A Zimbabwean diamond field said to be the largest in the world is being mined by companies staffed by Robert Mugabe's police and military chiefs who may use the proceeds as a "war chest" to crack down on opponents, says an anti-corruption watchdog. A study by Global Witness marks the first comprehensive attempt to pin down ownership of two companies awarded the rights to mine at Marange since concessions were awarded by the mining ministry four years ago.
It reveals that one company has, among its directors, members of Mugabe's security services who have previously been implicated in vote-rigging and political violence in the run-up to elections. The other is part-owned by companies registered in tax havens such as Hong Kong and the British Virgin Islands, making its beneficiaries virtually impossible to identify. Tendai Biti, the finance minister and a member of the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe's fractious coalition government, has repeatedly complained about the disappearance of diamond revenues, which it was hoped might help to revive the shattered economy.
Global Witness claims that instead, the security forces could be channelling the profits into a "war chest" that could be used to act against dissenting voices in elections expected this year or next. Marange diamond fields made international headlines in 2008 when they were seized by the Zimbabwean military. Last year, Global Witness claimed locals were being forced to work for soldiers, then smuggle the stones over the Mozambican border. After widespread outrage, the fields were divided up among favoured companies. Leading the pack were the Chinese, whose Exim bank provided the Zimbabweans with a $98-million loan to rebuild their defence college in return for a concession.
Anjin, a joint venture between a Chinese and a Zimbabwean company, intends to produce two million carats a month. According to Global Witness, Anjin has on its board a number of people close to Mugabe. Its company secretary is listed as being Charles Tarumbwa, a brigadier on the EU sanctions list for his role in terror campaigns.
The second company, Mbada, is run by Robert Mhlanga, a former air vice-marshal in the Zimbabwean air force. It is linked to a network of companies based in Mauritius, Dubai, the British Virgin Islands and Hong Kong. Biti said the results of the study did not surprise him. "I know the money [from the sale of Marange diamonds] is being stolen, but I don't have any proof of how it is being stolen," he said. Neither Anjin nor Mbada could be reached for comment.
Source: Times Live
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Let justice, fairness be our guide
We should make sure that even if the ANC does not give President Jacob Zuma a second party term in December, the party should under no circumstances be allowed to cut short his presidency. As torturous as this might be, principle should trounce passions. In the past week, the demise of ANC Youth League president Julius Malema was widely celebrated. When ANC bigwig Cyril Ramaphosa - who chairs the party's national disciplinary committee of appeals - confirmed the youth leader's guilt and sentence on Saturday, there was a collective sigh of relief from Constantia to Khutsong. Finally, the Mario Balotelli of our politics had been red-carded. One might argue that this was rightly so.
Like Mbeki, Malema has done a lot of harm to the country. It is therefore easy to understand why we are all inclined to ululate as he is blindfolded and led to the raised platform where he will hang until his neck breaks. Except for the fact that he swears by the skull and crossbones that symbolise the venerable 75-year-old South African institution called Orlando Pirates, Malema has no saving graces.
I had hoped against all hope that the honourable men and women on the ANC's appeals committee would rise above self-interest politics and allow their integrity to dictate their decision-making. At this juncture, as the comrades are wont to say, we should pause and ask ourselves if it is right and proper that Malema should be executed in this fashion for the sake of political expediency.
No doubt the country will be a much better place without Malema on newspaper front pages and at the top of broadcast bulletins every other day. His divisive verbosity will not be missed. Investors will nod. Ministers and policy-makers will no longer have to waste their breath explaining that nationalisation is not official policy but one young man's thoughts in the bath. Minority interest groups will have to find a new bogey. Farmers will not see Robert Mugabe on their doorsteps. The cantankerous chief from Ulundi will be less concerned that his grandchildren will be recruited into the ANC against his will. Hellen Zille and Lindiwe Mazibuko will be subjected to fewer insults. Mazibuko can make her tea and Zille can inject herself with botox with gay abandon. South Africans will not be subjected to to the sewer rhetoric that Malema had reduced political discourse to. Most crucially, Zuma's re-election strategists will sleep easier and plan better for the ANC's Mangaung elective conference. (That is all, of course, assuming that Malema is finished, which is far from conclusive at this point. Like Mgqumeni of Nquthu, Malema might rise from the dead and wow the masses again.)
But is the imminent execution right and proper? Is the elevation of political short-term gain above principle the right thing for a country that is trying to deepen and entrench a democratic culture? This lowly newspaperman thinks not.
Let's just take a cold look at the sins Malema is said to have committed against the ANC. As leader of the ANC Youth League, he led the charge against Botswana's governing party. He called for regime change in that country, labelling Ian Khama's government a puppet of Western imperialism. He did not call for a military overthrow of the government, but rather the unification of opposition forces for the democratic removal of the Botswana Democratic Party. By the way the "D" part of the party's name is almost as appropriate as North Korea's depiction of itself as democratic.
Now many in the ANC - including the secretary-general, members of the national executive and officials of other party structures - have pronounced themselves on foreign policy issues. Be it Zimbabwe, Israel, Swaziland or Tibet, we have heard differing views from individual members of the ANC leadership. Having read the national disciplinary committee's reasoning on the matter, I am still none the wiser as to why Botswana should be a holy cow, other than the fact that it has more cattle than human beings in its sovereign territory.
Malema's other serious offence was the unfavourable comparison of Zuma's leadership to that of Mbeki. Now what, pray thee, is the crime comparing the talents of the country's leaders? How are we to grow if we do not publicly share our views on the respective qualities of those who lead us? It would be a travesty if we were to create a culture where South Africans - and ANC functionaries in particular - were not able to evaluate the contribution of leaders to the development of our republic and our world. There were many other pots, spoons and saucers (euphimistically known as charges) thrown at Malema during a process in which the kangaroo court label can be deemed apt. It is a process that, as much as we may resent Malema, we will live to regret.
Rather than rushing to execute Malema, the ANC and the country should take some lessons from his rise and fall. In the rise of Malema, we should take care not to empower a demagogue to occupy centre stage in our discourse. Malema the hero and Malema the ogre were not the creation of the media and the South African public. The ANC gave birth to him, fattened him and unleashed him on an unsuspecting nation. It suited Zuma and his leadership to have an uncontrollable bloodhound to take on their opponents and external opponents. He was empowered to be the Malema that he was. The more despicable he became the more useful he was. Not once did the ANC give a care about the negative effect he was having on our body politic or the damage he was doing to our international standing. In its centenary introspections, the ANC should give careful thought to how it creates and nurtures monsters such as Malema.
Those outside the ANC should also think about how we deal with the monsters that the governing party creates. Do we empower the monsters by demonising and fearing them? Do we in the media give undue attention to the monsters that the ANC or any other societal force creates? Do we have a choice? Having done so, the ANC and the country should think seriously about the place of principle in our public discourse and the conduct of our politics.
We should make sure that no matter how much we resent, hate and fear an individual, these emotions should never compromise our commitment to justice and fairness.
Principle should always be our guide. Yesterday it was Mbeki. Today it is Malema. Tomorrow? ...
Written by Mondli Makhanya, editor-in-chief of Avusa Media newspapers
Source: The Sowetan
Monday, February 13, 2012
Councillor removed for selling land
AN ANC ward councillor found guilty of illegally selling council property has been removed from his position in Johannesburg with immediate effect, the party says "He has embarrassed the party and now that he has faced disciplinary procedures at council level and been removed from the council, he will now go to a regional disciplinary council," said spokesman Jolidee Matongo.
The decision to remove Godfrey Thabo Nkhasi, councillor for Ward 28, was made by local government and housing MEC Humphrey Mmemezi and was welcomed by the ANC in the Johannesburg region. "The MEC has instructed that a criminal case be opened which will happen in the course of the week," Matongo said.
In 2008, Nkhasi sold land in Diepkloof, Soweto, to the Together As One Church of Christ for R15,000. After questioning the validity of receipts and letters purportedly confirming the land transfer, the church received an anonymous call warning it to stop building on the land or someone would be killed. Nkhasi will face the ANC Johannesburg region disciplinary committee from February 15 to 17.
In the meantime, councillors Neo Mashele and Paul Masemola would act for the ward.
Source: The Sowetan
The decision to remove Godfrey Thabo Nkhasi, councillor for Ward 28, was made by local government and housing MEC Humphrey Mmemezi and was welcomed by the ANC in the Johannesburg region. "The MEC has instructed that a criminal case be opened which will happen in the course of the week," Matongo said.
In 2008, Nkhasi sold land in Diepkloof, Soweto, to the Together As One Church of Christ for R15,000. After questioning the validity of receipts and letters purportedly confirming the land transfer, the church received an anonymous call warning it to stop building on the land or someone would be killed. Nkhasi will face the ANC Johannesburg region disciplinary committee from February 15 to 17.
In the meantime, councillors Neo Mashele and Paul Masemola would act for the ward.
Source: The Sowetan
M&G fights to protect its sources from Bosasa
The Mail & Guardian is in court this week to protect its sources in a story that alleged large-scale corruption and to fight a defamation case brought against it and a former employee by facilities management company Bosasa. The case calls on the court to balance the right of discovery -- which enables parties in a civil case to gather pertinent information -- with the right to protect sources. It is the first case of this kind under the new Constitution.
Bosasa has been the recipient of a number of multi-million rand tenders since 2006 and in 2009, the M&G published a series of stories, which alleged that it had gained exclusive access to tender documents before they were publically advertised. The company is asking for an order to have the M&G remove an article from its website and for an apology from the newspaper. The article, written on May 22 2009 by investigative journalist Adriaan Basson, states that Bosasa was engaged in a corrupt practices connected to the department of correctional services.
It is also asking for an order to compel the M&G to reveal its sources for a series of stories on the company. As part of pretrial proceedings, Bosasa asked Basson and the M&G to hand over information it deemed pertinent to the case. This forms part of discovery procedures, whereby both parties ask for additional information with which to build their case.
However, Bosasa was not satisfied with the information the M&G provided, which included sections that had been blacked out to protect the identity of its sources. Bosasa is asking that the M&G turn over notes and recordings of interviews with sources, source documentation, unpublished drafts of stories relating to Bosasa, and internal emails between Basson, colleagues who assisted with the stories and their editors.
The newspaper has declined to provide some of the information sought, including un-redacted versions of some documents, some notes from interviews with sources, and internal communications. In its heads of argument, Bosasa said confidential sources can be used to promote hidden agendas, disseminate propaganda or disguise lazy reporting. Jeremy Gauntlett, acting for Bosasa, said that the media is asking for "press exceptionalism" and that it could not simply flash its media card and claim an absolute privilege to protect the identity of its sources. "None of us have an absolute right to information nor do the respondents [M&G and Basson] have absolute right to immunity of disclosure of information they've chosen to rely upon," he said.
But Wim Trengove, acting for the M&G and Basson, said forcing journalists to reveal their sources would have a chilling effect on uncovering corruption. He said journalists internationally regard offers to protect a source's identity as "sacrosanct", not only as a matter of honour but also because protecting of sources is so important to their trade. "Valuable resources of information that come from high places would be very significantly diminished if journalists were not able to give sources the same assurances that policemen and detectives give their informants, that their identity will be protected," said Trengove. The harm caused would be to the public interest, and would outweigh any commercial interest Bosasa may have in this case, he said.
The freedom of expression NGO Section 16 and the South African National Editors' Forum (Sanef) have applied to be admitted to the proceedings as amicus curiae or friends of the court. Kate Hofmeyr, representing Section 16 and Sanef, said the media should not be compelled to give up its sources at such an early stage as there was no guarantee that the case will proceed to trial. "We all know what happens in the preparation to trial. There's a prospect of settlement. There's also a prospect of aspects of the matter being withdrawn. Those we don't know with any certainty," she said, adding that compelling the media to give up its sources would have a material, negative and chilling impact on the free flow of information to the public.
M&G editor-in-chief Nic Dawes said the newspaper's ability to protect the identity of confidential sources is crucial to its ability to expose corruption and other serious wrongdoing. "That makes this case a particularly important test of the constitutional protections afforded the press," he said. He added: "Bosasa's attempt to discover who our sources are has nothing to do with their rights and everything to do with their efforts to staunch the flow of damaging news about the way they do business."
The case continues on Tuesday.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Bosasa has been the recipient of a number of multi-million rand tenders since 2006 and in 2009, the M&G published a series of stories, which alleged that it had gained exclusive access to tender documents before they were publically advertised. The company is asking for an order to have the M&G remove an article from its website and for an apology from the newspaper. The article, written on May 22 2009 by investigative journalist Adriaan Basson, states that Bosasa was engaged in a corrupt practices connected to the department of correctional services.
It is also asking for an order to compel the M&G to reveal its sources for a series of stories on the company. As part of pretrial proceedings, Bosasa asked Basson and the M&G to hand over information it deemed pertinent to the case. This forms part of discovery procedures, whereby both parties ask for additional information with which to build their case.
However, Bosasa was not satisfied with the information the M&G provided, which included sections that had been blacked out to protect the identity of its sources. Bosasa is asking that the M&G turn over notes and recordings of interviews with sources, source documentation, unpublished drafts of stories relating to Bosasa, and internal emails between Basson, colleagues who assisted with the stories and their editors.
The newspaper has declined to provide some of the information sought, including un-redacted versions of some documents, some notes from interviews with sources, and internal communications. In its heads of argument, Bosasa said confidential sources can be used to promote hidden agendas, disseminate propaganda or disguise lazy reporting. Jeremy Gauntlett, acting for Bosasa, said that the media is asking for "press exceptionalism" and that it could not simply flash its media card and claim an absolute privilege to protect the identity of its sources. "None of us have an absolute right to information nor do the respondents [M&G and Basson] have absolute right to immunity of disclosure of information they've chosen to rely upon," he said.
But Wim Trengove, acting for the M&G and Basson, said forcing journalists to reveal their sources would have a chilling effect on uncovering corruption. He said journalists internationally regard offers to protect a source's identity as "sacrosanct", not only as a matter of honour but also because protecting of sources is so important to their trade. "Valuable resources of information that come from high places would be very significantly diminished if journalists were not able to give sources the same assurances that policemen and detectives give their informants, that their identity will be protected," said Trengove. The harm caused would be to the public interest, and would outweigh any commercial interest Bosasa may have in this case, he said.
The freedom of expression NGO Section 16 and the South African National Editors' Forum (Sanef) have applied to be admitted to the proceedings as amicus curiae or friends of the court. Kate Hofmeyr, representing Section 16 and Sanef, said the media should not be compelled to give up its sources at such an early stage as there was no guarantee that the case will proceed to trial. "We all know what happens in the preparation to trial. There's a prospect of settlement. There's also a prospect of aspects of the matter being withdrawn. Those we don't know with any certainty," she said, adding that compelling the media to give up its sources would have a material, negative and chilling impact on the free flow of information to the public.
M&G editor-in-chief Nic Dawes said the newspaper's ability to protect the identity of confidential sources is crucial to its ability to expose corruption and other serious wrongdoing. "That makes this case a particularly important test of the constitutional protections afforded the press," he said. He added: "Bosasa's attempt to discover who our sources are has nothing to do with their rights and everything to do with their efforts to staunch the flow of damaging news about the way they do business."
The case continues on Tuesday.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Prince Mashele on the ANC's moral corruption
Hot on the heels of Limpopo’s financial implosion comes eThekwini, the municipality that looks set to earn the dubious honour of being this country’s most corrupt. Political analyst Prince Mashele says South Africa is easily disposed to corruption because of the ANC’s political structures which encourage patronage and a quid pro quo reward system. This, together with gross materialism and rampant greed, he says, is creating a deadly cocktail of moral degradation.
Sicelo Shiceka gave local governments five years to clean up their acts when he launched operation Clean Audit 2014 to Parliament in 2009. Perhaps the then minister of cooperative governance and traditional affairs was a little optimistic, but God knows the good minister did his best when it came to corruption. Shiceka, of course, bit the dust despite his singing “What a friend I have in Zuma”, and it comes as no surprise that operation Clean Audit had as much chance of success as the good minister did of sticking to a budget.
As the Auditor General’s municipal horror show came to town and the debacle that was most municipal audits were revealed, the writing was on the wall. Then Limpopo imploded, so it shouldn’t have come as a surprise when the Manase report into corruption at the eThekwini municipality revealed the worst. The forensic audit showed that 10 councillors and 123 municipal officials were engaged in business dealings with the city, in what is said to be one of the most extensive local government graft networks detailed yet.
Political analyst Prince Mashele says that the very structures and morality of the ANC has set up this system, where party politics and economic favours go hand-in-hand. “The ANC is the ruling party at a local, provincial and national level, so if you are a member of the ANC and you hope to occupy a position of power in the state, you know that there is a 90% chance of succeeding if you go through your structures,” says Mashele. If you want to be a municipal councillor, you simply work through the internal structures of the ANC until you realise your goal, he says.
“Anybody who wants a position in the state needs to mobilise with his or her delegates internally,” explains Mashele, who says that this structure has given rise to the corruption of the entire organisation at all levels. “Human beings are naturally acquisitive – they want to better their lot,” he says, adding that lobbying and jostling for power in local structures creates an obligation in ANC politicians to reward those who have helped people get to their desired station in the party, and in government. “As a result of this, the politics of the ANC have been subverted into the politics of material possession,” says Mashele.
