/ 28 February 2003

Transnet back in court to appeal in tender case

The Transnet printing-division tender wrangle, in which an African National Congress fund-raiser has been accused of peddling influence for shares, heads back to court on Friday February 28.

The Johannesburg High Court last month ordered Transnet to pay R57-million in damages to Sechaba Photoscan, a company the court found was unfairly deprived of the tender award to buy Transnet’s Production House. Sechaba Photoscan charged in court that it had lost the tender after rebuffing an offer from Zwelibanzi ”Miles” Nzama, an ANC fund-raiser, to ”secure” the company’s bid in return for 15% of its shares.

It charged that the ultimately successful bidder, Skotaville Press, did hand the ANC 20% of its shares.

The evidence presented to court showed that Minister of Public Enterprises Jeff Radebe and his director general, Sivi Gounden, intervened in favour of Skotaville Press during the tender process.

Transnet will ask the Johannesburg High Court for leave to appeal against the original judgement. However, it is not disputing the merits of the case, merely the size of the damages award.

This means the allegations of influence peddling will remain unchallenged in court. The ANC itself has also repeatedly failed to challenge the allegations. For a third week running, the party this week failed to answer written questions from the Mail & Guardian.

ANC national spokesperson Smuts Ngonyama previously said the questions had been referred to ANC treasurer general Mendi Msimang. ANC secretary general Kgalema Motlanthe sidestepped questions, also referring them to Msimang.

Msimang, who is co-trustee with Nzama on an entity named the African National Congress Fund-raising Trust, told the M&G he had no comment.

Ngonyama, contacted again, claimed the matter was sub judice. Asked why a court matter in which the merits were no longer in dispute (and in which the ANC is not a respondent) should preclude the ANC from giving its side of the story, Ngonyama said: ”You should understand that, if you are implicated, you can’t just respond if the case is still moving along … We want to err on the more cautious side.”