The day Roy had enough was when he was named and shamed
IN A moment of madness in my reckless 30s, I was persuaded to buy a share in a racehorse. It was a teeny-weeny investment in which I barely owned the horse’s left hoof, which hardly qualified me for a say in its naming rights.
That’s somewhat unlike highrollers like Durban security tycoon and close friend of the president, Roy Chockalingam Moodley, who is reputed to spend more than
R30 million a year to stable the more than 100 thoroughbreds he owns. Not only does he own them, but he takes personal pride in naming all his horses after himself.
Look through the official race card on any given day and you can bet your bottom dollar you’ll find several horses called Roy’s something or other.
And there’s one for every occasion. When he feels like flaunting his wealth, he runs Roy’s Rolls-Royce or Roy’s Cadillac.
If he’s pottering around his garden, he freshens up Roy’s Hollyhocks. If music takes his fancy, he brings out Roy’s Trombone or Roy’s Bugle. When it’s prayer time, he reaches out for Roy’s Amazing Ash. And he’s even gone for names like Roy’s Donkey and Roy’s Baboon.
All appeared to be going hunkydory for the businessman until he bought a colt he ominously named Roy Had Enough.
That’s the day someone showed him a copy of investigative journalist Jacques Pauw’s sensational book, The President’s Keepers, which fingered him in the biggest political exposé to hit SA since the Info Scandal.
I’m not sure whether he read the actual book or the pirated online copy, but when he came across the damning allegation that he had paid President Zuma a R1ma-month salary during his first few months in office, Roy decided he had indeed had enough.
So he took to the stage last week to publicly denounce Pauw’s book as a sham and accuse the author of using his good name and the names of Zuma and the notorious Guptas to pique the interest of South Africans.
How this whole tamasha (commotion) will end is anybody’s guess, but I reckon Roy probably has a plausible explanation in mind. Who knows? It could have been a typographical error.
What about the possibility that a security guard in Roy’s employ, with the same name as the president, was the one who got paid?
Besides, when tycoons like
Roy have so many millions lying around, the chances of him mislaying a black bag or two on the way to the bank are not beyond the realm of possibility.
And if the presidential blue light convoy happened to be driving past and Zuma perchance caught sight of the mislaid bag on the pavement, the time-honoured principle of “finders keepers” must apply.
Was there perhaps a hidden meaning behind the title of Pauw’s controversial best-seller?