The head of the Centre for Politics and Research, Mashele says this obligation by ANC politicians to reward patronage creates a quid pro quo kind of mentality that is pervasive in the ruling party. “I have tested this informally with folks from different municipalities, and if there is a municipality run by the ANC and you are a local businessman who is known to oppose the ANC, it doesn’t matter if you are black or talented, you will never get a tender in that municipality. If you examine the folks who get tenders in municipalities, these are people who are a part of the reward system within the politics of the ANC and the politics of the municipality.”
Mashele says this patronage is played out from a local level, right to the very top. “Look at Limpopo at a provincial level where the premier centralised procurement, which only meant that essentially the premier centralised the distribution of patronage. He is a businessman who proudly says: 'I am a business doing business with government.’ There is a whole ring of business people around the premier who always get tenders. It is two-way traffic. If you were to check who contributes to Chancellor House and what tenders these people get, you would be shocked. That is why the ANC will never allow people to know who contributes to Chancellor House, because the dynamic that I am talking about would become apparent,” he says.
The bad news, according to Mashele, is that the system of nepotism and corruption embedded in government will not change until there’s a viable opposition or a surge of political activity in civil society. “Until there is potential for the ruling party to be booted out of power, these guys are going to wallow in a comfortable sense of complacency,” says Mashele, who believes the DA won’t be able to make inroads into the ANC’s support base quickly enough.
“If you take current trends and look at the weakening of the ANC and the rise of the DA, it would – in my view – take another three or four elections before the DA becomes a threat that would topple the ANC. The ANC has been declining since Jacob Zuma came to power, but not significantly enough,” says Mashele, who adds that the hope for the DA would be a massive crisis within the ruling party which could quicken the pace at which the opposition party grows its constituency.
“And the ANC will not just sit back and do nothing, because there are many people in the ANC who are aware of the dangers in the party if the current trajectory were to continue,” says Mashele. He adds: “In fact the danger of materialism and corruption is highlighted in political report after political report, but we have not yet seen the ANC take the political courage to act seriously, especially when it involves people at the top like the president.”
Mashele says the ANC’s lack of political will and courage creates a real danger of a low road scenario for South Africa – one where materialism and corruption create the collapse of morality. He says the role models that youths aspire to in townships and villages today are tenderpreneurs who don’t achieve wealth through academia or hard work, but by political connections and party favours.
“Once you have this situation in society, you’re creating a culture without even realising it. You are saying to younger generations: ‘Don’t go to school and work hard and become educated, and aspire to be a professor, an academic, a teacher or a doctor. There is a shorter way to materialism’. When this thing happens, society is being destroyed. How do you construct a productive society, a society that emphasises the importance of merit, a society that is caring, when materialism as graphic and grotesque as it is today, abounds?” asks Mashele.
The political analyst says when masses lose the will to learn and be productive, and there’s huge inequality between the elite and everyone else, the state inevitably veers to authoritarianism. “The outcome of this system is clear, and there’s evidence of it all over the world. The outcome is a Nigeria where you have a small strata of the super wealthy, making their money through all sorts of underhand dealings. Around them is a sea of poverty, because the economy has literally collapsed. The poor are cursed, the economy becomes informalised, nothing is formal, corruption becomes normalised, morality is thrown out of the window, there is a decay of public institutions and no one has confidence in the state. It is a cocktail for disaster,” says Mashele.
The state then threatens those who want to uncover the rot, and anyone who poses a threat to those who possess power become counter-revolutionaries. “We must expect the worst, and the worst is the deepening of corruption. We have corruption now, but we haven’t seen anything yet. We must expect the worst until ordinary citizens reach that stage when they realise that enough is enough,” he says. That, says Mashele, is when ordinary people will join with civil society to demand change.
Source: Daily Maverick (By MANDY DE WAAL)
Sicelo Shiceka gave local governments five years to clean up their acts when he launched operation Clean Audit 2014 to Parliament in 2009. Perhaps the then minister of cooperative governance and traditional affairs was a little optimistic, but God knows the good minister did his best when it came to corruption. Shiceka, of course, bit the dust despite his singing “What a friend I have in Zuma”, and it comes as no surprise that operation Clean Audit had as much chance of success as the good minister did of sticking to a budget.
As the Auditor General’s municipal horror show came to town and the debacle that was most municipal audits were revealed, the writing was on the wall. Then Limpopo imploded, so it shouldn’t have come as a surprise when the Manase report into corruption at the eThekwini municipality revealed the worst. The forensic audit showed that 10 councillors and 123 municipal officials were engaged in business dealings with the city, in what is said to be one of the most extensive local government graft networks detailed yet.
Political analyst Prince Mashele says that the very structures and morality of the ANC has set up this system, where party politics and economic favours go hand-in-hand. “The ANC is the ruling party at a local, provincial and national level, so if you are a member of the ANC and you hope to occupy a position of power in the state, you know that there is a 90% chance of succeeding if you go through your structures,” says Mashele. If you want to be a municipal councillor, you simply work through the internal structures of the ANC until you realise your goal, he says.
“Anybody who wants a position in the state needs to mobilise with his or her delegates internally,” explains Mashele, who says that this structure has given rise to the corruption of the entire organisation at all levels. “Human beings are naturally acquisitive – they want to better their lot,” he says, adding that lobbying and jostling for power in local structures creates an obligation in ANC politicians to reward those who have helped people get to their desired station in the party, and in government. “As a result of this, the politics of the ANC have been subverted into the politics of material possession,” says Mashele.
The head of the Centre for Politics and Research, Mashele says this obligation by ANC politicians to reward patronage creates a quid pro quo kind of mentality that is pervasive in the ruling party. “I have tested this informally with folks from different municipalities, and if there is a municipality run by the ANC and you are a local businessman who is known to oppose the ANC, it doesn’t matter if you are black or talented, you will never get a tender in that municipality. If you examine the folks who get tenders in municipalities, these are people who are a part of the reward system within the politics of the ANC and the politics of the municipality.”
Mashele says this patronage is played out from a local level, right to the very top. “Look at Limpopo at a provincial level where the premier centralised procurement, which only meant that essentially the premier centralised the distribution of patronage. He is a businessman who proudly says: 'I am a business doing business with government.’ There is a whole ring of business people around the premier who always get tenders. It is two-way traffic. If you were to check who contributes to Chancellor House and what tenders these people get, you would be shocked. That is why the ANC will never allow people to know who contributes to Chancellor House, because the dynamic that I am talking about would become apparent,” he says.
The bad news, according to Mashele, is that the system of nepotism and corruption embedded in government will not change until there’s a viable opposition or a surge of political activity in civil society. “Until there is potential for the ruling party to be booted out of power, these guys are going to wallow in a comfortable sense of complacency,” says Mashele, who believes the DA won’t be able to make inroads into the ANC’s support base quickly enough.
“If you take current trends and look at the weakening of the ANC and the rise of the DA, it would – in my view – take another three or four elections before the DA becomes a threat that would topple the ANC. The ANC has been declining since Jacob Zuma came to power, but not significantly enough,” says Mashele, who adds that the hope for the DA would be a massive crisis within the ruling party which could quicken the pace at which the opposition party grows its constituency.
“And the ANC will not just sit back and do nothing, because there are many people in the ANC who are aware of the dangers in the party if the current trajectory were to continue,” says Mashele. He adds: “In fact the danger of materialism and corruption is highlighted in political report after political report, but we have not yet seen the ANC take the political courage to act seriously, especially when it involves people at the top like the president.”
Mashele says the ANC’s lack of political will and courage creates a real danger of a low road scenario for South Africa – one where materialism and corruption create the collapse of morality. He says the role models that youths aspire to in townships and villages today are tenderpreneurs who don’t achieve wealth through academia or hard work, but by political connections and party favours.
“Once you have this situation in society, you’re creating a culture without even realising it. You are saying to younger generations: ‘Don’t go to school and work hard and become educated, and aspire to be a professor, an academic, a teacher or a doctor. There is a shorter way to materialism’. When this thing happens, society is being destroyed. How do you construct a productive society, a society that emphasises the importance of merit, a society that is caring, when materialism as graphic and grotesque as it is today, abounds?” asks Mashele.
The political analyst says when masses lose the will to learn and be productive, and there’s huge inequality between the elite and everyone else, the state inevitably veers to authoritarianism. “The outcome of this system is clear, and there’s evidence of it all over the world. The outcome is a Nigeria where you have a small strata of the super wealthy, making their money through all sorts of underhand dealings. Around them is a sea of poverty, because the economy has literally collapsed. The poor are cursed, the economy becomes informalised, nothing is formal, corruption becomes normalised, morality is thrown out of the window, there is a decay of public institutions and no one has confidence in the state. It is a cocktail for disaster,” says Mashele.
The state then threatens those who want to uncover the rot, and anyone who poses a threat to those who possess power become counter-revolutionaries. “We must expect the worst, and the worst is the deepening of corruption. We have corruption now, but we haven’t seen anything yet. We must expect the worst until ordinary citizens reach that stage when they realise that enough is enough,” he says. That, says Mashele, is when ordinary people will join with civil society to demand change.
Source: Daily Maverick (By MANDY DE WAAL)
Malema cronies looted Limpopo: report
Limpopo-based cronies of ANCYL president Julius Malema allegedly spent millions of rand of taxpayers' money on properties, cars and parties, a weekend newspaper reported. It claimed that engineer Lesiba Gwangwa was at the centre. Gwangwa was Malema's business partner and the sole director of On-Point and SGL Engineering Projects. The two companies were previously or currently owned by Malema and his Ratang Family Trust.
According to the Sunday Independent, both companies have scored more than R400m worth of known Limpopo municipal tenders since 2007. The companies are being investigated for tender fraud and corruption by the SA Revenue Service, public protector Thuli Madonsela and the elite investigating unit, the Hawks. The national government stepped in and placed five departments in Limpopo under administration last month after tender fraud brought the province to the brink of collapse. Madonsela has ordered the provincial roads department to suspend On-Point's participation in the tender awarding process. She is apparently looking into how Gwangwa allegedly forced contractors to sign secret back-to-back agreements which entitled his company to a share of the proceeds of the tenders it awarded. According to analysts quoted by the newspaper, President Jacob Zuma, was aware of what was happening in Limpopo, but was allowing the investigation to take its course rather than recalling the province's political leaders.
Political analyst Somadoda Fikeni told the newspaper that the ANC leadership would rather let the investigation expose links between the leadership in Limpopo and the tender irregularities.
"In that manner it would be seen as a technical administrative process that deals with governance and corruption issues without being seen as politically manoeuvred."
Source: Times Live
According to the Sunday Independent, both companies have scored more than R400m worth of known Limpopo municipal tenders since 2007. The companies are being investigated for tender fraud and corruption by the SA Revenue Service, public protector Thuli Madonsela and the elite investigating unit, the Hawks. The national government stepped in and placed five departments in Limpopo under administration last month after tender fraud brought the province to the brink of collapse. Madonsela has ordered the provincial roads department to suspend On-Point's participation in the tender awarding process. She is apparently looking into how Gwangwa allegedly forced contractors to sign secret back-to-back agreements which entitled his company to a share of the proceeds of the tenders it awarded. According to analysts quoted by the newspaper, President Jacob Zuma, was aware of what was happening in Limpopo, but was allowing the investigation to take its course rather than recalling the province's political leaders.
Political analyst Somadoda Fikeni told the newspaper that the ANC leadership would rather let the investigation expose links between the leadership in Limpopo and the tender irregularities.
"In that manner it would be seen as a technical administrative process that deals with governance and corruption issues without being seen as politically manoeuvred."
Source: Times Live
Friday, February 10, 2012
Obama administration brokers pro-bank mortgage fraud settlement
The Obama administration announced on Thursday a settlement between five major banks and the federal and state governments over massive fraud relating to home foreclosures. The terms of the agreement are entirely favorable to the banks, while doing little or nothing to aid the millions of people who have been devastated by the collapse of the US housing market.
Government officials reported that the final deal is valued at about $25 billion spread out over a multi-year period. This is a paltry sum in relationship to the extent of the housing crisis, the profits of the banks and the scale of corporate criminality. However, only a small portion of this would come from direct financial sanctions on the banks. Forty-nine of the 50 US states signed on to the settlement with the five banks—JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America (which bought mortgage firm Countrywide), and Ally Financial Inc. (formerly GMAC, the financial arm of General Motors). These five banks involved had net profits of $46 billion last year alone. In exchange for the settlement, the banks will be released from liability for fraudulent and likely criminal activities. This includes “robo-signing,” in which the banks had employees sign hundreds of thousands of legal foreclosure documents without any knowledge of the underlying mortgages. Banks were also involved in forging documents. The true extent of the illegal operations is not known, and keeping this information secret is one of the aims of the settlement.
Evidence of these actions first emerged in 2010. States launched investigations in response, and the Obama administration stepped in to package these investigations and lead them to a settlement favorable to the banks. Over the past several weeks, the administration has placed heavy pressure on several state holdouts to sign on to the deal. Of particular importance for Bank of America is the fact that the settlement will end a lawsuit filed by Nevada and Arizona over allegations that the bank has been deceiving homeowners seeking to participate in a refinancing program. Only about $5 billion of the settlement will take the form of direct payments, including, according to government officials, a payment of about $2,000 to some individuals who had their homes foreclosed between September 2008 and December 2011.
Despite the evidence of fraud, no one will get their home back. Since 2007, there have been some 4 million home foreclosures. About $17 billion will come from the modification of existing loans, spaced over a three-year time period. Details are still emerging, but it is evident that decisions on what loans to modify will be left to the banks themselves. Many of the loans have already been packaged off and sold to investors (“securitized”), thus minimizing the impact on bank assets. The $17 billion in loan modifications is a tiny fraction of the total negative equity (the value of loans in relation to the value of the underling houses) of $700 billion to $750 billion. The deal will affect less than 10 percent of US homeowners who are “under water.” An additional $3 billion is to come in the form of mortgage refinancing, again left to the discretion of the banks.
The banks will be tasked with self-reporting their actions. The industry and the state attorneys general selected North Carolina banking commissioner Joseph Smith to “oversee” the agreement and determine whether the banks are in compliance based on the bank reports. Smith is a former bank lawyer with close ties to the industry.
Markets reacted enthusiastically to the terms and bank stocks rose Thursday. The banks involved already have set aside funds that cover the amount of the agreement. Indeed, since many banks have written down the value of their existing loans, the agreement could have a positive net impact on their balance sheets. “I wouldn’t say it’s a panacea for the housing industry,” commented Barclays analyst Jason Goldberg, “but it is good for the banks to get this behind them.”
Perversely, the deal will likely lead to a surge in home foreclosures, with banks now confident that they can proceed with business as usual. Bloomberg News commented, “Lenders slowed the pace of foreclosures as they negotiated with attorneys general in all 50 states for more than a year… With today’s agreement, banks are likely to resume property seizures.” Increased foreclosures will also lead to a further fall in home prices.
In hailing the deal, Obama said that it would “speed relief to the hardest-hit homeowners, end some of the most abusive practices of the mortgage industry, and begin to turn the page on an era of recklessness that has left so much damage in its wake.” In fact, as with every component of the administration’s policy, the agreement will leave things entirely as they are, while giving a free pass to corporate criminals responsible for the economic crisis.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Government officials reported that the final deal is valued at about $25 billion spread out over a multi-year period. This is a paltry sum in relationship to the extent of the housing crisis, the profits of the banks and the scale of corporate criminality. However, only a small portion of this would come from direct financial sanctions on the banks. Forty-nine of the 50 US states signed on to the settlement with the five banks—JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America (which bought mortgage firm Countrywide), and Ally Financial Inc. (formerly GMAC, the financial arm of General Motors). These five banks involved had net profits of $46 billion last year alone. In exchange for the settlement, the banks will be released from liability for fraudulent and likely criminal activities. This includes “robo-signing,” in which the banks had employees sign hundreds of thousands of legal foreclosure documents without any knowledge of the underlying mortgages. Banks were also involved in forging documents. The true extent of the illegal operations is not known, and keeping this information secret is one of the aims of the settlement.
Evidence of these actions first emerged in 2010. States launched investigations in response, and the Obama administration stepped in to package these investigations and lead them to a settlement favorable to the banks. Over the past several weeks, the administration has placed heavy pressure on several state holdouts to sign on to the deal. Of particular importance for Bank of America is the fact that the settlement will end a lawsuit filed by Nevada and Arizona over allegations that the bank has been deceiving homeowners seeking to participate in a refinancing program. Only about $5 billion of the settlement will take the form of direct payments, including, according to government officials, a payment of about $2,000 to some individuals who had their homes foreclosed between September 2008 and December 2011.
Despite the evidence of fraud, no one will get their home back. Since 2007, there have been some 4 million home foreclosures. About $17 billion will come from the modification of existing loans, spaced over a three-year time period. Details are still emerging, but it is evident that decisions on what loans to modify will be left to the banks themselves. Many of the loans have already been packaged off and sold to investors (“securitized”), thus minimizing the impact on bank assets. The $17 billion in loan modifications is a tiny fraction of the total negative equity (the value of loans in relation to the value of the underling houses) of $700 billion to $750 billion. The deal will affect less than 10 percent of US homeowners who are “under water.” An additional $3 billion is to come in the form of mortgage refinancing, again left to the discretion of the banks.
