Mr Ajay Gupta apparently stated that tell us “where the funds are and inform the departments to provide the funds to you and if they refuse, we will deal with them. If you have a problem with any department, we will summon ministers here” (State of Capture, P: 98).
If you ever thought that the President Jacob Zuma would not have to carry hot water for somebody, than you are wrong. The man with as many alleged Counts of Corruption as there days over two years. That President suspended the last Report made by the Public Protector Hlaudi ‘Thuli’ Madonsela on the 14th October had to have some information that we’re damaging to the Executive, the African National Congress and his connects. The Connects that are family friends of the President, hired his family members and are making sure the Zuma family owns parts of the businesses of the Gupta families as well.
What is in the Report is staggering and damaging, but the connection between the Presidential Family and the Business Family of Gupta has been known. The scandals have already been in the wind, what this does is to amplify the suspicious and the proof of the alleged connection. More and more evidence proves that the Gupta could and understood themselves as King-Makers.
So the Finance Minister mystery of 2015 has more flesh on the bone and the reports from the Media, shows the reality we’re proof, but now there are through investigation some truth behind the questionable sackings made in the name of the Guptas!
Also the transactions, selling and agreement between Eskom, Optimum and Tegeta; as well as the banking operations, loans and pre-payment of the coal that been handled in suspicious ways between Eskom and the Gupta owned enterprises together with the selling of prime estate for the balances of profit to the Gupta family and Tegeta.
Here is the some takes from the report!
Finance Minister Woes:
“It is worrying that the the Gupta family was aware or may have been aware that Minister Nene was removed 6 weeks after Deputy Minister Jonas advised him that he had been allegedly offered a job by the Gupta family in exchange for extending favours to their family business” (…) “Equally worrying is that Minister Van Rooyen who replaced Minister Nene can be placed at the Saxonwold area on at least seven occasions including on the day before he was announced as Minister. This looks anomalous given that at the time he was a Member of Parliament based in Cape Town” (…) “Another worrying coincidence is that Minister Nene was removed after Mr Jonas advised him that he was going to be removed” (State of Capture, P:14-15).
“It appears that the Board at Eskom was improperly appointed and not in line with the spirit of the King III report on good Corporate Governance” (State of Capture, P:19).
On Eskom contracts:
“In light of the extensive financial analysis conducted, it appears that the sole purpose of awarding contracts to Tegeta to supply Arnot Power Station, was made solely for the purposes of funding Tegeta and enabling Tegeta to purchase all shares in OCH. The only entity which appears to have benefited from Eskom’s decisions with regards to OCM/OCH was Tegeta which appears to have been enabled to purchase all shares held in OCH. The favourable payment terms given to Tegeta (7 days) need to be examined further. OCM clearly had 30 day payment terms with Tegeta for the supply of coal to Arnot Power Station, and Eskom appears to have been aware of this. It also appears that Tegeta did not meet all its obligations to OCM as OCM was owed R 148,027,783.91 by Tegeta as at 31 July 2016 and an amount of R 289,842,376.00 as at 31 August 2016” (…) “The prepayment to Tegeta in the amount R659 558 079.00 (six hundred and fifty nine million five hundred and fifty eight thousand seventy nine rand) inclusive of VAT, may not be in line with the PFMA. This is evidenced in the BRP’s section 34 report in which it is stated that the prepayment was not used to fund OCM, it is further emphasised in the financial analysis which shows the prepayment was used entirely for the purposes of funding the purchase of all shares in OCH. On 11 April 2016, Tegeta informed the BRP’s and Glencore, who in turn informed the Loan Consortium that they were R600 million short, on the very same day, Eskom held an urgent Board Tender Committee meeting at 21:00 in the evening to approve the prepayment which was R659 558 079.00 (six hundred and fifty nine million five hundred and fifty eight thousand seventy nine rand and 38 cents) inclusive of VAT” (…) “Tegeta’s conduct and misrepresentations made to the public with regards to the prepayment and the actual reason for the prepayment could amount to fraud. Furthermore, the shareholders of Tegeta (Oakbay, Mabengela, Fidelity, Accurate and Elgasolve) pledged their shares to Eskom in respect of the prepayment and thus knew of the nature of the transaction” (…) “It appears that the conduct of Eskom was solely to the benefit of Tegeta, in that they forced the sale of OCH to Tegeta by stating that OCM could be sold alone. Thereafter, it appears, they have allowed Tegeta to proceed with the sale of a portion of OCH in the form of the Optimum Coal Terminal. This may constitute a contravention of section 50(2) of the PFMA in that they acted solely for the benefit of one company” (State of Capture, P: 20-21, 24).
