Guptas and Martins try to frustrate inquiry

Attempts by the Guptas and Deputy Public Enterprises Minister Ben Martins to dictate to Parliament the terms of their engagement with the inquiry into state capture were met by a wall of resistance from MPs on Wednesday.

Both Martins and the Guptas want to engage with the committee on their own terms — the former via written submissions and the latter on the basis of questions that they have received in advance. In this way, they would avoid being grilled by the evidence leader of the inquiry, Ntuthuzelo Vanara, and MPs and would be able to consider their replies with the assistance of lawyers without the risk of being taken off guard by unexpected questions.

Members of the portfolio committee on public enterprises were having none of it and decided to subpoena Martins and reject the Guptas’ suggested method of engagement.

In a letter to committee

chairwoman Lungi MngangaGcabashe, Martins said he was sending a written submission to respond to the allegations made against him by suspended Eskom head of legal and compliance Suzanne Daniels, saying he believed this was sufficient.

The allegation concerns his presence at a meeting in July, along with Ajay Gupta, Gupta associate Salim Essa and Duduzane Zuma. “It cannot be assumed that a response can only be valid or legal if it is made in person … the written submission adequately addresses the issue I am required to attest to.

“As a result it is not necessary for me to appear before the committee,” Martins wrote.

MPs were outraged. African Christian Democratic Party MP Steve Swart said it was up to the committee to decide whether Martins would appear before it.

Inquiry chairwoman Zukiswa Rantho insisted that Martins had been sent an invitation in November to appear before the committee on Wednesday.

There was a record that an e-mail was sent, though Martins denied having received it before Tuesday. In his letter, he said he had not had an opportunity to seek legal advice and to go through Daniels’s testimony, which she gave on November 8.

Two unsigned lawyers’ letters were sent to the committee by Ajay Gupta.

In one, a lawyer asked the committee to furnish Gupta and the Gupta family with a detailed list of questions within 10 working days of receipt of the letter so that he could respond in writing. If Gupta or any member of the family were required to appear before the committee, they requested a detailed list of questions two weeks before their scheduled appearance.

ANC MP Zukile Luyenge said the committee had already stated its intention to call the three Gupta brothers. “We want them to be here,” he said. They could not dictate how the committee would function.

Swart also said it was not for Gupta or his lawyers to decide on what basis he would give evidence. There was no reason the Guptas should be treated differently from other witnesses.

EFF MP Marshall Dlamini also said the Guptas were not entitled to any special treatment.

ANC MP Mondli Gungubele said the letters were merely an attempt to disrupt the committee and divert it from its work.

Gupta also denied a “malicious” claim that he was present at a meeting, as alleged under oath by Daniels, and said that criminal charges would be investigated against her.

He said he was in India when the alleged meeting was supposed to have taken place.