Following failed attempts by Optimum to renegotiate and extend the coal supply agreement for the Hendrina Power Station at prices higher than the R150 per ton contractual agreement, Optimum later proposed a “compromise deal”. In terms of the proposed deal, the coal supply agreement to the Hendrina power station would be renegotiated at R300 per ton until 2018, and thereafter be extended to 2023 at R570 per ton.
In a letter dated 30 June 2015, Optimum said: “The base price for the first period and second period shall be escalated on each anniversary of the base date in accordance with a price adjustment factor which is to be calculated in accordance with an escalation table to be agreed between Eskom and Optimum.”
In another letter dated 17 September 2015, when Optimum was under business rescue, they proposed a price increase of R630 per ton and a coal supply agreement extension until 2023.
In that letter, the business rescue practitioners proposed a coal price increase of R443 per ton with effect from 1 October 2015 to 31 December 2018. Thereafter the price would increase to R630 per ton until 2023.
Eskom was not involved in the sale agreement between Glencore and Tegeta. All Eskom was interested in was to ensure that the new owners were aware that the coal prices, volumes and quality would not be renegotiated or compromised, and that the penalties imposed on Optimum would not be waivered. Nothing has changed since then even though Optimum Coal Mine is under new management.
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
The Economic Freedom Fighters notes that Jacob Zuma has paid back the money as directed by the Public Protector and the Constitutional Court. The EFF welcomes the indisputable fact that they money was paid because of the EFF’s insistence and persistence that the remedial actions of the Public Protector must be complied with.
It was through EFF’s efforts and relentless struggle that Zuma paid back the money on the undue benefits he received through the largely corrupt construction of his private residence in Nkandla. The EFF’s work on anti-corruption and undue benefits to politicians should be celebrated by all South Africans because South Africa’s fiscus has additional money from Mr. Zuma.
The anti-corruption work of the EFF should be celebrated because it took our Organisation 2 years to stop the Nkandla corruption, whilst others had failed for many years. The anti corruption work of the EFF should be celebrated because the ruling party continues to harbor and protect corruption.
South Africa should celebrate the fact that no one under constitutional democracy is above the law, and that even a parliamentary majority should exist within the laws that govern our society. The ANC has demonstrated throughout the Nkandla debacle that they do not respect Parliament and the Laws that govern our country and will do everything to undermine the Constitution.
The EFF defeated defenders of corruption, the ANC, which unanimously defended Zuma and protected him from being held individually accountable. Now that the money has been paid, the EFF will seek legal advise to establish whether Mr. Zuma should be held criminally liable for being a recipient of criminal proceeds, since he has accepted that he unduly benefited. The EFF will do this because in the immediate aftermath of the Public Protector report on Nkandla, we opened a criminal case against Mr. Zuma in Sunnyside police station and we still hold the view that there was a certain degree of criminality in his actions.
The EFF will also seek further clarity on the main source and principle that led to a Mutual Bank (VBS Mutual Bank), which is supposed to benefit ordinary people in Vhembe, granting a loan to Mr. Zuma. We will do so to prevent a possible situation where monies are illegally moved in protection of one individual, whom the Constitutional Court said should be individually and personally liable for the non- security upgrades.
The EFF will also write to the relevant authorities, particularly the National Prosecutions Authority and Special Investigations Unit to follow up on the progress made in recovering the money that was overpaid to suppliers in the construction of Mr. Zuma’s private residence.
At all times, the EFF will remain consistent in the war against corruption because corruption is slowly but surely destroying South African society and will reverse the gains of political freedom.
ISSUED BY THE ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS FANA MOKOENA (ACTING NATIONAL SPOKESPERSON) Contact: 081 724 4799
Facebook: Economic Freedom Fighters OR || Twitter: @EFFSouthAfrica
“JOHANNESBURG, 12 September 2016 – eNCA reporter Annika Larsen says a number of questions have been raised about VBS Mutual Bank, following its loan agreement with President Jacob Zuma. The bank has granted Zuma a R7,8m loan to pay back the Nkandla money” (eNCA, 2016)
“the President paid back R7.8m of R246m”. That kind of windfall is worth thinking about! That the President Jacob G. Zuma got of the hook to that extent. The Executive has gotten away easy even with all the scrutiny and all. The ANC and the National Assembly of South Africa hasn’t made him do enough for eating all the Tax-Money for his Nkandla Village Project. Peace.
“My residence in Nkandla has been paid for by the Zuma family. All the buildings and every room we use in that residence, was built by ourselves as family and not by government,” – President Zuma in the National Assembly in 2012 (De Wet, 2012).
