Mungo Soggot
Minister of Minerals and Energy Penuell Maduna has hit back after his embarrassing concession that the auditor general was not party to the theft of R170-million worth of oil by releasing documents to help explain his attack on the finance watchdog.
Maduna’s office handed out the documents at the inquiry into the Strategic Fuel Fund (SFF) on Friday June 26 after Public Protector Selby Baqwa denied the minister a chance to explain himself on the R170- million.
The documents include correspondence between state oil officials and the office of the auditor general which suggests a surprisingly close relationship, considering the watchdog reports to Parliament.
In one memo, an SFF finance official suggests to the auditor general wording for a note explaining why the auditor general should not bother auditing certain state oil subsidiaries.
It appears from the documents that the office of the auditor general was concerned that its agent for the SFF, Price Waterhouse, was too close to the oil company.
Price Waterhouse wrote to the auditor general: “We do not accept the view that we are too close to the client or take the side of the client in dealings with your office.”
The bundle also contains correspondence between Maduna and suspended state oil chief Kobus van Zyl over the allegation that the SFF paid an unnecessary six United States cents a barrel to a middleman company in a deal to buy oil from Egypt.
In one letter to the minister, Van Zyl refers to “the distrust shown by you to the management of SFF”.
Maduna’s correspondence to Van Zyl indicates the minister was consulting closely with the Office of the Deputy President on the matter.
Meanwhile, Baqwa conceded that the R170- million allegation was the trigger which persuaded Parliament to call for his probe. He ducked the question whether he would formally censure Maduna’s office for not retracting it earlier.
The hearing resumes in October.
@SA claims back sunken treasure
David Beresford
Threatened legal action by the government against a top London fine-art dealer has exposed major flaws in the law which may have cost South Africa hugely in terms of lost treasure.
The government has issued a writ against Spink & Son of St James’s, London, claiming ownership and demanding the return of a trove of golden coins dating back to the mid-18th century and said to be worth some R3-million.
South Africa claims the treasure came off the Doddington – a ship wrecked off Port Elizabeth – and belonged to the legendary colonial administrator, Clive of India. It insists the coins belong to South Africa, because they were found in territorial waters.
Spink is refusing to disclose the identity of the “owner” of the coins. The government believes they were smuggled out of South Africa.
It is suspected the case represents the tip of an iceberg where maritime treasure is concerned, because laws relating to treasure are hopelessly inadequate and encourage smuggling.
A tangled history lies behind the gold coins. Clive is believed to have intended shipping them out to India on board the Doddington in 1755. He was not on the ship, when it hit a reef and sank, with 23 survivors and the loss of 247 lives.
The wreck was found in 1977, but there was apparently no sign of Clive’s gold. According to Spink, divers renewed the search for the treasure in 1996, again failing to find the gold coins.
But they stumbled across another wreck, believed to have been a pirate ship, with 1 400 coins of the same date and type as those belonging to Clive. How the gold got from the Doddington to the privateer is a mystery; there is no record that the survivors of the Doddington disaster knew of such a transfer.
The South African National Monuments Council was tipped off about the find when Spink advertised an auction at which the treasure would be sold.
Spink is believed to have suggested that the privateer was discovered outside territorial waters. But territorial waters extend 12km from the shore and the depths at which the treasure would then have had to be salvaged make this explanation unlikely.
The London art dealers have said they will not oppose the South African government’s court action. But a United States citizen, “Mr Sidwick”, has now said that he consigned the treasure to Spink and will oppose the legal action. But it is not clear yet if Mr Sidwick intends claiming to b e the owner of the coins.
The law controlling maritime treasure hunts is confused. The national monuments Act provides for the council to issue licences to salvage shipwrecks, but does not specify who owns discovered treasure. Common law and other legislation arguably vest ownership in the state.
The legislation requires the diver to hand the treasure over to the council, which has the discretion as to what it can keep and what it can return to the finder.