BETWEEN THE CHAINS SIKONATHI MANTSHANTSHA
Sipho Maseko, the CE of Telkom, last week appeared in the Alexandra magistrate’s court to face allegations of traffic regulation fraud. After he denied the charges, the matter was postponed to September 4 and Maseko returned to his day job — running the largest fixed-line phone operator in Africa. Telkom generated R26bn in revenue for the year to March and employs tens of thousands of people.
Considering Maseko’s legal predicament, investors, employees and suppliers should ask themselves: is he, at this point, the correct person to be trusted with their money, livelihoods and business? It is not an issue of innocence or guilt — that’s for the court to decide — but a question of whether it is desirable for a person accused of breaking the law to continue to hold such a position of trust and responsibility.
“Maseko vehemently denies any intention to defraud any person or organisation and the necessary representations will be made to progress this matter,” said Telkom when this question was put to them.
Maseko has been accused of illegally driving around with someone else’s licence plates on his Range Rover, racking up traffic fines. According to court documents he incurred traffic fines totalling R18 000 using the bogus number plates, which were then imposed on the person to whom the registration number was actually allocated.
The numbers and characters on these plates are the same as those on the Range Rover he previously owned.
That vehicle, registration number TVL 414 GP, now belongs to Bridgette Motshoane, who bought it from a secondhand car dealer.
Maseko drives a similar (but apparently newer) vehicle, with the registration plate number 414 TVL GP.
Motshoane’s husband filed a complaint to the authorities last year after receiving the fines. Maseko then allegedly registered his vehicle as 414 TVL GP.
Maseko “well knew that he has sold his old Range Rover with registration number TVL 414 GP,” reads part of the charge sheet. It is common cause that Maseko once owned the vehicle that now belongs to Motshoane. The question is, how did he manage to get a duplicate registration number for his newer vehicle?
The law places the burden of proof on the state, which is accusing Maseko of fraud (Motshoane is not party to the criminal case). Maseko is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
Still, should he not take a leave of absence while the legal process is going on? How will having a leader accused of the crime of fraud serve the interests of Telkom’s stakeholders?
“Maseko has kept the chairman and board informed of this matter,” Telkom says in a statement. “The matter relates to a personal licence plate, which is not in any way linked to Telkom or to Maseko’s role within the organisation.
The board feels that [he] should be permitted to resolve this personal matter through the correct legal channels, and will not pre-judge the matter.” But that is not the point. The issue here is that Maseko has been accused of the crime of fraud. And whether or not Maseko is guilty, Telkom’s board needs to lead by example, and must be seen to be prudent in its overseeing of management. Precedent also matters a lot.
When next one of its senior employees finds himself or herself on the wrong side of a fraud charge, will the board remove him or her from the till before the trial is concluded?
It matters very little whether Maseko is able to perform his job as CE while simultaneously answering to the three counts of fraud.
What matters is whether investors and potential investors are addressed by a CE who is accused of being a crook. Should Maseko not be taking a leave of absence from work?