Separate reports on the so-called Oilgate scandal, one before Parliament and the other tabled last year, directly contradict each other, the Democratic Alliance said on Wednesday.
The standing committee on public accounts’ (Scopa) recent report on the Central Energy Fund and its subsidiaries, and the 2005 report from the minerals and energy portfolio committee on the public protector’s investigation into Oilgate, are in ”stark contrast”, said DA MP Anchen Dreyer in a statement.
”The Scopa report censures PetroSA, and is a direct contradiction of the 2005 report from the minerals and energy portfolio committee, which endorsed the public protector’s investigation into Oilgate and which was accepted by Parliament last year,” Dreyer said.
The Oilgate scandal — first reported by the Mail & Guardian last year — revolved around an R11-million donation made by Imvume Management to the African National Congress, which was drawn directly from an advance payment of R15-million made by PetroSA to Imvume Management for the purchase of oil condensate.
The fact that Imvume transferred the advance to the African National Congress, instead of using it for its intended purpose, meant that PetroSA — a public entity — had to pay twice for the oil condensate, and that public money was effectively used to finance the ruling party.
Dreyer said Scopa found that the decision to pay the advance into a separate account was ”irregular”. In contrast, the public protector found the transaction to be ”in terms of the legal and policy prescripts that applied to PetroSA”.
Scopa also found there was ”a lapse in terms of monitoring on the part of PetroSA” with regard to the advance payment. In contrast, the public protector found the transaction was ”well-founded and properly considered”.
Further, Scopa found that PetroSA failed to undertake a risk assessment and was misled by Imvume, which claimed it had needed the advance because it wanted to pay its end-of-year bonuses. In contrast, the public protector found ”the decision to approve Imvume’s request, as it was presented to PetroSA, for an advance was not unreasonable”.
Dreyer said Parliament now finds itself in the compromising position of having to accept two conflicting reports — one that endorses PetroSA’s actions, and one that finds them to have been irregular and improper.
The DA will now approach the chair of the minerals and energy committee ”with a view to that committee reconsidering the public protector’s report, in light of Scopa’s findings”.
”I have also written to the speaker to request that she urgently consider the matter and propose a solution. Parliament must be seen to be both consistent and effective in holding our public companies and parastatals to account, especially where issues related to corruption and mismanagement are involved,” Dreyer said. — Sapa