Minister of Defence Mosiuoa Lekota’s failure to disclose his fuel and wine businesses to Parliament, as required by law, is expected to be on the agenda of the African National Congress’s national executive committee (NEC) meeting this weekend.
Parliament’s joint ethics committee on Thursday, days after the Mail & Guardian revealed Lekota’s undisclosed interests, recommended that Parliament penalise him for flouting its code of conduct.
The committee found Lekota guilty of “negligence in making incomplete disclosures of his interests”, but said the ANC chairperson did not do so with the intention of misleading it.
The committee suggested that Lekota be fined an equivalent of a week’s salary and receive a written reprimand from Speaker Frene Ginwala.
Opposition parties were quick to react to the committee’s sanctions. Democratic Alliance chief whip Douglas Gibson said the recommended sanction was insufficient. He said President Thabo Mbeki should dismiss Lekota and refer the matter to the public protector.
“It is inconceivable that during the whole period of the Yengeni and Madikizela-Mandela affairs, Minister Lekota was not once reminded to attend to his obligations in terms of the law.
“This crosses the line from negligence to wilfull failure. Ministers who simply ignore their legal obligations and who accept appointments, shares and benefits and fail to complete a simple form correctly should be fired.
“If the president doesn’t dismiss the minister and fails to refer the matter to the public protector, I shall do so,” said Gibson.
The committee’s sanctions came after a behind-closed-doors meeting at which Lekota presented a prepared statement. For more than an hour he explained himself to the MPs in the presence of registrar of members’ interests, Fazela Mohamed.
Lekota left while the committee discussed the matter, but was called back to be told its findings. Afterwards he made a brief statement, expressing his regret “at the negative publicity” to Parliament and the ANC.
“I’d like to express my gratitude at the fact that I was given an opportunity by the joint committee on ethics and members’ interests to state my case and submit evidence of what the real situation is.”
Lekota said he would abide by the sanctions once they were adopted by Parliament.
Lekota last week admitted to the that he had failed to disclose his interests and said that he might have benefited financially from one of the companies.
He has shares in Prestprops, which trades as BZL Petroleum, and is a director of a Free State winery, Landzicht, which regularly supplies wine to the Free State government.
Lekota’s involvement in the businesses raises serious conflict of interest questions, as he is arguably in the position to use his influence and has access to privileged information that could advance his business interests.
The Executive Members Ethics Act and the ministerial handbook require all ministers to disclose all their shares and directorships.
Wessel Zietman, managing director of BZL, this week confirmed that Lekota has shares in the company. Zietsman told the M&G that his company was cooperating with Parliament in its investigation into Lekota.
Lekota, Zietman said, has 33% in Prestprops 1 169 and 5% in Prestprops 1 209. Prestprops 1 209 trades as BZL. Lekota was given the shares free of charge, Zietsman said.
Zietman said his company did not give Lekota the BZL shares in order to secure government contracts. It was given to Lekota as a friend, he said. Zietman said Lekota had on Monday sent a letter of resignation from BZL , which distributes Caltex diesel products in the Harrismith and Bethlehem areas.
In this case the conflict of interest arises from the fact that Lekota sits in Cabinet meetings that make decisions which affect fuel companies.
ANC secretary general Kgalema Motlanthe and party representative Smuts Ngonyama said it was certain that the issue would be raised at the NEC, which began its proceedings late on Thursday.
Ngonyama said the NEC would either discuss the implications of the parliamentary ethics’ committee’s findings or refer it to the leadership or the ANC’s national working committee to make a decision. The party’s constitution does not deal with its leaders’ failure to disclose business interests.
Other ANC members said it was also possible that Lekota might offer to resign at the NEC in the spirit of good governance. Any such offer of resignation is likely to be turned down.
Mazibuko Jara, representative for the ANC’s alliance partner, the South African Communist Party, welcomed the ethics committee’s sanction as “an affirmation of the principles of public accountability by elected representatives”. He said the ethics committee’s decision “is a reminder that all public representatives must uphold these principles”.
On Thursday the ANC parliamentary caucus also welcomed the committee recommendations.
“Minister Lekota has demonstrated his unreserved and open willingness to co-operate fully with the Ethics Committee … The ANC remains committed to clean, open and transparent governance,” said Chief Whip Nkosinathi Nhleko.
ANC members close to Lekota this week told the M&G that Lekota’s “integrity has not been questioned”.
An NEC member described him as a “highly conscientious and honest man”. He said often ANC members in government tended to neglect rules and regulations subconsciously. Lekota, he said, was one such member. “They think they can handle their accounts and financial affairs themselves instead of consulting professionals — in his case, I am certain it was a slip.”
However, other senior ANC members are not so forgiving. A member pointed out that the fact that a party member who occupied the number three position should not have been conducting himself ethically was far more “embarrassing and damaging to the ANC” than Tony Yengeni’s or Winnie Madikizela-Mandela’s tangles with the ethics committee.
“This could blow up in our face during the elections. As a matter of principle Lekota should resign. He was at the forefront when dealing with Yengeni or the Eastern Cape matter, projecting the ethical face of the ANC. How can he not have been aware of the rules and regulations?”