It is by now trite to note that in South Africa there are very serious, some would say obscene, disparities in wealth between rich and poor, made worse by the recent economic turmoil in the world. More than a million South Africans have lost their jobs over the past two years, joining the roughly 35% of the population that are unemployed or has long since stopped looking for work at all.
Many people continue to live in informal settlements (in shacks that are often flooded and are bitterly cold in winter) and many go to bed hungry. Many cannot afford the pay-as-you-go water and electricity services ostensibly provided to them by the state – if these services are provided to them at all – while many others receive substandard health care and are forced to send their children to dysfunctional schools where teachers are often not in class to teach and where children may well have no access to libraries, laboratories or sufficient computer facilities.
Of course, if one happens to be an ANC leader – inside or outside of government – or if one is one of the captains of industry (who became rich by exploiting black workers during the apartheid era and remain rich today by donating money to the ANC), one would probably not directly be affected by this reality. After all, one will be driving around in a car (who was paid for by tax money that could have fed a starving child) costing more than a million Rand (that is, when one is not renting a fancy car for hundreds of thousands of Rand a year), or one will be living in the Mount Nelson Hotel (if one is not living in a R8 million house provided by the state). Just yesterday it was reported that the state had forked out R183 million on brand new mansions to house cabinet ministers, money that could have been used to house around 2,000 poor families.
It is against this background that one should read the bizarrely immoral opinion article (penned by Ngoako Ramatlhodi, ANC NEC member, chairperson of the ANC National Elections Committee and Deputy Minister of Correctional Services) and published in The Times today. Mr Ramatlhodi probably knows that the credibility of the ANC and the government it leads is being eroded by lavish and wasteful spending on the perks of party leaders and by the constant revelations of government corruption in our media and by the Public Protector.
It is therefore not surprising that he is now using the South African Constitution and our indpendent constitutional institutions as scapegoats to try and divert attention from the failures of the government. Our government is failing to address the most basic needs of the poor while government and party leaders live lavish lifestyles at the expense of taxpayers and of the poor, whose lives could have been improved by the money wasted on extravagant perks and the millionaire lifestyles of ANC leaders.
According to Mr Ramatlhodi the Constitution is deeply flawed because while it bestows political power on the ANC (who by virtue of divine intervention will always represent the interests of all black South Africans even when its leaders steal from the very masses it claims to represent and when these leaders misuse funds – earmarked to address the social and economic inequality in our society - to satisfy their own venal and selfish needs), it also supposedly ”immigrates” substantial power away from the legislature and the executive and vests it in the judiciary, Chapter 9 institutions and civil society movements. He bemoans the fact that the ANC ”embraced what one calls the emptying of the state” and then continues:
"Apartheid forces sought to and succeeded in retaining white domination under a black government. This they achieved by emptying the legislature and executive of real political power. On the other hand, the liberation movement was overwhelmed by a desire to create a society bereft of any form of discrimination and, as a result, made fatal concessions. We thus have a Constitution that reflects the great compromise, a compromise tilted heavily in favour of forces against change."
Thus the Constitution - interpreted and applied by the judiciary, and Chapter 9 bodies such as the Public Protector - as well as civil society groups fighting for real transformation of our society have been allowed to rob the ANC of its power to govern the country through the legislature and the executive, blocking the “fundamental change” required to turn South Africa into a true kleptocracy. (Ok, I paraphrase the honourable Deputy Minister’s words slightly, but pardon me for interpreting this opinion piece as arguing for more power for the ANC to act in the interest of its leaders without having to account to anyone for how it spends and wastes our money for the benefit of the few.)
Mr Ramatlhodi is also upset that people challenge unlawful and unconstitutional actions of the government in our courts and that they dare to take part in democratic debates by expressing views with the aim of trying to influence public opinion for the better of society. God forbid that democracy should actually lead to a situation in which the majority of South Africans might disagree with something the governing party – with its divine right to rule - might have said or done. The ANC can surely not allow democracy actually to, well, work. What would become of the cars, the houses, the tenders, the champagne, the whiskey, the farms, the trips to visit drug-dealing girlfriends in Swiss jails?
The other tactic is to challenge as many policy positions as possible in the courts, where the forces against change still hold relative hegemony. The legislature itself has not escaped the encroaching tendency of the judiciary, with debatable decisions taken by majority views, in some instances. Decisions of the Judicial Services Commission have equally been systematically subjected to judicial reviews. The process of delegitimising the commission and its decisions has been initiated through the instrument of “public opinion”.
These views are not only uninformed and demonstrably wrong; they are also callous and dangerous. Blaming the Constitution, the courts and chapter 9 institutions for the failures of the government sufficiently to change the lives of ordinary citizens who suffered under apartheid is like a man blaming an umbrella for making him wet or a white South African blaming black citizens for apartheid.
First, it is based on the assumption that the government of the day – who currently happens to be led by the ANC – should have a free hand to do what it likes because any check on the exercise of power of the legislature and the executive would turn these branches of government into ineffectual and impotent institution. This is of course nonsense, as the majority party in Parliament can pass any law it wishes – as long as it does not infringe on the rights of the very citizens who vote for it.
Second, it assumes that a majority party will always have the best interest of the country and its people at heart, that it will never act in a selfish or corrupt manner and that it must always be trusted to respect the rights of everyone and to act in a manner that will advance the interests of those who most rely on the state for their survival and well-being. This is a truly bizarre view as governments are formed by people – and not ordinary people but politicians whose job it is to amass power and to act in their own interest while pretending to serve the public - who are not superhuman and will not act like angels unless they are forced to.
