We are concerned that in the course of what’s become known as the Oilgate affair (‘The ANC’s Oilgateâ€, May 20), the public was left with an impression:
- that there was something sinister about the payment PetroSA made to Imvume; and
- that Imvume was used as a cover to channel the public money towards the African National Congress election campaign.
The Mail & Guardian has been selective in dealing with our responses and has not been able to pinpoint any wrongdoing by -PetroSA, except to say the allegations raised questions about the management and procedures of PetroSA, and the need for further investigations. What have further investigations uncovered that implicate PetroSA in any wrongdoing?
The management of PetroSA would like to clarify any misconceptions and present the facts, which are as follows.
- Imvume had a contract with PetroSA to supply condensate.
- Imvume was to be supported by a technical partner, Glencore, which had an agreement with it.
- PetroSA used this contract as part of its drive to introduce black economic empowerment into the supply of essential supplies and services, therefore Imvume was the lead partner is this relationship and PetroSA interfaced with it.
- After developing a solid track record through delivery of more than 70% of the contract, Imvume requested PetroSA for an advance payment when the ninth cargo was due. PetroSA considered the request and elected to grant the advance payment.
- The advance payment of R15-million ($2 029 835) was made to Imvume on December 18 2003.
- On December 22 2003 -PetroSA received the full condensate -shipment.
- On January 28 2004, Glencore invoiced PetroSA for the full amount for the cargo. It also proceeded to inform PetroSA that it was not paid by Imvume the advance payment made by PetroSA.
- Imvume conceded that it did not pass on to Glencore part of the advance payment that Glencore believed was due to it.
- Glencore put a financial hold on the next cargo that was in transit to the refinery in Mossel Bay, unless the advance payment made to Imvume was paid directly to it. PetroSA evaluated the prospect of standing its ground with Glencore and taking legal action against it, with the minimum delay being 20 days of disturbed production at the refinery. The cost of disturbing production at the refinery would be $1-million a day over 20 days, a total of $20-million.
- PetroSA elected to pay the $2,8-million and pursue Imvume for its repayment of $2,8-million, the party it had the contract with. Through our negotiations and legal interventions, Imvume signed an acknowledgement of debt with -PetroSA and has since paid -R1,33-million back.
It is the intention of PetroSA to recoup all the funds involved in this dispute. The evidence PetroSA has suggests that a liquidated Imvume would not generate the required proceeds for PetroSA. This would lead to a loss for PetroSA.
While PetroSA appreciates the role of the media in a democracy, and of investigative journalism in particular, it is against any journalistic practice that abuses the media’s public trust by framing issues inaccurately in pursuit of other agendas.
The M&G has deliberately linked two distinct issues, namely, PetroSA’s advance payment to Imvume and Imvume’s payments to the ANC.
It was possible to deal with these issues separately, but doing that was not going to fit in neatly with the media’s predetermined agenda — proving that the ANC used public money to fund its election campaign.
PetroSA holds no brief for the ANC nor for Imvume. For this reason, we are not in a position to speak on behalf of any party. Nevertheless, the coverage of the business between Imvume and the ANC keeps mentioning PetroSA.
Unless the allegations of abuse of state resources are conclusively proven to be a factor, there’s nothing wrong with Imvume doing whatever it pleases with its money and it is none of PetroSA’s business.
The M&G editor, Ferial Haffajee, interestingly pointed out in our engagements with her on the issue in the After Eight Debate on SAfm that truth is a relative concept.
While we respect the independence of the media, we believe that the media does not have a monopoly over truth. Truth might be elusive, but presenting all sides of the story fairly will help the public to formulate informed opinion about issues on the public domain.
Nhlanhla Ngwenya is spokesperson for PetroSA