Woolwich killing: Police arrest friend of suspect after TV interview

No Fear No Favours No Foreigners..........




25 MAY 2013 16:03 - SYLVIA HUI




Counterterrorism police have questioned Abu Nusaybah, a friend of one of two suspects in the killing of a British soldier, after a BBC interview.

                                                                                           AFP

Police on Saturday questioned a friend of Michael Adebolajo, one of two suspects in the killing of an unarmed British soldier, a savage attack that has horrified Britain.
The friend, Abu Nusaybah, was arrested immediately after he gave a BBC television interview describing how Adebolajo may have become radicalised and alleging that Britain's security services tried to recruit him. Police said Nusaybah was wanted on suspicion of involvement in unspecified acts of terrorism.

Nusaybah said Adebolajo became withdrawn after returning last year from a visit to Kenya, where he claimed he had been arrested and then abused both physically and sexually while in jail. Nusaybah claimed that Britain's domestic spy agency, MI5, approached Adebolajo to recruit him upon his return to Britain about six months ago.
Adebolajo (28) and Michael Adebowale (22) are suspected of killing soldier Lee Rigby by hacking his body with knives and a meat cleaver in front of dozens of passersby on Wednesday in the south-east London district of Woolwich. The horrific scene was recorded on witnesses' cellphones, with one of the two suspects making political statements and warning of more violence as the soldier lay on the ground.
Police shot both men as they arrived minutes after Rigby's slaying. Both suspects remain under armed guard at two London hospitals.
Abuse at the hands of Kenyan forces
Questions abound over what could have led the two men to attack Rigby, a 25-year-old ceremonial military drummer and machine-gunner who had served in Afghanistan and was off duty when he was walking near his barracks. Nusaybah's interview offered one possible narrative. He said Adebolajo's behavior changed after he allegedly suffered abuse at the hands of Kenyan security forces.
"Although that change wasn't necessarily one that became overt, aggressive or anything like that, he became ... less talkative. He wasn't his bubbly self," Nusaybah told the BBC.
He said MI5 agents approached Adebolajo after he returned to Britain and initially asked him if he had met specific Muslim militants, then asked Adebolajo if he was willing to act as an informer.
"He was explicit in that he refused to work for them," Nusaybah said.
The BBC said police arrested Nusaybah outside its studios on Friday night immediately after recording the interview.
Potential terror suspects
"This interviewee had important background information that sheds light on this horrific event," the BBC said in a statement. "And when we asked him to appear and interviewed him, we were not aware he was wanted for questioning by the police."
London police confirmed that a 31-year-old man was arrested on Friday night on suspicion of "the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism". Police declined to identify Nusaybah by name or provide further detail.
It was not immediately possible to verify the information provided by Nusaybah, who said he had known Adebolajo for about a decade. MI5 does not publicly discuss its efforts to recruit informers.
It is not uncommon, however, for special services officers to occasionally visit communities to ask people if they know potential terror suspects or others under MI5 surveillance.
Potential informants go through a screening process to determine if they should be trusted, what their motivation might be and whether their information would be likely to be accurate.
Nusaybah said Adebolajo was converted to Islam around 2004. His account corroborates those provided by two Muslim hard-liners who said they also knew Adebolajo.
Brush with death
Anjem Choudary, a former leader of a banned British radical group called al-Muhajiroun, said Adebolajo was a Christian who converted to Islam around 2003. Choudary told the Associated Press (AP) that Adebolajo participated in several of the group's London demonstrations before Britain outlawed the group in 2010.
Omar Bakri Muhammad, another former al-Muhajiroun leader and radical Muslim preacher, said Adebolajo attended his London lectures in the early 2000s. Muhammad fled London and resettled in Lebanon in 2005 after suicide attacks on London's public transit system killed 56 people, including four bombers.
Police have not officially named the two suspects. The AP has received confirmation of their identities from British officials speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorised to disclose the information.
Few details have emerged about Adebowale besides one reported brush with death as a teenager.
The Guardian reported Saturday that Adebowale was stabbed in 2008, when a man attacked him and two friends in a London apartment. One 18-year-old friend died and the attacker received a life sentence for murder, the newspaper said.
MI5 director general Andrew Parker is expected to deliver a preliminary report next week to Parliament's intelligence and security committee detailing what the agency knew about both suspects and whether MI5 could have done anything to stop the attack.
The directors of Britain's foreign spy agency, MI6, and Britain's eavesdropping agency, Government Communications Headquarters, also are expected to give reports on what intelligence they had on the two men. – Sapa-AP

Mail and Guardian

British police arrest man at BBC after spy claim in soldier case

Reuters | 25 May, 2013 15:21

Handcuffs. File photo.
Image by: Gallo Images/Thinkstock

British police arrested a man under anti-terrorism laws at BBC headquarters after an interviewee said security services tried to recruit one of the two men arrested after a soldier was hacked to death in a London.in

• UK police question friend of UK soldier killer
• British intelligence under pressure over Islamist knife attack

Michael Adebolajo, 28 and Michael Adebowale, 22, are under armed guard in hospital after being shot and arrested by police on suspicion of the murder of 25-year-old Lee Rigby, a veteran of the Afghan war, on Wednesday.

