/ 19 February 1999

Casino judgment the joker in the pack

Mungo Soggot

The company accused of paying a R1-million bribe for a Gauteng gambling licence, Tsogo Sun, is fighting a court order instructing the Mpumalanga gambling board to hand over tapes of deliberations which gave Tsogo a licence in Witbank.

In a judgment that raises questions about the gambling booard’s conduct, Judge Brian Southwood ordered the board to hand over key documents as well as videotapes of meetings where the final licence decision was taken.

Southwood gave his ruling in a case lodged by Afrisun, an associate of Sun International, which wants set aside the decisions by the Mpumalanga gambling board to give Tsogo a temporary licence and make it a finalist for a permanent licence in Witbank.

In his 52-page judgment, Judge Southwood torpedoes Tsogo’s claims that documents which the board purportedly used for its decision were confidential and could divulge “trade secrets”. Judge Southwood describes Tsogo’s evidence in this regard as “vague and contradictory”.

“The third respondent [Tsogo] has not proved an agreement or any other basis for finding that the contents of any of the documents are confidential or constitute trade secrets which must be protected,” he says.

Judge Southwood also signals, in passing, his sympathy for Afrisun’s complaint that the board failed to apply one of its own criteria – that the casino boost tourism in the area.

In seeking to explain why it was effectively ignoring its own criteria in according Tsogo Sun a licence, the board said: “Witbank is not regarded by the board as an ideal tourist destination. The board is of the view that people, increasingly, tend to spend their money on things that are worth more than pure activity, and would also like to have something to show for their money spent.”

Judge Southwood says: “The applicant [Afrisun] makes out a case that the board failed to apply its mind to its own criteria. The applicant also makes out a case … that it [the Mpumalanga gambling board] demonstrated bias … [The board’s] press statement does not tally with the reasons it gave for preferring the third respondent.”

He also says: “It is clear that the applicant’s description of the process already referred to is much closer to the reality of the process than that of the first respondent.”

The chair of the Mpumalanga gambling board, Keith Kunene, confirmed this week that the board and Tsogo Sun were appealing Judge Southwood’s ruling. Kunene said the judgment could discourage board members from speaking their mind in future.

“People would never be free to say what they want. What is important is not what you say. What is important is what the board decided.”

Tsogo Sun was accused last week by the Democratic Party’s Peter Leon of having paid a Gauteng MEC R1-million to secure a gambling licence.

Leon’s announcement in the Gauteng Legislature triggered vigorous criticism from the African National Congress, which accused Leon, who claimed to have passed his incriminating information to the Heath commission, of abusing parliamentary privilege. Although Leon chose not to name the MEC, the ANC’s Firoz Cachalia said everyone knew he was referring to MEC for Finance Jabu Moleketi.

Tsogo Sun shrugged off the allegations, challenging Leon to make them outside Parliament. Moleketi has also scoffed at Leon’s allegations.

This week the Gauteng gambling board, which is presided over by Moleketi, offered a R250 000 reward for any information implicating any member of the board in corruption.

The DP this week continued its campaign of questioning the award of licences in Gauteng, reminding the legislature how Moleketi instructed the Transitional Metropolitan Council not to meet all casino applicants before the board took its decision.

Leon said that according to a council memo, it opposed Tsogo’s Fourways application, which, it said, would exacerbate “urban sprawl” and fail to revive the centre of Johannesburg.

At the time of going to press, Tsogo Sun had not replied to questions about the Mpumalanga litigation and about where it paid the R10- million “cash success fees” it has given to what it described in the KwaZulu-Natal gambling board hearings as the “black component” of its consortia.