He has a friendly smile and a smooth voice. He is a member of the Zion Christian Church (ZCC). But trouble seems to follow Walter Senoko, the man who paid Steve Mabona, wherever he goes.
There are two known scandals involving Senoko. They both date back five years and involved tenders in Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces.
In Mpumalanga, provincial government chief finance director Shadrack Mashele was dismissed — although later reinstated — for allegedly helping Senoko try to embezzle more than R16-million from the provincial education department.
It was reported that the provincial government detected the alleged scam after about R270 000 had been paid out. But by that time Limpopo, in similar circumstances, had allegedly already lost more than R30-million to Senoko.
In Limpopo, police launched an investigation. Senoko was tried on 11 fraud charges, but was acquitted in 1999 when the then Pietersburg Regional Court ruled that government financial control systems in Limpopo were defective and that there was insufficient evidence indicating Senoko himself had intended to commit fraud.
But Senoko’s woes are not over. The Limpopo government this month launched action in the Pretoria High Court to recover R34-million from him. Senoko opposes the claim, denying he owes the money.
Gag fails
Walter Senoko’s company, Positioning Corporate Underwriters and Insurance Consultants (PCUIC), failed in a court bid on Tuesday to gag the Mail & Guardian.
PCUIC brought an urgent interdict application to the Pretoria High Court claiming the M&G, among others, was irregularly in possession of documents relating to PCUIC’s business. The documents, which showed the payments by PCUIC to Steve Mabona, were freely available in Pretoria High Court files, where they had been entered during separate litigation between PCUIC and a construction company, DZ Civils.
PCUIC argued the documents had been irregularly obtained in the first place and should never have been evidence before court in that matter. As such, the M&G should be prohibited from using the information.
Judge Eberhard Bertelsmann ruled that even if information relied on by the M&G had been of ”tainted” origin, which was not proven, that would have been outweighed by the public’s right to know.