A man identified by the BBC as Abu Nusaybah told its flagship news programme "Newsnight" that intelligence officers had approached Adebolajo six months ago to see if he would work for them as an informant. He said Adebolajo had refused.

BBC reporter Richard Watson, who conducted the interview, said police were waiting to arrest Nusaybah after the interview had finished on Friday. The pre-recorded interview was broadcast later that evening.

London's Metropolitan Police said counter-terrorism officers had arrested a 31-year-old man at 2030 GMT on "suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".

A police spokesman said the arrest was made at the BBC building, but did not confirm the man's identity. He also said the arrest was not directly linked to the soldier's murder. He would not comment on the BBC interview.

A source close to the investigation told Reuters earlier this week that both men suspected to have attacked the soldier were known to Britain's MI5 internal security service. However, intelligence officers thought neither man posed a serious threat.

Parliamentary inquiry

Prime Minister David Cameron has said a parliamentary committee will investigate the security services' role.

In his BBC interview, Nusaybah alleged that intelligence officers visited Adebolajo's London home after the suspect made a trip to Kenya last year.

Nusaybah said his friend had been arrested and questioned in Kenya. This assertion was dismissed by the Kenyan government as a "fairy tale".

"He mentioned initially they (MI5) wanted to ask him if he knew certain individuals," Nusaybah told the BBC. "But after him saying that he didn't know these individuals, what he said was they asked him if he would be interested in working for them. He refused to work for them."

Asked about Nusaybah's comments, a Home Office (interior ministry) spokesman said it never commented on security matters.

A Kenyan government spokesman said it had no record of Adebolajo ever visiting the east African country.

"We have never arrested him and we have never interrogated him, because if we had arrested him, we would never have let him go because of our experience of international terrorism," the spokesman said.

"Our conclusion is that this man is an imposter and a charlatan and wants to tarnish our the image of our country."

Three days after the soldier's killing, police have yet to bring any charges. Police said Adebolajo and Adebowale are in a stable condition in hospital. The pair were in "no fit state" to be questioned by police, a government source was quoted as saying in the Times newspaper.

Witnesses said two men used a car to run down Rigby outside Woolwich Barracks in southeast London and then attacked him with a meat cleaver and knives, before being shot by police.

The pair told bystanders they were acting in revenge for British wars in Muslim countries.

Times Live

COMMENTS BY SONNY

The British ignore the descendants of their own, yet, they let other 'Foreigners' into ENGLAND.

....."WHAT CAN THEY EXPECT - OTHER THAN THE "ENEMY WITHIN!"?".....

GOD SAVE SOUTH AFRICA.

The Foreigners are biting the hands that feed them.

Zuma and the 'very very important' to get new airplanes

No Fear No Favour No Russian planes........



25 MAY 2013 10:16 - SAPA




The defence force is looking to buy new presidential jets and planes as soon as possible, the Saturday Star has reported.

The defence depart

The Government is looking into buying a fleet of new planes for the president and VVIP friends........

Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula told the Cape Town Press Club on Friday the department was spending millions each week on chartering aircraft because many of the current planes were so old.

According to the report the department was looking into buying VVIP (very very important people) jets as well as strategic airlifting capacity planes as soon as possible.

"We're running out of time," Mapisa-Nqakula said.

She said the Treasury had allocated money to buy the new planes.

These new aircraft would charter VVIP's including President Jacob Zuma, the deputy president, former presidents and the minister and deputy minister of defence, the Saturday Star reported.

"Every week we pay millions of rand chartering aircraft for strategic airlift capability, which far exceeds the money we would have spent by purchasing," Mapisa-Nqakula said.

"If you look at some of our aircraft, they're 60 to 62-years-old and should be museum pieces. I won't elaborate on some of the experiences I've had… but this process [to buy aircraft] must begin."

In 2009 Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe had to make an emergency landing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo after problems with his jet and in 2011 the aircraft he was due to travel in had problems before take-off from Waterkloof Air Force Base in Pretoria.

