation pertaining to this deal, it is not only an insult to Mr Ndara but to the people of South Africa in general, that FirstRand bank (t/a as Wesbank) and the Datnis Nissan dealership still have trading licenses and continue to operate and do business in this country. A former Judge President and an eminent jurist’s reaction on the matter when confronted with the facts in 2013 was that “this is so immoral, this does not even belong in a Court of Law, this should be published in order to embarrass those responsible and to hold them accountable”. Thirteen years down the line, in 2018, Mr Ndara has absolutely nothing to his name, instead carries a mountain of debt, owing to this saga and is also subject to harassment, threats and near financial ruin owing to what happened to him on that fateful day in 2004. What was a beginning of promising career in the public service back in 2004 turned into a lingering nightmare. Several of our public and private institutions, who have been privy to this damning story, that has been ruthlessly carried out with utmost arrogance, bravado and downright impunity, have failed this man. The Banking Association of South Africa, The National Credit Regulator, the National Treasury, the Motor Industry Ombudsman, and some media houses are aware of this. On discovery that this deal may have been concluded fraudulently Mr Ndara opened a case of fraud with the East London branch of the Special Commercial Crime Unit (Hawks) in March 2014. The case number is KWT Case No. 386/05/2014: SCCU Reference: 1/1/2-24/2004. At the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) the case was assigned to one Advocate Tenjwa Sellem who incidentally holds a Masters Degree in Law and boasts 18 years’ experience. A criminal investigation by Sellem working with Captain Dyasi of the Hawks found prima facie evidence of fraud to be ventilated in court. A decision to prosecute and make arrests was made by Sellem following the six months investigation. Warning statements had already been obtained from the accused. To Mr Ndara’s disillusionment this decision was overturned by Sellem’s immediate supervisors Advocates Deshriee Naicker and Theunis Goosen on the basis that the elements of fraud were an honest mistake and that Mr Ndara had suffered no prejudice. In fact, Advocate Goosen contended in writing that a car can be deemed new and used at the same time. Mind you, the NPA is an institution that is expected to prosecute without fear or favour. This decision was taken against the backdrop of clear, damning and undisputed evidence in the docket. The Special Deal The Dealer Principal, Van Aardt offers Mr Ndara a special deal to appease him for a wrong committed against him by an employee of Datnis Nissan. Unbeknown to him and in his first six months in government employ at the time, he is duped and falls for a scam that was to cost him two properties, vehicles and a clean credit record. His only offence was trust and benevolence. The so called special deal amounted to the following; • A used 2004 Nissan X-Trail 2.2 Diesel Manual, was sold for a price of a brand new 2004 Nissan X-Trail 2.5 Petrol Automatic. • The deal was processed by the bank relying on what is clearly a fraudulent Offer to Purchase document bearing no signature of Mr Ndara. • The bank approved financed for a brand New superior vehicle worth R 29,7990.00 and still delivered a used inferior model, knowingly worth R 27,0000.00. • In addition to this Mr Ndara was also charged as part of the purchase price, “extras” that are fictitious to the tune of approximately R 35,140.00. Incidentally these “extras” of which R 25,900.00 is a Group life insurance…. R 6,190.00 is another insurance… R 1,060 is a courtesy car…All improbable and are NOT extras just gimmicks to increase the retail price…. FRAUDULENTLY. • To top it all, the on the finance side, whilst he had a very good credit record with a secure employment he was charged an interest of 15,25 fixed and yet Wesbank had an agreement with government called the Wesbank Senior Manager Scheme that financed any official of government employed at the level of a Director upwards an interest rate of 9% finance charges. • All this amounted to an instalment of R 8,000.00 for a used Nissal X-Trail over 13 years ago. Incredibly even if once were to buy today the 2018 Nissan X-Trail top of the range they wouldn’t pay that instalment. • Furthermore, whilst he had been assured the special deal would mean that there will not be a burden from trade-in of his 2003 Nissan Almera and yet an amount of R 27,000.00 was added on to the X-Trail unbeknown to him. Wesbank Wesbank leadership starting with your predecessor, Brian Riley abdicated all responsibility in full violation of the