Social Development Minister Zola Skweyiya says that last week’s article “Oilgate: Did Majali try to bribe Skweyiya?” excluded important information he provided to the newspaper. We publish his full responses to reporter Sam Sole’s questions
1) When we approached you in May 2005 about the payment by Imvume to Hartkon Construction in December 2004 on behalf of you and your wife, you indicated that there was no conflict of interest as at the time contracts with respect to the payment of social grants were issued by provinces, not the national department. Now it has emerged that Imvume/Sandi Majali was part of a consortium, IT Lynx, that tendered for the national Grant Administration System in December 2001, a contract worth some R500-million. Does your view remain that there was no conflict.
I reassert that there was no conflict of interest.
2) You indicated you were not aware at the time of Majali/Invume’s involvement in the social grant payment business. Please indicate when and how you became aware of this.
Through the Mail & Guardian.
3) A lawyer’s letter of demand regarding the disputed contract with IT Lynx and addressed to you (care of the director general) was sent on November 21 2003. Were you made aware of this letter or this dispute and, if so, when and by whom?
4) Your wife told us in May 2005 that Majali had offered her a job. She said to us: “When I told Zola, he said you can’t work with Sandi. That’s why I turned it down.” What was the reason for your saying this?
5) When did you become aware that it was contended by IT Lynx that the contract had been awarded? Were any attempts directed by you or to you to seek a settlement of this dispute?
6) What was your attitude to the objections to the contract raised by the department of finance? Were you involved in any negotiations to overcome those objections?
7) Why was the decision taken not to proceed with the contract?
Questions 3 to 7: The matter is before court, and therefore sub judice.
Question 4: This is a private matter. We were debating whether or not she should leave the public service and go to the private sector at that stage.
8) According to Majali’s attorney, the payment to Hartkon was a loan. Please indicate:
a) the amount of the aforementioned loan; b) the date on which the loan was agreed; c) The date on which the “written acknowledgement” of the loan was signed; d) the terms of the loan including whether or not the loan carried any interest; e) the repayment history of the loan.
The loan of R65 000 was repaid. The details are therefore immaterial.
9) Why did you borrow money from Majali rather than from a bank?
According to my family, obtaining the loan from Mr Majali was a stopgap measure. The home improvement bank loan had been approved, but, due to bank procedures, the money could only be accessed early the following year. As you know, builders shut down on December 16 in this country, and workers needed to be paid.
10) Majali claims to be a long-standing friend of your family. Please indicate when and how you came to know Majali.
Our family has known Mr Majali in the context of our political work outside of government.
11) Please state why we should not regard the payment(s) by Majali/Imvume to your benefit, as well as the employment offered to Mrs Skweyiya by Majali, in late 2003/early 2004, as an attempt to influence you?
I conduct my work with integrity, and within the parameters of regulations and the law of the land. I would not be unduly influenced by anyone.