Dear Mr De Kock


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?

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.

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