Stefaans Brummer
Gauteng Premier Mathole Motshekga has spun a web of lies around an accident three years ago in which his luxury Toyota was wrecked. Afterwards, he ran up a car-finance debt of more than R140 000, but ignored a court order to settle.
The inconsistencies appear to include perjury, when Motshekga insisted in an affidavit to insurers that his nephew, Lannie Ramothwala, was at the wheel of the car. He said Ramothwala had lost control during a “hijack attempt”. Evidence suggests Motshekga was the driver.
A first police accident report identifies no driver, stating simply: “Vehicle overturned and rolled. Driver ran away.” This is backed up by a witness, who says he saw a man crawl through the car’s smashed windscreen before disappearing into the night. Th e accident happened in Midrand after midnight on December 16 1994.
A second report shows police were told, presumably by Ramothwala and at least nine hours after the accident, that Ramothwala drove the car and rolled it during what appeared to be an attempt to “rob” him of the car.
It is not clear why the driver fled and delayed so long before going to police with what is claimed was a serious criminal matter.
Ironically, Motshekga, then deputy chair of the Gauteng African National Congress, was also chair of the province’s legislature transport committee at the time.
Motshekga has declined to give the Mail & Guardian detailed answers on the accident or the debt, accusing the newspaper of an “unwarranted and malicious smear campaign”.
In his insurance claim form, signed on January 27 1995, Motshekga appeared unsure who the driver was.
Initially he wrote that the “insured” (himself) was driving, and signed the form both as “driver” and “owner”. He then changed the word “insured” to “insured driver”, whom he maintained was Ramothwala even after his insurance brokers pointed out that the policy listed him, Motshekga, as the only insured driver.
On another page, Motshekga listed S Motshekga as a passenger – something which the report to the police did not disclose. Motshekga’s second initial is “S” and he went by the name “Sam” before.
That Motshekga was in the car seems clear. Witnesses say a briefcase and papers belonging to a lawyer – Motshekga’s profession – were strewn all over scene. And acquaintances and fellow politicians tell about injuries Motshekga had to his face, especiall y around his mouth.
In the affidavit to his insurers, which Motshekga made to explain why he submitted his claim late, he talks of “extensive dental procedures” in early January 1995. A provincial legislator says Motshekga told him about surviving an accident in which his c ar rolled.
A witness has told the M&G the Toyota Camry was so badly damaged that it looked “like a bakkie”. He only saw the driver, no passenger. The witness went to call emergency services and returned to find that the man seen emerging through the windscreen had disappeared.
In January, Motshekga took delivery of another Camry, also financed through Stannic. He submitted his insurance claim on the first Camry in February, but it was rejected as it was lodged well after their 30-day cut-off period.
Soon Motshekga went into arrears with Stannic, which cancelled the contract on the new car in October 1995. It was unable to repossess the car, so it issued summons for the outstanding amount. In December 1995, Motshekga indicated he would defend the cou rt action.
But when the case was heard at Randburg Magistrate’s Court in April 1996, he failed to appear. The court awarded judgment of R141 010 plus costs to Stannic. The court files show a number of sheriff’s notices to Motshekga, including two summonses to appea r in court again in March and May last year.
These were section 65 notices, under which debtors were often locked up in the past. Motshekga failed to respond, but by then it had been found unconstitutional to jail debtors.
Stannic reached the end of its legal options, still with no settlement, when Motshekga’s political career began skyrocketing last August. Insiders say Stannic transferred the matter to its headquarters when it realised who he was. Settlement may or may n ot have been reached after that. Stannic has refused to comment.
Motshekga’s lawyer, Julian Meltz, responded in writing: “The vehicle was driven, without [Motshekga’s] permission … by a driver who did not have a driver’s licence and accordingly the insurance claim was repudiated.
“Dr Motshekga was burdened with immediate repayment of the sum of about R140 000. Due to the fact that Dr Motshekga never had the aforesaid amount readily available, the matter was settled on the basis of a negotiated arrangement.”
The response does not explain why two years passed between Motshekga first defaulting and possibly settling. Neither does it explain why Motshekga said in his insurance claim that Ramothwala drove with his permission – and included a copy of Ramothwala’s driver’s licence.
If, however, Meltz’s statement referred to another accident, in the second Camry, there is no explanation why traffic records show Motshekga renewed the licence on that car in December 1995, long after Stannic had cancelled the deal.
Motshekga would not give more details. He instructed Meltz to write another statement accusing the M&G of a smear campaign and indicating that only questions of “national or government interest” would be answered.