laws of this country. It is quite clear that no due processes or even Wesbank’s own policies were followed in concluding this deal and yet the bank approved it and sold this vehicle to Mr Ndara under these horrendous and unlawful conditions. On receipt of a letter of enquiry about the price from Mr Ndara in November 2005, instead of cancelling this deal, the Office of the CEO at Wesbank chose to continue this deal and to amend the conditions of sale, under the pretext that they were assisting him. Notably whilst Mr Ndara was ignorant of the fraud at the time, he wrote in the conclusion of this letter that “I want out of this contract, so that I could have my life back”. This was ignored by the bank and they chose to extend the period of the contract and adjust the interest rate in full violation of the Credit Agreements Act of 1980, which by the way is a criminal act that carries a prison sentence. In January 2007 Mr Ndara wrote another letter complaining bitterly about this contract and the inclination by the bank to “make profit out of an unsavoury situation” the bank again chose to undertake another “reload” and consequently this one vehicle now has three different account numbers which I reiterate is against the laws of our country. Hence my contention earlier that this company should no longer be doing business in South Africa. On being served with legal papers alleging fraud and seeking damages, the bank has had the audacity to argue that the matter has prescribed, de facto arguing that a criminal act has prescribed. This matter has called into question many of our institutions designed to protect the vulnerable precisely against such unwarranted and callous treatment of ordinary South Africans by elites in this country. It is equally shocking to learn that as part of Case No. 3180/2013 Mr Ndara gave evidence narrating all of the above and the record of these proceedings as I write this is missing from the Grahamstown High Court, as it is detrimental to the bank ‘s case and contrary to a judgement that was given against him upholding prescription. In the same vein, the same contract is not deemed to have prescribed in the East London Magistrate Court when the litigants are the bank. Implications for our constitutional democracy The South African Constitution is hailed in Africa, and around the world as one of the best, precisely due to its founding values, ethos, a slew of rights (including the Bill of Rights) that assure each one of us, of dignity, shelter, access to healthcare, education and justice …just to name a few. As a constitutional democracy, we are made to understand or led to believe, that the extent to which our beloved country is ahead of the pack, is premised in the main, on the healthy tension or contestation amongst, the Executive (led by the President), Parliament (led by the Speaker) and the Judiciary (led by the Chief Justice), with the rights of the individual as the centre of it all. All in all, how do we sustain the confidence of ordinary South Africans, in the belief and the durability of our democracy and its institutions. Clearly for Mr Ndara whatever hope and aspirations he had, have waned considerably given a heart wrenching, devastating and ruthless episode by the FirstRand Bank that has gone out of its way to enforce what is clearly a fraudulent contract, to his detriment and that of his family for 13 years now. Our constitution safeguards amongst other values, Human Dignity, needless to say Mr Ndara lost that many years ago, in writing this as an open letter to the leaders of our institutions, this serves to highlight discrepancy of a brand promise of a new South Africa and the lived experience of a nation that tends to devalue the life of an African Child, that makes a mockery of the Bill of Rights, and the “rainbow nation” of South Africa, positioned as a beacon of light and a ray of hope in Africa, and the World. I therefore call upon you Mr De Kock to occupy moral high ground and resolve this matter with the urgency it deserves. Recently (February 2018) the Sunday Times approached you seeking answers to this, instead you chose to engage a huge Public Relations company to peddle lies and fabrications on your behalf and continue to disrespect and disregard a cry for justice. Your lies included that Mr Ndara himself had insisted on this deal. You also claim that you have since sold this vehicle and yet that is also untrue. This is one last opportunity for you and your management to redeem yourselves and resolve this matter expeditiously. My expectation is that other institutions mentioned here will fall in line, take responsibility and cease to shield and protect high profile individuals who undermine the rights of ordinary South Africans through greed, corruption with wanton disregard for rights of others who are condemned to perpetual poverty as a result. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa Member of Parliament President of the United Democratic Movement