Last year Mapisa-Nqakula cancelled plans to buy a R2-billion presidential jet. – Sapa

Mail and Guardian

COMMENTS BY SONNY

Are these new planes going to be Russian?

Paying past debt or making new debt?

The extension of the ANC ARMS DEAL SCANDAL?

ZUMA SEEMS TO BE MAKING HIMSELF COMFY FOR THE FUTURE OF ZUMA AIR!

The untouchable dictator in the making?

Time will reveal his destiny!

Sharemax and directors schemed to defraud public, says Fais ombud

Sharemax and directors schemed to defraud public, says Fais ombud
May 24 2013 at 08:00am
By Roy Cokayne




SHAREMAX Investments, its network of financial advisers and four of its directors – Gert Goosen, Willie Botha, Dominique Haese and André Brand – were involved “in a scheme calculated to defraud members of the public”, financial advisory and intermediary services (Fais) ombud Noluntu Bam said yesterday.

Bam reached this conclusion in her latest determination on a complaint lodged by a 73-year-old female pensioner from Heidelberg in the Western Cape against financial adviser Edward Carter-Smith after investing R490 000 in the Zambezi Retail Park on Carter-Smith’s advice.

Sharemax promoted and marketed the Zambezi Retail Park property syndication.

Bam ordered Carter-Smith, Sharemax Investments, FSP Network (a network of brokers set up to market Sharemax schemes), Goosen, Botha, Haese and Brand jointly and severally to repay the complainant.

Carter-Smith complained that he had been misled by the directors of Sharemax and called them “liars”.

In an earlier determination Bam said Sharemax was “nothing more than a Ponzi scheme” in which investors were paid interest out of their own funds.

Business Report confirmed in October last year that the Hawks were investigating allegations that Sharemax committed fraud and operated a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

About 40 000 people invested about R4.5 billion in the various schemes promoted and marketed by Sharemax.

It defaulted on monthly payments to investors in August 2010 when a decision by the registrar of banks that Sharemax’s funding model contravened the Banks Act became public knowledge.

ACT Audit Solution told the ombud that it had concluded after seeking a legal opinion that the transfer of investor funds from the trust account of Sharemax attorneys Weavind & Weavind to the investment property companies in The Villa and Zambezi schemes, prior to the registration of transfer of the property to investment property companies, “may constitute a reportable irregularity on a proper interpretation of the prospectuses”.

However, Sharemax directors claimed no reportable irregularity occurred because a bona fide “copy and paste” mistake had occurred during the drafting of the prospectuses.

Bam said this claim by the directors of Sharemax was “disingenuous and against the probabilities”.

She said her office was in possession of promotional pamphlets produced and distributed by Sharemax in 2010 that also stated investors’ funds would be paid into the trust account of Weavind & Weavind attorneys until the property was ready for transfer into the investors’ names.

Bam said Sharemax, FSP Network and the four Sharemax directors on their own version knew at the time of producing this pamphlet that they were “wilfully and deliberately misleading members of the public” because of the “cut and paste error” and the prospectus was subject to rectification.

They failed to explain why this “error” was only discovered after the Reserve Bank intervened in 2010 and after the scheme had already collapsed. They also failed to explain why Weavind & Weavind, which allegedly made the mistake, did not file any papers or correspondence in support of the “cut and paste error” version.

Bam said Weavind & Weavind had further failed to explain why it did not inform investors there was an error before it started paying the funds out of its trust account.

She said Weavind & Weavind had never supported the notion of an error in the prospectus. The law firm was of the opinion that the government notice on property syndications did not apply to this scheme and it was therefore not illegal to pay the money from the trust.

Letters sent to each investor by Sharemax, acknowledging the investment and stating that their investment had been deposited into Weavind & Weavind’s trust account, and kept there until the investment amount was processed and the property was transferred, were “equally untrue and misleading” because on Sharemax’s version this was a mistake.

Bam said these letters of confirmation were still being written to investors after the “mistake” was discovered.

“The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn… is that the second to seventh respondents [Sharemax, FSP Network and the four Sharemax directors] were involved in a scheme calculated to defraud members of the public,” she said.



Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services3

Auditors should have known about Sharemax irregularity – Ombud

Special investigations

Author: Julius Cobbett
|22 May 2013 12:39
Auditors should have known about Sharemax irregularity – Ombud


Irregularity reported too late to protect investors.


JOHANNESBURG –
Auditors for Sharemax should have known an irregularity was taking place. This is one of the findings in the latest determination by the Ombud for Financial Services Providers (Fais Ombud) Noluntu Bam against a financial adviser who sold Sharemax products.