His Exellency Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma, the current President of South Africa is under a hard storm and heavy rain. There been a long time waiting for the whole sky falling on his bear head, but that has not occurred.
First the basic parts of the Nkandla scandal and then the Finance Minister saga, as they are both important to the lost trust between the Parliament, big parts of the people and the President. There is many reasons for that, how he has used government funds to build a village in KwaZulu-Natal while being President and how the connection to rich business-men have tarnished the reputation as the hand-out seem to be given for more economic offers from the rich family of the Gupta’s. And that is worrying. Take a look!
The Nkandla homestead has made the Presidency to an issue. When the Department of Works in a report on the 2013 stated this:
“The appointed service providers have probably overcharged the State by inflating prices for the goods or services they rendered” (Department Public Works, P: 14, 2013). The DPW has undertaken an intern investigation and employees if they did any misconduct. The Security upgrades is set to be R 71,212,612.77 is at the time of the investigation by the Task Team. There have been no public funds in use for building and upgrading the presidential residence. The 5-ha state land have cost R 135,208,022.51 in departmental operation needs (SAPS and DOD personnel) (Department Public Works, P: 14, 2013). The Prestige project A for upgraded of the Presidential housing in KwaZulu-Natal according to the information from the DPW going to cost R 206,420,644.28 at the time in 28th December 2012, Jeremy Cronin Deputy Minister of the Public Works: “At the very least we need to make sure, without revealing the details, nature of security ……, we need to make sure as far as the tenders issued by Public Works, those were done clearly, there were no inexplicable overruns on costs” (Department Public Works, P: 17, 2013). That is just saying that there for three years ago! There is more!
The Public Proctor Said this in March 2014:
“There was no legal authority for the expenditure that was allegedly incurred by the state in respect of upgrades made at the President’s private residence in the name of security. Even if there was authority, the upgrades were excessive or “opulent” and transcended such authority” (Public Protector, P: 8, 2014).
The Same report also states this:
“President Zuma improperly benefited from the measures implemented in the name of security which include none security comforts the Visitors’ Centre, such as the swimming pool, amphitheatre, and the cattle kraal with culvert and chicken run. The private medical clinic at the family’s doorstep will also benefit the family forever. The acts and omissions that allowed this to happen constitute unlawful and improper conduct and maladministration” (…)”The conduct of the DPW leading to the failure to resolve the issue of items earmarked for the owner’s cost transparently, including the failure to report back on the swimming pool question after the 11 May 2011 meeting and the disappearance of the letter proposing an apportionment of costs, constitutes improper conduct and maladministration” (Public Protector, P: 57-58, 2014).
Do you wonder how the President Zuma could afford his own swimming pool and amphitheater?
“Funds were reallocated from the Inner City Regeneration and the Dolomite Risk Management Programmes of the DPW. Due to a lack of proper demand management and planning service delivery programmes of the DPW were negatively affected. This was in violation of section 237 of the Constitution and the Batho Pele White Paper and accordingly constitutes improper conduct and maladministration” (Public Protector, P: 62, 2014).
His Conduct of the Nkandla Affair:
“While his conduct could accordingly be legitimately construed as misleading Parliament, it appears to have been a bona fide mistake and I am accordingly unable to find that his conduct was in violation of paragraph 2 of the Executive Ethics Code. His statement is also consistent with those made by the Ministers of Public Works throughout the public outcry over the Nkandla expenditure. I am accordingly unable to find that his conduct was in violation of paragraph 2 of the Executive Ethics Code” (Public Protector, P: 64, 2014).
Here is what the Constitutional Court main parts of the verdict on Nkandla:
“The Court thus held that the National Assembly’s resolution, based on the Minister’s findings exonerating the President from liability, was inconsistent with the Constitution and unlawful. The Court also held that, by failing to comply with the Public Protector’s order, the President failed to “uphold, defend and respect” the Constitution because a duty to repay the money was specifically imposed on him through the Public Protector’s constitutional power” (…)”The Court ordered the National Treasury to determine the reasonable portion that the President must pay for the five non-security items listed above and report back to the Court within 60 days. The Court ordered the President to make payment 45 days thereafter. The President was also ordered to reprimand the Ministers involved in the expenditure at Nkandla. Finally, the Court declared that the remedial action taken by the Public Protector is binding. The President, Minister, and Speaker were ordered to pay the applicants’ costs, including those of two counsel” (News24, 2016).