“Optimum has for a consecutive period from 1 March 2012 to 31 May 2015 (the “Supply Period”), failed to supply and deliver to Eskom coal which meets the quality parameter contemplated by clause 3.4 of the First Addendum. The coal supplied and delivered to Eskom, amongst others, failed to comply with the sizing specifications, in that 20% to 45% of the coal supplied and delivered to Eskom by Optimum on a monthly basis, during the Supply Period, was smaller than 0.81mm. Despite this failure by Optimum, Eskom has, without prejudice to its rights in terms of clause 3.6 of the First Addendum, paid Optimum for such coal, without applying any adjustment or reduction to the payment, for Optimum’s failure to comply with the quality parameters, even though Eskom was entitled to adjust or reduce the payment accordingly.” (…) “Eskom has done a calculation of the reduction to the purchase price that Eskom was entitled to impose on the payment to Optimum for the coal supplied and delivered during the Supply Period, which failed to comply with the quality parameters in clause 3.4 of the First Addendum. The reduction Eskom is entitled to impose on the purchase price to Optimum for the Supply Period amounts to R2,176,530,611.99 (two billion one hundred seventy six million five hundred and thirty thousand six hundred and eleven rand and ninety nine cents).” (State of Capture, P: 148-149).
“We have come to learn from the Episodes, Interview and Articles that the Pre-Payment was approved by a committee of Eskom representatives at a meeting held at 21h00 on 11 April 2016. This meeting was held on the same day on which the request for the bridging finance was made to, and rejected by, the Consortium of Banks” (…) “We confirm that the Pre-Payment was not made to OCM and that OCM provides a 30-day payment term to Tegeta for the delivery of coal, on behalf of Tegeta, to the Arnot Power Station” (…) “Whilst we have delegated authority to make payments in the ordinary course of OCM’s trade and business to the management of the OCM, in terms of section 140(1)(b) of the Companies Act, the transfer of R90 000 000 does not fall within the scope of such delegation of authority and accordingly required our authorisation” (…) “However, for your benefit, we have prepared a reconciliation of the net amount (which includes the R 90 000 000 referred to aforesaid) that we believe is payable by Tegeta to OCM” (…) “In the circumstances, we are instructed to advise you that the amount of R 43 492 349 is to be transferred forthwith into the bank of account of OCM, failing which our clients may need to seek legal redress for the transfer of such amount” (State of Capture, P: 186-188).
“Oakbay/Tegeta, reiterated that they did not think they could settle the full amount. They wished to borrow a portion of the funds from the Loan Consortium. It was implied by Mr Ajay Gupta, during said meeting with the Loan Consortium, that they would find that Oakbay/Tegeta is the only party who would be capable of purchasing this entity as well as obtaining the necessary approvals from (Approvals from Department of Mineral Resource and Eskom). The Loan Consortium still maintained that they require settlement to the full amount of the loan” (…) “On 10 December 2015 the BRP’s returned to the Loan Consortium and stated that Oakbay/Tegeta had agreed to pay R2.15 billion and Glencore would pay the remaining amount for the loan” (…) “On 11th April 2016, a meeting was held between the Loan Consortium and the BRP’s. At the meeting the BRP’s informed the Loan Consortium that Tegeta informed them on the same day that they were short R600 million. The BRP’s stated that they were informed that offshore funds were no longer coming in for Tegeta and thus they were short R600 million. It was requested that the Loan Consortium either defer or loan the balance of R600 million. They also offered to cede their receivables from Arnot power station for a period of 3 months and 15 days. The Loan Consortium rejected all these offers and wanting their loan paid in full” (…) “On 14th April 2016, the Loan Consortium received the full amount of the loan which was owed to them (This means that both Tegeta and Glencore satisfied their full monetary obligations in terms of this agreement)” (State of Capture P: 264).
“An agreement was signed with Tegeta for the sale of all shares held by OCH. One of the requirements for the sale to go through was that Eskom would provide a release of the guarantee held against OCH” (…) “Tegeta asked for a concession of R600 million in terms of the purchase price of all shares in OCH. The BRP’s approached the Loan Consortium and they declined to accept a reduced amount for the loan” (…) “Mr Howa’s statements created the impression that Tegeta’s accounts were closed. However, account holder information confirms that at the time of the Tegeta deal, Tegeta held accounts with Nedbank and First National Bank. The accounts were active and were used for transaction purposes” (…) “On 04 March 2016 the Bank of Baroda issued an untitled letter to FirstRand Bank limited setting out that Tegeta was its client and that it would affect payment of R2.15 billion on certain conditions including obtaining by 30 March 2016” (…) “However, financial analysis confirms that the Bank of Baroda did not grant a loan to the value of R2.15 billion to Tegeta to purchase OCH. Tegeta raised the funds to pay the Loan Consortium from various sources. All funds were deposited via at least thirty-two (32) Electronic Funds Transfers (“EFTs”) between 09 December 2015 and 14 April 2016 into the Bank of Baroda. The Bank of Baroda then effected payment on behalf of Tegeta on 14 April 2016 into the Escrow Account held by Werksmans Incorporated” (State of Capture, P: 265, 272, 273).