Admin
18 Oct, 2017
#NMBCoalition – DA admitted mistakes were made, Bantu Holomisa writes to DA Leader Mmusi Maimane
Dear Mr Maimane NELSON MANDELA BAY COALITION: MISTAKES WERE MADE REGARDING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SPEAKER OF COUNCIL CONDUCTED THE NMBMM COUNCIL MEETING OF 24 AUGUST 2017 1. I refer to matter of the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality (NMBMM) Council meeting of 24 August 2017 at which a motion of no confidence was instituted by the Patriotic Alliance (PA), against our Deputy Executive Mayor, Cllr Mongameli Bobani. 2. The United Democratic Movement’s (UDM) lawyers have secured the closed-circuit television recording (available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzwt1-3KK09fRElhN0kzblVtT2s/view?usp=drive_web) of the aforementioned meeting from the Municipality. 3. I now wish to draw your attention to the meeting we had on 17 September 2017 when we talked about the state of the coalition. During our conversation, you conceded that the Democratic Alliance (DA) had made mistakes in dealing with the coalition partners and you had committed to set right such mistakes. 4. After having watched the recording today, I wonder if, when you referred to mistakes the DA had made, did you include the way the DA had handled the ousting of Cllr Bobani? 5. The UDM would like to understand how the Speaker of Council (as seen in the recording), in the very first instance only allowed one person of each political party to speak on the item and then ignored speaker, after speaker, who protested this decision. The DA professes to be proponents of democracy, but we fail to understand how, what happened on that fateful day, could be considered democracy. 6. When a councillor asked that the proposer of the motion, Cllr Marlon Daniels of the PA, explain what he meant by Cllr Bobani’s “erratic behaviour”, he never did. It appears as if this matter was just steamrolled through Council to suit a hidden agenda. We now know what that agenda had been, after we heard why the PA withdrew from your separate and bilateral “coalition agreement”. 7. Sir, do you consider the handling of the Council meeting as one of the mistakes the DA had made? Are you prepared to rectify this mistake by immediately reinstating Cllr Bobani as Deputy Executive Mayor? Yours truly Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement Copied to: Rev Kenneth Meshoe, MPPresident, African Christian Democratic Party Mr Mosiuoa Lekota, MPPresident, Congress of the People Dr Pieter Groenewald, MPLeader, Freedom Front Plus
Admin
13 Sep, 2017
Letter by UDM President Bantu Holomisa to DA leader Mr Mmusi Maimane
Mr Mmusi Maimane Democratic Alliance Federal Leader Dear Mr Maimane NELSON MANDELA BAY COALITION: UDM REACTION TO DA’S USE OF PwC “DRAFT REPORT” TO BESMIRCH OUR CLLR BOBANI AND THE UDM: APOLOGY REQUIRED FROM YOU AND YOUR PARTY I refer to the “draft report” which had been prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) in terms of which the Democratic Alliance (DA) had masterminded a dubious campaign to remove from office the United Democratic Movement (UDM) Deputy Executive Mayor of the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality (NMBMM), Cllr Mongameli Bobani, under false pretences. The DA has very publicly, consciously and concertedly undermined one of its coalition partners. You had relied on an embargoed PwC “draft report”, which we certainly would not have seen had we not demanded a copy at a meeting of coalition partners on 22 August 2017 – only two days ahead of the DA bulldozing a questionable motion of no-confidence in Cllr Bobani through Council. The fecklessness of the “draft report” forced you to keep it secret, but it did not preclude you from (ab)using it. You and your colleagues have publicly criticised me (personally) and the UDM, saying that we condone corruption. The DA based its whole concerted campaign to get rid of Cllr Bobani, and besmirching the good name of the UDM, on a document in which PwC had not expressed an opinion and it had been clear that the document was preliminary. Little wonder that you kept it hidden in your briefcase as there is nothing in the “report”, contrary to your public misrepresentations, implicating Cllr Bobani. It is highly suspicious and abnormal that the accused, his party, the coalition partners and the NMBMM Council itself had been kept in the dark about the “draft report”. Yet, the “draft report” was given to you personally? Why