Lastly, this assumes that the ANC government actually always acts in the interests of the poor and the marginalised – even when it spends R183 million on new houses for a few cabinet Ministers, when cabinet Ministers stay at the Mount Nelson Hotel at taxpayers’ expense, when its officials enter dubious and probably corrupt leases with well-connected businessmen and waste billions of Rand in the process, money that could have been spent on really making a difference to the lives of those South Africans who are unemployed and depend on the state for its survival and well-being.
The view of the courts expressed in the Ramatlhodi piece is also either shockingly uninformed or deliberately misleading, which is, I guess, understandable as one needs to manufacture an enemy when one is losing the trust of the electorate because one is so obviously acting in a selfish and venal manner to line one’s own pockets to enable one to live a life of luxury at the expense of the poor. If Mr Ramatlhodi had read only a few judgments of the Constitutional Court, he would have known that our highest court – far more than the legislature and the executive – has been acting as a champion of transformation and of the interests of the poor.
If it was not for that court, the government would not have been forced to provide anti-retroviral drugs to poor, mostly black, pregnant women, thus saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of (mostly black) babies – all while people like Mr Ramatlhodi kept criminally silent. How many hundreds of thousands of babies died as a result of this communal silence, Mr Ramatlhodi? He would have known that thousands of people have been protected from unlawful eviction through the intervention of that court.
He would have known that the Constitutional Court has enthusiastically endorsed affirmative action and land reform and has taken the ANC government to task for not doing anything to scrap some of the most scandalous pieces of racist apartheid era legislation. One wonders whether this oversight might have been caused by the fact that leaders were too busy to benefit from tenders and to wine and dine their friends at taxpayer’s expense at the Mount Nelson Hotel or at their government provided mansions to actually care enough to table changes to the oppressive apartheid laws in our democratic Parliament.
He would have known that the Constitutional Court declared invalid sections of the truly shockingly named KwaZulu-Natal Slums Act adopted by the ANC government in that province because that Act tried to punish the landless or homeless poor for being landless or homeless (which is understandable, I guess, because a person like Mr Ramatlhodi would probably not want to be reminded of the landless and the homeless when he is sipping champagne in his R8 million government provided house).
He would also have known – just to be fair – that sometimes the Constitutional Court has not been as progressive in its judgments as some of us would have liked but that this have almost always been when it has endorsed government policies or pieces of legislation that are anti-poor, anti-women or anti- the marginalised and the vulnerable. Thus it found that it was ok for the government to cut off the electricity of destitute people and for the government to have pay-as-you-go electricity meters installed in the homes of Joburg residents – even if this was only done in poor areas where black South Africans live and not in rich areas where the ANC leaders and white people live.
It also found constitutionally valid a law which basically left destitute a women who had looked after her partner for more than ten years because that law only required the estate of a deceased partner to support a women if she had been legally married to her partner. That the ANC of Mr Ramatlhodi would support such a law is probably not surprising, seeing that the ANC President has now nominated a man for Chief Justice who has made the following remarks in a case in which a man was found guilty of raping a innocent and defenceless child (in the case of S v Sebaeng (CA 16/2007) [2007] ZANWHC 25 (22 June 2007) about the “shortcomings” in the victim’s evidence:
"She claims that the sexual intercourse was very painful but there was clearly nothing about her to suggest that she was in any pain when she arrived home and even during her stay there at her grandmother’s home … When she arrived at her grandmother’s home, the only strange things observed and spoken about by those who saw her were the Simba chips, the R30.00 and the 9 o’clock appointment with the Appellant…."
One can safely assume that [the accused] must have been mindful of her tender age and thus so careful as not to injure her private parts, except accidentally, when he penetrated her. That would explain why the child was neither sad nor crying when she returned from the shop notwithstanding the rape. In addition to the tender approach that would explain the absence of serious injuries and the absence of serious bleeding, he bought her silence and cooperation with Simba chips and the R30.00.
So, while Mr Ramatlhodi believes we should entrust our legislature and executive with unlimited powers, I do not: not this government, not a DA government not ANY government anywhere in the world. Down that road lies tyranny and oppression of the worst kind. As the ANC government of which Mr Ramatlhodi is a member has demonstrated over and over again, even where the power of a government is limited and even where the Constitution exhorts it to address the needs of the poor and vulnerable, it often acts in the interests of its own members and not that of the broader public whose interests it claims to serve.
Whether the ANC is in power or anyone else is in power, we need the very institutions that Mr Ramatlhodi attacks. These institutions – created by our Constitution – protect us from the government of the day, no matter which party might serve in government. This is true in South Africa as it is true in the United States, France, India or Nigeria. If it was not for institutions like our courts – interpreting and enforcing the progressive provisions of our constitution – and of the Public Protector – exposing the scandalous corruption of Ministers and of government officials - how far away would we have been from Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya?
The “opinion” of Mr Ramatlhodi is no more than an argument in favour of an autocratic kleptocracy in which a few well-connected party leaders and businessmen would live an obscenely opulent life, while the rest of us wouldl try to survive in a world that would be nasty, brutish and probably far too short.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
Showing posts with label Ngoako Ramatlhodi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ngoako Ramatlhodi. Show all posts
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Ngoako Ramatlhodi: Opinion: ANC's fatal concessions
We have a Constitution celebrated as the best in the world. Some would say it is the most progressive, while others would call it the most liberal. A brief analysis of the conditions and forces that gave birth to our Constitution seems to be in order. In case we do not remember, the collapse of the then Soviet Union provided the most immediate catalyst to the process of negotiations for a new and democratic South Africa. In apartheid South Africa in the late 1980s, the regime could only keep a modicum of law and order through a state of emergency. The masses were no longer willing to be ruled in the same old way.
