Flames of suspicion make it hot for Naspers
Ayear in which the Naspers share price has almost doubled is proving to be something of an annus horribilis for the group’s South African-based board members.
Even South African citizens who are lucky winners in the Naspers-Tencent lottery appear to be among those calling for an investigation into the circumstances around MultiChoice’s payment of hundreds of millions of rand to ANN7 and the SABC.
The payments were ostensibly made for the news channels of both to be carried on DStv. Even by MultiChoice’s own telling, it was not standard policy to pay for news channels.
This prompts the suspicion that Naspers was up to no good; that what it wanted to do was influence government policy on the critical issue of the encryption — or not — of set-top boxes.
Given that after these payments were agreed, the relevant minister dramatically overturned government policy, it seems MultiChoice didn’t influence government policy so much as set it.
This follows the release a few months ago of research by Hennie van Vuuren reminding South Africans of the rather dark side of Naspers’s relationship with the National Party government. All in all, there’s too much happening that could be sorted out by throwing the head of a subsidiary to the wolves. Group chairman Koos Bekker will no doubt be called to account.
So now might be the time for the board to throw light on who actually owns this powerful company with a contrived N and A shareholder structure. And also to provide details about the contracts dealing with Naspers’s holding in Tencent.
US companies that are invested in similar structures are obliged to disclose the nature of these investments and any potential risks.
There is no such obligation on JSE-listed companies.
Bekker was instrumental in identifying and securing the investment in Tencent. What happens if he is embroiled in a South African scandal?
The soft ride given by portfolio committee heads and ANC members to ministers who show blatant disregard for parliamentary structures remains breathtaking.
The nonappearance of some ministers at committees set up to investigate corruption and state capture, or just for oversight of their ministries, can only be interpreted as a blatant disregard for the work done in these committees and a failure to be held to account or be questioned not only by tame ANC members but more aggressive grilling from opposition parties.
The latest example is Mineral Resources Minister Mosebenzi Zwane, who despite agreeing to appear before the portfolio committee on mineral resources to face questions on allegations of state capture, failed to turn up.
He made no appearance on Tuesday or Wednesday, offering an excuse of illness to the committee, which accepted his apology and rolled his appearance over to January 24. Zwane was, however, seen at an ANC event in the Free State.
“The minister was indeed sick following hospitalisation,” says his spokesman, Fidel Hadebe, stressing how much Zwane “respected” the committee and its chairman.
“From time to time, a particular minister will be unable to attend a particular committee owing to new developments in the minister's diary”, he says.
Does attendance at ANC events trump being held to account to face allegations of being less than ethical in a ministerial post? Apparently it does.