Public Protector Lawrence Mushwana announced on Friday that his office has reopened its investigation into Social Development Minister Zola Skweyiya’s role in the Oilgate affair.
This comes after his office found in July last year that there was no evidence that Skweyiya performed ”any official act or omission” that could have favoured oil company Imvume in any way.
Mushwana said in a statement released in Pretoria that his office last month received further information ”in connection with the allegations against Dr Skweyiya”, the contents of which he would not divulge at this stage.
There had also been a complaint from an MP alleging that a R65 000 loan to Skweyiya’s wife from Imvume boss Sandi Majali meant the minister himself had violated the Executive Members’ Ethics Code.
”We are of the view that the new information at our disposal and the said complaint by the MP properly justify an investigation and indeed we started investigating the matter last week already,” Mushwana said.
He could not say at this stage when the investigation would be finalised.
”However, on its completion, we will submit a report to the president,” he said.
It was reported in newspapers last year that Skweyiya’s wife took Majali’s loan to pay for renovations to the family’ Waterkloof Ridge, Pretoria, home.
Mushwana said on Friday it had been claimed that in making the loan, Majali anticipated the minister would use his influence to secure contracts from his department for Imvume or its sister companies.
Majali shot to prominence three years ago after his then little-known company scooped a R1-billion government oil tender.
It emerged that he had used an R11-million advance from the state oil company PetroSA to help the African National Congress’s 2004 election fund.
Mushwana, who was recently accused by the Sunday Times‘ legal affairs correspondent Carmel Rickard of ”[choosing] pedantic interpretations of the law before his duty to take up the fight against corruption”, also said on Friday that he respected the media’s right to freedom of expression.
However the protector’s office was an office of last resort.
”The Public Protector cannot and must not subsume functions of other law enforcement agencies,” he said.
”Indeed, where necessary, the Public Protector is expected to work in collaboration with such bodies. It has done so and it will continue to do so. While we respect her [Rickard’s] views, we obviously do not agree with such views.”
He said it was ”fine” if people disagreed with his office: that was in the nature of democracy.
”So, as long as people play the ball and not the person, [it] is fine with us.” – Sapa