An orderly retreat for the regime meant giving up elements of political power to the black majority, while immigrating substantial power away from the legislature and the executive and vesting it in the judiciary, Chapter 9 institutions and civil society movements.
Interestingly, and perhaps reflecting the balance of forces at the time, the movement was willing to make this fundamental and substantive concession. However, the concessions described cannot be explained only as a reflection orresult of a balance of forces at the time. In this regard, one ventures to suggest that the negative experience of the apartheid government by the oppressed might explain the ease with which the liberation movement embraced what one calls the emptying of the state.
Apartheid forces sought to and succeeded in retaining white domination under a black government. This they achieved by emptying the legislature and executive of real political power. On the other hand, the liberation movement was overwhelmed by a desire to create a society bereft of any form of discrimination and, as a result, made fatal concessions.
We thus have a Constitution that reflects the great compromise, a compromise tilted heavily in favour of forces against change. However, there is a strong body of thought arguing the view that our Constitution is transformative. In this regard, a point needs to be made that a constitution can either be progressive or reactionary, depending on the balance of forces in the society it governs.
In our case, the black majority enjoys empty political power while forces against change reign supreme in the economy, judiciary, public opinion and civil society. The old order has built a fortified front line in the mentioned forums. Given massive resources deriving from ownership of the economy, forces against change are able to finance their programmes and projects aimed at defending the status quo. As a result, formal political rights conferred on blacks can be exercised only within the parameters of the old apartheid economic relations. This imbalance is reflected across the length and breadth of the country in economic, social and even political terms to some extent.
The objective of protecting white economic interests, having been achieved with the adoption of the new Constitution, a grand and total strategy to entrench it for all times, was rolled out. In this regard, power was systematically taken out of the legislature and the executive to curtail efforts and initiatives aimed at inducing fundamental changes. In this way, elections would be regular rituals handing empty victories to the ruling party.
Regarding the judiciary, a two-pronged strategy is evident. The first and foremost is to frustrate the transformation agenda by downplaying requirements of gender and colour representation. Many obstacles, such as comments from white-dominated law societies, have to be taken into account when final decisions are made by the Judicial Service Commission. The subtext of this is to ensure that in the inevitable event of these appointments being made, the new appointees are expropriated by the system in place. This is done through the application of an unwritten plethora of rules during the initiation of new appointees.
The other tactic is to challenge as many policy positions as possible in the courts, where the forces against change still hold relative hegemony. The legislature itself has not escaped the encroaching tendency of the judiciary, with debatable decisions taken by majority views, in some instances. Decisions of the Judicial Services Commission have equally been systematically subjected to judicial reviews. The process of delegitimising the commission and its decisions has been initiated through the instrument of "public opinion".
At an ideological level, the public sector under the control of the black majority is posited as inefficient, corrupt and not worthy of any trust. This manifests itself in the form of vulgar and at times subtle racism. This means that, in our country, capital also has colour, as was the case under colonialism of a special type. It is, therefore, not surprising that any black person doing business with government exposes himself or herself to extraordinary scrutiny. This way the government is compelled to retain contracts with established white business. When the government employs black people in senior positions, it is seen as cadre deployment. When whites are employed in the private sector and public areas controlled by the opposition, it is lauded as wise skill deployment.
In the view of the dominant but seriously contested ideology, the private sector is promoted as the ultimate panacea for all societal ills. Public opinion, which in fact is the opinion of the private sector, is deployed to propagate this world view. In this context, any different opinion is immediately discredited as pro-government and therefore unreliable propaganda to be dismissed. In this regard, it is interesting to note that even the public broadcaster has been compelled to succumb to the power of hegemonic forces. To remain credible it has to be seen to be critical of the government of the day, except in areas controlled by the opposition. To criticise the private sector is to enter taboo land and to commit an unforgivable sin.
Seventeen years later, a moment has arrived for an honest collective reflection of the state of the nation and the common future we are duty-bound to build, as failure to do so would lead to colossal destruction of the country. One is initiating this reflection in the context of the foregoing analysis. In the 17 years, we have witnessed sustained and relentless efforts to immigrate the little power left with the executive and the legislature to civil society and the judiciary.
The main drivers in this process are the opposition and civil society, who feel relatively strong in those fronts, given the mainly still untransformed judiciary. The opposition to the judiciary itself and the bashing of the Judicial Service Commission should be understood in this context.
Source: Times Live
An orderly retreat for the regime meant giving up elements of political power to the black majority, while immigrating substantial power away from the legislature and the executive and vesting it in the judiciary, Chapter 9 institutions and civil society movements.
Interestingly, and perhaps reflecting the balance of forces at the time, the movement was willing to make this fundamental and substantive concession. However, the concessions described cannot be explained only as a reflection orresult of a balance of forces at the time. In this regard, one ventures to suggest that the negative experience of the apartheid government by the oppressed might explain the ease with which the liberation movement embraced what one calls the emptying of the state.
Apartheid forces sought to and succeeded in retaining white domination under a black government. This they achieved by emptying the legislature and executive of real political power. On the other hand, the liberation movement was overwhelmed by a desire to create a society bereft of any form of discrimination and, as a result, made fatal concessions.
We thus have a Constitution that reflects the great compromise, a compromise tilted heavily in favour of forces against change. However, there is a strong body of thought arguing the view that our Constitution is transformative. In this regard, a point needs to be made that a constitution can either be progressive or reactionary, depending on the balance of forces in the society it governs.