The banks will be tasked with self-reporting their actions. The industry and the state attorneys general selected North Carolina banking commissioner Joseph Smith to “oversee” the agreement and determine whether the banks are in compliance based on the bank reports. Smith is a former bank lawyer with close ties to the industry.
Markets reacted enthusiastically to the terms and bank stocks rose Thursday. The banks involved already have set aside funds that cover the amount of the agreement. Indeed, since many banks have written down the value of their existing loans, the agreement could have a positive net impact on their balance sheets. “I wouldn’t say it’s a panacea for the housing industry,” commented Barclays analyst Jason Goldberg, “but it is good for the banks to get this behind them.”
Perversely, the deal will likely lead to a surge in home foreclosures, with banks now confident that they can proceed with business as usual. Bloomberg News commented, “Lenders slowed the pace of foreclosures as they negotiated with attorneys general in all 50 states for more than a year… With today’s agreement, banks are likely to resume property seizures.” Increased foreclosures will also lead to a further fall in home prices.
In hailing the deal, Obama said that it would “speed relief to the hardest-hit homeowners, end some of the most abusive practices of the mortgage industry, and begin to turn the page on an era of recklessness that has left so much damage in its wake.” In fact, as with every component of the administration’s policy, the agreement will leave things entirely as they are, while giving a free pass to corporate criminals responsible for the economic crisis.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Shock and ore: Dirt flies in Sishen battle
The three-year battle between Imperial Crown Trading and Kumba Iron Ore for a multibillion-rand stake in Sishen is getting dirtier and dirtier.
An alleged assassination attempt has driven a witness to go public with allegations of collusion between ICT and the department of mineral resources.
A legal consultant who claims that he survived an assassination attempt on a lonely stretch of the N7 highway between Cape Town and Springbok last month has come to the Mail & Guardian with an incredible story. Gawie Hendriksz says he knows how politically connected mining company Imperial Crown Trading 289 (ICT) acquired a multibillion-rand stake in the Sishen mine in the Northern Cape during the long weekend of May 2009.
ICT provisionally acquired a 21.4% stake in Sishen when it beat Anglo American’s subsidiary Kumba Iron Ore to the rights for what both companies believed was a vacant stake in one of the world’s largest opencast iron ore mines.
ICT and Kumba have spent millions in court sparring over the allocation of the 21.4% stake, and have laid criminal charges against one another. Hendriksz, who since July 2011 has been under contract to a risk consultancy acting for Kumba, makes the following key allegations:
ICT co-founder and chief executive Phemelo Sehunelo paid a bribe of R250 000 to Charles Lerumo, the department of mineral resources’s Northern Cape assistant director of mineral laws to facilitate the acceptance of ICT’s application;
Lerumo kept R150 000 and passed R100 000 on to Thozama Basi, the department’s Northern Cape assistant director of social and labour plans;
Basi, who took possession of Kumba’s application on April 30 2009, made copies of documents such as title deeds from this application during the subsequent long weekend. She then handed these copies to Sehunelo; and
ICT’s application was incomplete and unsigned at the time it was purportedly captured on the department’s computer systems on May 4 2009. Lerumo saw to the capturing of ICT’s application on May 4, even though the ICT application was in fact only signed on May 5 that year. This is significant, as Kumba’s application was also registered on May 4 and legislation promotes a “first past the post” approach to competing applications. Basi chose not to respond to detailed allegations put to her by the M&G. Lerumo would not even entertain the questions.
Responding on behalf of Sehunelo and ICT, attorney Ronnie Mendelow described Hendriksz as “nothing but a scurrilous liar seeking to peddle ‘information’ (in actual fact disinformation) to the highest bidder”. Mendelow said that during a taped interview with ICT’s lawyers on November 2 2010, Hendriksz had offered a different version, in which Kumba had in fact bribed the department of mineral resources officials. Mendelow said: “Suffice it to say that these allegations were all without any foundation whatsoever, and that the allegations regarding paying off of advocate Charlie Lerumo by our client, advocate Sehunelo are completely false and without any foundation whatsoever.”
Mendelow said that on his own version, Hendriksz had attempted to “peddle his information” to Kumba and ArcelorMittal. “Mr Gawie Hendriksz’s alleged desire — to make the facts known before somebody succeeds in killing him, is a conjured up story,” Mendelow said. Arcelor potentially lost the 21.4% stake in Sishen it previously held by failing to convert its rights in terms of new legislation by the end of April 2009.Before the M&G contacted Mendelow, Hendriksz had disclosed his interaction with ICT to the newspaper, claiming that he had “played along” with the latter as part of his own investigation.
Hendriksz had also disclosed his interactions with both Kumba and Arcelor to the M&G. The DMR also dismissed Hendriksz as “an information peddler”, claiming he had previously approached the department to offer his assistance in the matter. The department rejected his approach. While Hendriksz’s allegations have not been tested in court, he has made a detailed affidavit to the Hawks investigator probing ICT’s conduct.
No assessment of his credibility is complete without considering his role in the successful investigation of another case involving the Kimberley department of mineral resources office—the so-called Saltworks case. In this matter, Hendriksz was hired by Jalie du Toit, owner of Saamwerk Soutwerke, which had been on the brink of acquiring a mining right from the department to extract salt from a pan near Upington in 2006 when a rival mining company, Suid-Afrikaanse Soutwerke (SA Soutwerke), produced what it claimed was a valid permit to mine the same saltpan.
Du Toit’s suspicions were raised because two well-connected Northern Cape politicians—ANC regional chairperson John Block and Upington mayor Gift van Staden—had become directors of SA Soutwerke four months earlier. Du Toit hired Hendriksz to investigate. Hendriksz made it his business to find out how mineral rights were awarded, and by whom, in the office of the department of mineral resources in Kimberley. “In the course of my Soutwerke investigation, I was in the department office in Kimberley every second or third day until they got used to me,” he told the M&G. By May 2009, when the 21.4% stake in Sishen became vacant, sparking the scramble between Kumba and ICT, Hendriksz said his investigations into SA Soutwerke’s permit had “intensified”. “I was regularly attending at the Kimberley office of the department and was meeting several officials on a regular basis ... [deputy director] Hennie Jansen van Rensburg and [assistant director of mineral laws] Charles Lerumo in particular. “I sought not only to obtain information from them, but also, unknown to them, to cross-check information provided by one of them with the other. I avoided consulting them jointly,” Hendriksz said. In May 2009, Jansen Van Rensburg was temporarily heading the regional office in Kimberley because his superior, Pieter Swart, had taken leave. On May 18, Hendriksz said Jansen Van Rensburg called him into his office and said: “Here is a file on my table. I’ve got exactly the same case and problem with Kumba and ICT like in your matter with SA Soutwerke. The same what happened on your side. The permit is fraudulent, with high-up cover-up.”
At another meeting a few days later, on May 21, Jansen van Rensburg told Hendriksz what he meant by “high up”. “He said to me: ‘There is also involvement on the political level. There’s someone called Jagdish Parekh who also has a lot of influence [in ICT]. You’ll see, sooner or later—like John Block [with SA Soutwerke]—he’ll be brought in as a partner for ICT.”
ICT lawyer Mendelow, responding on behalf of Parekh, said Parekh “had nothing whatsoever to do with ICT in May 2009 and thereafter when our client’s application for the prospecting right was granted. He first became involved in ICT well after the prospecting right had been granted.”
Hendriksz said that at another meeting on June 10, Jansen Van Rensburg told him that his superior, “Swart, had instructed him, during the course of April 2009, that he [Jansen Van Rensburg] was to take over as acting regional manager of the Northern Cape regional office for the month of May 2009.
“Jansen Van Rensburg was to prepare for the lodging of a prospecting right application by ICT during this period, and was to ensure that this application was accepted, regardless of any irregularities with it,” he added. The instruction had apparently come from one of Swart’s superiors in Pretoria. Swart denied this, saying: “I’ve never given Mr Van Rensburg the instruction as set out in your letter. My holiday arrangements [in which Jansen Van Rensburg would act] were made a considerable time before the end of April 2009 [when the Sishen applications were lodged].” As Jansen van Rensburg has since died, Hendriksz’s recollection of their encounters cannot be confirmed.
In the interim, the salt mine dispute Hendriksz had been investigating reached its conclusion, providing an independent test of the credibility of both Hendriksz and Swart. The case, heard in September 2009 in the Northern Cape High Court, turned on allegations that the mining permit on which SA Soutwerke relied—produced by the ANC’s Block at a meeting with the DMR—was a forgery. Before the hearing department of mineral resources officials—including Swart—gave sworn statements supporting Block’s SA Soutwerke and suggesting the fake permit was legitimate. By the time Hendriksz came to testify, Swart’s statement had been mysteriously withdrawn and Hendriksz’s evidence of manipulation and double-dealing by the department was hardly challenged in cross-examination.
In his ruling Judge Hennie Lacock found that SA Soutwerke’s permit was a fake. The judge made no mention of Hendriksz, but Jasper Tredoux, Saamwerk Soutwerke’s advocate, said: “Gawie was a truthful witness — But his greatest importance was behind the scenes. “He helped unravel everything that happened in the department of minerals, who did what with regard to the mining licence applications.”
His employer in this matter, Du Toit (owner of Saamwerk Soutwerke) said: “In the court case there was a lot of bullshit on the department’s side. I stood alone; nobody in the department would help me understand where the other permit came from. But Gawie helped me. “Without Gawie’s investigation I could not have taken this case to court.”
The relationships Hendriksz built with department of mineral resources officials during the Saltworks case, particularly with Lerumo, were crucial to the alleged disclosures they made to him about ICT. Said Hendriksz: “Lerumo was the department’s legal advocate, so I was working a lot with him [on the Soutwerke matter]. I slowly built up trust with him —”
In mid-2010, the department charged Lerumo with misconduct and regional manager Swart summoned him to a departmental disciplinary inquiry. On June 10, Hendriksz said that Lerumo had approached him for advice. He had suggested to Lerumo that he remind Swart of his own alleged conduct in the ICT matter. According to Hendriksz, the charges were then withdrawn. In February 2011, when the department revived misconduct charges against Lerumo, he and Hendriksz met again—and on this occasion Hendriksz decided to record the conversation. He asked ex-policeman Andreas Steenkamp to sit in a car outside the Protea Hotel in Kimberley, where the two men met, tap their exchange using a remote listening device and transcribe it in a notebook.
The alleged conversation took place on February 21 in the hotel reception area. Steenkamp refused to discuss the encounter with the M&G, but confirmed that he had given a sworn affidavit to the police, the content of which is unknown. The M&G has seen a copy of Steenkamp’s purported shorthand notes from this encounter. At face value, they support Hendriksz’s claim that Lerumo admitted receiving money from ICT’s Sehunelo and that he also implicated department of mineral resources official Basi.
The M&G understands that Swart eventually proceeded with disciplinary action against Lerumo, who was found guilty. The charges included an allegation that Lerumo accepted R5 000 from a mining consultant to speed up the processing of their applications, though it is not know if this particular charge was proved. Lerumo is still employed at the department in Kimberley. Hendriksz said his attempts to persuade Lerumo to approach the police and seek indemnity from prosecution had not borne fruit.
In addition to developing ties with Jansen van Rensburg and Lerumo, the third—and possibly most controversial—aspect of Hendriksz’s investigation was his decision to approach all five parties in the dispute, the police, the department of mineral resources, Kumba, ArcelorMittal and ICT, to offer information. According to Hendriksz, he first approached Colonel Tobias Marais of the South African Police Service, who had investigated SA Soutwerke, to tell the Hawks that if they wanted to know “exactly what happened about ICT” they should get in touch with him. The Hawks did not respond.
Hendriksz then approached Kumba’s attorney, Robert Botha, who told him that “Kumba does not buy information”. Hendriksz said he responded that he did not want to sell anything, but that Kumba could take him on as a consultant. Botha’s reluctance gave Hendriksz “a feeling that they had already burnt their fingers somehow”. Hendriksz said that because “ArcelorMittal and Kumba were the only two companies that had nothing to do with ICT’s fraud and bribery of DMR personnel”, he approached Arcelor next. Hendriksz claims he made contact with a senior Arcelor executive, who told him that they were not worried about ICT. Only later did he learn that Arcelor had been negotiating to buy ICT.
Finally, Hendriksz said he was contacted by Lerumo, who wanted him to meet ICT chief executive Sehunelo. Lerumo set up the appointment, and the two met at ICT’s Kimberley offices on October 25 2010. “During this meeting, Sehunelo said that he understood that I was someone who knew a lot about what had transpired regarding ICT’s application over the 30 April to 4 May 2009 weekend. I replied that I did. “He then said that I could perhaps assist ICT by deposing an affidavit that would support ICT’s case. “Sehunelo explained that I would have to depose an affidavit in which I would falsely state that I was aware of collaboration between Kumba and officials in the department which resulted in department officials tampering with the ICT application by inserting documents from the Kumba application. This was to make it appear that the ICT application had been submitted using copied documents.”
Hendriksz undertook to work with ICT, saying: “I wanted to play along with them, to understand who the key role players are behind the curtains there. I wanted to establish what political roleplayers with influence were ... in ICT.” Saamwerk Soutwerke’s lawyer Tredoux supported his explanation, saying: “Sometimes you have to go under cover and disguise your intentions in order to uncover the truth.”
The following week ICT flew Hendriksz from Cape Town to Johannesburg, where he met ICT attorney Mendelow and advocate Edmund Wessels in the latter’s Sandton chambers. The M&G has seen a record of the 1Time return flight booking made by Sehunelo’s personal assistant Sharifa Ferris. At the Johannesburg meeting Hendriksz said he had “said what Sehunelo asked me to say”. Mendelow confirmed the meeting, and gave the M&G access to a transcript in which Hendriksz indeed repeated the claim that Kumba paid a former official from the department to meddle with ICT’s application. In a transcript of the recording which the M&G has seen, Hendriksz promised ICT further information about who took bribes in the department from Kumba in return for employment as a consultant. He also offered to testify for ICT in court. Wessels expressed interest in Hendriksz’s information, but the interview did not end with a definitive undertaking by either party.
In their response, Mendelow and Hendriksz agreed that both parties had lost interest in each other soon after this meeting. Mendelow said that he believed Hendriksz was an information-peddler, while Hendriksz said: “I would not have consented to being so engaged, given my knowledge of the fraud perpetrated by ICT.” In July 2011, a consultancy called Risk Analysis, retained by Kumba’s legal team to identify evidence or witnesses which could assist the company’s litigation strategy in the ICT matter, made contact with Hendriksz.
Risk Analysis’s Mungo Soggot said: “We approached Mr Hendriksz ... after learning that, on account of his work in the Saamwerk matter, he was uniquely placed to provide an insight into what took place at the DMR Kimberley office in April 2009. “His brief was to help us identify other potential witnesses to the impropriety he described. In particular, his brief was to explore whether Charles Lerumo—with whom he had a close relationship—could become a witness. It was never intended at this stage that he would be a witness himself,” said Soggott, a former M&G journalist who left the newspaper in 2002.
Hendriksz entered into a contract with Risk Analysis. Ultimately, Kumba and its legal advisers introduced him to the Hawks. Hendriksz said his ultimate goal was to stamp out corruption in the department, which is “damaging the mining industry”.
Under 2004 mining legislation, companies were required to convert mining rights under old law by applying for “new order” rights by May 1 2009.
By the deadline, iron-ore miner Kumba, had applied to convert its 78.6% stake in the Sishen iron mine. But steel manufacturer ArcelorMittal, with the remaining 21.4%, had not. Kumba and an obscure shelf company, Imperial Crown Trading 289 (ICT), raced to acquire the rights to ArcelorMittal’s 21.4% stake, estimated to be worth R800-billion over the mine’s remaining life.
But May 1—a Friday—was a public holiday.
On Monday May 4, Kumba and Imperial’s applications for the vacant Sishen stake were recorded on the department’s system in Kimberley. ICT applied for a prospecting right, Kumba for a mining right. Controversy now surrounds both applications.
ICT claims Kumba acted deceitfully by handing in its application early and asking department officials to lodge it on May 4.
Kumba claims that ICT’s application was not ready on May 4, but that officials recorded ICT’s application as lodged on that day—even though ICT’s application trickled in over succeeding days.
Both companies also accuse one another of bribing officials to tamper with their rival’s application.
In November 2009, the department handed ICT a prospecting right on the basis that both applications had arrived on May 4, but that ICT had superior BEE credentials.
One of ICT’s founding directors was Prudence “Gugu” Mtshali, reportedly Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe’s romantic partner. Motlanthe was South Africa’s caretaker president in May 2009 when ICT applied for the stake.
In March 2010 ICT handed over a 50% stake to JIC Mining, represented on its board by Jagdish Parekh. JIC is controlled by the Gupta brothers, benefactors of the Zuma family.
In August 2010 Arcelor offered to buy out Imperial and incorporate its directors into a new consortium that included President Jacob Zuma’s son Duduzane and Parekh, making them instant billionaires.