Now that we have taken the major one and eaten the swollen corrupted minded on his homestead of KwaZulu-Natal and chopped up some beef. Stir-frying it and mixing it in a pot and then serving it, while it is still juicy. The certainty of the malpractice and reassure that a swimming-pool, a hen-house, a medical clinic, a amphitheater and other building projects still not considered safety features. That is good thing, if not I would get my house in order and get the same for my own concern with thieves in the neighborhood.
Well, now that I have watered that down and ready for some more rain. Let us get the story of how the Finance Minister all of sudden was not “good” enough for his post. It will be interesting.
This been said about Nene Nklanhla: “Mr. Nene has been since 2009 among respected people on the international scene that succeeded to another known and appreciated personality, Trevor Manuel (1996-2008), the second Minister of Finance of Nelson Mandela” (…)”His appointment could constitute a test for the “rand“, the South African currency, under pressure for months” (…)”He has inherited from a difficult situation with a decreasing growth revised at 2,1 % this year, far below 7 % required to reduce the chronic unemployment in a country the working population of which quickly increases” (La Redaction, 2015).
What he discussed in October 2015:
“Financial market volatility is high and capital inflows into emerging markets have slowed. This has raised borrowing rates for emerging markets globally” (…)”Honourable Members, bold action is needed. Restoring the momentum of growth requires policy certainty, confidence and trust, shared between government, business, workers and households” (…)”The absence of state capacity, that is, of the services and protections that people in rich countries take for granted, is one of the major causes of poverty and inequality around the world. Without effective states working with active and involved citizens, there is little chance for the growth that is needed to abolish global poverty” (Nhlanhla, 2015).
President’s Zuma Reason for sacking his minister and appointing another one:
“Mr Nene has done well since his appointment as Minister of Finance during a difficult economic climate” (…)”I have decided to appoint a Member of Parliament, Mr David Van Rooyen, as the new Minister of Finance. Mr Van Rooyen serves as a Whip of the Standing Committee on Finance and as Whip of the Economic Transformation Cluster” (Zuma, 2015).
Reaction to the Sacking:
“There seems to be no doubt that the President fired Nene because he would not allow Zuma and some of his cadres to spend money recklessly, for personal gain, and in so doing risk the integrity of the Treasury. Nene insisted on tight fiscal discipline in the face of a growing deficit and a worrying economic forecast” (…)”Nene did not bow to political pressure. He would not sanction the revision of a deal to buy new aircraft for South African Airways. The airline’s board chairperson, Dudu Myeni (who is also chair of the Jacob Zuma Foundation), was unhappy and appears to have used her personal relationship with the President to influence this decision” (…)”Nene was also cautious not to back a R1 trillion nuclear building deal, which Zuma was personally invested in” (IFAISA, 2015). EFF statement said this: “Zuma has appointed him because he knows that Van Rooyen will not stand up to him when he wants to do wrong things. Van Rooyen will be so eternally grateful, absolutely starstruck that anything Zuma asks for will go. Van Rooyen will be prepared to even approve further upgrades to Zuma’s Nkandla home by putting a private zoo that has exotic animals like domesticated tigers” (…)“The EFF has it on record that Nene has been moved because he refused illegal instructions from Zuma and his friends in both business and state owned enterprises. Nene refused to give South African Airways (SAA) guarantees and bailout when Zuma’s girlfriend and chairperson of the board requested it. Nene also refused to buy Zuma a new luxurious private jet and declined to grant Zuma’s staff exemptions from using expensive hotels and flying first class” (Mbuyiseni, 2015).
So to give a little timeline, Finance Minister Nene Nhanhla was fired on the 9th December 2015 and then on the same day Daniel Van Rooyen was hired on the 9th December 2015. With a backlash from NGOs and other parties on the unknown and nobody hired to be Finance Minister in South Africa. Hon. Van Rooyen a grand minister instead of former Finance Minister Nhanhla.
Zuma Adressed the Matter in statement on 12th December:
“Rumour: Mr Nene was redeployed because of the Airbus deal and Ms Myeni’s displeasure. Media reports that Mr Nhlanhla Nene is being redeployed because the SAA Board chairperson was unhappy with the National Treasury directives to SAA with regards to the Airbus deal or any other matter is a malicious fabrication. Mr Nene as has been explained, is South Africa’s candidate to head up the African Regional Centre of the New Development Bank/BRICS Bank” (Zuma, 2015).