In our case, the black majority enjoys empty political power while forces against change reign supreme in the economy, judiciary, public opinion and civil society. The old order has built a fortified front line in the mentioned forums. Given massive resources deriving from ownership of the economy, forces against change are able to finance their programmes and projects aimed at defending the status quo. As a result, formal political rights conferred on blacks can be exercised only within the parameters of the old apartheid economic relations. This imbalance is reflected across the length and breadth of the country in economic, social and even political terms to some extent.
The objective of protecting white economic interests, having been achieved with the adoption of the new Constitution, a grand and total strategy to entrench it for all times, was rolled out. In this regard, power was systematically taken out of the legislature and the executive to curtail efforts and initiatives aimed at inducing fundamental changes. In this way, elections would be regular rituals handing empty victories to the ruling party.
Regarding the judiciary, a two-pronged strategy is evident. The first and foremost is to frustrate the transformation agenda by downplaying requirements of gender and colour representation. Many obstacles, such as comments from white-dominated law societies, have to be taken into account when final decisions are made by the Judicial Service Commission. The subtext of this is to ensure that in the inevitable event of these appointments being made, the new appointees are expropriated by the system in place. This is done through the application of an unwritten plethora of rules during the initiation of new appointees.
The other tactic is to challenge as many policy positions as possible in the courts, where the forces against change still hold relative hegemony. The legislature itself has not escaped the encroaching tendency of the judiciary, with debatable decisions taken by majority views, in some instances. Decisions of the Judicial Services Commission have equally been systematically subjected to judicial reviews. The process of delegitimising the commission and its decisions has been initiated through the instrument of "public opinion".
At an ideological level, the public sector under the control of the black majority is posited as inefficient, corrupt and not worthy of any trust. This manifests itself in the form of vulgar and at times subtle racism. This means that, in our country, capital also has colour, as was the case under colonialism of a special type. It is, therefore, not surprising that any black person doing business with government exposes himself or herself to extraordinary scrutiny. This way the government is compelled to retain contracts with established white business. When the government employs black people in senior positions, it is seen as cadre deployment. When whites are employed in the private sector and public areas controlled by the opposition, it is lauded as wise skill deployment.
In the view of the dominant but seriously contested ideology, the private sector is promoted as the ultimate panacea for all societal ills. Public opinion, which in fact is the opinion of the private sector, is deployed to propagate this world view. In this context, any different opinion is immediately discredited as pro-government and therefore unreliable propaganda to be dismissed. In this regard, it is interesting to note that even the public broadcaster has been compelled to succumb to the power of hegemonic forces. To remain credible it has to be seen to be critical of the government of the day, except in areas controlled by the opposition. To criticise the private sector is to enter taboo land and to commit an unforgivable sin.
Seventeen years later, a moment has arrived for an honest collective reflection of the state of the nation and the common future we are duty-bound to build, as failure to do so would lead to colossal destruction of the country. One is initiating this reflection in the context of the foregoing analysis. In the 17 years, we have witnessed sustained and relentless efforts to immigrate the little power left with the executive and the legislature to civil society and the judiciary.
The main drivers in this process are the opposition and civil society, who feel relatively strong in those fronts, given the mainly still untransformed judiciary. The opposition to the judiciary itself and the bashing of the Judicial Service Commission should be understood in this context.
Source: Times Live
Thursday, December 30, 2010
VIP send off for Majali
Controversial businessman Sandile Majali, who died four days ago, is set to be given a high-profile send off. Majali, 48, who was found dead in a Sandton hotel the morning after Christmas Day, is to be buried in Port St Johns in the Eastern Cape on January 9. His body was removed from the government mortuary in Hillbrow yesterday and handed to a private undertaker to prepare him for burial. A memorial service was scheduled to be held at the Bryanston Methodist Church, Joburg, at 3pm this afternoon.
Family insiders have revealed that, while the speakers list has yet to be finalised, those under consideration are struggle and ANC stalwart Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, the Deputy Minister of Correctional Services and former Limpopo premier Ngoako Ramatlhodi, legal eagle Dumisa Ntsebeza, SC, and the Queen of the amaMpondo. Majali was born in Port St Johns and was hugely popular in vast rural areas around the town.
It has been learnt from close relatives that Majali had a heart operation four weeks ago and that the respiratory problems thought to have led to his death were directly linked to his recuperation. Independent Newspapers has also established why Majali was staying at the Quatermain Hotel, a stone’s throw from his house, when he died. “He was estranged from his wife and was living with his girlfriend in the Morningside house,” a relative said. “His children, who live with their mother in the Eastern Cape, came to spend Christmas with their father. “Being a considerate father, he did not want the children and the girlfriend to be under the same roof, so he booked a suite at the hotel for himself and the woman. “He did this out of decency and nothing else.”
It emerged this week that Majali’s estate may be sequestrated if his creditors and business partners bring claims to recover financial losses. Johan Klopper, the managing director of Independent Corporate Recovery Advisors, which specialises in liquidation and curatorship cases, said: “If there are any legal claims regarding liquidation, then these may be claims against his estate.” Klopper was a joint trustee of the estate of slain mining magnate Brett Kebble.
At the time of his death, Majali was facing charges of fraud over the alleged hijacking of a resources company and was believed to be in financial difficulty. He had voluntarily liquidated his Imvume Resources business, which was sued by PetroSA for the recovery of R11-million that Majali diverted to the ANC before the 2004 elections instead of using it, as had been intended, to pay in advance for oil.
Majali was also involved in a court battle with the Financial Services Board over his business dealings.
Source: IoL
Family insiders have revealed that, while the speakers list has yet to be finalised, those under consideration are struggle and ANC stalwart Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, the Deputy Minister of Correctional Services and former Limpopo premier Ngoako Ramatlhodi, legal eagle Dumisa Ntsebeza, SC, and the Queen of the amaMpondo. Majali was born in Port St Johns and was hugely popular in vast rural areas around the town.