The determination orders the adviser, as well as four Sharemax directors, to repay a 73 year-old pensioner the R490 000 she invested in Zambezi Retail Park, Sharemax’s second-largest syndication. This is the second determination that has found Sharemax’s directors liable for an investor’s loss. The directors are: Dominique Haese, Gert Goosen, Willie Botha and Andre Brand.

Bam’s determination, dated May 16, takes particular aim at auditing firm, ACT Audit Solutions. This firm has since changed its name and is now known as Advoca Auditing.

Bam states that the auditors failed to report an irregularity timeously to the regulatory body, the Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors (IRBA).

The irregularity in question was the release of investors’ money out of an attorney’s trust account before they had taken transfer of their property. This happened in Sharemax’s two largest syndications, Zambezi and The Villa, and left them in a very precarious position.

Prospectuses for Zambezi and The Villa stated that investors’ funds would remain in the attorney’s trust account until immovable properties were transferred.

ACT Solutions did alert IRBA to this irregularity. But it did so on November 5, 2010. By then Sharemax’s troubles were well known. The irregularity reported served little purpose in protecting investors.

By the time ACT reported the irregularity, Zambezi and the Villa had already raised R2.3bn from investors. The first Zambezi prospectus had been registered three years earlier, on November 15, 2007.

In her determination, Bam notes that her office sent ACT Audit Solutions a letter which asked a number of important questions. An extract of this letter, together with ACT’s lawyer’s response, can be read in the determination.

Bam says it is of concern to her office that ACT does not state when the irregularity was discovered. Nor does it give detail as to the circumstances that led to the discovery.

“The auditors must have known that the investors’ funds were being used to fund the building of the mall and that interest payments, of 12%, to the investors also came from their own funds,” writes Bam.

She concludes: “The auditors, ACT now known as Advoca, failed to report the irregular transaction to IRBA timeously. They ought to have known that investors’ funds were being paid before transfer had taken place. At all times they had access to that information. Also, they ought to have known that this money was ultimately lent to developers who borrowed the money and used the same funds to pay 14% interest back to Sharemax.”

Asked by Moneyweb to comment, Advoca managing director Jacques van der Merwe says: “In response to the determination made by the FAIS Ombud we are satisfied that we answered their enquiries directed to us sufficiently. We did not receive any further enquiries from them after our detailed response on any issues now raised in the determination. We are therefore not going to deal with the issue in the electronic media.”

This is not the only controversy faced by ACT. Moneyweb has previously reported on how the firm changed its mind on a clean audit it gave Sharemax-promoted Flora Centre. ACT only changed its mind after it was notified by IRBA that a complaint had been laid against it relating to the Flora Centre financial statements. For a detailed analysis of these financial statements, see Inside Sharemax’s “magic”.

Copy and paste mistake

Once ACT reported its irregularity to IRBA, Sharemax was invited to respond. Says ACT: “Sharemax’s response was that no reportable irregularity took place as the prospectuses contained a common mistake (the provision that funds could only be transferred after registration of transfer of the property to the property investment companies) which recurred as a result of a bona fide “copy and paste” mistake during drafting of the prospectuses. Sharemax argued that the prospectuses should be rectified.”

Bam says it appears that Sharemax is claiming that there was a mere ‘copy and paste’ error in the prospectus. “This is disingenuous and against the probabilities,” says Bam. “This is a material term of the contract between Sharemax and the investors. Most investors would not have participated if their funds did not enjoy the protection of an attorney’s trust account. This simply cannot be swept under the carpet as a ‘copy and paste’ error. Equally it is far too late to even consider a rectification of the prospectus, large numbers of investors already parted with their funds.”

Bam continues: “The information received by this office is that [Sharemax] representatives specifically told investors that their money will remain in the attorney’s trust account and will only be paid out upon registration of the transfer of the property. The investors were told to pay their money only to and directly into the attorney’s trust account. There the money will be safe.”

Bam also notes that her office is in possession of promotional pamphlets produced and distributed by Sharemax. The pamphlets state: “Investment funds are paid into the trust account of Weavind & Weavind attorneys (established in 1905), which falls under the protection and insurance of the Law Society of South Africa, until the property is ready for transfer into the investors’ names.”

Says Bam: “This statement is consistent with the representations made in the prospectus and its purpose is to assure investors that their funds enjoyed protection. On [Sharemax and its directors’] own version they knew, at the time of producing this pamphlet, that they were wilfully and deliberately misleading members of the public as they equally knew that this protection offered in the prospectus and in this pamphlet was merely a ‘cut and paste error’ and that the prospectus was subject to rectification. The pamphlet was distributed in 2010.”

