'Matjila is not the PIC. The inquiry will go ahead as planned,' says PIC board chair Mondli Gungubele (Delwyn Verasamy/M&G)
The chair of the Public Investment Corporation’s (PIC) board Mondli Gungubele has clarified that his decision to not oppose UDM leader Bantu Holomisa’s court application calling for former chief executive Dan Matjila’s suspension was not an expression of a lack of confidence in the board.
On Monday the PIC commission of inquiry, headed by retired Judge Lex Mpati, heard how the board could not reach consensus on how to deal with the allegations of corruption that were levelled against Matjila.
Anonymous emails by a whistleblower named “James Nogu” sent to PIC executives and board members in September 2017 claimed that Matjila had corruptly channelled R21-million from the PIC’s corporate social investment fund to his alleged girlfriend’s business. The emails further alleged that he also used his influence to have a company — which had previously received funding from the PIC – transfer R300 000 to pay his girlfriend’s personal debt.
Matjila was cleared of all the allegations following an internal investigation. Prior to the internal investigation team concluding its probe into the matters around Matjila’s unproven impropriety, the board had been quite vocal about having “confidence in the ability and integrity” of Matjila.
When Gungubele joined the PIC board in May 2018 his arrival was “dramatic” because he was immediately tasked with implementing former finance minister Nhlanhla Nene’s directive calling for a report into how the board had cleared Matjila of wrongdoing.
Gungubele testified that in a special board meeting on June 22 2018, he had tried to seek clarity on why the board had not probed Matjila’s controversial R300 000 request.
He also questioned if the board was not suspicious of the R21-million loan because the money had gone to a company with a principal link to Matjila’s alleged lover and asked why the board decided to halt all investigations against Matjila.
“In a nutshell, my concerns did not find resonance with the board.
“Having met the board on the 22nd of June 2018, I held the view that the board did not carry its fiduciary responsibility and I was not finding that in the affidavit of the board. It became clear to me that if I were to become part of that affidavit I would be aligning to that affidavit,” Gungubele said.
This was by way of explaining his decision to file a separate explanatory affidavit to the UDM’s application.
The board filed an affidavit opposing the UDM application while Gungubele’s explanatory affidavit semed a complete opposite.
This move was the final straw that led to the resignation of former board member Claudia Manning, who previously told the commission that “Gungubele’s approach to the application clearly revealed that he had no confidence in the board and in fact accused it of having acted improperly”.
But Gungubele said it was merely a matter of disagreement on this particular issue. “If it was an expression of a lack of confidence in the board I would not have done all the other things I did with the board outside that because there is a lot of other decisions I took with the board”.
Gungubele said when it came to issues regarding Matjila the board was divided “99% of the time”. He said this even created an impression that there were “pro and anti-Dan camps in the board”.
“It’s been stressing me and I have been having a lot of questions. I have been asking: ‘Is there any relationship they have outside the relationship they have in their capacity as role players in the institution?’” Gungubele stated.
The commission continues on Tuesday where testimony will be heard from more as yet unnamed witnesses.