Reaction to David Van Rooyen:
“There are many stakeholders, including the South African Institute of Professional Accountants (SAIPA), who are ready to engage with the Minister so that as a collective we can address these challenges given the short time left between now and the next National Budget announcement in February 2016” (…)”We would like to remind the Minister that because of our hugely disproportionate tax base – with only a fraction of citizens at the high earnings threshold – aggressively increasing taxes would be the equivalent of killing the goose that lays the golden egg” (…)”We acknowledge that the Minister wants to address equality by means of taxation but would caution that it is not taxation alone that will drive these imperatives – in the budget, we must spend within our means” (Ngawenya, 2015).
“The Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) says it is concerned by this week’s change in the post of minister of finance, as new minister David van Rooyen was sworn into the post yesterday” (…)“It is the JSE’s view that predictable and consistent leadership is needed if we are to address the recent downgrade of the country’s credit rating to near junk status, the patent economic slowdown, unsustainably high unemployment and rising inflation,” the stock exchange says in a statement” (…)“The JSE has worked closely with previous Finance Ministers and we will continue to work with the new Minister and the National Treasury to help South Africa realise the ambitions contained in the National Development Plan. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans in this regard.” (…)”In a brief address at his swearing in ceremony, at the Union Buildings in Pretoria yesterday, Van Rooyen said he would engage with National Treasury adding that it is important to “simplify issues of public finance to the public”. He also says he aims to “deal with myths around the ministry” and acknowledged that he is taking office at a time when emerging markets are facing difficult times” (Gilbert, 2015).
With the non-backing of Finance Minister of David Van Rooyen, President Zuma could not look at that and make more fuzz; he had to try to do something wise and get somebody who was more trusted then the controversial former Mayor. So after 4 days in office and getting his tag on the door of the Finance Ministry; David Van Rooyen was fired for being him and getting a too big office for his caliber and also taken away trustfulness of the South African economy. Therefore there came a third minister in to the same Post because President Zuma loves to reshuffle his cabinet.
Zuma appoints his third Finance Minister under a week:
“On the 9th of December 2015, I announced the appointment of a new Minister of Finance, Mr David van Rooyen” (…)”I have appointed Mr Pravin Gordhan, the current Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs as the new Minister of Finance” (…)”Minister Gordhan will return to a portfolio that he had held proficiently during the fourth administration” (…)”I have also decided to appoint the current Minister of Finance, Mr David van Rooyen, as the new Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs” (Zuma, 2015).
So when all of this was over, there been a aftermath of speculation and also of foundling from outside sources that have altered the judgement of President Zuma to let go of Nene Nhanhla from his position in the cabinet and usher somebody else in, while having the freedom to make deals without thinking about economic deficit or the inflation rate of the country, as the former Finance Minister would conclude with.
Trevor Manuel stated this in late December 2015:
“It cannot be correct that there is an outside hand (and not the ruling party) that knows more than Cabinet does about unfolding events” (…)”clear from comments by Cabinet colleagues in the wake of Mr Nene’s dismissal was that when cabinet adjourned at about 6pm on Wednesday, December 9, neither he nor Cabinet had any inkling of what was to follow that evening” (…)”The breach of trust was not the first, but perhaps the last, straw that broke the camel’s back in the careless handling of a pivotal portfolio” (…)”Luthuli House needs to hear loud and clear that this man has to be held to account and we need people, men and women of good standing and stature, to do that job” (News24.com, 2015).
Another handpicked Finance Minister it seems Mr. Jones Mcebisi:
“Members of the Gupta family offered me the position of Minister of Finance to replace then-Minister Nene,” he said in a statement on Wednesday.“I rejected this out of hand. The basis of my rejection of their offer is that it makes a mockery of our hard earned democracy, the trust of our people and no one apart from the President of the Republic appoints ministers.” (Claymore, 2016).
SMS Threat after the Revelation:
“Please keep your own counsel. Martyrdom is best left to Christ”. This is the SMS Jonas reportedly received from a prominent businessman as he was drafting the statement that has rocked the nation” (Skade, 2016).
There been trying to Impeach President Zuma, here is motion from the letter from the Democratic Alliance asking for the motion of Impeachment of the Executive, which happens to be Jacob Zuma, ANC leader and the President of Republic of South Africa; here it is:
How the voting went in the National Assembly:
“The motion, brought by the Democratic Alliance (DA) and fiercely backed by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and most small opposition parties, drew 143 votes in favour and 233 against” (ANA, 2016).