It has been learnt from close relatives that Majali had a heart operation four weeks ago and that the respiratory problems thought to have led to his death were directly linked to his recuperation. Independent Newspapers has also established why Majali was staying at the Quatermain Hotel, a stone’s throw from his house, when he died. “He was estranged from his wife and was living with his girlfriend in the Morningside house,” a relative said. “His children, who live with their mother in the Eastern Cape, came to spend Christmas with their father. “Being a considerate father, he did not want the children and the girlfriend to be under the same roof, so he booked a suite at the hotel for himself and the woman. “He did this out of decency and nothing else.”
It emerged this week that Majali’s estate may be sequestrated if his creditors and business partners bring claims to recover financial losses. Johan Klopper, the managing director of Independent Corporate Recovery Advisors, which specialises in liquidation and curatorship cases, said: “If there are any legal claims regarding liquidation, then these may be claims against his estate.” Klopper was a joint trustee of the estate of slain mining magnate Brett Kebble.
At the time of his death, Majali was facing charges of fraud over the alleged hijacking of a resources company and was believed to be in financial difficulty. He had voluntarily liquidated his Imvume Resources business, which was sued by PetroSA for the recovery of R11-million that Majali diverted to the ANC before the 2004 elections instead of using it, as had been intended, to pay in advance for oil.
Majali was also involved in a court battle with the Financial Services Board over his business dealings.
Source: IoL
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Behind Ramatlhodi's front
Ngoako Ramatlhodi's secret Bushveld farm really was his, but his friend who fronted for him bankrolled it too -- before sharing in casino rights awarded by the Limpopo government, where Ramatlhodi was premier. Ramatlhodi, now chairperson of Parliament's justice committee, is tipped for the position of national director of public prosecutions.
The Mail & Guardian earlier this month revealed Ramatlhodi's hush-hush role in the 1996 purchase of a farm near Mokopane, while he was premier. It was sold two-and-a-half years later to Anglo Platinum for the controversial resettlement of communities, at a face-value profit of R1-million.
Ramatlhodi's role was obscured by the fact that the buyer was a close corporation owned on paper by his friend, Limpopo businessperson Joe Mogodi. Ramatlhodi volunteered that he was the true owner during a long-running Scorpions probe, since closed, into allegations that he took bribes from a social grants contractor. Mogodi, however, insisted to the M&G that he was the owner.
The records of an October 2000 North Gauteng High Court hearing, in which First National Bank sued Ramatlhodi for debt, reveal:
* FNB, which extended the loan to purchase the farm, knew Ramatlhodi was the true owner;
* In correspondence with the bank Mogodi confirmed he was merely Ramatlhodi's "go-between";
* Ramatlhodi's salary as premier was insufficient to meet FNB's instalments; and
* Mogodi paid hundreds of thousands of rands to cover the instalments and settle debt, leaving him in a "financial predicament".
Mogodi, in other words, bent over backwards to fund the purchase of the farm for Ramatlhodi. During this time Mogodi vied for a casino licence, which was ultimately awarded to a consortium including him. Completing the circle, the provincial gambling board that awarded the licence was headed by Seth Nthai -- Ramatlhodi's personal advocate who defended him against the FNB debt claim. From the facts of that dispute, Nthai would have known that Mogodi had bankrolled the farm for the premier. Mogodi declined to comment. Ramatlhodi and Nthai failed to comment by the time of going to press.
Ngoako Properties, the close corporation owned on paper by Mogodi, offered R2.2-million to buy Sterkwater-De Hoogedoorns farm, plus a further R600 000 for cattle and implements, in January 1996. The offer was accepted. FNB approved a five-year loan of R2.8-million to fund the purchase. Both Mogodi and Ramatlhodi signed surety. But Mogodi may not have been fully aware of what he had let himself in for. The record of the FNB-Ramatlhodi hearing reflects FNB's Polokwane bank manager, Hendrik Janse van Rensburg, writing to his regional head office in April 1996: "We enclose the premier's balance sheet and we confirm that he signed the letter of suretyship … Repayment of the loan was discussed with him and he referred us to Mr Mogodi."
Three years later, once things had gone belly-up, Van Rensburg reported to his regional office: "During March 1996 the premier approached the bank for a 100% long-term loan of R2.8-million … The bank approved the loan subject to the condition that the term of the loan be reduced to five years ... "The premier could not register the farm property in his name in view of his position as premier, and he requested his personal friend, Mr J Mogodi, to register the close corporation in his name … "[Regional office instructed us] to request Mr Mogodi to sign a letter of suretyship and register a bond over his [own] farm property. He reluctantly agreed, informing us as follows: he was not even present when the financing of the farm had been discussed … "Mr Mogodi has serviced the instalments from the loan account without any financial assistance from the premier. He was eventually forced to surrender his endowment policies and MIA [managed investment account] to continue with his trading activities."
From the start, Van Rensburg's reports show, Mogodi attempted to negotiate a lighter burden with FNB. The monthly instalments were R55 000 a month. By early 1997 Mogodi had, on Van Rensburg's evidence, already put in R300 000 of his own money, but the loan account was in arrears. An FNB agricultural adviser proposed selling off less viable portions of the farm, but Mogodi, according to another Van Rensburg report, informed them: "He [Ramatlhodi] has decided to keep the farm property." Mogodi also told the bank they could only afford to repay at a rate of R35 000 to R40 000 a month, consisting of R20 000 (Mogodi), R10 000 (Ramatlhodi) and R5 000 to R10 000 (farm income). That Ramatlhodi could never have intended to pay the entire loan from his salary is clear: as late as 2004, Ramatlhodi grossed less than R60 000 a month. His net salary would have been well below FNB's R55 000 instalments.
