Lawyers representing black economic empowerment company Imvume Management have declined to provide the official opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) with information regarding its transactions and contract with state oil and gas company PetroSA and Glencore International.
This follows a report in the Mail & Guardian in which it said that R11-million was diverted to ruling African National Congress coffers ahead of the 2004 national election. The paper said that PetroSA irregularly paid R15-million to Imvume.
In a statement on Wednesday, DA MP Hendrik Schmidt said: “Imvume Management is trying to subvert the legal process and muzzle the DA by insisting that PetroSA should not disclose information that would throw light on the ‘Oilgate’ scandal.”
He said that on May 23 his party wrote to Imvume Management — which he said was at the centre of the scandal — asking for all recorded information and documentation relating to the transaction and contract between the three parties.
“Yesterday [Wednesday] we received notification from Imvume Management’s lawyers, Barry Aaron & Associates, that their client has refused to comply with this request on the grounds that the requested information is private and confidential.
“More importantly, Imvume’s lawyers intend sending a similar notification to PetroSA, in terms of which Imvume ‘will forbid PetroSA to make any of [this] information or documentation’ available to the DA.
Schmidt noted that in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, Imvume would normally have every right to protect its confidentiality, and could even legally prevent PetroSA from releasing this information to the DA.
“Section 36 of the Act states that a public body like PetroSA has to protect the commercial information of a third party [in this case Imvume] if the disclosure of that information would be likely to cause harm to the third party’s ‘trade secrets’, ‘financial’ or ‘commercial’ interests. PetroSA would normally be bound by this law to withhold information relating to its contract and dealings with Imvume.
“However, the Act also overrides Section 36 and all other Sections that prevent information being accessed if the information is likely to disclose a crime or if the public interest in the matter is substantial.
“Sections 46 and 70 state that mandatory disclosure in public interest must be granted if the disclosure of the record would reveal evidence of ‘a substantial contravention of, or failure to comply with, the law’ or if ‘the public interest in the disclosure of the record clearly outweighs the harm contemplated in the provision in question’.
“There can be no doubt that information which would show that the ANC’s 2004 election campaign was paid for by a state body with R15-million of taxpayers’ money, either directly or indirectly, is of overwhelming public interest. The public interest, even in purely monetary terms, far outweighs the harm that may be done to Imvume’s ‘financial’ or ‘commercial’ interests, while its ‘trade secrets’ will not be affected at all.
“Imvume is on a slippery ground. It should stop trying to interfere with the legal and constitutional process. Imvume’s lawyers have misdirected themselves and should PetroSA and Imvume fail to comply, we will explore all alternative remedies available to us.”
“By acting in this manner, Imvume Management is guilty of being constitutionally repugnant. They should come clean before Oilgate is added to the burgeoning list of South Africa’s government scandals.”
The M&G said the scheme unfolded in two stages.
How it all began
The scheme unfolded in two stages. First, PetroSA management bent over backwards to pay Imvume the money as an advance for the procurement of oil condensate. Then, when Imvume diverted the funds to the ANC instead of paying its own foreign suppliers, PetroSA had to cover the shortfall by paying the same amount again.
A multimillion-rand hole remains in the parastatal’s books. PetroSA has gone through the motions to recover the debt by suing Imvume — but most of it remains outstanding.
The effect of the entire transaction was that PetroSA, and ultimately the taxpayer, subsidised the ruling party’s election campaign: a blatant abuse of public resources. -I-Net Bridge and M&G reporter