The Public Protector’s finding that Social Development Minister Zola Skweyiya was not duly influenced in awarding a large government contract to an investment company defied common sense, the official opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) said on Thursday.
DA energy spokesperson Hendrik Schmidt said: ”As with his earlier report on the Oilgate scandal, the Public Protector’s findings are undermined by common sense. The practical implications of what is suggested in the report are simply not believable and, it appears, the logical follow-up questions were not asked.”
Public Protector Lawrence Mushwana earlier on Thursday said an investigation by his office had found that a R65 000 interest-free loan paid by Fandi Majali, of Imvume Investments, to Skweyiya’s wife for renovations on the couple’s Waterkloof home did not influence the awarding of a multimillion-rand contract to a company partly owned by Imvume.
Schmidt said an example of illogicality was conflicting testimony from Skweyiya’s wife and Imvume’s Majali.
”Mrs Skweyiya claims that as of November 2003, after a bank loan was approved, she and her husband ‘sincerely believed that the new bond money would be transferred into our account in time to pay the invoiced amount’.”
According to her testimony, Schmidt reported, ”she only phoned Mr Majali in December 2003 to ask for the loan after it became apparent the bank money would not be transferred in time. Logically, they could only have arrived at that conclusion after the loan was approved — in November”.
”However, according to the testimony of Mr Majali, he met Mrs Skweyiya in Paris in October 2003 where: ‘she mentioned the possibility that she may require a short bridging loan, in an unspecified amount, to assist in the payment of certain home renovations’,” reported Schmidt, who charged that someone was lying.
Either the minister’s wife ”sincerely believed” the bank loan was going to be sufficient in November, and only when it failed did she ask for a loan from Majali in December, or she was already asking for a loan in October, before the bank loan had been approved or possibly before the application was even made to the bank on 22 October. ”Why would someone who ‘sincerely believed’ the bank was going to pay the money, ask for a loan?”
Schmidt asked: ”If Mrs Skweyiya actually phoned Mr Majali for a loan before she applied to the bank, that fact would render the rest of her testimony invalid and raises the following questions: Why did the Public Protector not verify on what dates Mr Majali and Mrs Skweyiya were in Paris and why did he not interrogate this glaring contradiction?
”Another obvious point of contention is the Public Protector’s finding that because the loan in question was supposedly organised by the minister’s wife and without his knowledge the minister could not have put himself in a situation where he was susceptible to a possible conflict of interest. Common sense renders this unbelievable.
”If the testimony of both Mr and Ms Skweyiya is to be believed then Ms Skweyiya, in a desperate attempt to meet a significant financial deadline, organised a R65 000 loan, without ever telling her husband that she intended to do so, discussing its details, or indeed who it was from.”
Schmidt asked: ”Why did the Public Protector not ask this obvious question?”
Schmidt said the Public Protector’s finding, that the minister failed to disclose the loan ”is significant but in comparison to the more substantial charge, neither here nor there”.
”As has been evidenced again and again this year every second person in public office seems to fail to comply with the requirement that personal interests be registered with Parliament. It is an ongoing problem that concerns all levels of administration in the African National Congress government. And, as with all those other breaches, it should be dealt with,” said Schmidt.
”The real question, however, is whether Minister Skweyiya knew about the loan — it seems implausible that he could not — and, if he did, whether that exposed him to ‘a situation involving the risk of conflict between his private interests and official responsibilities”’ — and the report does not seem to adequately address this key question.”
Meanwhile, Freedom Front MP Willie Spies said it was significant that Skweyiya was indeed found guilty of contravening Parliament’s ethics codes in that he did not declare the interest-free loan in the member’s register.
He noted that the R65 000 payment was paid as an ”interest-free” loan to contractors for the renovations. It came from a controversial R15-million advance the government fuel company PetroSA made in December 2003 to Imvume Investments.
The FF Plus last year revealed in Parliament that R65 000 was paid to Skweyiya’s wife and a further R50 000 to Bonga Mlambo, the brother of Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, then Minerals and Energy Minister. – I-Net Bridge