But the buy-out was never consummated. Instead, Kumba and Arcelor won a High Court judgment in December 2011 that mineral rights over a single area are indivisible and that Arcelor’s old order 21.4% stake is fully Kumba’s.
ICT are now out in the cold, although it finalised its appeal against Zondo’s ruling last week.
In July 2011, the Hawks raided ICT’s office and the department in Kimberley for evidence of fraud when the applications were made.
ICT has challenged the legality of the raids, and the seized materials are currently out of the Hawks’ reach.
Source: Mail & Guardian
An alleged assassination attempt has driven a witness to go public with allegations of collusion between ICT and the department of mineral resources.
A legal consultant who claims that he survived an assassination attempt on a lonely stretch of the N7 highway between Cape Town and Springbok last month has come to the Mail & Guardian with an incredible story. Gawie Hendriksz says he knows how politically connected mining company Imperial Crown Trading 289 (ICT) acquired a multibillion-rand stake in the Sishen mine in the Northern Cape during the long weekend of May 2009.
ICT provisionally acquired a 21.4% stake in Sishen when it beat Anglo American’s subsidiary Kumba Iron Ore to the rights for what both companies believed was a vacant stake in one of the world’s largest opencast iron ore mines.
ICT and Kumba have spent millions in court sparring over the allocation of the 21.4% stake, and have laid criminal charges against one another. Hendriksz, who since July 2011 has been under contract to a risk consultancy acting for Kumba, makes the following key allegations:
ICT co-founder and chief executive Phemelo Sehunelo paid a bribe of R250 000 to Charles Lerumo, the department of mineral resources’s Northern Cape assistant director of mineral laws to facilitate the acceptance of ICT’s application;
Lerumo kept R150 000 and passed R100 000 on to Thozama Basi, the department’s Northern Cape assistant director of social and labour plans;
Basi, who took possession of Kumba’s application on April 30 2009, made copies of documents such as title deeds from this application during the subsequent long weekend. She then handed these copies to Sehunelo; and
ICT’s application was incomplete and unsigned at the time it was purportedly captured on the department’s computer systems on May 4 2009. Lerumo saw to the capturing of ICT’s application on May 4, even though the ICT application was in fact only signed on May 5 that year. This is significant, as Kumba’s application was also registered on May 4 and legislation promotes a “first past the post” approach to competing applications. Basi chose not to respond to detailed allegations put to her by the M&G. Lerumo would not even entertain the questions.
Responding on behalf of Sehunelo and ICT, attorney Ronnie Mendelow described Hendriksz as “nothing but a scurrilous liar seeking to peddle ‘information’ (in actual fact disinformation) to the highest bidder”. Mendelow said that during a taped interview with ICT’s lawyers on November 2 2010, Hendriksz had offered a different version, in which Kumba had in fact bribed the department of mineral resources officials. Mendelow said: “Suffice it to say that these allegations were all without any foundation whatsoever, and that the allegations regarding paying off of advocate Charlie Lerumo by our client, advocate Sehunelo are completely false and without any foundation whatsoever.”
Mendelow said that on his own version, Hendriksz had attempted to “peddle his information” to Kumba and ArcelorMittal. “Mr Gawie Hendriksz’s alleged desire — to make the facts known before somebody succeeds in killing him, is a conjured up story,” Mendelow said. Arcelor potentially lost the 21.4% stake in Sishen it previously held by failing to convert its rights in terms of new legislation by the end of April 2009.Before the M&G contacted Mendelow, Hendriksz had disclosed his interaction with ICT to the newspaper, claiming that he had “played along” with the latter as part of his own investigation.
Hendriksz had also disclosed his interactions with both Kumba and Arcelor to the M&G. The DMR also dismissed Hendriksz as “an information peddler”, claiming he had previously approached the department to offer his assistance in the matter. The department rejected his approach. While Hendriksz’s allegations have not been tested in court, he has made a detailed affidavit to the Hawks investigator probing ICT’s conduct.
No assessment of his credibility is complete without considering his role in the successful investigation of another case involving the Kimberley department of mineral resources office—the so-called Saltworks case. In this matter, Hendriksz was hired by Jalie du Toit, owner of Saamwerk Soutwerke, which had been on the brink of acquiring a mining right from the department to extract salt from a pan near Upington in 2006 when a rival mining company, Suid-Afrikaanse Soutwerke (SA Soutwerke), produced what it claimed was a valid permit to mine the same saltpan.
Du Toit’s suspicions were raised because two well-connected Northern Cape politicians—ANC regional chairperson John Block and Upington mayor Gift van Staden—had become directors of SA Soutwerke four months earlier. Du Toit hired Hendriksz to investigate. Hendriksz made it his business to find out how mineral rights were awarded, and by whom, in the office of the department of mineral resources in Kimberley. “In the course of my Soutwerke investigation, I was in the department office in Kimberley every second or third day until they got used to me,” he told the M&G. By May 2009, when the 21.4% stake in Sishen became vacant, sparking the scramble between Kumba and ICT, Hendriksz said his investigations into SA Soutwerke’s permit had “intensified”. “I was regularly attending at the Kimberley office of the department and was meeting several officials on a regular basis ... [deputy director] Hennie Jansen van Rensburg and [assistant director of mineral laws] Charles Lerumo in particular. “I sought not only to obtain information from them, but also, unknown to them, to cross-check information provided by one of them with the other. I avoided consulting them jointly,” Hendriksz said. In May 2009, Jansen Van Rensburg was temporarily heading the regional office in Kimberley because his superior, Pieter Swart, had taken leave. On May 18, Hendriksz said Jansen Van Rensburg called him into his office and said: “Here is a file on my table. I’ve got exactly the same case and problem with Kumba and ICT like in your matter with SA Soutwerke. The same what happened on your side. The permit is fraudulent, with high-up cover-up.”
At another meeting a few days later, on May 21, Jansen van Rensburg told Hendriksz what he meant by “high up”. “He said to me: ‘There is also involvement on the political level. There’s someone called Jagdish Parekh who also has a lot of influence [in ICT]. You’ll see, sooner or later—like John Block [with SA Soutwerke]—he’ll be brought in as a partner for ICT.”
ICT lawyer Mendelow, responding on behalf of Parekh, said Parekh “had nothing whatsoever to do with ICT in May 2009 and thereafter when our client’s application for the prospecting right was granted. He first became involved in ICT well after the prospecting right had been granted.”
Hendriksz said that at another meeting on June 10, Jansen Van Rensburg told him that his superior, “Swart, had instructed him, during the course of April 2009, that he [Jansen Van Rensburg] was to take over as acting regional manager of the Northern Cape regional office for the month of May 2009.
“Jansen Van Rensburg was to prepare for the lodging of a prospecting right application by ICT during this period, and was to ensure that this application was accepted, regardless of any irregularities with it,” he added. The instruction had apparently come from one of Swart’s superiors in Pretoria. Swart denied this, saying: “I’ve never given Mr Van Rensburg the instruction as set out in your letter. My holiday arrangements [in which Jansen Van Rensburg would act] were made a considerable time before the end of April 2009 [when the Sishen applications were lodged].” As Jansen van Rensburg has since died, Hendriksz’s recollection of their encounters cannot be confirmed.
In the interim, the salt mine dispute Hendriksz had been investigating reached its conclusion, providing an independent test of the credibility of both Hendriksz and Swart. The case, heard in September 2009 in the Northern Cape High Court, turned on allegations that the mining permit on which SA Soutwerke relied—produced by the ANC’s Block at a meeting with the DMR—was a forgery. Before the hearing department of mineral resources officials—including Swart—gave sworn statements supporting Block’s SA Soutwerke and suggesting the fake permit was legitimate. By the time Hendriksz came to testify, Swart’s statement had been mysteriously withdrawn and Hendriksz’s evidence of manipulation and double-dealing by the department was hardly challenged in cross-examination.
In his ruling Judge Hennie Lacock found that SA Soutwerke’s permit was a fake. The judge made no mention of Hendriksz, but Jasper Tredoux, Saamwerk Soutwerke’s advocate, said: “Gawie was a truthful witness — But his greatest importance was behind the scenes. “He helped unravel everything that happened in the department of minerals, who did what with regard to the mining licence applications.”
His employer in this matter, Du Toit (owner of Saamwerk Soutwerke) said: “In the court case there was a lot of bullshit on the department’s side. I stood alone; nobody in the department would help me understand where the other permit came from. But Gawie helped me. “Without Gawie’s investigation I could not have taken this case to court.”
The relationships Hendriksz built with department of mineral resources officials during the Saltworks case, particularly with Lerumo, were crucial to the alleged disclosures they made to him about ICT. Said Hendriksz: “Lerumo was the department’s legal advocate, so I was working a lot with him [on the Soutwerke matter]. I slowly built up trust with him —”
In mid-2010, the department charged Lerumo with misconduct and regional manager Swart summoned him to a departmental disciplinary inquiry. On June 10, Hendriksz said that Lerumo had approached him for advice. He had suggested to Lerumo that he remind Swart of his own alleged conduct in the ICT matter. According to Hendriksz, the charges were then withdrawn. In February 2011, when the department revived misconduct charges against Lerumo, he and Hendriksz met again—and on this occasion Hendriksz decided to record the conversation. He asked ex-policeman Andreas Steenkamp to sit in a car outside the Protea Hotel in Kimberley, where the two men met, tap their exchange using a remote listening device and transcribe it in a notebook.
The alleged conversation took place on February 21 in the hotel reception area. Steenkamp refused to discuss the encounter with the M&G, but confirmed that he had given a sworn affidavit to the police, the content of which is unknown. The M&G has seen a copy of Steenkamp’s purported shorthand notes from this encounter. At face value, they support Hendriksz’s claim that Lerumo admitted receiving money from ICT’s Sehunelo and that he also implicated department of mineral resources official Basi.
The M&G understands that Swart eventually proceeded with disciplinary action against Lerumo, who was found guilty. The charges included an allegation that Lerumo accepted R5 000 from a mining consultant to speed up the processing of their applications, though it is not know if this particular charge was proved. Lerumo is still employed at the department in Kimberley. Hendriksz said his attempts to persuade Lerumo to approach the police and seek indemnity from prosecution had not borne fruit.
In addition to developing ties with Jansen van Rensburg and Lerumo, the third—and possibly most controversial—aspect of Hendriksz’s investigation was his decision to approach all five parties in the dispute, the police, the department of mineral resources, Kumba, ArcelorMittal and ICT, to offer information. According to Hendriksz, he first approached Colonel Tobias Marais of the South African Police Service, who had investigated SA Soutwerke, to tell the Hawks that if they wanted to know “exactly what happened about ICT” they should get in touch with him. The Hawks did not respond.
Hendriksz then approached Kumba’s attorney, Robert Botha, who told him that “Kumba does not buy information”. Hendriksz said he responded that he did not want to sell anything, but that Kumba could take him on as a consultant. Botha’s reluctance gave Hendriksz “a feeling that they had already burnt their fingers somehow”. Hendriksz said that because “ArcelorMittal and Kumba were the only two companies that had nothing to do with ICT’s fraud and bribery of DMR personnel”, he approached Arcelor next. Hendriksz claims he made contact with a senior Arcelor executive, who told him that they were not worried about ICT. Only later did he learn that Arcelor had been negotiating to buy ICT.
Finally, Hendriksz said he was contacted by Lerumo, who wanted him to meet ICT chief executive Sehunelo. Lerumo set up the appointment, and the two met at ICT’s Kimberley offices on October 25 2010. “During this meeting, Sehunelo said that he understood that I was someone who knew a lot about what had transpired regarding ICT’s application over the 30 April to 4 May 2009 weekend. I replied that I did. “He then said that I could perhaps assist ICT by deposing an affidavit that would support ICT’s case. “Sehunelo explained that I would have to depose an affidavit in which I would falsely state that I was aware of collaboration between Kumba and officials in the department which resulted in department officials tampering with the ICT application by inserting documents from the Kumba application. This was to make it appear that the ICT application had been submitted using copied documents.”
Hendriksz undertook to work with ICT, saying: “I wanted to play along with them, to understand who the key role players are behind the curtains there. I wanted to establish what political roleplayers with influence were ... in ICT.” Saamwerk Soutwerke’s lawyer Tredoux supported his explanation, saying: “Sometimes you have to go under cover and disguise your intentions in order to uncover the truth.”
The following week ICT flew Hendriksz from Cape Town to Johannesburg, where he met ICT attorney Mendelow and advocate Edmund Wessels in the latter’s Sandton chambers. The M&G has seen a record of the 1Time return flight booking made by Sehunelo’s personal assistant Sharifa Ferris. At the Johannesburg meeting Hendriksz said he had “said what Sehunelo asked me to say”. Mendelow confirmed the meeting, and gave the M&G access to a transcript in which Hendriksz indeed repeated the claim that Kumba paid a former official from the department to meddle with ICT’s application. In a transcript of the recording which the M&G has seen, Hendriksz promised ICT further information about who took bribes in the department from Kumba in return for employment as a consultant. He also offered to testify for ICT in court. Wessels expressed interest in Hendriksz’s information, but the interview did not end with a definitive undertaking by either party.
In their response, Mendelow and Hendriksz agreed that both parties had lost interest in each other soon after this meeting. Mendelow said that he believed Hendriksz was an information-peddler, while Hendriksz said: “I would not have consented to being so engaged, given my knowledge of the fraud perpetrated by ICT.” In July 2011, a consultancy called Risk Analysis, retained by Kumba’s legal team to identify evidence or witnesses which could assist the company’s litigation strategy in the ICT matter, made contact with Hendriksz.
Risk Analysis’s Mungo Soggot said: “We approached Mr Hendriksz ... after learning that, on account of his work in the Saamwerk matter, he was uniquely placed to provide an insight into what took place at the DMR Kimberley office in April 2009. “His brief was to help us identify other potential witnesses to the impropriety he described. In particular, his brief was to explore whether Charles Lerumo—with whom he had a close relationship—could become a witness. It was never intended at this stage that he would be a witness himself,” said Soggott, a former M&G journalist who left the newspaper in 2002.
Hendriksz entered into a contract with Risk Analysis. Ultimately, Kumba and its legal advisers introduced him to the Hawks. Hendriksz said his ultimate goal was to stamp out corruption in the department, which is “damaging the mining industry”.
Under 2004 mining legislation, companies were required to convert mining rights under old law by applying for “new order” rights by May 1 2009.
By the deadline, iron-ore miner Kumba, had applied to convert its 78.6% stake in the Sishen iron mine. But steel manufacturer ArcelorMittal, with the remaining 21.4%, had not. Kumba and an obscure shelf company, Imperial Crown Trading 289 (ICT), raced to acquire the rights to ArcelorMittal’s 21.4% stake, estimated to be worth R800-billion over the mine’s remaining life.
But May 1—a Friday—was a public holiday.
On Monday May 4, Kumba and Imperial’s applications for the vacant Sishen stake were recorded on the department’s system in Kimberley. ICT applied for a prospecting right, Kumba for a mining right. Controversy now surrounds both applications.
ICT claims Kumba acted deceitfully by handing in its application early and asking department officials to lodge it on May 4.
Kumba claims that ICT’s application was not ready on May 4, but that officials recorded ICT’s application as lodged on that day—even though ICT’s application trickled in over succeeding days.
Both companies also accuse one another of bribing officials to tamper with their rival’s application.
In November 2009, the department handed ICT a prospecting right on the basis that both applications had arrived on May 4, but that ICT had superior BEE credentials.
One of ICT’s founding directors was Prudence “Gugu” Mtshali, reportedly Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe’s romantic partner. Motlanthe was South Africa’s caretaker president in May 2009 when ICT applied for the stake.
In March 2010 ICT handed over a 50% stake to JIC Mining, represented on its board by Jagdish Parekh. JIC is controlled by the Gupta brothers, benefactors of the Zuma family.
In August 2010 Arcelor offered to buy out Imperial and incorporate its directors into a new consortium that included President Jacob Zuma’s son Duduzane and Parekh, making them instant billionaires.
But the buy-out was never consummated. Instead, Kumba and Arcelor won a High Court judgment in December 2011 that mineral rights over a single area are indivisible and that Arcelor’s old order 21.4% stake is fully Kumba’s.
ICT are now out in the cold, although it finalised its appeal against Zondo’s ruling last week.
In July 2011, the Hawks raided ICT’s office and the department in Kimberley for evidence of fraud when the applications were made.
ICT has challenged the legality of the raids, and the seized materials are currently out of the Hawks’ reach.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Zuma unleashes SIU on fraud, corruption at Eskom
Over the next three years, the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) will investigate Eskom's operations for evidence of corruption, fraud or maladministration, by proclamation of the presidency. Key areas of focus identified by the SIU's initial assessment are Eskom's coal procurement and transport services, as well as undisclosed interests held in companies doing business with the parastatal.
The intervention is being made at Eskom's request. "Eskom came to us -- they took the initiative and requested the intervention," said SIU spokesperson Marika Muller. According to Muller, Eskom is the first state-owned enterprise to request such an intervention. While not unheard of -- government departments have in the past made similar requests -- the request is not common.