Furthermore, Bam says that after every investment was made, each investor received a letter from Sharemax. The letter states: “…your investment is deposited into Weavind & Weavind’s trust account, and is kept there until the investment amount is processed and the property is transferred. After this your shares are issued to you as described in the prospectus.”

Bam says these letters were still being written to investors after the “mistake” was discovered.

“The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this conduct is that the second to seventh respondents were involved in a scheme calculated to defraud members of the public.”

Topics: Fais Ombud, Noluntu Bam, Sharemax, Zambezi Retail Park, Dominique Haese, Gert Goosen, Willie Botha, Andre Brand, The Villa, ACT Audit Solutions, Advoca Auditing

Gupta report: Scapegoats to escape sanction?

NO fear No FAVOUR No Zuma................................



Government's Gupta plane landing report does not conclusively suggest that Christine Anderson and Bruce Koloane will face criminal charges.

The report contains the findings of a team of directors general from the security cluster departments, including the departments of justice and correctional services. Justice Minister Jeff Radebe announced some of the report's findings at a media briefing on Sunday. The full report was released on Wednesday.

Read the full report (PDF)

The report makes it clear that the jet chartered by the Gupta family, which carried guests attending Vega Gupta's wedding, should never have been allowed to land at the Waterkloof Air Force Base. It says that no chartered or commercial flights are allowed to land at a military base except in emergency situations.

The report identifies the chief of state protocol at the department of international relations, Bruce Koloane, and the commanding officer of movement control at Waterkloof, Lieutenant Colonel Christine Anderson, as the main drivers behind the facilitation of the landing.

It says they met on April 24 with "an individual" from the Indian high commission to discuss arrangements for the landing of the plane", and that, later, Koloane "took it upon himself" to arrange for the "illegal" landing to occur.

Koloane is further alleged to have said Anderson gave the go-ahead for the landing, which "amounted to an abuse of an official working relationship to advance the interests of private parties". At one point, Anderson also said the request should be approved because "Number One" was aware of it.

The report said this amounted to an "abuse" of President Jacob Zuma's name and office. In the process, the report concludes that Koloane and Anderson led the charge in what eventually amounted to a "major security risk" for the country. The Customs and Excise Act was also violated when the wedding guests were afforded diplomatic immunity from standard customs security checks.

Their actions were a "serious dereliction of duty" and "they both grossly abused and undermined these [departmental] processes", according to the report.

Taking the fall
The two have been suspended from their respective jobs pending the outcome of internal disciplinary hearings. Speculation is rife that they are taking the fall for what their superiors must have known about. South African National Defence Force Union spokesperson Pikkie Greeff said as much in a statement released in early May.

Nevertheless, the directors general report sets out several charges against them, and leans towards the conclusion that they might have broken the law. But, in the report's recommendations there is no clear indication that either Koloane or Anderson will be criminally charged for their actions.

Instead, the report suggests respective departmental investigations should be expedited timeously so that "justice is seen to be done" and disciplinary procedures be "implemented where deemed necessary".

The report alleges that Koloane masterminded the landing through the exercise of "undue influence" by making three phone calls to various state officials.

These include calls to Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula's political advisor, Sergeant Major Thabo Ntshisi, who is a senior officer at Air Force Command, and Anderson.

The report claims the three conversations contained references to President Jacob Zuma – which the justice minister on Sunday labelled as "name-dropping".

"The aircraft in question was cleared for landing and the correct clearance procedures were followed, but based on false pretences as a result of the manipulation of the process by the Gupta family, individuals in the Indian High Commission, Koloane and Anderson, who shared a common purpose and acted in concert," the report reads.

'Name-dropping'
It also exonerates Zuma, his ministers and other members of the executive from involvement in the debacle. The inference is that none of the executive were aware of, or gave explicit permission, for their names to be "dropped" in order to secure the landing.

"Neither the president nor officials in the presidency whether junior or senior, minister and directors general in Dirco [the department of international relations and co-operation] and defence and military veterans had instructed him to assist with the landing of the aircraft, the report reads.

It makes it clear that both Rajesh "Tony" Gupta and Atul Gupta personlly tried to gain permission for the plane to land at Waterkloof. At one point, Koloane apparently approached the defence minister's political adviser, asking for assistance in processing the request. Koloane said he was "under pressure from Number One".

Moreover, the only criminal cases that have been opened relating to the landing are aimed at prosecuting individuals involved in the escorting of guests from Waterkloof to the wedding in Sun City.

Five criminal cases were opened in relation to Tswane Metro police officers, who allegedly were moonlighting when they assisted in the transport of guests to the wedding under the auspices of an official police convoy.

But the Times reported on Wednesday that the majority of these criminal cases have now been dropped due to lack of evidence.

