The government’s reluctance to hold Cabinet ministers accountable for their performance in office has reached ridiculous levels in the saga of Penuell Maduna, the minister of minerals and energy.
This newspaper long ago pointed to Maduna’s recklessness and lack of judgment, suggesting he had neither the ability nor the temperament to head up such a strategic portfolio, in the shark-infested waters which are the oil industry.
The testimony before Public Protector Selby Baqwa this week by the minister’s in-house informant at the state oil company, Brian Casey, can only make one wonder what level of incompetence must be reached before a Cabinet minister is sacked.
It took little more than a couple of phone calls last year by the Mail & Guardian to ascertain the idiocy of the suggestion that state oil company officials quietly stole R170-million of oil, left a paper trail to that effect, and persuaded Auditor General Henri Kluever’s office to sanction the theft.
It is such a preposterous notion that even Maduna’s counsel this week conceded it was “common knowledge” that no such theft had occurred. What really boggles the mind is that Maduna himself knew he was mistaken very shortly thereafter, but omitted to inform either Kluever or Parliament.
If Maduna had made this concession publicly last year, Parliament would most likely not have called in the public protector, whose mammoth inquiry is costing the taxpayer at least R10-million in legal fees alone. By keeping quiet, Maduna misled Parliament, the Cabinet and the country, and has already cost the taxpayer millions of rands.
The tragedy of the state oil saga is that Maduna’s motives were probably laudable. He may have been quite right to decide that Kobus van Zyl, the suspended former head of the Strategic Fuel Fund, was not the man to steer the “transformation” of the state oil company.
And he was probably right about shenanigans in the state oil company that have survived from the sanctions-busting apartheid era. But why did he not simply bid Van Zyl farewell with a golden handshake? Fifteen months later Van Zyl has yet to be formally disciplined and is still on full salary. No evidence of any impropriety has come to light.
And why did he then extend his ill- informed onslaught to the Office of the Auditor General? The anger that men like Maduna feel towards members of the Broederbond business establishment who once held sway over the state oil sector is understandable. But the Office of the Auditor General cannot be lumped with such a group; it has shown itself to be impartial and objective in its monitoring of the state’s books.
The one obvious merit of Baqwa’s probe is the fascinating insight it has provided into Maduna’s relationship with the Liberian carpetbagger Emanuel Shaw II: it is now apparent that Shaw worked closely with Maduna in an unofficial capacity in 1996 and 1997.
Particularly significant is Casey’s testimony as to how he informed Maduna of an offer made by an Egyptian oil trader to bribe Shaw and the minister. Casey said the Egyptian appeared “agitated” and seemed to be under the impression that Shaw was the key to furthering his business interests with the minister.
Casey also indicated he knew that Shaw extorted $10 000 from the same trader.
When the M&G first wrote about that transaction last year, Maduna promised to resign if it could be proved he knew of the $10 000 bribe. Casey this week came close to confirming that Maduna was aware of Shaw’s extra-curricular financial transactions, while continuing to work with him.
He said he told Maduna of the Egyptian’s general offer to Shaw and Maduna, although he did not specify in his evidence whether he informed the minister specifically of the $10 000.
This testimony does not come as a surprise if one remembers the appointment of Shaw as adviser to the Central Energy Fund. The minister decided to reject his own department’s call for the axing of both Shaw and former state oil chair Don Mkhwanazi – despite Mkhwanazi’s failure to disclose his close relationship with Shaw when he gave him the job. It emerged later that Mkhwanazi was taking kickbacks from the Liberian, with whom he even shares a bank account.
The finale to the Shaw scandal was the sacking of Thulani Gcabashe, the minister’s trusted aide, for questioning the minister’s handling of the Shaw affair. And then, most recently, Maduna gave one of Baqwa’s panelists a job at the state oil exploration company before Bawqa’s probe began.
Is that the track record of a man fit for ministerial office?
Of course, Maduna himself has not spoken on the latest disclosures. But if he remains in the Cabinet until October, he faces the prospect of appearing, in the office of minister, before the Baqwa inquiry, which would open him to cross-examination by counsel acting for the Office of the Auditor General, Eberhard Bertelsmann, SC.
Given Maduna’s track record of impulsive outbursts when under attack this does not promise to be a pleasant spectacle.
The government can save itself from this further embarrassment by doing what it should have done months ago: find Maduna a safe post where he can do no further harm to the state oil industry, to the reputations of innocent men, or to the public purse.