/ 29 September 1998

Suspended parks chief keeps mum

SHARRON HAMMOND, Nelspruit | Tuesday 8.00pm.

MPUMALANGA’S suspended parks chief, Alan Gray, refused to answer written questions about his business dealings with government or government contractors on Tuesday and instead threatened to sue reporters.

Gray said in a lawyer’s letter that elements within the media were conducting personal crusades and vendettas against him and had overstepped the line of constructive or impartial journalism.

Gray was suspended from the Mpumalanga Parks Board last week and charged with misconduct for secretively issuing six promissory notes worth R1,3-billion to a series of South African financial brokers in return for offshore loans of between R500-million and R340-million.

The notes, which were issued without ministerial or Reserve Bank approval, used the MPB’s assets and game parks as irrevocable and unconditional collateral for one-year periods.

National finance minister Trevor Manuel has branded all the deals illegal.

Gray’s role in the scheme and his use of his own companies for unrelated MPB contracts is being investigated by the Heath special investigative unit.

Gray has refused to answer a detailed list of written questions probing his business and other links to a number of the key role-players in the offshore loan scheme on September 21.

Gray’s attorney, Pieter Swanepoel, said in reply on Tuesday that Gray had refused to answer the questions and was instead considering a defamation action against African Eye News Service, the reporter who initially broke the story, Justin Arenstein, the Sunday Times, Star and Mail & Guardian. The request and a number of follow-up letters clearly indicate that the Constitution obliges government officials to timeously provide all information at their disposal on issues of pressing public interest or information that is necessary to exercise rights such as freedom of the press.

The requests also point out that any refusal to supply requested information should be made in writing and should clearly explain why it is reasonable to withhold the information in an open and democratic society.