Critical Connection between Gupta’s and the Companies:
“As mentioned above, there appears to be a clear line of communication between Mr Molefe, the Gupta family, and directors of Tegeta (Ms Ragavan and Mr Howa). These communications were made during a critical period and cannot be ignored” (State of Capture, P: 315).
“Further evidence of the apparent prejudice caused by Eskom, is that once the sale agreement was signed in December 2015, Tegeta appears to have easily managed to secure lucrative contracts to supply coal to Arnot Power Station with coal from OCM. This essentially increased the financial stability of OCM and decreased Tegeta’s obligations of PCF to OCM” (…) “Tegeta has entered into the sale of Optimum Coal Terminal and, according to Mr Ajay Gupta, stands to make a profit of approximately $150 million. It is unclear as to why Eskom has now allowed Tegeta to sell an asset which it previously deemed vital to subsidise OCM. Eskom had made its point clear in that OCM, Koornfontein and Optimum Coal Terminal needed to be kept together and cannot be sold separately” (State of Capture, P: 341).
Mr. Jonas meets Ajay Gupta:
“Mr Ajay Gupta informed Mr Jonas that they were going to make him Minister of Finance. Mr Jonas reported that he was shocked and irritated by the statement” (…) “Mr Ajay Gupta continued to speak. He disclosed names of “Comrades” they were working with and providing protection to. He mentioned that collectively as a family, they “made a lot of money from the State” and they wanted to increase the amount from R6 billion to R8 billion and that a bulk of their funds were held in Dubai” (…) “As Mr Jonas was walking towards the door, Mr A. Gupta made a further offer of R600 million to be deposited in an account of his choice. He asked if Mr Jonas had a bag which he could use to receive and carry R600,000 in cash immediately, which he declined” (…) “Immediately after the meeting, he informed former Minister of Finance Mr Nhlanhla Nene. I later also informed current Minister of Finance Mr Pravin Gordan and Mr Zweli Mkhize of the ANC about the offer” (State of Capture, P: 93-95).
“Having had regard to the wider allegations including the allegations that members of the Gupta family are involved in the appointment of Cabinet members, I reviewed the telephone records of Mr Van Rooyen to establish his whereabouts on 8 December 2015, the day Mr Nene was informed by President Zuma that he will be removed as Minister of Finance” (State of Capture, P: 104).
If this wasn’t interesting, the findings of the Public Protector of South Africa, than I don’t know, this shows what kind of game the Gupta Family has done together with the President Zuma, that he can be corrupted is for sure and that he doesn’t plan to respect his place and his position. Zuma has sold away and used the rich investors to gain riches and ownership into businesses that deals with Government Corporations that even steadily create wealth for the ones that deliver services back it. Like Eskom needs Coal to their Power Plants and that has been sold from companies that are even connected with Gupta, that are complied with the internal connection in Eskom and the reasoning for selling it and also opening up questionable transactions. That has been showed. So the Oakbay, Optimum, Tegeta are parts of the ownership of Gupta family and even some has ownership by the Zuma family. So the connections between that and the ability to appoint Eskom board, show the problems of the Executive taking too much power.
Also the questionable hiring and firing the Finance Minister in December 2015; that is clearer, but still the Executive and President Zuma have questions to ask as he has failed to deliver any sort of explanation, even to the Public Protector as they just got shuffled away like bad fish. Just let this entire report sink in! Peace.
South Africa Public Protector – ‘State of Capture’ Report No. 6 of 2016/17
South African citizens across the land are speaking out and taking action to express their dissatisfaction. The Nelson Mandela Foundation supports the demand to hold to account those responsible for compromising our democratic state and looting its resources.
Twenty years since Nelson Mandela signed South Africa’s Constitution into law and as the third anniversary of his passing approaches, it is painful for us at the Nelson Mandela Foundation to bear witness to the wheels coming off the vehicle of our state.
We have seen a weakening of critical institutions such as the South African Revenue Service, the National Prosecuting Authority and law enforcement bodies due to political meddling for private interests.
We are reaping the results of a political trend of personalising matters of state around a single individual leader. This in a constitutional democracy is to be deplored.