The loan account fell further into arrears. In September 1997 cattle and implements were auctioned. When Angloplat made an offer of R3.2-million for the farm property in September 1998 it was accepted. The profit went straight to FNB, but the loan account was so far in arrears that FNB demanded Mogodi and Ramatlhodi pay a shortfall of more than R1-million. Mogodi eventually paid R375 000 and FNB let him off, but it sued Ramatlhodi for the balance. After the first day of the trial, in October 2000, FNB and Ramatlhodi settled. The details are not known.
On the available evidence, Mogodi's R375 000 brought his total contribution towards Ramatlhodi's farm to at least R675 000, and potentially much more. Did he get anything in return? Although the full circumstances are not known, Mogodi soon benefited from a casino licence. This is made problematic by the timing of the award and the dual role of Nthai, Ramatlhodi's defence advocate in the FNB matter.
Source: Mail & Guardian
The Mail & Guardian earlier this month revealed Ramatlhodi's hush-hush role in the 1996 purchase of a farm near Mokopane, while he was premier. It was sold two-and-a-half years later to Anglo Platinum for the controversial resettlement of communities, at a face-value profit of R1-million.
Ramatlhodi's role was obscured by the fact that the buyer was a close corporation owned on paper by his friend, Limpopo businessperson Joe Mogodi. Ramatlhodi volunteered that he was the true owner during a long-running Scorpions probe, since closed, into allegations that he took bribes from a social grants contractor. Mogodi, however, insisted to the M&G that he was the owner.
The records of an October 2000 North Gauteng High Court hearing, in which First National Bank sued Ramatlhodi for debt, reveal:
* FNB, which extended the loan to purchase the farm, knew Ramatlhodi was the true owner;
* In correspondence with the bank Mogodi confirmed he was merely Ramatlhodi's "go-between";
* Ramatlhodi's salary as premier was insufficient to meet FNB's instalments; and
* Mogodi paid hundreds of thousands of rands to cover the instalments and settle debt, leaving him in a "financial predicament".
Mogodi, in other words, bent over backwards to fund the purchase of the farm for Ramatlhodi. During this time Mogodi vied for a casino licence, which was ultimately awarded to a consortium including him. Completing the circle, the provincial gambling board that awarded the licence was headed by Seth Nthai -- Ramatlhodi's personal advocate who defended him against the FNB debt claim. From the facts of that dispute, Nthai would have known that Mogodi had bankrolled the farm for the premier. Mogodi declined to comment. Ramatlhodi and Nthai failed to comment by the time of going to press.
Ngoako Properties, the close corporation owned on paper by Mogodi, offered R2.2-million to buy Sterkwater-De Hoogedoorns farm, plus a further R600 000 for cattle and implements, in January 1996. The offer was accepted. FNB approved a five-year loan of R2.8-million to fund the purchase. Both Mogodi and Ramatlhodi signed surety. But Mogodi may not have been fully aware of what he had let himself in for. The record of the FNB-Ramatlhodi hearing reflects FNB's Polokwane bank manager, Hendrik Janse van Rensburg, writing to his regional head office in April 1996: "We enclose the premier's balance sheet and we confirm that he signed the letter of suretyship … Repayment of the loan was discussed with him and he referred us to Mr Mogodi."
Three years later, once things had gone belly-up, Van Rensburg reported to his regional office: "During March 1996 the premier approached the bank for a 100% long-term loan of R2.8-million … The bank approved the loan subject to the condition that the term of the loan be reduced to five years ... "The premier could not register the farm property in his name in view of his position as premier, and he requested his personal friend, Mr J Mogodi, to register the close corporation in his name … "[Regional office instructed us] to request Mr Mogodi to sign a letter of suretyship and register a bond over his [own] farm property. He reluctantly agreed, informing us as follows: he was not even present when the financing of the farm had been discussed … "Mr Mogodi has serviced the instalments from the loan account without any financial assistance from the premier. He was eventually forced to surrender his endowment policies and MIA [managed investment account] to continue with his trading activities."
From the start, Van Rensburg's reports show, Mogodi attempted to negotiate a lighter burden with FNB. The monthly instalments were R55 000 a month. By early 1997 Mogodi had, on Van Rensburg's evidence, already put in R300 000 of his own money, but the loan account was in arrears. An FNB agricultural adviser proposed selling off less viable portions of the farm, but Mogodi, according to another Van Rensburg report, informed them: "He [Ramatlhodi] has decided to keep the farm property." Mogodi also told the bank they could only afford to repay at a rate of R35 000 to R40 000 a month, consisting of R20 000 (Mogodi), R10 000 (Ramatlhodi) and R5 000 to R10 000 (farm income). That Ramatlhodi could never have intended to pay the entire loan from his salary is clear: as late as 2004, Ramatlhodi grossed less than R60 000 a month. His net salary would have been well below FNB's R55 000 instalments.
The loan account fell further into arrears. In September 1997 cattle and implements were auctioned. When Angloplat made an offer of R3.2-million for the farm property in September 1998 it was accepted. The profit went straight to FNB, but the loan account was so far in arrears that FNB demanded Mogodi and Ramatlhodi pay a shortfall of more than R1-million. Mogodi eventually paid R375 000 and FNB let him off, but it sued Ramatlhodi for the balance. After the first day of the trial, in October 2000, FNB and Ramatlhodi settled. The details are not known.