The proclamation was authorised on Tuesday. It empowers the SIU to use a range of special powers, including ordering people to cooperate with its investigations by producing specific evidence or appearing before the SIU to answer questions under oath. A team of SIU investigators will work with Eskom's in-house forensic team to conduct a systematic check of all Eskom divisions. Any criminality uncovered will be referred to the National Prosecuting Authority and the South African Police Service.
After making its initial assessment, and in line with the legislation that governs the way the SIU operates, the unit reported back to the justice ministry and president and recommended that the president authorise a proclamation that would allow it to proceed with a full investigation.
Eskom announced its partnership with the SIU in March last year. At the time, Eskom's chief executive, Brian Dames, said: "We have made it a strategic imperative that Eskom must be a high-performance organisation. Our partnership with the SIU will help us to achieve that." Dames said the move was part of a drive towards greater efficiency and transparency, and that the initiative was in line with Eskom's commitment to stamping out corruption and strengthening governance. He said appropriate action, including criminal prosecution, would be taken should corrupt activities be uncovered.
Chris Yelland, managing director of industry publications company EE Publishers, endorsed the move. "The bottom line is that Eskom can't lose by going into this," he said. "They're taking a proactive stance against corruption even if it is within their own ranks. If something suspicious is found, they'll deal with it which is exactly what the public wants to hear."
In recent years Eskom has suffered an onslaught of setbacks including
* a power crisis and a series of rolling blackouts;
* a breakdown in trust between its board, former chairperson Bobby Godsell and former CEO Jacob Maroga;
* a poor relationship with the media and the public;
* allegations that its coal procurement processes were in shambles and its coal division in a near state of collapse;
* a conflict of interest in a multibillion-rand tender deal involving the ANC's investment arm Chancellor House;
* a major accident at the Duvha power plant which threatened the power supply.
The parastatal has seen something of a turnaround since Dames took over as CEO in mid-2010 and although questions still remain about Eskom's ability to keep the lights burning, there has been during his tenure a greater emphasis on communicating regularly with the public.
Source: Mail & Guardian
The intervention is being made at Eskom's request. "Eskom came to us -- they took the initiative and requested the intervention," said SIU spokesperson Marika Muller. According to Muller, Eskom is the first state-owned enterprise to request such an intervention. While not unheard of -- government departments have in the past made similar requests -- the request is not common.
The proclamation was authorised on Tuesday. It empowers the SIU to use a range of special powers, including ordering people to cooperate with its investigations by producing specific evidence or appearing before the SIU to answer questions under oath. A team of SIU investigators will work with Eskom's in-house forensic team to conduct a systematic check of all Eskom divisions. Any criminality uncovered will be referred to the National Prosecuting Authority and the South African Police Service.
After making its initial assessment, and in line with the legislation that governs the way the SIU operates, the unit reported back to the justice ministry and president and recommended that the president authorise a proclamation that would allow it to proceed with a full investigation.
Eskom announced its partnership with the SIU in March last year. At the time, Eskom's chief executive, Brian Dames, said: "We have made it a strategic imperative that Eskom must be a high-performance organisation. Our partnership with the SIU will help us to achieve that." Dames said the move was part of a drive towards greater efficiency and transparency, and that the initiative was in line with Eskom's commitment to stamping out corruption and strengthening governance. He said appropriate action, including criminal prosecution, would be taken should corrupt activities be uncovered.
Chris Yelland, managing director of industry publications company EE Publishers, endorsed the move. "The bottom line is that Eskom can't lose by going into this," he said. "They're taking a proactive stance against corruption even if it is within their own ranks. If something suspicious is found, they'll deal with it which is exactly what the public wants to hear."
In recent years Eskom has suffered an onslaught of setbacks including
* a power crisis and a series of rolling blackouts;
* a breakdown in trust between its board, former chairperson Bobby Godsell and former CEO Jacob Maroga;
* a poor relationship with the media and the public;
* allegations that its coal procurement processes were in shambles and its coal division in a near state of collapse;
* a conflict of interest in a multibillion-rand tender deal involving the ANC's investment arm Chancellor House;
* a major accident at the Duvha power plant which threatened the power supply.
The parastatal has seen something of a turnaround since Dames took over as CEO in mid-2010 and although questions still remain about Eskom's ability to keep the lights burning, there has been during his tenure a greater emphasis on communicating regularly with the public.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Durban won't act against officials, for now
But the council yesterday said it would not suspend implicated employees or take disciplinary action, as recommended by the forensic auditors, until it was clear on the proper procedure. "It is must be noted that the report has not found anyone guilty and it is therefore proper that different parties mentioned are given a chance to state their side of the story," city mayor James Nxumalo said. "But we must reiterate that we will take disciplinary action against officials and councillors that have been implicated."
The council declined to mention names, so Nxumalo did not comment on the allegations levelled at former mayor Obed Mlaba and municipal manager Michael Sutcliffe. The forensic investigation came after the auditor-general found that the city had irregularly spent R535-million and the Ngubane audit implicated Sutcliffe and three other officials in irregular housing contracts. Mlaba was alleged to have had shares in a company that nearly landed a R3-billion tender to convert the city's waste to energy. Dube said a company linked to Mlaba had allegedly expressed an interest in the tender and that was a breach of the municipal code of conduct.
The report claims that Sutcliffe, who controlled the city's R25.9-billion budget, contravened the Municipal Finance Management Act when he allegedly failed to promptly report irregular expenditure in dodgy housing contracts in writing to the mayor, the MEC and the auditor-general. It also alleges that Sutcliffe contravened the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act by not reporting fraud and corruption in a housing tender to the police. Sutcliffe, who is currently overseas, has not yet responded to the allegations. However, it was reported that he had said the allegation that he did not report corruption was "absolute nonsense".
The media report also stated that Sutcliffe demanded to know why Dube's sister was not implicated when "she was conducting business with the metro where she was an employee". Nxumalo said yesterday he was not aware of Dube's sister's business dealings with the municipality.
An ethics committee has been established to investigate allegations that 10 councillors had business contracts with the municipality. Nxumalo said 30 employees who had businesses with the municipality had already been disciplined and that the 123 officials implicated in the report would be investigated. "It must be understood that we are dealing with processes but those that are found guilty will face the full might of the law," he said.
Nxumalo said the report did not signal a crisis in the municipality. "It is, however, a wake-up call for us to arrest toxic practices that seemed to characterise the behaviour of our officials and councillors, disregarding applicable supply chain management processes," he said. "It is also revealing that if we address these loopholes within our systems of governance, the municipality could be on its way to achieving a clean audit before 2014. "We are therefore determined to root out the scourge of maladministration that has been afflicting us in recent years."
DA caucus leader Tex Collins said his party was part of the council but would continue to play an oversight role as the opposition party. "We will provide checks and balances as the opposition party. We have to hold the ruling party accountable and no one will stop us from doing that," he said.
Source: The Sowetan
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Push to Avert Foreclosures Hits Court Logjam
New York has been among the most aggressive states in trying to protect homeowners from foreclosure, granting new legal protections and turning courts across the state into teeming negotiation centers working to keep people in their homes. But four years into the foreclosure crisis, the state’s courts are largely at a stalemate, facing an estimated 100,000 foreclosure cases — a record number — with tens of thousands more expected. Courts statewide have been mired in often hopeless cases involving loans that have left bus drivers and grocery clerks, among others, owing $700,000 or more on homes that have fallen in value.
As the Obama administration works on new mortgage-relief programs, lawyers and officials say New York’s experience shows the limits of a state’s ability to cope with the national foreclosure morass. “We are a shining example of somebody’s best efforts falling short through no fault of our own,” said Paul Lewis, a senior official in the New York court system who has been helping coordinate foreclosure cases since the start of the crisis.
Special funding to provide lawyers for homeowners has largely dried up, with more than 75 percent of New York City residents going into foreclosure court without a lawyer, state data shows. The state’s judges have grown increasingly vocal about what some of them have called “outrageous” conduct, “patently false” statements and “inexcusable” actions by lenders’ lawyers.
The hearings that form the core of New York’s approach — special settlement conferences, which are required to try to modify mortgages to make them affordable — have become comic exercises slowed by endless paperwork, requests for additional information and the mysterious loss of documents. During a day of more than 30 of the conferences in State Supreme Court in Queens last week, homeowners with screaming children and wheelchair-bound grandmothers appeared befuddled by the paper chase. Some of the cases had already been taken up in the settlement conferences as many as nine times, over many months, only to be delayed each time until yet another meeting. “We don’t have the full file,” said a bank’s lawyer during one of the conferences. “Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to review the documents,” said another lender’s lawyer in another case a few minutes later. “We should have received it, but it didn’t get into our system,” said a third. A fourth lawyer conceded that the homeowners had mailed information to the bank, but said that “only fax and e-mail” were acceptable.
On several occasions the court official who conducted the conferences that day, Tracy Catapano-Fox, mentioned to homeowners the system’s Catch-22: as they rush to gather newly demanded tax and bank records, information they supplied earlier to address other questions grows too old to be useful.
Completed applications turn back into incomplete ones, leading to more delays to collect more information while the newest information, in turn, grows stale. Ms. Catapano-Fox told one homeowner after another of the trap that awaited them. “I have psychic powers,” she said with a sympathetic grimace, having conducted hundreds of the conferences. “There’s no question that the next time we come in here, they will claim that the documents are stale.”
In the hallway after the latest of what he said had been a dozen monthly appearances in his yearlong foreclosure case, Juan Adon, a Jamaica homeowner, said he was baffled. “It doesn’t make any sense,” he said. Ms. Catapano-Fox had dryly mentioned during his hearing that there was a notation in his file indicating that the bank’s representative had said in August that it needed no additional information. Yet it seemed that nothing had happened.
Statewide, after some 82,000 of the settlement conferences were held, with many cases taken up multiple times, just 4,253 cases reached settlements during the 11-month period ending in September, according to a recent report by the chief administrator of the state courts. And some of those settlements led to the loss of homes anyway. “We are concerned that the gains we have made are being lost,” the report said. “We’re at a fork in the road,” said Anne Erickson, president of the Empire Justice Center, which represents low-income homeowners. “We can continue leading the way or we can watch the whole thing unravel.”
Lawyers say the difficulties encountered in the New York courts show how complex the task of working through the jumble of subprime mortgages can be, made worse by issues like “robo-signing,” the practice of having foreclosure documents signed by lenders in such high numbers that they could not possibly have been reviewed carefully.
After attention on robo-signing abuses that led to improper foreclosures, the New York courts adopted a rule in 2010 to try to repair what its chief judge, Jonathan Lippman, called “a deeply flawed process.” The rule required lawyers who pursued foreclosure suits to file a certification stating they had personally checked the accuracy of the claims about a homeowner’s loan.
Court officials quickly noticed that, while banks’ lawyers continued to file foreclosure cases at a rapid rate, they adopted a new strategy that seemed to be aimed at evading the new requirement. They filed the cases, causing damage to people’s credit ratings and adding to the fees they paid, but did not push the cases far enough to set off the requirement for the lawyer’s certification.
Around the state, court officials estimate there may be 25,000 or more such “shadow” cases in addition to the 75,000 already moving through the courts. In the cases in which lawyers do file the newly required certification, some judges have ruled that the lawyers had changed the mandated wording or otherwise resisted compliance.
The difficulties posed by the lawyer’s certification requirement are only the latest problem in the foreclosure docket to irritate judges. In a March ruling, a frustrated Queens judge, Anna Culley, described a foreclosure case that was much like many others. In one settlement conference, the bank asked for additional banking records from the homeowner, the judge wrote.
At another session, it demanded pay stubs. In a third, it asked for tax forms. In a fourth, it asked for all the paperwork to be resubmitted. At two meetings, the bank’s representative said a modification of the mortgage had been granted, lowering the required payments. But after two and a half years, the judge wrote, the bank had yet to modify the loan, and the foreclosure case was still pending.
Source: New York Times
As the Obama administration works on new mortgage-relief programs, lawyers and officials say New York’s experience shows the limits of a state’s ability to cope with the national foreclosure morass. “We are a shining example of somebody’s best efforts falling short through no fault of our own,” said Paul Lewis, a senior official in the New York court system who has been helping coordinate foreclosure cases since the start of the crisis.
Special funding to provide lawyers for homeowners has largely dried up, with more than 75 percent of New York City residents going into foreclosure court without a lawyer, state data shows. The state’s judges have grown increasingly vocal about what some of them have called “outrageous” conduct, “patently false” statements and “inexcusable” actions by lenders’ lawyers.
The hearings that form the core of New York’s approach — special settlement conferences, which are required to try to modify mortgages to make them affordable — have become comic exercises slowed by endless paperwork, requests for additional information and the mysterious loss of documents. During a day of more than 30 of the conferences in State Supreme Court in Queens last week, homeowners with screaming children and wheelchair-bound grandmothers appeared befuddled by the paper chase. Some of the cases had already been taken up in the settlement conferences as many as nine times, over many months, only to be delayed each time until yet another meeting. “We don’t have the full file,” said a bank’s lawyer during one of the conferences. “Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to review the documents,” said another lender’s lawyer in another case a few minutes later. “We should have received it, but it didn’t get into our system,” said a third. A fourth lawyer conceded that the homeowners had mailed information to the bank, but said that “only fax and e-mail” were acceptable.
On several occasions the court official who conducted the conferences that day, Tracy Catapano-Fox, mentioned to homeowners the system’s Catch-22: as they rush to gather newly demanded tax and bank records, information they supplied earlier to address other questions grows too old to be useful.
Completed applications turn back into incomplete ones, leading to more delays to collect more information while the newest information, in turn, grows stale. Ms. Catapano-Fox told one homeowner after another of the trap that awaited them. “I have psychic powers,” she said with a sympathetic grimace, having conducted hundreds of the conferences. “There’s no question that the next time we come in here, they will claim that the documents are stale.”
In the hallway after the latest of what he said had been a dozen monthly appearances in his yearlong foreclosure case, Juan Adon, a Jamaica homeowner, said he was baffled. “It doesn’t make any sense,” he said. Ms. Catapano-Fox had dryly mentioned during his hearing that there was a notation in his file indicating that the bank’s representative had said in August that it needed no additional information. Yet it seemed that nothing had happened.
Statewide, after some 82,000 of the settlement conferences were held, with many cases taken up multiple times, just 4,253 cases reached settlements during the 11-month period ending in September, according to a recent report by the chief administrator of the state courts. And some of those settlements led to the loss of homes anyway. “We are concerned that the gains we have made are being lost,” the report said. “We’re at a fork in the road,” said Anne Erickson, president of the Empire Justice Center, which represents low-income homeowners. “We can continue leading the way or we can watch the whole thing unravel.”
Lawyers say the difficulties encountered in the New York courts show how complex the task of working through the jumble of subprime mortgages can be, made worse by issues like “robo-signing,” the practice of having foreclosure documents signed by lenders in such high numbers that they could not possibly have been reviewed carefully.
After attention on robo-signing abuses that led to improper foreclosures, the New York courts adopted a rule in 2010 to try to repair what its chief judge, Jonathan Lippman, called “a deeply flawed process.” The rule required lawyers who pursued foreclosure suits to file a certification stating they had personally checked the accuracy of the claims about a homeowner’s loan.
Court officials quickly noticed that, while banks’ lawyers continued to file foreclosure cases at a rapid rate, they adopted a new strategy that seemed to be aimed at evading the new requirement. They filed the cases, causing damage to people’s credit ratings and adding to the fees they paid, but did not push the cases far enough to set off the requirement for the lawyer’s certification.
Around the state, court officials estimate there may be 25,000 or more such “shadow” cases in addition to the 75,000 already moving through the courts. In the cases in which lawyers do file the newly required certification, some judges have ruled that the lawyers had changed the mandated wording or otherwise resisted compliance.
The difficulties posed by the lawyer’s certification requirement are only the latest problem in the foreclosure docket to irritate judges. In a March ruling, a frustrated Queens judge, Anna Culley, described a foreclosure case that was much like many others. In one settlement conference, the bank asked for additional banking records from the homeowner, the judge wrote.
At another session, it demanded pay stubs. In a third, it asked for tax forms. In a fourth, it asked for all the paperwork to be resubmitted. At two meetings, the bank’s representative said a modification of the mortgage had been granted, lowering the required payments. But after two and a half years, the judge wrote, the bank had yet to modify the loan, and the foreclosure case was still pending.
Source: New York Times
Anti-Joseph Kabila protesters urge DRC boycott at Indaba
Congolese protesters opposed to the DRC's Joseph Kabila are picketing on the sidelines of the Mining Indaba in Cape Town, calling on investors to steer clear of the country's mineral resources. Congolese protesters who dispute the recent re-election of Joseph Kabila as president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) picketed on the sidelines of the Mining Indaba in Cape Town on Wednesday, calling on investors to steer clear of the country's mineral resources. They also claimed that South Africa had only endorsed Kabila's re-election because prominent South Africans had business interests in the countries' mining sector. Chanting in French and Kikongo, approximately 30 protesters cradled placards and the DRC's flags while they toyi-toyi'd along Coen Steytler avenue outside the Cape Town International Convention Centre.
"Kabila is a killer and rapist"; "Help save the DRC"; and "DRC in deep political crisis -- Illegal delegation as Indaba," read some of the placards. The protests form part of a larger campaign by DRC citizens residing in South Africa who believe the presidential elections in December were illegitimate and fixed in favour of incumbent president Joseph Kabila.
