The Public Protector has found that a failure by the Social Development Minister, Zola Skweyiya, to disclose an interest-free loan granted by Imvume chief executive officer Sandi Majali to his wife constituted a breach of the executive ethics code but his wife’s acceptance of the loan by itself did not.
The Mail & Guardian reported last year that Sandi Majali gave Skweyiya’s wife Thuthukile a R65 000 loan for the renovation of the family home. The loan was made only four weeks after one of Majali’s subsidiary companies, IT Lynx, demanded that minister Skweyiya award it a stalled R400-million tender for social grants.
At the time Skweyiya maintained that there was no conflict of interest because he had been unaware of Majali’s interest in IT Lynx, a company involved in the social grant payment business.
However, the Mail & Guardian showed at the time that Majali stood to gain from Skweyiya using his power to reinstate the big tender.
This week the Public Protector declared unfounded the allegation that the loan granted by Majali to Thuthukile Skweyiya resulted in the minister exposing himself to possible conflict of interest and breached the executive ethics code. The Public Protector said its investigation does not show that the loan had any influence or bearing on the way the minister performed his official responsibilities.
It also said that Skweyiya was probably not aware of Majali’s interest in the company IT Lynx at the time when the loan was granted to his wife.
In an unrelated judgement, the Public Protector has dismissed a complaint that there were irregularities during the passing of the Twelfth Amendment Bill, which could have lead to its invalidation.
The Twelfth Amendment Bill, which changed existing provincial demarcations and resulted in towns falling into different provinces, was voted for in December last year. The law resulted in huge protests across the country by communities who did not want move to another province.
Early this year Clive Rubin, a journalist who witnessed the vote in Parliament, alleged that the votes counted did not reach the two-thirds majority required to pass the Bill. He said only 266 votes were recorded instead of the required 267 to reach the two-thirds majority, making the Bill invalid. He subsequently lodged a complaint with the Public Protector to investigate the irregularities.
This week the Public Protector found that the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority was validly obtained. The Public Protector also explained that there had been a technical difficulty in the casting of one member’s vote, causing ”the appearance of an error in the recording of votes cast”.
Community leaders in the former cross-boundary municipalities of Matatiele, Merafong and Moutse, this week expressed disappointment at the outcome of the Public Protector’s investigation. They feel the Public Protector is trying to cover-up for ”his principals as he has done many times before.
”We are not surprised by the Public Protector’s findings and recommendations. It is clear that he is covering up for his employers,” said Matatiele community leader Mandla Galo. Galo said he would obtain a legal opinion on the report.
In Merafong and Moutse, community leaders have vowed to fight their re-demarcation to the bitter end. The residents of both Merafong and Moutse are in the final stages of consultations with lawyers before filing a case in the Constitutional Court. The two communities joined forces to file a combined case against government after the Constitutional Court released a judgement on the Matatiele case in July.
”The Public Protector’s loyalty always lies with the government. We knew that the outcome was going to be in favour of government,” said Moutse SACP regional organiser Seun Mogotji.