Turning a deaf ear to state capture allegations
In the third in a series that outlines the evidence presented to date at the commission of inquiry into state capture, we look at the alleged interference from law enforcement agencies and politicians, effected on those who attempted to report
WHEN the signs of alleged Gupta capture within government departments became clearer, and some individuals tried to get law enforcement agencies to take action, their efforts were either dismissed, or they were frustrated with inaction or manipulated into admission of defeat. No help was forthcoming, nor the support they needed to advance their cases and secure prosecution and conviction. This is what some of the early witnesses who appeared before the commission of inquiry into state capture have revealed.
On the other hand, banking institutions that started to act by closing bank accounts of Gupta-associated companies were frustrated by politicians who questioned their agenda, and according to some of them, even threatened their business licenses, in an effort to get them to reverse the decision.
Last month former ANC MP Vytjie Mentor was the first witness to be cross-examined over her allegations in August 2018 that a senior Hawks advocate, Mandla Mtolo, persuaded her to remove the name of former president Jacob Zuma from her sworn statement, which alleges a 2010 offer made to her by Ajay Gupta for a ministerial position. Mentor’s evidence to the commission was that Zuma was in the Gupta home in Saxonwold, Johannesburg, on the day that she met with Gupta.
Mtolo’s answering affidavit denied Mentor’s allegations, and during the cross-examination, his lawyer Vincent Siwela argued that if her version of events were true, Mentor would have disclosed this to former public protector Thuli Madonsela during an interview that formed part of the latter’s
investigation into alleged state capture in 2016. Mentor, in response, told Siwela that the interview was constrained to the events of the meeting with Gupta, and did not question the steps she took beyond that. Mentor is the only witness to be cross-examined so far.
Another witness who expressed similar frustration with the Hawks was former deputy finance minister Mcebisi Jonas, who implicated the former head of the agency, Berning Ntlemeza, in trying to “kill” his case by allegedly imposing a doctored statement for him to sign as his evidence. Major-general Zinhle Mnonopi, who was implicated as Ntlemeza’s accomplice in the misconduct, was suspended in the weeks following Jonas’ testimony. Mnonopi applied to the commission for permission to cross-examine Jonas, but withdrew it soon after she was suspended pending an investigation into the claims made by Jonas.
The pattern of allegations against the Hawks was completed by former government spokesperson Themba Maseko at the end of August last year, who said his own case never received the attention it deserved. Maseko had met with a Captain Govender, who had sent him a message, describing himself as a Hawks official. He told Maseko there was already an investigation by the Hawks into state capture, and hence they needed an affidavit from him.
Maseko complied with the request, meeting Govender in Sandton in 2017 to discuss the allegations he had made, now in the public domain after he shared them on social media. In a follow-up call, Govender told him that a supplementary statement had become necessary following a discussion of his matter with the rest of the investigators. The second one was signed in August and had been requested by an official named Captain Masilela.
In April 2018, Maseko received a call from the Hawks, during which he was told the case had been handed over to a new team of investigators, and that Ajay Gupta and former president Jacob Zuma would possibly be charged, with the help of the evidence he had given. “The impression I got was that they were ready to proceed,” said Maseko. They never did.
In September 2018, the commission heard evidence from some of the major South African banks, who furnished similar accounts of interference by ANC leadership and some Cabinet members, following their decision to close the accounts of Gupta-linked companies.
Standard Bank, First National Bank (FNB), Nedbank and Absa all told of invitations to meet with top ANC officials at Luthuli House to explain the rationale behind the closures. It was Nazeem Howa, the former CEO of Oakbay Investments, who called in the favour from the ANC to intervene when Standard Bank first sent notice in 2016 of its intent to close down Oakbay’s accounts, Ian Sinton, chief counsel for the bank, told the commission.
The job security of over 6 000 people was used as leverage, but the banks did not reconsider their position.
Former Firstrand CEO Johann Burger told the commission he refused to meet with the ANC – on the basis that there was no way FNB would discuss confidential client matters with them. Although the other banks did honour the meeting invites, they too refused to discuss the reasons for closing the accounts, on the basis of confidentiality. Representing the ANC at these meetings were then secretary-general Gwede Mantashe, his deputy Jessie Duarte and NEC member Enoch Godongwana.
When his turn came, Mantashe told the commission in November that the matter of the account closures was discussed within party structures, before a decision was made to invite the affected banks to meet with them. “The point was to hear the banks’ perspective.”
When it appeared that the ANC had failed in its task to persuade the banks to reverse their decision, an inter-ministerial task team, apparently headed by former mineral resources minister Mosebenzi Zwane, also met with representatives from the banks. Theirs, Zwane told the banks, was a mandate from the national executive, and they were tasked with questioning the reasons for the account closures, and to seek solutions in light of the potential threat to the jobs of Gupta employees. To this forum, as they did with the ANC, the banks refused to disclose details, citing confidentiality regulations.