"There is no government representative of the people at the moment in the DRC. Kabila stole the elections and is stealing the wealth of our country -- he must go," Iko Ikotela from Kinshasa told the Mail & Guardian.
Most of those protesting outside the Indaba say opposition leader Etienne Tshisekedi is the rightful leader of the country and was defeated by Kabila only "through fraud". As part of their remonstrations, the protesters are encouraging investors to steer clear of the country's mineral sector, which they believe is "tainted".
"Hey! Please don't invest in the DRC -- you are supporting a murderer and a rapist and buying blood diamonds -- don't do it," shouted one Protester to a bemused looking delegate as he exited the Indaba.
Besides diamonds, other primary minerals mined in the country include cobalt, gold and copper. Despite widespread international condemnation, the South African government ratified Kabila's victory in late December. Ikotela alleges the support from the South African government is solely based on business interests in the DRC, held by prominent South African politicians.
"Your President Zuma and his cronies have mines up in DRC, that's why you are supporting Kabila," he told the M&G.
Presidential spokesperson Mac Maharaj dismissed claims of Zuma's business concerns in the DRC as "far-fetched" and would not comment any further on the matter. While there is no overt evidence to suggest President Zuma is involved in any business concerns -- mining or otherwise -- in the DRC, his nephew Khulubuse Zuma is involved in the country's mineral and energy sector. In response to the protests, the DRC's minerals and energy delegation at the Indaba have set up an emergency number for the country's representatives to contact should picketers threaten them.
"They have been a little aggressive but nothing too hectic. If I think it is bad I will use the number," Alessaine Kwatanga, a businessman in Lubumbashi told the M&G.
Indaba organisers have described the protests as "unfortunate" but say they recognise the rights of DRC citizens to protest against their government and leaders.
"The right to peaceful protest is enshrined in the South African Constitution. The Mining Indaba would like to apologise to our delegates and anyone who might have been inconvenienced," read a statement released on Wednesday.
Source: Mail & Guardian
"Kabila is a killer and rapist"; "Help save the DRC"; and "DRC in deep political crisis -- Illegal delegation as Indaba," read some of the placards. The protests form part of a larger campaign by DRC citizens residing in South Africa who believe the presidential elections in December were illegitimate and fixed in favour of incumbent president Joseph Kabila.
"There is no government representative of the people at the moment in the DRC. Kabila stole the elections and is stealing the wealth of our country -- he must go," Iko Ikotela from Kinshasa told the Mail & Guardian.
Most of those protesting outside the Indaba say opposition leader Etienne Tshisekedi is the rightful leader of the country and was defeated by Kabila only "through fraud". As part of their remonstrations, the protesters are encouraging investors to steer clear of the country's mineral sector, which they believe is "tainted".
"Hey! Please don't invest in the DRC -- you are supporting a murderer and a rapist and buying blood diamonds -- don't do it," shouted one Protester to a bemused looking delegate as he exited the Indaba.
Besides diamonds, other primary minerals mined in the country include cobalt, gold and copper. Despite widespread international condemnation, the South African government ratified Kabila's victory in late December. Ikotela alleges the support from the South African government is solely based on business interests in the DRC, held by prominent South African politicians.
"Your President Zuma and his cronies have mines up in DRC, that's why you are supporting Kabila," he told the M&G.
Presidential spokesperson Mac Maharaj dismissed claims of Zuma's business concerns in the DRC as "far-fetched" and would not comment any further on the matter. While there is no overt evidence to suggest President Zuma is involved in any business concerns -- mining or otherwise -- in the DRC, his nephew Khulubuse Zuma is involved in the country's mineral and energy sector. In response to the protests, the DRC's minerals and energy delegation at the Indaba have set up an emergency number for the country's representatives to contact should picketers threaten them.
"They have been a little aggressive but nothing too hectic. If I think it is bad I will use the number," Alessaine Kwatanga, a businessman in Lubumbashi told the M&G.
Indaba organisers have described the protests as "unfortunate" but say they recognise the rights of DRC citizens to protest against their government and leaders.
"The right to peaceful protest is enshrined in the South African Constitution. The Mining Indaba would like to apologise to our delegates and anyone who might have been inconvenienced," read a statement released on Wednesday.
Source: Mail & Guardian
DRC election protest goes viral
Congolese protesters opposed to the DRC's Joseph Kabila are picketing on the sidelines of the Mining Indaba in Cape Town, calling on investors to steer clear of the country's mineral resources. Congolese protesters who dispute the recent re-election of Joseph Kabila as president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) picketed on the sidelines of the Mining Indaba in Cape Town on Wednesday, calling on investors to steer clear of the country's mineral resources.
They also claimed that South Africa had only endorsed Kabila's re-election because prominent South Africans had business interests in the countries' mining sector. Chanting in French and Kikongo, approximately 30 protesters cradled placards and the DRC's flags while they toyi-toyi'd along Coen Steytler avenue outside the Cape Town International Convention Centre.
"Kabila is a killer and rapist"; "Help save the DRC"; and "DRC in deep political crisis -- Illegal delegation as Indaba," read some of the placards.
The protests form part of a larger campaign by DRC citizens residing in South Africa who believe the presidential elections in December were illegitimate and fixed in favour of incumbent president Joseph Kabila.
'Kabila stole the elections and is stealing the wealth'
"There is no government representative of the people at the moment in the DRC. Kabila stole the elections and is stealing the wealth of our country -- he must go," Iko Ikotela from Kinshasa told the Mail & Guardian.
Most of those protesting outside the Indaba say opposition leader Etienne Tshisekedi is the rightful leader of the country and was defeated by Kabila only "through fraud".
As part of their remonstrations, the protesters are encouraging investors to steer clear of the country's mineral sector, which they believe is "tainted".
"Hey! Please don't invest in the DRC -- you are supporting a murderer and a rapist and buying blood diamonds -- don't do it," shouted one Protester to a bemused looking delegate as he exited the Indaba.
Besides diamonds, other primary minerals mined in the country include cobalt, gold and copper.
Despite widespread international condemnation, the South African government ratified Kabila's victory in late December.
'Zuma and his cronies have mines in the DRC'
Ikotela alleges the support from the South African government is solely based on business interests in the DRC, held by prominent South African politicians.
"Your President Zuma and his cronies have mines up in DRC, that's why you are supporting Kabila," he told the M&G.
Presidential spokesperson Mac Maharaj dismissed claims of Zuma's business concerns in the DRC as "far-fetched" and would not comment any further on the matter.
While there is no overt evidence to suggest President Zuma is involved in any business concerns -- mining or otherwise -- in the DRC, his nephew Khulubuse Zuma is involved in the country's mineral and energy sector.
Emergency number
In response to the protests, the DRC's minerals and energy delegation at the Indaba have set up an emergency number for the country's representatives to contact should picketers threaten them.
"They have been a little aggressive but nothing too hectic. If I think it is bad I will use the number," Alessaine Kwatanga, a businessman in Lubumbashi told the M&G.
Indaba organisers have described the protests as "unfortunate" but say they recognise the rights of DRC citizens to protest against their government and leaders.
"The right to peaceful protest is enshrined in the South African Constitution. The Mining Indaba would like to apologise to our delegates and anyone who might have been inconvenienced," read a statement released on Wednesday.
They also claimed that South Africa had only endorsed Kabila's re-election because prominent South Africans had business interests in the countries' mining sector. Chanting in French and Kikongo, approximately 30 protesters cradled placards and the DRC's flags while they toyi-toyi'd along Coen Steytler avenue outside the Cape Town International Convention Centre.
"Kabila is a killer and rapist"; "Help save the DRC"; and "DRC in deep political crisis -- Illegal delegation as Indaba," read some of the placards.
The protests form part of a larger campaign by DRC citizens residing in South Africa who believe the presidential elections in December were illegitimate and fixed in favour of incumbent president Joseph Kabila.
'Kabila stole the elections and is stealing the wealth'
"There is no government representative of the people at the moment in the DRC. Kabila stole the elections and is stealing the wealth of our country -- he must go," Iko Ikotela from Kinshasa told the Mail & Guardian.
Most of those protesting outside the Indaba say opposition leader Etienne Tshisekedi is the rightful leader of the country and was defeated by Kabila only "through fraud".
As part of their remonstrations, the protesters are encouraging investors to steer clear of the country's mineral sector, which they believe is "tainted".
"Hey! Please don't invest in the DRC -- you are supporting a murderer and a rapist and buying blood diamonds -- don't do it," shouted one Protester to a bemused looking delegate as he exited the Indaba.
Besides diamonds, other primary minerals mined in the country include cobalt, gold and copper.
Despite widespread international condemnation, the South African government ratified Kabila's victory in late December.
'Zuma and his cronies have mines in the DRC'
Ikotela alleges the support from the South African government is solely based on business interests in the DRC, held by prominent South African politicians.
"Your President Zuma and his cronies have mines up in DRC, that's why you are supporting Kabila," he told the M&G.
Presidential spokesperson Mac Maharaj dismissed claims of Zuma's business concerns in the DRC as "far-fetched" and would not comment any further on the matter.
While there is no overt evidence to suggest President Zuma is involved in any business concerns -- mining or otherwise -- in the DRC, his nephew Khulubuse Zuma is involved in the country's mineral and energy sector.
Emergency number
In response to the protests, the DRC's minerals and energy delegation at the Indaba have set up an emergency number for the country's representatives to contact should picketers threaten them.
"They have been a little aggressive but nothing too hectic. If I think it is bad I will use the number," Alessaine Kwatanga, a businessman in Lubumbashi told the M&G.
Indaba organisers have described the protests as "unfortunate" but say they recognise the rights of DRC citizens to protest against their government and leaders.
"The right to peaceful protest is enshrined in the South African Constitution. The Mining Indaba would like to apologise to our delegates and anyone who might have been inconvenienced," read a statement released on Wednesday.
Strong data growth propels Vodacom revenues higher
Strong growth in demand for data, where revenues have risen by 23,8% in the past year, has helped propel the Vodacom Group’s total sales higher by 12,2% to R18bn in the third quarter of its financial year to 31 December 2011.
The JSE-listed telecommunications operator, which is controlled by the UK’s Vodafone, has reported a 41,2% increase in active data customers to 13,8m. In SA, revenues were up by 7,6% on customer growth of 25,4%, to 31,7m. The SA business added 2,8m subscribers in the three-month period. Group subscribers number now above the 52m mark, growing by 5m in the quarter.
CEO Pieter Uys says the SA business “defied the somewhat gloomy economic conditions”. He credits this to its summer advertising campaigns, targeted promotions and attractive handset deals. Interestingly, growth was strong in rural areas. “The strong growth in customers and data usage helped offset the year-to-date reduction of 16% in both voice and data prices,” Uys says.
Average revenue per user in SA was down 14,6% to R140, largely as a result of lower termination rates — the fees operators charge each other to carry calls onto their networks — and a higher prevalence of lower usage customers in the mix. It expects a seasonal increase in churn in the coming quarters from currently low levels.
Though active data customers in SA climbed by 31,5% to 11,4m, revenue growth was up by a slower 19,3%, to R1,9bn, as a result of price reductions. Demand for smartphones remained strong, with 655 000 devices activated in the three-month period. Vodacom SA now has 4,8m active smartphone users on its networks, accounting for 18% of all devices.
International operations accounted for more than 40% of the increase in subscriber numbers. Data revenue outside SA leapt by 135,4% because of strong demand for data and mobile financial services. M-Pesa has enjoyed solid support in Tanzania, with 2,7m active customers representing 23,4% of the base. M-Pesa now acccounts for 8,5% of service revenue in Tanzania, Vodacom’s second biggest market after SA, and processed US$400m worth of transactions in December.
Vodacom’s share price was trading mostly flat shortly after the release of the quarterly update.
Download Vodacom’s full third-quarter trading statement here (PDF file).
Source: — Staff reporter, TechCentral
The JSE-listed telecommunications operator, which is controlled by the UK’s Vodafone, has reported a 41,2% increase in active data customers to 13,8m. In SA, revenues were up by 7,6% on customer growth of 25,4%, to 31,7m. The SA business added 2,8m subscribers in the three-month period. Group subscribers number now above the 52m mark, growing by 5m in the quarter.
CEO Pieter Uys says the SA business “defied the somewhat gloomy economic conditions”. He credits this to its summer advertising campaigns, targeted promotions and attractive handset deals. Interestingly, growth was strong in rural areas. “The strong growth in customers and data usage helped offset the year-to-date reduction of 16% in both voice and data prices,” Uys says.
Average revenue per user in SA was down 14,6% to R140, largely as a result of lower termination rates — the fees operators charge each other to carry calls onto their networks — and a higher prevalence of lower usage customers in the mix. It expects a seasonal increase in churn in the coming quarters from currently low levels.
Though active data customers in SA climbed by 31,5% to 11,4m, revenue growth was up by a slower 19,3%, to R1,9bn, as a result of price reductions. Demand for smartphones remained strong, with 655 000 devices activated in the three-month period. Vodacom SA now has 4,8m active smartphone users on its networks, accounting for 18% of all devices.
International operations accounted for more than 40% of the increase in subscriber numbers. Data revenue outside SA leapt by 135,4% because of strong demand for data and mobile financial services. M-Pesa has enjoyed solid support in Tanzania, with 2,7m active customers representing 23,4% of the base. M-Pesa now acccounts for 8,5% of service revenue in Tanzania, Vodacom’s second biggest market after SA, and processed US$400m worth of transactions in December.
Vodacom’s share price was trading mostly flat shortly after the release of the quarterly update.
Download Vodacom’s full third-quarter trading statement here (PDF file).
Source: — Staff reporter, TechCentral
Monday, February 6, 2012
The South African Constitutional Court Extends Police Accountability
Should the police be more trustworthy than any other citizen? And if they are not, can you hold the Minister of Police to account? In an important unanimous judgement penned by South African Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng and handed down on 15 December 2011, the answer to these questions was a resounding “yes.” This judgement has effectively set new legal precedent by extending the basis for civil claims against police officers who break the law and cause injury or damage to citizens. Most importantly, this judgement holds that even when off-duty, if there is enough of a connection between their employment as police officers and their illegal acts, the Minister of Police may be held liable.
This ground-breaking case began 14 years ago in 1998 when Allister van Wyk, a police officer, raped a thirteen year old girl outside the town of George in the Western Cape. The incident started in the early hours of the morning when the girl had needed a lift home from a night-club. Mr van Vyk offered to give her a lift home as he was doing the same for two of his friends. He was driving an unmarked police vehicle at the time that had been allocated to him as he was on standby duty and would need to be able to respond quickly if he was called to pace himself on duty. Knowing he was a police officer and was driving a police vehicle, the girl felt that it would be safe to accept a lift from him. After leaving the night club, van Wyk first dropped off his friends, but then, instead of driving her home, he drove out of town towards an area known as ‘the Wilderness’, stopping in the Kaaimans pass at a dark and secluded picnic spot alongside the estuary.
The girl, realising that he wasn’t driving her straight home as promised, became afraid and jumped from the car as soon as it stopped. She managed to get away and hide amongst the trees and bush until he left. Then she made her way back to the main road with the intention of hitchhiking back into George. She didn’t wait long before a vehicle stopped for her. To her surprise it was the same car she had just escaped from, driven by van Wyk. Although reluctant to climb back in, van Wyk assured her that he would take her home unharmed. Given that there were very few vehicles on this road at that time of the morning, she felt she had little choice but to accept. Van Wyk drove a short way up the road before stopping, assaulting and then raping her. He then drove her home and threatened to hurt or kill her if she told anyone what he had done.
She bravely defied his threats and reported the incident to the police who arrested van Wyk and charged him with rape. He was later convicted of the crime and was sent to prison. Shockingly, at the time of the rape van Wyk was head of the George detective unit, this was in spite of having four previous criminal convictions against him.
In 2005 the girl, now a young woman, brought a civil claim for damages against van Wyk and the Minister of Police. She held the Minister liable for van Wyk’s action and sought to claim damages from the police. Although the High Court ruled in her favour, the police appealed the decision which was subsequently overturned in a majority judgement by the Supreme Court of Appeal on the basis that van Wyk was off-duty at the time of the incident and that the Minister could therefore not be held liable. She then appealed that ruling in the Constitutional Court.
The question the Constitutional Court was called on to answer, was whether the Minister of Police could be held accountable for the actions of police officers, who were not on active duty; and whether police officers should be more worthy of our trust than any other citizen. The Institute for Security Studies was the first of three civil-society organisations to apply to act as amicus curie (friends of the court) by bringing expert testimony in the matter. We did so because this case offered an opportunity to strengthen police accountability by putting in place additional legal measures that citizens could use to hold the state liable for criminal and abusive behaviour by police officials.
The Court’s finding, that the Minister of Police, is indeed accountable for the actions of officers, represents an important milestone in the effort to ensure that the police act to project, rather than harm citizen’s even when they are not on active duty. It means that the Minister of Police has a responsibility to ensure that the officers who are recruited, appointed and employed by the police are not criminals themselves. Fortunately, the current Minister of Police, Nathi Mthethwa has already publicly committed himself to professionalising the South African Police Service (SAPS). This finding is particularly important in the light of the increase in recent years of cases of human rights violations committed by the police. For instance, the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) reported 45 allegations of torture in its 2010-2011 report, the highest number reported since 1999.