MAIL AND GUARDIAN

COMMENTS BY SONNY

TWO STEP SOLUTION TO THESE PROBLEMS - IMPEACH ZUMA AND DEPORT THE GUPTA'S.

Only then, will South Africa be on the road to Democracy!

JACOB ZUMA WANTS TO BECOME A DICTATOR AND IS STANDING IN THE WAY OF A SOUTH AFRICAN DEMOCRACY!

HE HAS OVERSTEPPED THE "RED LINE!"

2014 SHOULD BE THE ANC's VOTE OF SELF DESTRUCTION! 

Into the accountability void: ANC asks no hard questions, hears no hard truths

No fear No Favour No Politicians......................



RANJENI MUNUSAMY                                 SOUTH AFRICA            22 MAY 2013          02:28

“Did the president take us into his confidence about the relationship between [him] and the Gupta family? I’m not sure if that is necessary,” ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe told a media briefing on Monday. So, no then. The last time the ANC decided not to ask questions of its presidential deployee, and allowed him not to account to the party for his actions, it ended up recalling him from office. The ANC seems not to learn from its past mistakes; quite the opposite: it keeps repeating them – even when it contravenes its own resolutions. By RANJENI MUNUSAMY.

Until that fateful ANC national executive committee (NEC) meeting in September 2008 when the party took the dramatic decision to recall former president Thabo Mbeki from office, it never had a proper sit down with him to hold him to account for his actions. Yes, there was the time it had to confront his Aids denialism but the ANC did not really hold him to account: in 2002 the party prevailed on Mbeki to allow the turnaround in government policy on HIV/Aids treatment because it was simply untenable to continue the lunacy.

But as far as presenting him with all the accusations it eventually used to oust him – from abuse of power to manipulation of state agencies – well, the ANC just never asked him to account for these at any time during his presidency. Perhaps if it had, and not allowed him to become the supreme leader who held absolute power, he could have had a chance to correct his ways and not have to be unceremoniously booted out of office and cast into the political wilderness.

The problem was not just confined to Mbeki. The ANC does not have an accountability mechanism to hold its deployees answerable for their performance and actions in the state. So from the late Sicelo Shiceka, the former minister of cooperative governance and traditional affairs, to former national police commissioner Jackie Selebi, the ANC generally allows its deployees in the state to hang themselves by their own shoelaces rather than to call them in to ask why they are in trouble.

This not only applies at national level, but in the provinces and in local government. The ANC would rather let its own members repeatedly call for the axing of the Limpopo Premier Cassel Mathale than call him in and ask why so much has gone wrong in the province under his watch. The Port Elizabeth metro has for years been dogged by political infighting, maladministration and instability. Rather than confronting these problems by holding the local leadership accountable, the ANC let the problems fester until it had no other choice but to fire the mayor and deputy mayor.

In the build-up to the ANC’s 53rd national conference in Mangaung last year, it looked as if the party was mindful of its weak accountability mechanism and wanted to fix the situation. At the ANC’s policy conference last June there was strong focus on cleaning up the party’s public image in particular, and dealing with the poor performance and inappropriate conduct of its deployees in government which brings the ANC into disrepute.

This eventually gave rise to strong resolutions at the December national conference, such as: “Cadre deployment should be underpinned by a rigorous system of monitoring and evaluation of the performance of cadres deployed and elected to leadership positions. This will avoid a situation wherein leadership assessment and evaluation take place only in the run-up to conferences.”

The ANC also resolved at Mangaung that: “More urgent steps should be taken to protect the image of the organisation and enhance its standing in society by ensuring, among others, that urgent action is taken to deal with public officials, leaders and members of the ANC who face damaging allegations of improper conduct. In addition, measures should be put in place to prevent abuse of power or office for private gain or factional interests.”

In declaring the “Decade of the Cadre”, the party resolved that: “The ANC must revitalise all aspects of its cadre policy: recruitment, cadre development, deployment and accountability and cadre preservation.”

It all sounds good on paper; in practice though, nothing has changed. The ANC has allowed Communications Minister Dina Pule to drown herself in a sea of controversy rather than sit her down and ask for an explanation. The ANC would rather allow its deployees to face multiple investigations and bring the party into disrepute than check whether they are suitable or failing at their jobs. The party has the option of assisting them with corrective measures or asking them to resign.

While Cabinet ministers and other senior deployees in government might serve at the pleasure of the president, their performance and conduct ultimately reflects on the image of the party. The ANC therefore cannot wash its hands of what its members do in government and still expect to maintain the confidence and trust of the people of South Africa.