On the available evidence, Mogodi's R375 000 brought his total contribution towards Ramatlhodi's farm to at least R675 000, and potentially much more. Did he get anything in return? Although the full circumstances are not known, Mogodi soon benefited from a casino licence. This is made problematic by the timing of the award and the dual role of Nthai, Ramatlhodi's defence advocate in the FNB matter.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Friday, May 14, 2004
Ramatlhodi: Inside the Scorpions probe
A Scorpions probe and a lawsuit brought by rugby boss Brian van Rooyen have opened a Limpopo province can of worms in which tender-rigging and financial favours to the African National Congress and former premier Ngoako Ramatlhodi are alleged.
The Mail & Guardian revealed last week that Ramatlhodi was earmarked to take over from Bulelani Ngcuka as head of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) -- but that his appointment was stalled because he was being probed for corruption by the Scorpions, a division of the NPA. Ramatlhodi was a surprise omission from President Thabo Mbeki's Cabinet.
The NPA this week maintained its official policy of "no comment", but the M&G has ascertained key aspects of the probe from players in companies involved, and from court documents and related sources. At stake are the reputations of and potential criminal prosecutions against Ramatlhodi and Limpopo finance minister Thaba Mufamadi, who is also being probed. Both have denied the allegations.
Also of concern is the ethical implication of the ruling party receiving funding -- confirmed by key players -- flowing from a lucrative government contract. The controversial renewal of this contract, for the payment of social grants in the province, is being challenged in the Pretoria High Court by Van Rooyen and his company, Labat Africa Management Consulting. Labat claims the provincial government irregularly re-awarded the tender, worth about R250-million, to Cash Paymaster Services Northern (CPS) in late 2002 after a consortium led by Labat had scored higher on tender evaluation criteria. CPS and provincial authorities are opposing Labat's legal action.
Van Rooyen claims in court papers that tender criteria were "manipulated" by the late introduction of "track record" as a requirement. This, a Labat consortium representative charged this week, came after Labat had turned down a request for a bribe. CPS was first awarded the provincial grants contract in 1996. For much of the duration of this contract CPS was a joint venture between national technology company Aplitec and Limpopo-based Northern Corporate Investment Holdings, better known as Nicoh. It is Nicoh that has been funding the provincial ANC through a "charitable" trust set up to benefit the people and developing businesses in the province. It is also through Nicoh that individual politicians, Ramatlhodi and Mufamadi, are alleged to have benefited. Nicoh's principal players are lawyer Solly Mohale and businessman Gideon Serote. Also associated with it, whether directly or by way of the charitable trust called the Baobab Development Trust, are cane furniture king Habakuk Shikoane and prominent car dealer Haroun Moti.
There have been differences between the four over who are the true shareholders, but there is no dispute that Baobab has been at least a 10% beneficiary of Nicoh -- and that the ANC has benefited from Baobab. Mohale this week confirmed that Nicoh has given 10% of proceeds to Baobab, and that Baobab in turn has donated to the ANC. He refused to give a rand value, but the CPS deal has been estimated to have paid Nicoh R700 000 a month, which means R70 000 a month to Baobab. Said Mohale: "[Limpopo] is dominated by the main political party, the ANC ... If people come to ask for money, the trustees, if they agree with the objectives, will entertain it." He defended the party benefiting from a government contract, saying: "It depends on at what stage you are giving them money, whether it is open to everybody, and whether it is not illegal."
There are contradictory views on whether others besides the ANC benefited from Baobab. Mohale claimed "community structures" and other parties had also received donations. This was contradicted this week by Shikoane, who is the chairperson of Baobab. He said it was "only the ANC" and that he estimated that the total benefit to the party was "not more than R1-million".
ANC provincial secretary Cassell Mathale this week confirmed "it is quite possible [Baobab] may have donated money to the party", but would not comment further without checking the facts. Mufamadi, who is also the party's provincial treasurer, said: "The ANC receives donations from many business organisations."
As Baobab has funded the party, the question arises whether this helped CPS win the grants tender in the first place or when it was renewed. And if influential individual politicians Ramatlhodi and Mufamadi also benefited from the CPS contract via Nicoh -- the central question the Scorpions are trying to answer -- it would have been outright corruption. But the Scorpions investigation against Ramatlhodi and Mufamadi appears to have run into some difficulties. The original lead investigator, Cornwell Tshavhungwa, is now suspended from the Scorpions on corruption allegations relating to his dealings with a finance parastatal in Mpumalanga.
Tshavhungwa is understood to have recommended that the investigations into Ramatlhodi and Mufamadi be halted owing to a lack of evidence, but Ngcuka insisted that they be pursued. The M&G understands that Tshavhungwa interviewed key players such as Shikoane and Mohale, but neither of them confirmed the allegations. Other investigators have now taken over the probe from Tshavhungwa.
The Scorpions started probing the allegations against Ramatlhodi and Mufamadi last year after they were first publicly aired by noseweek magazine, which quoted Shikoane as confirming the kickbacks. Speaking to the M&G this week, Shikoane maintained no individuals had benefited. And Mohale said he had "no knowledge" of Ramatlhodi or Mufamadi having received money, "unless it was in their [ANC] executive capacities". Approached for comment, Mufamadi also denied individual benefit, saying it was "nonsense" and that "I have no relations with those companies that have been mentioned." Ramatlhodi referred all queries to the ANC.
Serge Belamont, chief executive of Aplitec, Nicoh's partner in CPS, said he had no knowledge of party funding flowing from the contract via Nicoh and the Baobab Development Trust, but said that "if that's the case it wouldn't be right". He said the province was correct to have re-awarded the contract to CPS rather than to Labat, as track record counted. "You are dealing with paying 800 000 poor people ... The tender board has a greater responsibility to decide than on simply who scored the highest points."
