ROOTING OUT THE ROT

The parliamentary inquiry into state capture is doing its best to unearth the dirt in SA’S state-owned enterprises, but it faces various challenges — not least of these the attempts to frustrate the process

Threats, intimidation, bribery . . . the forces lined up against the parliamentary inquiry into the capture of state-owned enterprises have been doing their utmost to frustrate the process. But, bit by bit, the inquiry is uncovering the web of intrigue involved in the capture of Eskom and reasserting the allegations made by former public protector Thuli Madonsela in her “State of Capture” report, released late last year.

In a context in which law enforcement agencies are paralysed and have done little to probe alleged wrongdoing, any attempt to grapple with these allegations has to be lauded. Inaction by parliament would have laid the institution open to accusations that it had closed its eyes to major looting of state resources and failed to hold the executive to account. It was previously found wanting in its handling of the use of state funds to upgrade President Jacob Zuma’s private residence in Nkandla.

The inquiry by parliament’s portfolio committee on public enterprises — limited though it is — has threatened the beneficiaries of corruption or those who were wittingly or unwittingly complicit in it, and they have launched a counteroffensive.

State security minister Bongani Bongo allegedly tried to bribe evidence leader Ntuthuzelo Vanara to withdraw from the inquiry, and the department of public enterprises has threatened to report him to the General Council of the Bar because of what it says is an “unfair” process.

Public enterprises minister Lynne Brown has also attempted to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the process, prompting committee members to accuse her of intimidation.

Bongo has been reported to parliament’s ethics committee and the DA has laid charges of corruption against him under the Prevention & Combating of Corrupt Activities Act.

Witnesses such as Eskom’s suspended head of legal & compliance, Suzanne Daniels, say they have received death threats and experienced other forms of bullying and intimidation. The family of committee chair Zukiswa Rantho has been intimidated, and DA shadow minister of public enterprises Natasha Mazzone has reported that she was followed and her car tampered with.

Proceedings so far have shed light on Eskom’s relationship with global consultancy Mckinsey and Trillian Capital, and given a platform for the expression of startling allegations by former Eskom chairman Zola Tsotsi about the involvement of Zuma, former SA Airways chair Dudu Myeni and Brown in the March 2015 suspension of four senior executives: then CEO Tshediso Matona, group executive for capital Dan Marokane, FD Tsholofelo Molefe and head of generation Matshela Koko, the only one of the four who was subsequently taken back.

Brown has strongly denied accusations that she has been “captured”, and in the absence of corroborating evidence it will simply be a matter of one version of events against another. For example, Tsotsi says Brown was with Rajesh “Tony” Gupta and Gupta associate Salim Essa when he visited her home. Brown has rejected the claim, saying Tsotsi, who gave evidence under oath, must be lying because she is not.

However valuable the inquiry is, it has several shortcomings. Its aim of investigating allegations of state capture at Eskom, Transnet and Denel is a huge undertaking. About a month into the process the inquiry has not even scratched the surface of the Eskom allegations. And a host of witnesses is still lined up to give evidence, including members of the existing Eskom board, deputy minister of public enterprises Ben Martins, suspended Eskom FD Anoj Singh, Koko, the three Gupta brothers and Zuma’s son Duduzane, to name just a few.

So the Eskom process alone will take several months, not counting the break for the parliamentary recess.

A second weakness is that it is likely that a mountain of evidence consisting of allegations and denials will be collected without any conclusive findings of culpability being established. While Vanara is doing a valiant job with his probing questions, he is weakened by the absence of an investigating arm that could penetrate the veil of deceit and establish the facts.

If the findings of the inquiry do not result in prosecutions — desperately needed at this stage after a deluge of reports, leaked e-mails and newspaper articles related to the allegations — it will be as inconclusive as Madonsela’s report, which recommended that a judicial commission of inquiry be established to take the process further.

Furthermore, the inquisitorial process is flawed. After Vanara’s initial questioning, members of the committee are given a circumscribed opportunity to ask their own questions. This is helpful in unpicking issues Vanara has only skirted — but it can also divert attention from these issues. As politicians, the committee members like to hold forth, often consuming the time allocated to them by making lengthy statements. Also, the wide variety of matters being canvassed means there is often a lack of the dogged, pointed questioning that is more likely to yield results.