/ 3 December 2004

Motshekga not off the hook yet

Gauteng education minister Angie Motshekga was forced last week to apologise to the legislature for ”inappropriate conduct” first exposed by the Mail & Guardian, but was cleared in a provincial probe into suspicion that she may have benefited personally from a government contract.

However, she may not be completely in the clear, as more investigations are pending.

The M&G revealed in a series of articles in September that Motshekga had recommended an NGO, Sediba sa Basadi, to Allpay Gauteng for a 6% empowerment shareholding — when her husband, former Gauteng Premier Mathole Motshekga, and other relatives had played or were to play a role in the NGO. Allpay Gauteng has the contract, overseen by her then-department of social welfare, to pay social grants.

The M&G also revealed that R50 000 had been paid by Sediba sa Basadi into Motshekga’s personal bank account. She claimed that she had merely helped channel the money to an Aids NGO.

Following the M&G articles, the provincial legislature asked provincial integrity commissioner Jules Browde to probe the matter. Browde handed his report to the Gauteng provincial privileges and ethics committee last month.

Browde made his finding without having access to Sediba’s bank accounts, the key element in establishing whether Motshekga received financial benefits from the NGO. In his report Browde pointed out that he was not permitted to examine Sediba’s accounts because of the pending forensic report ordered by Absa, Allpay’s parent company.

Browde found that Mathole Motshekga had been paid R5 000 for legal work in setting up Sediba, but said this did not constitute financial benefit. However, he maintained that Angie Motshekga should have disclosed the involvement of her husband and her close associate in the trust when she recommended Sediba to Allpay.

In his report, Browde said he had found no evidence to suggest that Motshekga or her family benefited, or intended to benefit, financially from the transaction. He accepted Motshekga’s version that the R50 000 deposited into her account had been passed on to another NGO. However, he found that Motshekga had played an improper role in allowing the money to be housed in her personal account before it was transferred to the Aids NGO.

Browde did not examine one curious aspect of Motshekga’s explanation. The evidence proffered is a sworn ”confirmation letter” from the NGO. It is dated September 3 — before any questions were raised, but stamped by a commissioner of oaths only on September 22, four days after the M&G broke the original story and after Allpay commissioned a forensic audit in response to the M&G investigation.

Browde’s report has been submitted to Public Protector Lawrence Mushwana, who is also probing the matter.

As a provincial minister, Motshekga’s conduct is governed by the Executive Members’ Ethics Act and its Executive Ethics Code. The ethics code is more stringent than the provincial legislature’s Code of Conduct and provides for even harsher sanctions.