were you, as a national leader of a political party, privy to this information at all? Is this a “municipality document” or a “DA document”? What were/are your and the DA’s motives in keeping this “draft report” to yourselves and using the information to attack the UDM? Another inaccuracy which the DA has peddled is that the UDM voted with the African National Congress (ANC) in the NMBMM Council. Firstly, differing from the DA is not tantamount to voting with the ANC. Secondly, your attention is drawn to our Co-Governance Agreement, where it is clearly stated that, should the coalition partners not agree on an agenda item, that item should be withdrawn for further discussion. Yet, your Executive Mayor, Cllr Athol Trollip, did not honour this arrangement and forced items onto the Council agenda, thus painting the other coalition partners into a corner, where the only option was to not vote in favour of an item we could not support. The case, currently underway in the Port Elizabeth High Court, is an opportunity for you to explain yourselves to the South African public and the voters of the NMBMM in particular. Lastly Sir, I submit that you and your colleagues have actively misled the public on this matter. The UDM would like to see you publicly and unreservedly withdraw your unsubstantiated accusations and apologise to me, to Cllr Bobani and to the UDM. Prove to the Nation that you are better than the manipulative, destructive liars within the ANC who you purport to oppose. Yours truly Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the UDM Copied to: Rev Kenneth Meshoe, MP President, African Christian Democratic Party Mr Mosiuoa Lekota, MP President, Congress of the People Dr Pieter Groenewald, MP Leader, Freedom Front Plus
Admin
14 Jul, 2017
Inappropriateness of Ms B Mbete presiding over the debate on the motion of no confidence in President Zuma
Honourable Ms Baleka Mbete, MP Speaker of the National Assembly PO Box 15 Cape Town 8000 Dear Madam Speaker Inappropriateness of your presiding over the debate on the motion of no confidence in President Zuma The above matter has reference. I write on behalf of the leaders of the African Christian Democratic Party, African People’s Convention, Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance, Economic Freedom Fighters, Inkatha Freedom Party and the United Democratic Movement. We met on 13 July, this instant, and resolved that it would not be proper for you, as Speaker of the National Assembly, to preside over the debate on the vote of no-confidence in President Zuma. We base our argument on the following grounds: You are on record instructing African National Congress (ANC) Members of Parliament in the National Assembly to vote in favour of their President; In the event of the success of the motion, you are enjoined by the Constitution to act as President; and You are also in the running for ANC President and by extension the President of the Country. Making matters worse is your recent attack on the judiciary. You have said that certain judges are biased against your party. Your action undermines your duty to act as liaison between Parliament, as an institution, and the other arms of State. It means that you still fail to separate your role as the head of the National Assembly and that of ANC Chairperson. All of the aforementioned demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are patently biased and therefore conflicted and compromised. We also wish to remind you of the wise advice given by the Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, in the 22 June Constitutional Court’s judgement, He said the following about the power of those in public office: “They are therefore not to be used for the advancement of personal or sectarian interests. Amandla awethu, mannda ndiashu, maatla ke a rona or matimba ya hina (power belongs to us) and mayibuye iAfrika (restore Africa and its wealth) are much more than mere excitement-generating slogans.” We hope that you will to do the right thing in the interest of the Nation and recuse yourself from presiding over this debate. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President
Admin
12 Jul, 2017
Letter by UDM President Bantu Holomisa to Parliament Speaker Honourable Baleka Mbete