The ability and commitment of the Head of State to be a ‘constitutional being’, is one of the wheels of our state. The unanimous judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic in the matter of President Zuma and the use of state resources on a private residence was one such test. It is increasingly a national consensus that he has failed the test.
As this particular wheel rolls away, other critical institutions of state break off to follow it. The legislative, business, and public service sectors of the country are severely affected, compromising the ability of the state to serve the people. A battle now rages to keep SARS attached to the vehicle of state. What public discourse has described as ‘state capture’ by private and political interests is, we believe, a real threat to the Republic.
Another wheel is an accessible and well-functioning education system. Arguably this wheel has never been fully attached, but the failures of the last two decades threaten that it rolls away. Schools, in our view, particularly those in townships and rural areas, have largely been captured to political interests and have deteriorated to unimaginable levels. And now universities are being brought to their knees as they lurch from crisis to crisis while a semblance of normality is enforced under what are effectively states of emergency. This is not sustainable for any education system. The potential collapse of universities will damage our democracy to its core.
We call on the governing party to take the steps necessary to ensure that the vehicle of state be protected and placed in safe and capable hands. And we join the call for a national convention of stakeholders to begin to reimagine South Africa’s future beyond the unsustainable stresses of the moment.
Written Press Statement by the Nelson Mandela Foundation
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa, October 19, 2016 – Yesterday afternoon, van Der Merwe Associates (“VDMA”) notified the Minister of Finance’s attorneys of their client’s (the Oakbay Group of companies) (www.OakbayInvestments.co.za) intention to oppose the application issued under case number 80978/16 on 14 October 2016 – unless the Minister of Finance withdraws the application and tenders costs by this afternoon – Wednesday 19 October.
VDMA’s letter noted that the Minister of Finance’s affidavit implicated its clients in inappropriate and unlawful conduct. The affidavit also insinuated that VDMA’s clients would “expose the fiscus not only to loss of tax revenue but also put the burden of mining rehabilitation on the fiscus.” which VDMA noted was “uncalled for, malicious and nothing but vexatious.”
VDMA’s client disproved this earlier this week with evidence of the transfer of the Optimum Rehabilitation Trust Fund from Standard Bank to Bank of Baroda, which followed a request by Advocate Thuli Madonsela on 4 October 2016.
VDMA advised its client to oppose the Minister of Finance’s application, obtain all the necessary information from the relevant role players and ask for punitive costs order against dismissal of the application.
VDMA’s letter also stated that the Minister of Finance’s letter has been launched with the financial resources of the tax payer. VDMA’s client does not dispute that Minister of Finance’s is not by law compelled or obliged to intervene in the relationship between VDMA’s clients and the commercial banks. However, VDMA noted that to spend tax payers’ money in “a reckless and inappropriate manner” would constitute a contravention of the provisions of the Public Management Act, No.1 of 1999 – which would warrant “further action against those officials responsible for same.”
Furthermore, VDMA noted that:
“In order that we do not expose the fiscus unnecessarily to costs we propose that the application be withdrawn” – that the Minister of Finance’s application is withdrawn and that the Minister of Finance’s tenders VDMA’s client’s costs, before close of business on 19 October 2016.
VDMA reiterated that the purpose of its letter was to offer the Minister of Finance the opportunity to save taxpayers money.
VDMA also noted that its clients “would like” to put their formal version before court since the Minister of Finance has chosen that forum, so if the application is not withdrawn then “the matter must proceed and we will gladly do the necessary in order to restore the misrepresentation created by the papers.”
VDMA concluded its letter by noting that the Minister of Finance had made “defamatory and untrue remarks towards members of the Gupta Family by insinuating that they have been involved in inappropriate conduct” and that “their rights remain strictly reserved.”
This morning, attorneys for the Minister of Finance declined the offer to withdraw the application and tender COSTs.
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa, October 18, 2016 – Gupta Family lawyer, Van Der Merwe Associates, releases a statement on behalf of Mr. Ajay Gupta and Oakbay Investments (www.OakbayInvestments.co.za) in response to the affidavit from Pravin Gordhan.
To reiterate, we are delighted to have received this application. The truth always comes out in the end and we look forward to clearing our name in court.
“South African President Jacob Zuma has asked the courts to prevent the release of the findings of a probe into alleged political interference. Public Protector Thuli Madonsela is expected to announce her preliminary findings from an investigation into the Guptas, a controversial family with close ties to Zuma. They’re accused of using their relationship with the president to influence Cabinet appointments. Madonsela’s report can’t be released until the court has ruled on Zuma’s request. Many locals have expressed their disappointment with the president’s actions, saying the interdict is suspicious” (CCTV Africa, 2016)