When the Minister of Minerals and Energy, Penuell Maduna, requested my resignation on March 10, it came as quite a surprise. The unceremonious manner in which my employment was terminated – “submit to me by fax your resignation with immediate effect and vacate the office you were occupying hitherto forthwith” – and the accusations levelled at me need revisiting.
His accusation that I did not call his attention to the International Bar Association conference is incorrect. He was shown the original correspondence in September last year and did not voice any concerns at that time.
The issue of his attending the conference as opening speaker was discussed with him again more than a week prior to my firing (March 5), well in advance of the conference on March 16. Also, I did not control his diary; he and his secretary do that. I mer ely advised the secretary prior to the acceptance of an invitation as to how important it was.
The accusations regarding Santa F, Energy are even more outrageous, particularly when you read them with Central Energy Fund (CEF) boss Don Mkhwanazi’s defamatory allegations in the Financial Mail of March 6.
My introduction to Santa F, came at Maduna’s instruction in September 1996. Deputy President Thabo Mbeki asked him to investigate Santa F,’s concerns about its (Santa F,’s) response to an open tender from the government for proposals concerning the purch ase of assets of Mossgas and Soekor.
Maduna asked me to investigate the matter (I joined the ministry in September 1996). Since May 1996 (the date of Santa F,’s original proposal), the terms haven’t changed, other than to suggest its proposal contemplate a lease rather than a sale of assets . The Santa F, proposal contemplates an investment in excess of R5,5-billion in this country.
The memorandum to which Maduna refers was presented to the Cabinet and concerned Mossgas’s request (approved by the CEF board) for R1,9-billion and its proposed use of funds, and Santa F,’s proposal. Mossgas’s amended request was for an immediate R180-mi llion as part of a total of R1,9-billion.
The memorandum pointed out that there were significant differences between the two proposals, among others that the Mossgas proposal would cost the government R985-million more and take a third of the time longer to complete than Santa F,’s proposal.
Of even greater concern was the misleading nature of Mossgas’s proposal, in that it was likely to lead the Cabinet to believe that Mossgas only needed R180-million. If the Cabinet approved the R180-million it would actually be committing to a total of R1 ,9-billion.
Finally, the memorandum was compiled by Director General Sandile Nogxina, then deputy director general Gordon Sibiya and me, not unilaterally by myself, as Maduna suggested.
The third accusation concerned the Sasol subsidy. Note that Sasol’s profits last year were more than the combined profits of all other South African oil companies.
A Cabinet resolution accepted management consultant Arthur Anderson’s recommendation that an improved mechanism for the subsidy should be implemented by January 1997. This hasn’t happened. The resolution also stated the subsidy should be reviewed by June 2000. My paper, delivered to the portfolio committee on minerals and energy on February 9, called for a public debate on the issue.
Shortly thereafter, I received a letter from Sasol questioning my motives and requesting a meeting with me. My motives are making sure that the best interests of the ministry and of the country are served. I sent it a list of questions to familiarise mys elf with its position prior to the requested meeting. I was dismissed before receiving its response.
Maduna has stated that the contents of my presentation to the portfolio committee requesting the open debate are “causing [him] untold embarrassment”. With whom and why?
The reasons for my dismissal are not those stated by Maduna, but the consequence of my continuing concern about Mkhwanazi and Emanuel Shaw and other issues, not the least of which is the fact that state assets are being compromised and Maduna is aware of this.
Maduna asked Sibiya and me to endorse his rejection of his own commission of inquiry’s findings into the Mkhwanazi/Shaw affair. We refused because we believed that this rejection was ill-advised to begin with.
Maduna has forced me into exposing these issues publicly because he preferred to attack me personally. The questions now are what are Maduna’s real motives, what is his involvement with Mkhwanazi, and is this a case of “Maduna fiddles while South Africa burns”?