For SA’s ship to escape powerful forces criminal justice must kick in

IS IT my imagination or can we see signs of a slow turn beginning in South Africa’s listing ship of state?

A collection of seemingly unrelated events suggests a general stiffening of backbones that may still allow the ship to avoid the reefs of state capture.

However, it is easy to overstate these signs; the forces they are up against are, I think, generally much more powerful than most people appreciate.

Watching the Eskom inquiry in Parliament last week was fascinating in its own right.

The ducking and diving, the prevarications, the bumptious denials and the outrageous assertions constitute a kind of mini-court drama.

It came down to one crucial moment.

Previously, former Eskom chairman Zola Tsotsi testified that Public Enterprises Minister Lynne Brown had proposed that finance director Tsholofelo Molefe be added to a list of staff to be suspended, pending an internal Eskom inquiry.

Evidence leader advocate Ntuthuzelo Vanara asked Brown: “Did you or did you not give [Molefe’s] name over to [then Eskom chairman Ben] Ngubane to add to the list?” “I did not,” said Brown. “So Mr Tsotsi was lying?” Vanara asked.

“The fact that I did not and he did means one of us is lying and I don’t think I am lying,” said the minister. “I don’t think I’m lying.” Ponder that for a moment. Thankfully, lying is something you think that possibly you might be doing or not doing depending on the circumstances of your lying or not lying.

Lying, it turns out, is a, like, subjective thing. And so it went. Did she phone the Guptas about preventing the suspension of the then CEO, Matshela Koko? “I don’t have their numbers.” Were the Guptas at the minister’s house for a crucial meeting? “No.” Why did she lie to Parliament in December 2016, saying Gupta-linked company Trillian Capital Partners had not been paid a cent by Eskom? “I was misled by Eskom.” In fact, Trillian had invoiced R266million at the time of Brown’s submission and then invoiced Eskom for a further R153-million after the submission. And so on.

On the subject of stiffening of backbones, it was also interesting to see Economic Development Minister Ebrahim Patel saying that the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) board had rescinded, alternatively cancelled, the loan restructuring agreement between itself, Oakbay Resources and other entities in the Oakbay group on the grounds of “various misrepresentations and breaches of warranties” that were committed.

In terms of this loan restructuring agreement, the IDC acquired shares in Oakbay Resources following its listing in late 2014. The IDC is apparently demanding the repayment of the outstanding capital and interest due to it, totalling about R293million.

The interesting thing about this claim is that it is rooted firmly in the leaked Gupta e-mails because, in fact, the IDC is owed only R37.5-million in cash and that is only due in 2018.

The rest constitutes losses incurred by the IDC due to manipulation of the Oakbay share price at the time of listing, which was revealed in the emails. This is all glass half-full evidence. But there are also glass half-empty signs. Bongani Bongo made his objections to the Eskom inquiry known before he was appointed state security minister. Then he was elevated, and there he remains. Brown remains. All of the Gupta crew remain. The alleged Oakbay share price manipulation happened in 2010, can you believe. When it happened it was obvious, yet the IDC and the JSE are only acting now. By now the money is long gone. The big problem is that the only way to try to recoup not only the money but some pride is for the criminal justice system to kick into action.

The advocates of the notion that South Africa’s ship of state is turning will only get some credence when the same parliamentary enthusiasm and vigour that was applied in the Eskom inquiry is applied to the police and justice ministries.

Tim Cohen is editor of Business Day