So the Impeachment from the Democratic Alliance went bad and the ANC voting for themselves and their leader. That failed sadly enough. So the situation is stagnating in one way as the National Assembly through the Power of ANC have kept him safe, legally, but with the ANC Veterans and Stalwarts speaking-up for him to resign. That happens together with ANC Branches distancing themselves from the Executive might help the cause to stop the man with no ethical or scruples coming to governmental funds to personal use. The man who can buy swimming-pool and amphitheater can easily use the funds to fund his family into businesses and use the governmental ties to gain economical gains in the country. Therefore he has close relationship to the businessmen of the Gupta Family and their businesses as their money is a great way of creating business for the grander Zuma Family. They can together make good money without too much work for themselves, but let the working-class pay for their wealth. So the aftermath of this is not over.
ANC have to sides now, the ones for Zuma, the other one for his resignation. As the ones stand for loyalty to the Executive and the new Elite of the South Africa, while the ones standing for his resignation is for ethical, accountable and good governance for the South African Government that is built on the principal regime of the Constitution that President Zuma could less care about; he is more busy spending time with his family at the fire-pool while using the air-condition system bought by the RSA tax-money. Peace.
ANA – ‘Zuma impeachment motion fails’ (05.04.2016) link: http://www.enca.com/south-africa/zuma-stays-opposition-loses-impeachment-vote
Claymore, Ezra – ‘BREAKING: Mcebisi Jonas admits Guptas offered him Nhlanhla Nene’s job’ (16.03.2016) link: http://www.thesouthafrican.com/breaking-mcebisi-jonas-admits-guptas-offered-him-nhlanhla-nenes-job/
Department Public Works – Task Team Investigation Report on Security Measures at Nkandla (19.12.2013), Republic of South Africa
De Wet, Phillip – ‘Zuma defends his Nkandla ‘family home’ in Parliament’ (12.11.2012) link: http://mg.co.za/article/2012-11-15-zuma-defends-his-nkandla-family-home
Gilbert, Paula – ‘JSE concerned about finance minister’s dismissal’ (11.12.2015) link: http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=148543
La Redaction – ‘Nhlanhla Nene: the very first «Black» South African Minister of Finance’ (27.05.2015) link: http://www.africatopsuccess.com/en/2014/05/27/nhlanhla-nene-the-very-first-black-south-african-minister-of-finance/
Mbuyiseni, Quintin Ndozi – ‘Nhlanhla Nene axed for saying no to illegal instructions – EFF’ (09.12.2015) link: http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politics/nhlanhla-nene-axed-for-saying-no-to-illegal-instru
Nhlanhla, Nene – ‘Medium Term Budget Policy Statement 2015 – Nhlanhla Nene’ (21.10.2015) link: http://www.politicsweb.co.za/documents/medium-term-budget-policy-statement-2015–nhlanhla
Ngwenya, Faith – ‘AN OPEN LETTER TO THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF FINANCE, DAVID VAN ROOYEN’ (11.12.2015) link: http://www.saipa.co.za/pressreleases/416648/open-letter-honourable-minister-finance-david-van-rooyen
News24 – ‘FULL JUDGMENT: Constitutional Court rules on Nkandla’ (31.03.2016) link: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/full-text-constitutional-court-rules-on-nkandla-public-protector-20160331
News24 – ‘Manuel hints at ‘outside hand’ in Nene dismissal’ (20.12.2015) link: http://www.sabreakingnews.co.za/2015/12/20/manuel-hints-at-outside-hand-in-nene-dismissal/
Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa (IFAISA) – ‘STATEMENT ON THE REMOVAL OF NHLANHLA NENE AS SOUTH AFRICA’S MINISTER OF FINANCE’ (10.12.2015) link: http://accountabilitynow.org.za/statement-on-the-removal-of-nhlanha-nene-as-south-africas-minister-of-finance/
Skade, Thandi – ‘Jonas received SMS threat ahead of Gupta revelation: report’ (17.03.2016) link: http://www.destinyconnect.com/2016/03/17/jonas-received-sms-threat-ahead-of-gupta-revelation-report/
The Public Protector – ‘Secure in Comfort’ Report no. 25 of 2013/14 (March 2014)
Zuma, Jacob – ‘Statement by President Jacob Zuma on the appointment of new Finance Minister’ (09.12.2015) link: http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/pebble.asp?relid=21217
Zuma, Jacob – ‘Presidency corrects malicious rumours about SAA, National Treasury and Ministerial deployments’ (12.12.2015) link: http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/pebble.asp?relid=21227
Zuma, Jacob – ‘Announcement of new Ministers of Finance and COGTA’ (13.12.2015) link: http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/pebble.asp?relid=21231