Towards the end of 2011, the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Police heard that during the 2010-11 financial year, contingent civil claims against the SAPS, mostly arising out of police criminality and misconduct, had increased to the substantial amount of R11bn or about 20% of the total police budget. In the short-term the Constitutional Courts ruling is likely to mean that the police will face additional civil claims and will therefore have to allocate even more of their budget to cover the potential cost of these claims.
To prevent this, it is going to be necessary for the Minister to ensure that SAPS management put proper measures in place to ensure that the people they recruit, train and employ understand, accept and are held accountable to the burden of professional service that being a member of the police requires. If SAPS management is able to do this, it will result in better policing while costing the state less in civil claims in the long run.
Source: ISS
This ground-breaking case began 14 years ago in 1998 when Allister van Wyk, a police officer, raped a thirteen year old girl outside the town of George in the Western Cape. The incident started in the early hours of the morning when the girl had needed a lift home from a night-club. Mr van Vyk offered to give her a lift home as he was doing the same for two of his friends. He was driving an unmarked police vehicle at the time that had been allocated to him as he was on standby duty and would need to be able to respond quickly if he was called to pace himself on duty. Knowing he was a police officer and was driving a police vehicle, the girl felt that it would be safe to accept a lift from him. After leaving the night club, van Wyk first dropped off his friends, but then, instead of driving her home, he drove out of town towards an area known as ‘the Wilderness’, stopping in the Kaaimans pass at a dark and secluded picnic spot alongside the estuary.
The girl, realising that he wasn’t driving her straight home as promised, became afraid and jumped from the car as soon as it stopped. She managed to get away and hide amongst the trees and bush until he left. Then she made her way back to the main road with the intention of hitchhiking back into George. She didn’t wait long before a vehicle stopped for her. To her surprise it was the same car she had just escaped from, driven by van Wyk. Although reluctant to climb back in, van Wyk assured her that he would take her home unharmed. Given that there were very few vehicles on this road at that time of the morning, she felt she had little choice but to accept. Van Wyk drove a short way up the road before stopping, assaulting and then raping her. He then drove her home and threatened to hurt or kill her if she told anyone what he had done.
She bravely defied his threats and reported the incident to the police who arrested van Wyk and charged him with rape. He was later convicted of the crime and was sent to prison. Shockingly, at the time of the rape van Wyk was head of the George detective unit, this was in spite of having four previous criminal convictions against him.
In 2005 the girl, now a young woman, brought a civil claim for damages against van Wyk and the Minister of Police. She held the Minister liable for van Wyk’s action and sought to claim damages from the police. Although the High Court ruled in her favour, the police appealed the decision which was subsequently overturned in a majority judgement by the Supreme Court of Appeal on the basis that van Wyk was off-duty at the time of the incident and that the Minister could therefore not be held liable. She then appealed that ruling in the Constitutional Court.
The question the Constitutional Court was called on to answer, was whether the Minister of Police could be held accountable for the actions of police officers, who were not on active duty; and whether police officers should be more worthy of our trust than any other citizen. The Institute for Security Studies was the first of three civil-society organisations to apply to act as amicus curie (friends of the court) by bringing expert testimony in the matter. We did so because this case offered an opportunity to strengthen police accountability by putting in place additional legal measures that citizens could use to hold the state liable for criminal and abusive behaviour by police officials.
The Court’s finding, that the Minister of Police, is indeed accountable for the actions of officers, represents an important milestone in the effort to ensure that the police act to project, rather than harm citizen’s even when they are not on active duty. It means that the Minister of Police has a responsibility to ensure that the officers who are recruited, appointed and employed by the police are not criminals themselves. Fortunately, the current Minister of Police, Nathi Mthethwa has already publicly committed himself to professionalising the South African Police Service (SAPS). This finding is particularly important in the light of the increase in recent years of cases of human rights violations committed by the police. For instance, the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) reported 45 allegations of torture in its 2010-2011 report, the highest number reported since 1999.
Towards the end of 2011, the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Police heard that during the 2010-11 financial year, contingent civil claims against the SAPS, mostly arising out of police criminality and misconduct, had increased to the substantial amount of R11bn or about 20% of the total police budget. In the short-term the Constitutional Courts ruling is likely to mean that the police will face additional civil claims and will therefore have to allocate even more of their budget to cover the potential cost of these claims.
To prevent this, it is going to be necessary for the Minister to ensure that SAPS management put proper measures in place to ensure that the people they recruit, train and employ understand, accept and are held accountable to the burden of professional service that being a member of the police requires. If SAPS management is able to do this, it will result in better policing while costing the state less in civil claims in the long run.
Source: ISS
Company Faces Forgery Charges in Mortgage Foreclosures
One of the largest companies that provided home foreclosure services to lenders across the nation, DocX, has been indicted on forgery charges by a Missouri grand jury — one of the few criminal actions to follow reports of widespread improprieties against homeowners.
A grand jury in Boone County, Mo., handed up an indictment Friday accusing DocX of 136 counts of forgery in the preparation of documents used to evict financially strained borrowers from their homes. Lorraine O. Brown, the company’s founder and former president, was indicted on the same charges. Employees of DocX, a unit of Lender Processing Services of Jacksonville, Fla., executed and notarized millions of mortgage documents for big banks and loan servicers over the years. Lender Processing closed the company in April 2010, after evidence emerged of apparent forgeries in these documents, a practice now called robo-signing.
Chris Koster, the Missouri attorney general, will prosecute the case. “The grand jury indictment alleges that mass-produced fraudulent signatures on notarized real estate documents constitutes forgery,” Mr. Koster said in a statement. “Today’s indictment reflects our firm conviction that when you sign your name to a legal document, it matters.”
Mr. Koster said his office’s investigation was continuing. This suggests he may hope to persuade Ms. Brown to cooperate in his investigation of the parent company. If convicted, Ms. Brown could face up to seven years in prison for each forgery count. DocX could be fined up to $10,000 for each forgery conviction. Scott Rosenblum, a lawyer at Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers & Glass who represents DocX said: “We have not had an opportunity to review the indictment at this point. The company intends to enter a plea of not guilty.”
According to the indictment, Ms. Brown acted “knowingly in concert with DocX and its employees” to mislead and defraud the Boone County recorder of deeds. The documents central to the indictments were deeds of release, which eliminate a previous claim on an asset. Such releases are typically issued when a mortgage has been paid off.
A lawyer for Ms. Brown said that she intends to enter a not guilty plea and that she had no criminal intent.
Since evidence of pervasive foreclosure improprieties emerged, state officials have mostly brought civil suits against the institutions and law firms that filed the fraudulent documents. Individuals in Nevada, for example, have been charged with notary fraud, but beyond that matter, criminal cases arising from foreclosure practices have been uncommon.
The Missouri grand jury found that the person whose name appeared on 68 documents executed on behalf of a lender — someone named Linda Green — was not the person who had signed the papers. The documents were submitted to the Boone County recorder of deeds as though they were genuine, Mr. Koster said.
A recent civil lawsuit against Lender Processing by the attorney general of Nevada found that former workers at one of its divisions had described their work as “surrogate signers.” One worker who was quoted in the complaint said she had been paid $11 an hour and told that her job was “to sign somebody else’s signature on documents.” The person said she had signed roughly 2,000 documents a day for months, according to the lawsuit.
In addition to deed releases, DocX surrogate signers routinely executed assignments of mortgage, which reflect changes in ownership. The indictment is only the latest legal assault on the company and its parent, Lender Processing. In August 2011, American Home Mortgage Servicing, a large loan servicer, sued Lender Processing contending that more than 30,000 residential mortgages that it had handled across the country contained “improper execution, notarization and recording of assignments of mortgage.” DocX executed such paperwork for American Home from April 2008 through November 2009, the lawsuit said.
Last April, Lender Processing signed a consent order with the nation’s top financial regulators, agreeing to remediate improperly executed mortgage documents and to correct its default business practices. Michelle Kersch, a Lender Processing spokeswoman, said recently that the company now executed documents “with stringent controls in place” to ensure compliance with all rules.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: February 8, 2012
An article on Tuesday about indictments on forgery charges of the loan processing firm DocX and its founder and former president, Lorraine O. Brown, misstated the given name for the lawyer representing the company. He is Scott Rosenblum, not Chris. (The lawyer defending Ms. Brown is Chris Rosenbloom.)
Source: New York Times
A grand jury in Boone County, Mo., handed up an indictment Friday accusing DocX of 136 counts of forgery in the preparation of documents used to evict financially strained borrowers from their homes. Lorraine O. Brown, the company’s founder and former president, was indicted on the same charges. Employees of DocX, a unit of Lender Processing Services of Jacksonville, Fla., executed and notarized millions of mortgage documents for big banks and loan servicers over the years. Lender Processing closed the company in April 2010, after evidence emerged of apparent forgeries in these documents, a practice now called robo-signing.
Chris Koster, the Missouri attorney general, will prosecute the case. “The grand jury indictment alleges that mass-produced fraudulent signatures on notarized real estate documents constitutes forgery,” Mr. Koster said in a statement. “Today’s indictment reflects our firm conviction that when you sign your name to a legal document, it matters.”
Mr. Koster said his office’s investigation was continuing. This suggests he may hope to persuade Ms. Brown to cooperate in his investigation of the parent company. If convicted, Ms. Brown could face up to seven years in prison for each forgery count. DocX could be fined up to $10,000 for each forgery conviction. Scott Rosenblum, a lawyer at Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers & Glass who represents DocX said: “We have not had an opportunity to review the indictment at this point. The company intends to enter a plea of not guilty.”
According to the indictment, Ms. Brown acted “knowingly in concert with DocX and its employees” to mislead and defraud the Boone County recorder of deeds. The documents central to the indictments were deeds of release, which eliminate a previous claim on an asset. Such releases are typically issued when a mortgage has been paid off.
A lawyer for Ms. Brown said that she intends to enter a not guilty plea and that she had no criminal intent.
Since evidence of pervasive foreclosure improprieties emerged, state officials have mostly brought civil suits against the institutions and law firms that filed the fraudulent documents. Individuals in Nevada, for example, have been charged with notary fraud, but beyond that matter, criminal cases arising from foreclosure practices have been uncommon.
The Missouri grand jury found that the person whose name appeared on 68 documents executed on behalf of a lender — someone named Linda Green — was not the person who had signed the papers. The documents were submitted to the Boone County recorder of deeds as though they were genuine, Mr. Koster said.
A recent civil lawsuit against Lender Processing by the attorney general of Nevada found that former workers at one of its divisions had described their work as “surrogate signers.” One worker who was quoted in the complaint said she had been paid $11 an hour and told that her job was “to sign somebody else’s signature on documents.” The person said she had signed roughly 2,000 documents a day for months, according to the lawsuit.
In addition to deed releases, DocX surrogate signers routinely executed assignments of mortgage, which reflect changes in ownership. The indictment is only the latest legal assault on the company and its parent, Lender Processing. In August 2011, American Home Mortgage Servicing, a large loan servicer, sued Lender Processing contending that more than 30,000 residential mortgages that it had handled across the country contained “improper execution, notarization and recording of assignments of mortgage.” DocX executed such paperwork for American Home from April 2008 through November 2009, the lawsuit said.
Last April, Lender Processing signed a consent order with the nation’s top financial regulators, agreeing to remediate improperly executed mortgage documents and to correct its default business practices. Michelle Kersch, a Lender Processing spokeswoman, said recently that the company now executed documents “with stringent controls in place” to ensure compliance with all rules.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: February 8, 2012
An article on Tuesday about indictments on forgery charges of the loan processing firm DocX and its founder and former president, Lorraine O. Brown, misstated the given name for the lawyer representing the company. He is Scott Rosenblum, not Chris. (The lawyer defending Ms. Brown is Chris Rosenbloom.)
Source: New York Times
Malema verdict might not be something to celebrate
It is understandable that members of the chattering classes as well as other members of the public (including many rank and file members of the ANC yearning for a, perhaps mythical, simpler time when ANC Youth League members behaved properly and listened to their elders) on Saturday applauded the verdict of the ANC National Disciplinary Committee of Appeal (NDCA) which confirmed the guilty verdict against Julius Malema.
It could not have hurt that the verdict was delivered by a confident and in charge Cyril Ramaphosa, who reminded us again why so many of us have regretted the fact that he lost out to Thabo Mbeki when Mandela’s ANC had to appoint a Deputy President and why some of us still wistfully wonder what might have been if he had become our President instead of either Thabo Mbeki or Jacob Zuma.
Although some newspaper editors might miss Malema (given the fact that he has the ability to make news and sell newspapers), most of us might feel slightly relieved that this hypocritical demagogue has been dealt with so effectively and seemingly so decisively by the ANC senior leadership.
Yet, there is something about the way in which Jacob Zuma and Gwede Mantashe managed to clip Malema’s wings that sits uneasy with me. If they could do it to him, I wonder, could they do it to anyone else – including every single one of us who are members of the chattering classes and sometimes mock or criticise our dancing and singing President and every single ANC member who fails to toe the party line or who speaks out against the abuse of power or incompetence by some members of the leadership?
Is there not just a whiff of Stalinism about the way in which Zuma and Matashe got rid of a political enemy? Can we expect the pictures to be airbrushed next so that Malema will disappear completely from official ANC history?
Recall that Malema was convicted on three charges, two of them having been confirmed by the NDCA. First, he was convicted of contravening Rule 25.5 (1) of the ANC Constitution “by behaving in such a way as to provoke serious divisions or a breakdown of unity in the organisation”. His sin was that he addressed a press conference on 31 July 2011 at the conclusion of an ANC Youth League NEC meeting where he said amongst other things “in the past we know President Mbeki used that agenda very well …. The African agenda is no longer a priority and we think that there is a temptation by the coloniser and the imperialist to want to recolonise Africa in a different but sophisticated way and President Mbeki stood directly opposed to that type of conduct.”
The NDC found that through his utterances Malema sought to portray the ANC government and its leadership under President Zuma in a negative light which therefore had the potential to sow division and disunity in the ANC. The NDCA confirmed the reasoning of the NDC. The implications of this verdict are rather stark. Any ANC member who now suggests that an out of favour former President may have done some good and that he might have been better than an incumbent leader can now be kicked out of the Party for contravening Rule 25.5(1). If this principle had been applied consistently in the past, Mbeki would have been able to get rid of Zuma and most of his opponents long before the votes were counted at Polokwane. To his credit, he never used such tactics against them.
The verdict comes perilously close to suggesting that no ANC member will henceforth be allowed ever to criticise the incumbent ANC leadership in public. This is a rather handy precedent to set if one intends to stand for a second (or third) term in office or if one wishes to “manage” future leadership elections. To my mind the ruling on this point seems profoundly undemocratic and deeply dangerous and both ANC members and other members of the public should feel more than a bit worried about this move. One should not confuse approval for the outcome of this case (silencing Malema) with what is good for the ANC and South Africa and if one does, one underestimates the possible ruthlessness of the current bunch of ANC leaders aiming to secure a second term for themselves at Mangaung.
Malema was also convicted of contravening Rule 25.5 (c) of the Constitution of the ANC by behaving in such a way as to bring the organisation into disrepute. This was done for ostensibly slightly more plausible reasons, namely because he addressed a press conference on 31 July 2011 by making announcements amongst others:
* That the Botswana leadership of government poses a serious threat to Africa so we need a progressive government in Botswana;
* We are not going to sit with neighbours that conduct themselves like that. Botswana is in full co-operation with imperialists and the government is undermining the African agenda;
* The ANC Youth League would establish a Botswana Command Team which would work towards uniting all opposition forces in Botswana to oppose the puppet regime of Botswana led by the Botswana Democratic Party.
Now, imagine, for a moment that the statement did not relate to Botswana but to Zimbabwe and that Zwelenzima Vavi had made it and not Malema. Imagine Vavi had said that Robert Mugabe and his Zanu-PF had ruined Zimbabwe and that Cosatu would mobilise ANC members to oppose the murderous regime in Zimbabwe and to unite opposition forces in that country to try and oust Mugabe. If the Zuma and Mantashe had then proceeded to discipline Vavi and if he was then suspended from the ANC, would we all be cheering this on as we are doing with the Malema case?
Surely ordinary ANC members (yes, also those who helped to get rid of Thabo Mbeki at Polokwane, ostensibly because of his dictatorial tendencies) should feel more than a bit uncomfortable by the manner in which Malema had been dealt with? I ask again: will there be other casualties and will the same principles be used to get rid of other opponents who do not shut up? Will they go after Matthews Phosa? Will they go after Kgalema Motlanthe if he ever grew a backbone and actually indicated that he was interested in presidency of the ANC? Will they go after our charming, but arch-opportunist, Tokyo Sexwale, for showing rather too much ambition?
And should this not all be read against the background of the pending suspension of a senior NPA prosecutor, reportedly because she refused to drop charges against crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli who is said to enjoy protection from “right at the top”? Remember that last year a secret report prepared by Mduli was leaked to the newspaper and that this report claimed that various ANC leaders met in January 2010 in Estcourt, KwaZulu-Natal to plot the ouster of Jacob Zuma. (Why crime intelligence was involved in such a story is unclear as it is perfectly legal in a democracy for political contenders within a party to plot against each other – as long as they use only legal means.)
