Thursday, January 31, 2013

Mac Maharaj: The 'foul secret' that has torn sister from sister

No Fear No Favour - The Truth is Paramount......






01 FEB 2013 00:00 - SAM SOLESTEFAANS BRÜMMER


Presidential spokesperson Mac Maharaj's sister-in-law has spoken to the M&G about her knowledge of a secret Swiss account.




New evidence has emerged to support the claim that Mac ­Maharaj and his wife, Zarina, took kickbacks on a 1990s contract for new drivers' licences – and it comes from the heart of the presidential spokesperson's family: Zarina's sister, who has chosen to go public with what she says is her knowledge of the origins of the Swiss account into which the money was paid.
The payments, in 1996, flowed allegedly from a subsidiary of French multinational Thales, via a Swiss account controlled by Schabir Shaik, to an adjacent account opened by Zarina Maharaj.

READ MORE

Shaik's dealings with Thales are best known from his corruption conviction in part for facilitating an agreement for the company to pay Jacob Zuma in return for his "protection and support" as the arms deal scandal broke.
During 1996, however, Thales subsidiary IDMatics was in a consortium with Shaik, bidding for the contract to produce the new credit card-style drivers' licences. Mac Maharaj was minister of transport at the time and Zarina's sister, Shirene Carim, an uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) veteran, was living in London.
Maharaj has always refused to answer media questions about the payments. And when the Mail & Guardian sought to publish details of an in-camera interview under oath with the Scorpions in which he gave answers at odds with the facts, he laid a criminal complaint. He is also opposing a court application for permission to publish details of the interview.
Now, in a move that appears driven in equal measure by courage and bitterness, anger and principle, Shirene Carim has come forward to recount the details of Zarina's trip to Geneva in October 1996 to open a Swiss account and to lay bare what she knew about Shaik's involvement.
The existence of the bank account has been known for some time, but Carim has provided fresh details corroborating the forensic record and adding her view of the attitude of the Maharajs at the time.
Documents obtained by the Scorpions during its investigation of Maharaj showed that Zarina opened an account with Banque SCS Alliance in Geneva on October 14 1996. It was into this account that more than $210 000 was transferred, cash which originated from Thales subsidiary IDMatics.
Case withdrawn
The Scorpions case against Maharaj was withdrawn in 2009 by acting National Director of Public Prosecutions Mokotedi Mpshe for reasons that remain unexplained.
Shirene Carim, who served with MK's special operations division from 1984 to 1987, took the initiative to contact the M&G during a visit to South Africa from her home in London.
She told the M&G she struggled with the decision to make disclosures that would brand her as disloyal to her family and forever cement the rift with her elder sister and possibly the wider family.
But it is also evident that Zarina's alleged disclosure to her sister that she was going to Geneva to open a bank account to receive money from Shaik injected a poisonous secret into their already difficult relationship from which it never recovered.
Shirene set out the allegations in an initial email to the M&G Centre for Investigative Journalism without at first disclosing her identity.
"I'd hoped that by now, justice would prevail.
"In 1996 or 1997, Mac's wife stayed with me in London UK on her way to Geneva to open a bank account, as she could only have been boasting to me.
'In shock'
"I was given the details of the provider of the funds – Shaik – and the reason why. I was in shock until she left, to be back the following evening.
"She called the next afternoon, having missed her flight due to the time difference in Switzerland of which she was unaware.
"I asked her if I should call my friends in Geneva who would collect her and give her a bed for the night. She declined, saying she'd take a hotel room and Schabir would 'have to' pay for it.
"When she should have been back, a call came and I insisted on knowing who was speaking. 'Schabir' came the answer. I told him she wasn't back from Geneva where she'd gone to open a bank account for the proceeds of bribery and corruption.
"She arrived, left for South Africa and the next communication was a call from her husband, Mac, who told me they were writing their wills and would I stand as executor should anything happen to them.
"I reminded him that I'd do anything for the welfare of their children who I loved as my own. He thanked me and told me he'd be in touch. I've never heard from him or seen his wife and children to this day.
"I have been in a state of confusion ever since."
Graphic: John McCann.
Legacy of a 'foul secret'
In a subsequent interview with the M&G, Shirene expanded on this account and her reasons for coming forward now.
Shirene alleged that in the 16 years since 1996, on five trips to South Africa, she had attempted to see her sister face to face in order to deal with the legacy of what she called this "foul secret".
Each time she was rebuffed, she claimed.
Shirene's story is consistent with the known facts. The M&G has discovered, among the evidence submitted at the Shaik trial, previously unreported information suggestive of a link between Shaik, Thales and the account. Among the documents seized by the Scorpions from Thales' offices in South Africa were business cards and handwritten numbers for a director of Banque SCS and a fax found during the raids on Shaik featured a business card for the same director.
In addition, details of the build-up to and aftermath of the breakdown in her relationship with Zarina also provide some corroboration for Shirene's account.
First came a visit by Mac and Zarina to London earlier in 1996, when Nelson Mandela made a triumphant state visit as president of a newly democratic South Africa.
Mandela, with Mac and family in tow, arrived on July 9 1996, Shirene's 50th birthday.
Shirene's celebration
Mandela's visit ended on July 13, but Mac and Zarina could not stay for Shirene's celebration, set to take place on Sunday July 14, despite having been invited long in advance.
One of the reasons they stood her up is telling.
On July 2, Schabir Shaik had written to engineering firm Brown & Root, Shaik's intended partners in another project under the department of transport, the planned new La Mercy airport outside Durban, now known as King Shaka.
Shaik asked the American company to make arrangements for a Disney World holiday by the Maharaj family. The intended travel dates were July 13 to 16.
In his letter, Shaik noted that this assistance to the minister was "strategically important to ourselves".
The family duly skipped the birthday party and Brown & Root picked up the R15 000-plus tab for accommodation and airport transfer and invoiced Shaik. It is not clear whether Maharaj ever repaid Shaik.

