The Democratic Alliance (DA) said on Monday it would table new questions in Parliament aimed at establishing who was ultimately responsible for the Oilgate scandal.
This follows a Sunday Times report that African National Congress (ANC) funder Sandi Majali had threatened to ”spill the beans” about the relative roles of his company, Imvume Management, and state oil company PetroSA in the transfer of R11-million to the ANC ahead of the 2004 election.
DA minerals and energy spokesperson Hendrik Schmidt said in a statement that Majali’s allegations about the ANC’s R11-million donation from Imvume were deeply worrying.
”Majali alleges that the ANC went straight to PetroSA, a parastatal, to ask for funding, with what is, essentially, the public’s money. The story until recently was that the ANC went to Imvume, who then used the R15-million advance given to it by PetroSA.
”According to Majali, this story is backwards: The ANC requested money from PetroSA, who then gave an advance to Imvume. Imvume then passed it on as a donation to the ANC. This was an attempt to bypass the illegality of a parastatal donating money to the ruling party.”
Schmidt said his party was not willing to let the matter slide.
”Firstly, the DA will submit a new round of parliamentary questions aimed at ascertaining who is ultimately responsible for the donation.
”Secondly, the DA will be calling on the minerals and energy portfolio committee to come together urgently, to discuss this startling new development, as Scopa [the standing committee on public accounts] and the Public Protector have issued conflicting reports and the matter has not been resolved.
”If it is true that the ANC received a donation out of public funds then it must be stopped, the party must be disciplined and the DA will do it’s utmost to ensure that this kind of wasteful and dishonest behaviour does not occur again,” he said.
‘Advance’ was ‘lawful’
The Sunday Times report said the Imvume group made the donation to the ANC within four days of receiving the payment from PetroSA.
In 2005 Public Protector Lawrence Mushwana found PetroSA’s decision to pay an ”advance” to Imvume was ”lawful, well-founded and properly considered”.
After a public outcry, PetroSA launched an attempt to recover the money from Imvume. PetroSA and Imvume entered into settlement negotiations. In August 2004, Imvume made what PetroSA has called a ”good intent” payment of R1-million and was supposed to pay back the money in R500 000 installments.
Imvume has since paid back R10-million, but more than R8-million, including interest, remains outstanding.
When Imvume defaulted on payment last year, PetroSA sought a default judgement which would have resulted in Imvume’s liquidation. The judgement was granted in March.
In April, Majali successfully applied to the Johannesburg High Court for an order to set aside a default judgement.
Inexplicably, PetroSA was not in court to defend the matter.
According to Majali’s lawyer Barry Aaron, he will lodge a court action in two weeks to recoup the R10-million he has already paid to PetroSA.
PetroSA’s CEO Sipho Mkhize said he looked forward to meeting Majali in court.
He insisted that Imvume had requested the advance and that Majali had signed for it.
”So that is how we treat it. He signed and he agreed to it. I think there is nothing I can say about it. It is obvious we will meet in court. I would be happy if he spills the beans as well so that we all know. Maybe there is something we did not know.” – Sapa