Key members of the group that is said to have met are KwaZulu-Natal provincial premier Zweli Mkhize and Human Settlements Minister Tokyo Sexwale.
Remember also that the Secrecy Bill has just as much if not more to do with attempts by the intelligence agencies (firmly under the control of Zuma and Mantashe) to protect their agents and to prevent any exposure of their – legal or illegal – activities which we now know (thanks to Mduli) also focus on the succession race inside the ANC.
It might be that Malema is a special case and that the extraordinary precedent set by this disciplinary case against Malema will not be used against other critics of the current ANC leadership or against anyone who dares to show any ambition to take over the job of President or Secretary General of the ANC. But do not count on it.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
It could not have hurt that the verdict was delivered by a confident and in charge Cyril Ramaphosa, who reminded us again why so many of us have regretted the fact that he lost out to Thabo Mbeki when Mandela’s ANC had to appoint a Deputy President and why some of us still wistfully wonder what might have been if he had become our President instead of either Thabo Mbeki or Jacob Zuma.
Although some newspaper editors might miss Malema (given the fact that he has the ability to make news and sell newspapers), most of us might feel slightly relieved that this hypocritical demagogue has been dealt with so effectively and seemingly so decisively by the ANC senior leadership.
Yet, there is something about the way in which Jacob Zuma and Gwede Mantashe managed to clip Malema’s wings that sits uneasy with me. If they could do it to him, I wonder, could they do it to anyone else – including every single one of us who are members of the chattering classes and sometimes mock or criticise our dancing and singing President and every single ANC member who fails to toe the party line or who speaks out against the abuse of power or incompetence by some members of the leadership?
Is there not just a whiff of Stalinism about the way in which Zuma and Matashe got rid of a political enemy? Can we expect the pictures to be airbrushed next so that Malema will disappear completely from official ANC history?
Recall that Malema was convicted on three charges, two of them having been confirmed by the NDCA. First, he was convicted of contravening Rule 25.5 (1) of the ANC Constitution “by behaving in such a way as to provoke serious divisions or a breakdown of unity in the organisation”. His sin was that he addressed a press conference on 31 July 2011 at the conclusion of an ANC Youth League NEC meeting where he said amongst other things “in the past we know President Mbeki used that agenda very well …. The African agenda is no longer a priority and we think that there is a temptation by the coloniser and the imperialist to want to recolonise Africa in a different but sophisticated way and President Mbeki stood directly opposed to that type of conduct.”
The NDC found that through his utterances Malema sought to portray the ANC government and its leadership under President Zuma in a negative light which therefore had the potential to sow division and disunity in the ANC. The NDCA confirmed the reasoning of the NDC. The implications of this verdict are rather stark. Any ANC member who now suggests that an out of favour former President may have done some good and that he might have been better than an incumbent leader can now be kicked out of the Party for contravening Rule 25.5(1). If this principle had been applied consistently in the past, Mbeki would have been able to get rid of Zuma and most of his opponents long before the votes were counted at Polokwane. To his credit, he never used such tactics against them.
The verdict comes perilously close to suggesting that no ANC member will henceforth be allowed ever to criticise the incumbent ANC leadership in public. This is a rather handy precedent to set if one intends to stand for a second (or third) term in office or if one wishes to “manage” future leadership elections. To my mind the ruling on this point seems profoundly undemocratic and deeply dangerous and both ANC members and other members of the public should feel more than a bit worried about this move. One should not confuse approval for the outcome of this case (silencing Malema) with what is good for the ANC and South Africa and if one does, one underestimates the possible ruthlessness of the current bunch of ANC leaders aiming to secure a second term for themselves at Mangaung.
Malema was also convicted of contravening Rule 25.5 (c) of the Constitution of the ANC by behaving in such a way as to bring the organisation into disrepute. This was done for ostensibly slightly more plausible reasons, namely because he addressed a press conference on 31 July 2011 by making announcements amongst others:
* That the Botswana leadership of government poses a serious threat to Africa so we need a progressive government in Botswana;
* We are not going to sit with neighbours that conduct themselves like that. Botswana is in full co-operation with imperialists and the government is undermining the African agenda;
* The ANC Youth League would establish a Botswana Command Team which would work towards uniting all opposition forces in Botswana to oppose the puppet regime of Botswana led by the Botswana Democratic Party.
Now, imagine, for a moment that the statement did not relate to Botswana but to Zimbabwe and that Zwelenzima Vavi had made it and not Malema. Imagine Vavi had said that Robert Mugabe and his Zanu-PF had ruined Zimbabwe and that Cosatu would mobilise ANC members to oppose the murderous regime in Zimbabwe and to unite opposition forces in that country to try and oust Mugabe. If the Zuma and Mantashe had then proceeded to discipline Vavi and if he was then suspended from the ANC, would we all be cheering this on as we are doing with the Malema case?
Surely ordinary ANC members (yes, also those who helped to get rid of Thabo Mbeki at Polokwane, ostensibly because of his dictatorial tendencies) should feel more than a bit uncomfortable by the manner in which Malema had been dealt with? I ask again: will there be other casualties and will the same principles be used to get rid of other opponents who do not shut up? Will they go after Matthews Phosa? Will they go after Kgalema Motlanthe if he ever grew a backbone and actually indicated that he was interested in presidency of the ANC? Will they go after our charming, but arch-opportunist, Tokyo Sexwale, for showing rather too much ambition?
And should this not all be read against the background of the pending suspension of a senior NPA prosecutor, reportedly because she refused to drop charges against crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli who is said to enjoy protection from “right at the top”? Remember that last year a secret report prepared by Mduli was leaked to the newspaper and that this report claimed that various ANC leaders met in January 2010 in Estcourt, KwaZulu-Natal to plot the ouster of Jacob Zuma. (Why crime intelligence was involved in such a story is unclear as it is perfectly legal in a democracy for political contenders within a party to plot against each other – as long as they use only legal means.)
Key members of the group that is said to have met are KwaZulu-Natal provincial premier Zweli Mkhize and Human Settlements Minister Tokyo Sexwale.
Remember also that the Secrecy Bill has just as much if not more to do with attempts by the intelligence agencies (firmly under the control of Zuma and Mantashe) to protect their agents and to prevent any exposure of their – legal or illegal – activities which we now know (thanks to Mduli) also focus on the succession race inside the ANC.
It might be that Malema is a special case and that the extraordinary precedent set by this disciplinary case against Malema will not be used against other critics of the current ANC leadership or against anyone who dares to show any ambition to take over the job of President or Secretary General of the ANC. But do not count on it.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
Vodacom cuts data prices
Vodacom has cut data prices with a pair of new contract data promotions. The operator is offering all new and existing subscribers the option to sign up for one of two 24-month data packages, a 1GB or 2GB plan priced at R99/month and R149/month respectively.
The Broadband Standard MyGig 1 entails a 24-month contract and usually costs R249/month, while the MyGig 2 offering costs R149, from R349/month previously.
After the initial contract period, the plans can be renewed or will continue on a month-to-month basis at what is then the prevailing rate.
The promotional offer includes a free modem and normal out-of-bundle rates apply.
Existing contract data subscribers will not enjoy the new rates as they are subject to the terms and pricing of their existing contracts. After 6 May, pricing will revert to the previous rates.
Source: — Craig Wilson, TechCentral
The Broadband Standard MyGig 1 entails a 24-month contract and usually costs R249/month, while the MyGig 2 offering costs R149, from R349/month previously.
After the initial contract period, the plans can be renewed or will continue on a month-to-month basis at what is then the prevailing rate.
The promotional offer includes a free modem and normal out-of-bundle rates apply.
Existing contract data subscribers will not enjoy the new rates as they are subject to the terms and pricing of their existing contracts. After 6 May, pricing will revert to the previous rates.
Source: — Craig Wilson, TechCentral
Friday, February 3, 2012
For the common good: Old struggles in a new style
Most of the people who made their way to the Rondebosch Common in Cape Town last Friday to protest against issues such as unemployment and poverty hailed from working-class areas like Mitchells Plain and Manenburg. But 18-year-old Daniel Corder came from just up the road. Corder, who matriculated from Westerford High School last year, said he wanted to make the point that not all residents of the well-off suburb were necessarily unsympathetic to the issues that protestors were raising. "I don't suffer the problems they're experiencing. I live in the area that they are campaigning in and enjoy the privileges that they are disgusted by, but I still stand with them in solidarity," he said.
Corder's decision resulted in his spending almost 10 hours in jail after being arrested with 39 other protesters. Even so, he described the day as a "real learning experience" and said it inspired him to further his aspirations to become a lawyer. "I'd like to be someone like those who helped us at the prison on Friday night -- one who serves the public interest," Corder said. He said he felt particularly strongly about the actions of the policemen deployed to the common. "Some acted well, some actions were questionable, but many, far too many, acted reprehensibly. I was greatly angered and disturbed by their treatment of the protesters. "In the face of peaceful, non-destructive protest, many of them acted violently and cruelly. Arms were twisted to near breaking point purposefully, women were pushed to the ground by huge male officers clad in riot gear and many, including myself, were grabbed and pushed around by four or five officers. Many protesters suffered grievous bodily harm," Corder said.
Images and stories of Corder and other protesters being carried away, by police have featured prominently in the local media. But activist Mazibuko Jara, who is a Democratic Left Front national committee member, said questions about whether the incident was likely to have a positive mobilising effect on social movements in the country might be simplistic. "The killing of Andries Tatane has not necessarily galvanised people in the Free State into a mass protest movement. More important is the momentum of ordinary people's struggles. Are corruption, poor spending, failed promises, pro-capitalist policies and increasing attacks on constitutional rights giving a trigger and momentum to social protest and mobilisation? That's the crucial question," he said.
Lubna Nadvi, a professor in the school of politics at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, said the left appeared to be a "very fractured space" at present. "There is no real momentum to pose a challenge to the government and big business and workers' power, which usually was the form of mass mobilisation the left resorted to, does not seem to have the potency needed to bring about much-needed reform," Nadvi said.
According to Steven Friedman, director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at the University of Johannesburg, organisational strategies constitute a fundamental problem. "One of the main problems that social movements in South Africa face is that poor people are very difficult to organise because they don't have resources, they don't have self-confidence and spend most of their time trying to survive. "One of the mistakes made by some social movements is that they suffer from naive organisational strategies, believing that if people are poor they'll automatically rally around them, which isn't true."
But activist Mario Wanza, one of the main organisers of the Rondebosch Common protest, said the majority of the 2000 people who signed up were "working-class coloureds". Wanza said organisations such as Proudly Manenburg -- which he chairs -- were driven by the values of the United Democratic Front. "We've turned to an old way of organising in memory of the UDF, whose values are driving all of us. We're using the same principles of uniting organisations, building a broad front and having a common programme of action."
Jara, however, said the UDF had operated within a specific context. "It was a specific organisation at a specific time in our history. We need many more UDFs and TACs [Treatment Action Campaign] relevant to our times -- on housing, water, retrenchments et cetera - in order to challenge anti-poor policies and also demonstrate what a pro-poor alternative could look like."
Friedman agreed that some of the tactics used by social movements in the post-apartheid era mirrored those adopted by the UDF, but pointed out that the present context was a significantly different one. "It's correct to say many of the tactics and even names, like the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee, used by social movements in this phase are derived from the fight against apartheid. That is there, but it's a different context. To say that people needed to fight for dignity under apartheid is pretty self-evident, but once apartheid ended things became more complicated."
Nadvi argued that issues such as unemployment, homelessness, HIV/Aids and poverty constituted a common enemy around which social movements could unite. She was unsure, however, whether a South African version of the global Occupy movement, which had been inspired by the uprisings in the Middle East, would be the answer. "I don't think the Occupy movement has that kind of potential, because so far it seems to be largely driven by a middle-class group of activists who are politically conscientised," she said. "Other formations that have come before, such as the Anti-Privatisation Forum, Landless People's Movement, Treatment Action Campaign and Social Movements Indaba, have had more of a grassroots flavour and were more closely in line with what the UDF was trying to achieve. "I think that some of these movements have been working consistently to try to mobilise to address these issues. They have a history and a presence in the post-apartheid context that the Occupy movement doesn't have."
Perhaps this presence could be strengthened by newcomers to the movement like Corder, who uses the access he has to the internet to mobilise and inform people about protest action. "We must support the disadvantaged. We must campaign and seek equality for all, as opposed to sitting happily with the lucky lives we were born into -- a birth lottery of sorts. "But we must not take over the struggles and superimpose ourselves on the movements. We must support but not lead, not be poster boys et cetera, because then it takes away from the people, their struggles and feelings, their fight. We, as the privileged, have skills and resources that we can use to help. But we must lend support, not lead."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Corder's decision resulted in his spending almost 10 hours in jail after being arrested with 39 other protesters. Even so, he described the day as a "real learning experience" and said it inspired him to further his aspirations to become a lawyer. "I'd like to be someone like those who helped us at the prison on Friday night -- one who serves the public interest," Corder said. He said he felt particularly strongly about the actions of the policemen deployed to the common. "Some acted well, some actions were questionable, but many, far too many, acted reprehensibly. I was greatly angered and disturbed by their treatment of the protesters. "In the face of peaceful, non-destructive protest, many of them acted violently and cruelly. Arms were twisted to near breaking point purposefully, women were pushed to the ground by huge male officers clad in riot gear and many, including myself, were grabbed and pushed around by four or five officers. Many protesters suffered grievous bodily harm," Corder said.
Images and stories of Corder and other protesters being carried away, by police have featured prominently in the local media. But activist Mazibuko Jara, who is a Democratic Left Front national committee member, said questions about whether the incident was likely to have a positive mobilising effect on social movements in the country might be simplistic. "The killing of Andries Tatane has not necessarily galvanised people in the Free State into a mass protest movement. More important is the momentum of ordinary people's struggles. Are corruption, poor spending, failed promises, pro-capitalist policies and increasing attacks on constitutional rights giving a trigger and momentum to social protest and mobilisation? That's the crucial question," he said.
Lubna Nadvi, a professor in the school of politics at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, said the left appeared to be a "very fractured space" at present. "There is no real momentum to pose a challenge to the government and big business and workers' power, which usually was the form of mass mobilisation the left resorted to, does not seem to have the potency needed to bring about much-needed reform," Nadvi said.
According to Steven Friedman, director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at the University of Johannesburg, organisational strategies constitute a fundamental problem. "One of the main problems that social movements in South Africa face is that poor people are very difficult to organise because they don't have resources, they don't have self-confidence and spend most of their time trying to survive. "One of the mistakes made by some social movements is that they suffer from naive organisational strategies, believing that if people are poor they'll automatically rally around them, which isn't true."
But activist Mario Wanza, one of the main organisers of the Rondebosch Common protest, said the majority of the 2000 people who signed up were "working-class coloureds". Wanza said organisations such as Proudly Manenburg -- which he chairs -- were driven by the values of the United Democratic Front. "We've turned to an old way of organising in memory of the UDF, whose values are driving all of us. We're using the same principles of uniting organisations, building a broad front and having a common programme of action."
Jara, however, said the UDF had operated within a specific context. "It was a specific organisation at a specific time in our history. We need many more UDFs and TACs [Treatment Action Campaign] relevant to our times -- on housing, water, retrenchments et cetera - in order to challenge anti-poor policies and also demonstrate what a pro-poor alternative could look like."
Friedman agreed that some of the tactics used by social movements in the post-apartheid era mirrored those adopted by the UDF, but pointed out that the present context was a significantly different one. "It's correct to say many of the tactics and even names, like the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee, used by social movements in this phase are derived from the fight against apartheid. That is there, but it's a different context. To say that people needed to fight for dignity under apartheid is pretty self-evident, but once apartheid ended things became more complicated."
Nadvi argued that issues such as unemployment, homelessness, HIV/Aids and poverty constituted a common enemy around which social movements could unite. She was unsure, however, whether a South African version of the global Occupy movement, which had been inspired by the uprisings in the Middle East, would be the answer. "I don't think the Occupy movement has that kind of potential, because so far it seems to be largely driven by a middle-class group of activists who are politically conscientised," she said. "Other formations that have come before, such as the Anti-Privatisation Forum, Landless People's Movement, Treatment Action Campaign and Social Movements Indaba, have had more of a grassroots flavour and were more closely in line with what the UDF was trying to achieve. "I think that some of these movements have been working consistently to try to mobilise to address these issues. They have a history and a presence in the post-apartheid context that the Occupy movement doesn't have."
Perhaps this presence could be strengthened by newcomers to the movement like Corder, who uses the access he has to the internet to mobilise and inform people about protest action. "We must support the disadvantaged. We must campaign and seek equality for all, as opposed to sitting happily with the lucky lives we were born into -- a birth lottery of sorts. "But we must not take over the struggles and superimpose ourselves on the movements. We must support but not lead, not be poster boys et cetera, because then it takes away from the people, their struggles and feelings, their fight. We, as the privileged, have skills and resources that we can use to help. But we must lend support, not lead."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)