Honourable Ms Baleka Mbete, MP Speaker of the National Assembly PO Box 15 Cape Town 8000 Per email: speaker@parliament.gov.za Dear Madam Speaker YOUR REQUEST FOR INPUT FROM POLITICAL PARTIES ON A SECRET BALLOT ON THE MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA This matter has reference. 1. The context of the Constitutional Court judgement In giving the Constitutional Court’s unanimous judgement, on 22 June 2017, on the matter of the Speaker’s discretion to decide whether a vote on a motion of no-confidence (MONC) in the President of the Republic should be secret or not, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng stated the following: “South Africa is a constitutional democracy – a government of the people, by the people and for the people through the instrumentality of the Constitution. It is a system of governance that “we the people” consciously and purposefully opted for to create a truly free, just and united nation. Central to this vision is the improvement of the quality of life of all citizens and the optimisation of the potential of each through good governance.” About the power of those in public office the Constitutional Court said: “They are therefore not to be used for the advancement of personal or sectarian interests. Amandla awethu, mannda ndiashu, maatla ke a rona or matimba ya hina (power belongs to us) and mayibuye iAfrika (restore Africa and its wealth) are much more than mere excitement-generating slogans.” The context provided by these pronouncements is critical when considering whether the ballot on the MONC in the National Assembly (NA) should be secret or not. It means that any decision, which the Members of Parliament (MPs) in the NA makes, should be weighed in terms of the primary directive of improving the lives of all South Africans to the exclusion of “the advancement of personal or sectarian interests”. 2. Protection of MPs and their freedom fulfil their obligation to South Africans The question is therefore whether the NA MPs enjoy the protection and freedom to fulfil their Constitutional obligation to make decisions in the best interest of our people. In our submissions to the Constitutional Court, the United Democratic Movement (UDM) raised the issue of widespread intimidation of members of the African National Congress (ANC) in order to quell dissent within the party. There is a copious number of examples, as reported by the independent media, which detail the threats made on the person and employment of ANC MPs in the NA. These threats started right after President Zuma reshuffled his cabinet, and continue to this day. One cannot make the mistake of thinking these are idle threats. The Minister of Police announced, on the 29th of May 2017, that there had been thirty-three officially recorded politically motivated murders in the KwaZulu-Natal alone. We have not seen this level of political intolerance since the mid-nineties. As if this is not enough, during the ANC’s recent Policy Conference the very same Minister (who is also a member of the ruling party National Executive Committee (NEC)) described those NA MPs who may vote with the Constitution and the people of South Africa, as “suicide bombers”. A very violent analogy, to describe a potentially violent situation. The whole fracas around ANC MP Dr Makhosi Khoza’s point of view on the secret ballot is another case in point. Just today it was reported that her daughter received death threats from the same people intimidating her. Not only is she under threat, but her family too! On the 7th of July, the Chief Whip of the majority party in the NA threatened members of his party with disciplinary action if they dare to not toe the party line. If this is the level to which people will stoop, how can MPs vote without fear of what the Constitutional Court called “illegitimate hardships”. 3. “Proper and rational basis” for the Speakers decision on a secret ballot The UDM again refers you to the Constitutional Court’s judgement that states that: “There must always be a proper and rational basis for whatever choice the Speaker makes in the exercise of the constitutional power to determine the voting procedure. Due regard must always be had to real possibilities of corruption as well as the prevailing circumstances and whether they allow Members to exercise their vote in a manner that does not expose them to illegitimate hardships.” You have been given the responsibility, as the impartial Speaker of the House, to consider the quite unabashed intimidation already suffered by ANC MPs, as well as the threat of future adverse repercussions should the vote be open. These are not matters to be toyed with and we beseech you to apply your mind, being fully aware of 1) the entire ruling of the Constitutional Court and 2) what might happen to these public representatives if the ballot is not secret. 4. The UDM wants a secret ballot In conclusion, I wish to reiterate the arguments we placed before the Constitutional Court and stress the UDM’s point of view that NA MPs must be protected so that they may vote according to their conscience and therefore in the favour of our people. Yours sincerely Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President