With regard to the curious case of the Gupta jet landing at Waterkloof Air Force Base, ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe’s strongly-worded statement against the private use of a military base was perhaps pivotal in getting the state to investigate the matter. However, while the ANC was clearly unimpressed with the Gupta family exercising extreme liberties to abuse a state facility, it will not take the next logical step and interrogate why they were able to do so.

The opportunity presented itself at the weekend NEC when the Guptagate scandal was discussed. However, President Jacob Zuma, according to Mantashe, did not explain to his party the nature of his relationship with the Guptas and why they felt comfortable enough to drop his name – as had been established by the state investigation – to get 194 officials to comply with their wishes irregularly. Instead, Zuma reportedly hid behind the fig leaf of the Air Force base not being a national key point, as it had been commonly referred to.

There were 85 people in the room of the NEC meeting who could have said “Comrade president, please tell us why this family is able to drop your name to get special privileges in the state? What is the nature of your relationship with them?” And it is not as if the people in the room did not want to know the answer. It is a source of mystery even to the president’s close allies.

Of course nobody did. Mantashe says he is not sure it was necessary as it is “not the business of the NEC” who the ANC’s leaders relate to in their personal capacity. Well, the thing is that it is the business of the ANC NEC when it impacts on the image of the ruling party and causes chaos in the state. The Mangaung conference clearly decided that ANC deployees need to be held accountable by the party for their performance and actions in the state. The resolutions certainly did not include a disclaimer for presidential deployees.

In an interview with Talk Radio 702 on Tuesday, Mantashe, while repeating that Zuma did not need to justify or explain his personal relationship with the Guptas, bemoaned the fact that the South African public did not trust anything coming from government. He said that despite the state investigation finding that Zuma was not involved in the Gupta plane saga, the public still believed it was a cover-up.

It obviously escapes Mantashe that the reason public trust and confidence is waning is that the ANC has done nothing to show that it holds its leaders accountable. Instead, the ANC goes beyond the bounds to close ranks and protect its leaders from scrutiny until independent institutions, such as the courts or Public Protector, force actions against them.

By protecting their leaders in the state, the ANC deployees labour under the false impression that they are also do not have to account to the citizens of South Africa, despite the Constitution stating otherwise. This is why the public is treated with contempt when it demands answers on burning issues from the president and members of his Cabinet.

The investigation by the team of directors-general did not find any culpability by members of the executive in the Gupta saga as they were subordinates who could not ask hard questions of their bosses. But the ANC could and should have asked those questions of the president and other members of Cabinet sitting in the NEC.

As long as the ANC is not able to hold its leaders in the state to account, it should not complain that the public does not trust its government.

ANC should never forget the disastrous end the last time it let its president get more powerful than the party. It was the time when facts didn’t matter if they didn’t serve the narrative. The evidence was building over several years that all was not well in the security agencies, to the point where infighting between the police and the prosecuting authority became deadly and the intelligence agencies turned on each other. But the ANC remained silent. It was only able to say “enough” when a high court judge pronounced that Mbeki was abusing his powers against Zuma.

But new times bring new challenges, though they may look not-so-vaguely familiar. Perhaps one of the greatest lessons the ANC can learn from the Guptagate disaster is that: Trust and accountability are inextricably linked; the ANC cannot demand one without offering the other. DM

DAILY MAVERICK

COMMENTS BY SONNY

Two things the ANC must still learn - ACCOUNTABILITY & HONESTY!

They all lack integrity when it comes to the truth and corruption.

With a chameleon in charge it is obvious!

For whom the church bell e-tolls?

No Fear No Favour No e-Tolls....................



STEPHEN GROOTES     SOUTH AFRICA    21 MAY 2013    00:09

Just when you thought the e-tolling argument was over, another new major player has entered the ring. It's big, it wears robes, and it's got God on its side. Ladies and gentlemen, the Catholic Church has fixed its dog collar, removed the clerical glasses, put aside the incense burner, and told government exactly where to get off. In short, it's said toll roads are wrong, possibly corrupt, and certainly not transparent. SANRAL, of course, has a response. It's not as strong as it could be. By STEPHEN GROOTES.

The Catholic Church moves slowly. You know, we'll have women priests any time this millenium. The pill, well, it's still wrong. Muslims? Um, we'll get back to you on that. And when it makes its mind up about something, it's unlikely to change it. So when it decides to weigh in on the issue of toll roads, you have to know that this is a considered view. If you go through their full discussion document, you might even want to call it an absolutist view, and it is not good for government and Sanral.

The church says Gauteng's toll roads are wrong for a variety of reasons. The first is that the entire process of creating them has not been transparent. We have not been told why this particular model was used, and certainly, there is still no cogent reason as to why a system that costs so much to run was adopted. The costs have escalated dramatically since the first system was proposed. And of course, for the church, it's just "unacceptable to toll an existing road without providing an alternative".