NPA spokesperson Sipho Ngwema this week said: "The NPA did not publish any information to the M&G or anyone for that matter that suggests that we are investigating Mr Ngoako Ramatlhodi and/or Mr Thaba Mufamadi. We are, therefore, unable to verify or deny any of your assertions."
Source: Mail & Guardian
The Mail & Guardian revealed last week that Ramatlhodi was earmarked to take over from Bulelani Ngcuka as head of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) -- but that his appointment was stalled because he was being probed for corruption by the Scorpions, a division of the NPA. Ramatlhodi was a surprise omission from President Thabo Mbeki's Cabinet.
The NPA this week maintained its official policy of "no comment", but the M&G has ascertained key aspects of the probe from players in companies involved, and from court documents and related sources. At stake are the reputations of and potential criminal prosecutions against Ramatlhodi and Limpopo finance minister Thaba Mufamadi, who is also being probed. Both have denied the allegations.
Also of concern is the ethical implication of the ruling party receiving funding -- confirmed by key players -- flowing from a lucrative government contract. The controversial renewal of this contract, for the payment of social grants in the province, is being challenged in the Pretoria High Court by Van Rooyen and his company, Labat Africa Management Consulting. Labat claims the provincial government irregularly re-awarded the tender, worth about R250-million, to Cash Paymaster Services Northern (CPS) in late 2002 after a consortium led by Labat had scored higher on tender evaluation criteria. CPS and provincial authorities are opposing Labat's legal action.
Van Rooyen claims in court papers that tender criteria were "manipulated" by the late introduction of "track record" as a requirement. This, a Labat consortium representative charged this week, came after Labat had turned down a request for a bribe. CPS was first awarded the provincial grants contract in 1996. For much of the duration of this contract CPS was a joint venture between national technology company Aplitec and Limpopo-based Northern Corporate Investment Holdings, better known as Nicoh. It is Nicoh that has been funding the provincial ANC through a "charitable" trust set up to benefit the people and developing businesses in the province. It is also through Nicoh that individual politicians, Ramatlhodi and Mufamadi, are alleged to have benefited. Nicoh's principal players are lawyer Solly Mohale and businessman Gideon Serote. Also associated with it, whether directly or by way of the charitable trust called the Baobab Development Trust, are cane furniture king Habakuk Shikoane and prominent car dealer Haroun Moti.
There have been differences between the four over who are the true shareholders, but there is no dispute that Baobab has been at least a 10% beneficiary of Nicoh -- and that the ANC has benefited from Baobab. Mohale this week confirmed that Nicoh has given 10% of proceeds to Baobab, and that Baobab in turn has donated to the ANC. He refused to give a rand value, but the CPS deal has been estimated to have paid Nicoh R700 000 a month, which means R70 000 a month to Baobab. Said Mohale: "[Limpopo] is dominated by the main political party, the ANC ... If people come to ask for money, the trustees, if they agree with the objectives, will entertain it." He defended the party benefiting from a government contract, saying: "It depends on at what stage you are giving them money, whether it is open to everybody, and whether it is not illegal."
There are contradictory views on whether others besides the ANC benefited from Baobab. Mohale claimed "community structures" and other parties had also received donations. This was contradicted this week by Shikoane, who is the chairperson of Baobab. He said it was "only the ANC" and that he estimated that the total benefit to the party was "not more than R1-million".
ANC provincial secretary Cassell Mathale this week confirmed "it is quite possible [Baobab] may have donated money to the party", but would not comment further without checking the facts. Mufamadi, who is also the party's provincial treasurer, said: "The ANC receives donations from many business organisations."
As Baobab has funded the party, the question arises whether this helped CPS win the grants tender in the first place or when it was renewed. And if influential individual politicians Ramatlhodi and Mufamadi also benefited from the CPS contract via Nicoh -- the central question the Scorpions are trying to answer -- it would have been outright corruption. But the Scorpions investigation against Ramatlhodi and Mufamadi appears to have run into some difficulties. The original lead investigator, Cornwell Tshavhungwa, is now suspended from the Scorpions on corruption allegations relating to his dealings with a finance parastatal in Mpumalanga.
Tshavhungwa is understood to have recommended that the investigations into Ramatlhodi and Mufamadi be halted owing to a lack of evidence, but Ngcuka insisted that they be pursued. The M&G understands that Tshavhungwa interviewed key players such as Shikoane and Mohale, but neither of them confirmed the allegations. Other investigators have now taken over the probe from Tshavhungwa.
The Scorpions started probing the allegations against Ramatlhodi and Mufamadi last year after they were first publicly aired by noseweek magazine, which quoted Shikoane as confirming the kickbacks. Speaking to the M&G this week, Shikoane maintained no individuals had benefited. And Mohale said he had "no knowledge" of Ramatlhodi or Mufamadi having received money, "unless it was in their [ANC] executive capacities". Approached for comment, Mufamadi also denied individual benefit, saying it was "nonsense" and that "I have no relations with those companies that have been mentioned." Ramatlhodi referred all queries to the ANC.
Serge Belamont, chief executive of Aplitec, Nicoh's partner in CPS, said he had no knowledge of party funding flowing from the contract via Nicoh and the Baobab Development Trust, but said that "if that's the case it wouldn't be right". He said the province was correct to have re-awarded the contract to CPS rather than to Labat, as track record counted. "You are dealing with paying 800 000 poor people ... The tender board has a greater responsibility to decide than on simply who scored the highest points."
NPA spokesperson Sipho Ngwema this week said: "The NPA did not publish any information to the M&G or anyone for that matter that suggests that we are investigating Mr Ngoako Ramatlhodi and/or Mr Thaba Mufamadi. We are, therefore, unable to verify or deny any of your assertions."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)