The Mail & Guardian sent detailed questions to affected parties in the Oilgate Saga. These are their edited responses:
Sandi Majali and Imvume
Imvume’s attorney, Barry Aaron, gave notice of his intention to seek a new interdict against the M&G. This was later withdrawn.
Aaron added: “The issues contemp-lated … (although a distortion of the facts) can only have been derived from information and documentation which is proprietary, secret, private and confidential to our clients …
“That is not to say that our clients admit the allegations … In fact, the vast majority of issues, allegations and insinuations are denied as a distortion of the facts and unwarranted speculation on the part of your clients. Our clients will however not validate or justify or condone your … unlawful conduct by replying specifically to any of the issues raised.”
Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka and her former Minerals and Energy Department
Director General Sandile Nogxina, responding on behalf of the ministry and the department, declined to comment on claims that Imvume was effectively a front company for the African National Congress.
He denied state resources were used to assist what the M&G termed “a covert and ambitious party fundraising project”, saying the dealings with Saddam Hussein’s government were for “the pro-mo-tion of bilateral relations between South Africa and Iraq with a view to achieving economic benefit for South Africa”.
Asked if it was not problematic to boost relations with a dictatorial regime to win oil business — and a regime that demanded “surcharges” in breach of United Nations sanctions — Nogxina stated: “During this period there were formal diplomatic and economic relations between the Republic of South Africa and the Iraqi government.”
He denied that Majali’s presence on a government trip to Baghdad demonstrated a close relationship. “The fact that Majali travelled with the two officials does not establish a close relationship between my officials and Imvume. The DG has on numerous occasions led official visits abroad in the company of business people, and that was never interpreted as a close relationship.
“It is therefore not understood why you surmise that the two officials knew about the alleged relationship between Imvume/Majali and the ANC.
“Furthermore there is no linkage between the advance payment made to Imvume by PetroSA in 2003 and the visit to Iraq … in September 2001.”
He denied Majali led the dele-gation, as claimed by Majali in a letter to Iraq. In a statement last week, Nogxina elaborated: “In September 2001 we undertook an official trip to Iraq on a mission to further strengthen bilateral rela-tions. In particular, we were supposed to explore the possibility of a government-to-government deal for the supply of oil for our strategic stocks.
“It was against this background … that a representative of the Strategic Fuel Fund joined the delegation.
“It is worthy to note that on this trip one Mr Sandi Majali, a representative of a black-owned company called Imvume, also accompanied us. The said Sandi Majali had during our preparations for the trip called my office requesting to join us as he had been advised by the Iraqi ambassador of our intention to travel to Iraq. Apparently, Mr Majali had previous dealings with the Iraqi government and wanted to take advantage of our presence in Iraq to finalise his oil deal.
“He expected us to explain our black economic empowerment policy to the Iraqis and thus facilitate his negotiations. This is common practice for us whenever we travel with business delegations.
“The irony of it was that it was this Mr Majali who facilitated our only meeting with the Deputy Minister of Oil, through what he called the Iraq-South African Friendship Association. After our meeting with representatives of this association we were then able to meet with the Deputy Minister of Oil and other government officials …”
“I do not feel that by undertaking this trip in the company of Imvume I had in any way whatsoever compromised my office and the oversight it is supposed to have over the Strategic Fuel Fund.”
The ANC, Kgalema Motlanthe and Mendi Msimang
Attorney Siyabonga Mahlangu, on behalf of the ANC and its officials, refused to address questions posed, citing a long-delayed defamation case by the ANC against the M&G arising out of our February 2004 story headlined “How the ANC fell for Saddam’s crude diplomacy”.
The ANC has not applied for a trial date, more than a year after formal court pleadings closed. But Mahlangu said the M&G’s new questions remained “a subject matter of adjudication by the court”.
Mahlangu also indicated that providing answers might jeopardise its case in a parallel suit against the Sunday Times, which had published a similar story after the M&G. “It is unreasonable to expect our client to address material evidence in a forum other than a court of law at this stage of the proceedings.”
The Strategic Fuel Fund Association (SFF)
The Central Energy Fund (SFF’s holding company, on behalf of SFF) said: “We are convinced that the deal was good for SFF and good for the country because it saved significant amounts of money.”
It did not respond to questions about ex-SFF director Riaz Jawood-een’s apparent conflict of interest or whether he had disclosed it, saying only: “As Mr Jawoodeen is no longer associated with this company, we are unable to speak on his behalf.”
Riaz Jawoodeen
The former SFF director did not respond to repeated messages and faxed questions.