That you've all heard before. What you've also heard before is perhaps the religious doctrinal reason that gets them into this argument. Caring for the poor is one of the major tenets of Catholicism (not that we are experts - I'm a retired Anglican, which is close at best, and the editor of this website is even further away: he gets his Christmas and Easter dates wrong!) And of course, tolling these roads will have a direct impact on the poor, and so the church has a responsibility to act.

But what really gives this intervention power is not just the publicity this call will get. It's not that the church has as big a moral voice as it once did. It's that included in this document is a call for people "not to collaborate with the e-tolling procedures until all the matters of concern have been addressed appropriately."

The church is calling for a boycott.

In our political parlance they're saying "Don't buy e-tags, don't buy". It's a call that is going to have resonance. It's going to allow thousands of people, whether they were altar boys or not, to feel completely easy about not paying what a democratically elected government is demanding from them. Equally painfully for the government, it's going to legitimise the opposition arguments to e-tolling.

In other words, this is the kind of intervention in an argument that can have an impact far greater than it really should, because of who's doing the intervention. Because it's the Catholic Church, because it comes with a sort of moral majesty, because it lowers itself into our base political discussions so rarely, this is a voice that will be heard, and heard louder than just about any other.

It goes without saying that the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance is overjoyed, with its head Wayne Duvenage pointing out that all of the church's main points resonate with what it's being saying all along.

Even those godless communists at Cosatu are excited, with Patrick Craven particularly keen that the church has singled out the impact on the poor. As he puts it, "This hits back at the propaganda that this is just a middle class issue, it's not".

But before we get too excited, we have to look at the response, though.

If the OUTA now has God on its side, SANRAL has Vusi Mona.

Mona's had such an interesting ride, from City Press editor to the Presidency via the Hefer Commission. It's a story worthy of an academic essay (and, amazingly for those who are interested in this sort of thing, has actually had the academic treatment - by Rhodes Journalism Professor Guy Berger, no less), and perhaps a moral treatise all on its own.

But we have to give Mona his due. In some ways he's probably the perfect person to be in this role at the moment, because he knows the world of spin well. He's good at his job. And crucially, as not everyone does this, he has done the research, read the White Papers, and taken the trouble to memorise the timeline of this entire sorry saga. In short, he's professional, and SANRAL does need a really good spindoctor at this stage in the game.

Mona's main point of counter-attack is that the church actually had a chance to object when religious organisations met a Cabinet delegation led by Deputy President (in name) Kgalema Motlanthe. He says that leaders there were able to make their points, and there was a chance for a very real consultation. He also laments that people are given a chance to talk in a proper forum, stay quiet, and then complain in public about a lack of democratic space. Mona also says it's a pity that this church has gone outside the view of the other religious leaders.

Well, he has a point on the use of democratic space. Perhaps. It's an argument that needs more consideration.

And he's on quite firm ground that people simply didn't complain when e-tolls were first proposed. For various reasons, everyone was asleep. Unless government deliberately kept everyone in the dark on the whole thing, of course.

But on the claim that all religions faiths and churches should agree on something, he's just wrong. It's a bit like expecting the ANC, the SACP and Cosatu to agree on everything. Like, just as an example that comes to mind, e-tolling. So it's not a criticism that can really stand up.

However, Mona appears to avoid, possibly deliberately, a claim that it's odd for the Catholic Church to publicly condemn toll roads, and not have fought an active fight against Apartheid. Of course individual priests and officials did many good things in the Struggle. But it's hard, probably impossible, for the church to claim that every white Catholic in the land heard a lecture on why Apartheid was a sin every Sunday. It just didn't happen like that. So in a way, it faces an attack on the base of its very legitimacy just on that basis alone. But Mona doesn't go there. And possibly quite wisely.

At its heart, the e-tolling argument is about consultation and transparency, and the lack thereof. It's also tied in what might become a taxpayers' revolt, in that people have simply had enough. Now the balance of power may be shifting back. The judges will have the final word. But they won't be the only ones in the room wearing robes of substance. DM

Grootes is an Eyewitness News Reporter and the host of the Midday Report on Talk Radio 702 and 567 Cape Talk.

Photo: Reuters and Greg Marinovich.

DAILY MAVERICK

comments by sonny


We welcome back the Catholic Church.

during the 'apartheid era' they were quick to voice opposition to the state.

let their voice be heard once again against the social injustices of the anc and their ilk.

 it is a brave move on their part.

together we can achieve true democracy in south africa.