Is it a question of being presumed guilty until proved innocent? Is it a representation of certain interests or political game-playing?
These are questions to which Minister of Public Service and Administration Richard Baloyi seeks answers in response to the Mail & Guardian‘s article “Zuma Inc in row over govt office tender” (August 12).
The newspaper pronounced the minister guilty of the following crimes: that he defied treasury and departmental officials, influenced the minister of public works in meetings and personally influenced the process [of awarding a state office tender].
Prior to publishing the story, the paper referred the matter to me and I responded that “The minister … regards as false, malicious and baseless that he was personally involved … The process of securing is an administrative and operational matter … The minister — strongly — rejects these attempts aimed at deceiving the public through false statements intended to tarnish his name and integrity …”
After receiving this response, the M&G continued to talk to officials in the department, who are referred to as credible sources and against whose views they verified the correctness of the minister’s explanation.
It then came to the conclusion that “Although Baloyi, through his spokesperson — this week dismissed as malicious and baseless the allegations that he was personally involved in the tender process, two senior departmental officials close to him told the M&G that the minister gave the green light for the tender to be issued after he had held discussions with his counterparts at public works.”
The minister raised the questions at the start of this article and resolved to find answers to them. The first decision was to talk to the newspaper and a meeting took place on August 14. Editor Nic Dawes acknowledged the impact of the story but maintained that he stood by it because he believed in the credibility of the sources, namely officials in the department.
I would emphasise that these are officials who are either supposed to be the implementing agents of decisions for which Baloyi has political accountability, or they are supposed to support him in other responsibilities.
The paper called on the minister to give his own account to balance the views of these “sources”, because without that the paper considers his response as unsubstantiated denial.
I want to put it on record that the search for answers to the questions above should consider the following step-by-step developments in the procurement process of the building:
A decision to relocate was taken in 2008 before Baloyi took office and was communicated to him on his arrival. This was meant to take effect at the expiry of the lease contract with the current lessor. The officials wrote to the department of public works requesting assistance to effect this on September 18 2009, and further communicated on this issue on September 23. On May 13 last year a certificate was issued confirming the availability of funding and this was later confirmed on June 4.
Baloyi was later informed that public works had not approved the deal because of compliance questions. He insisted that there should be compliance with public works’ position.
The advert was thereafter reissued, with a closing date of April 5 2011.
Other administrative issues developed and officials from Baloyi’s department decided to manage these in consultation with treasury and the department of public works.
The process is at a stage now where such administrative matters are still being addressed; the project has been put on hold pending the finalisation of these issues.
As soon as these administrative issues are addressed, public works will continue with the project, with public service and administration observing.
The search for the answers continues, including a possible internal investigation, and the minister reaffirms his confidence in the officials who are handling the process.
As a former journalist, I want to express my personal reflections on the M&G article. In reporting on a superficial level, and in repeating what agenda setters would like to portray as ministerial instructions to public officials to act wrongfully, the newspaper finds itself a pawn in a greater play that not even its most seasoned investigative journalists have had the depth to unravel.
Needless to say, this has come at a great cost to parties on the peripheries of this process, including Baloyi, and could possibly influence the outcome of the process.
Dumisani Nkwamba is spokesperson for the department of public service and administration