Schabir Shaik. (Media 24)
During this time, Shaik also addressed a letter to Mac at the Dorchester Hotel in London, where he was staying as part of Mandela's entourage.
The letter confirmed the booking at Disney World and included the following note to Mac: "Brown & Root people, my partner and colleagues in South Africa, were expecting you to call them. Kindly advise Dr Anwar Wissa when that would be possible given your more relaxed schedule in the States.
Zarina's bitterness
"Special message. I understand from my warehouse that the expected documents had reached your desk in the UK. Kindly confirm at your soonest."
Mac and Zarina did see Shirene during that London trip, however. Shirene and her partner Ted joined them for a meal at a restaurant on the Thames.
After dinner, despite the glow of South Africa's democratic transition and the glittering setting, some of Zarina's bitterness burst through, Shirene alleged.
"We went out for a coffee on the balcony. Zarina stood there and said, in front of everyone, in front of my daughters, in front of their partners, in front of her children, she said: 'If it wasn't for you, Mac would be minister of defence'."
The background to that comment was, according to Shirene, her perceived political unreliability: "According to them, I was a renegade."
She believes this stemmed partly from a report she made to Mac about conditions in ANC camps in Angola following the 1984 Pango mutiny, which was brutally put down.
"I was in the camps in Pango and I was listening to the people complaining [about conditions] and I was saying to them, 'I will take your complaints back to HQ.'

Mac Mahraj and his wife Zarina. (Sunday Times)
Causes of the mutiny
"So, when I went back to Lusaka, I said to Mac: 'You know people are very unhappy … and the causes of the mutiny, I've been told it was this and it was that.'
"Some of the soldiers had been [there] since the 1976 uprisings: they were not being deployed … many of them had not even been allowed to set foot outside the camp in eight years.
"And Mac said: 'Oh you're just a …' I forget the term he used – someone on the periphery."
Shirene is aware that she will be accused of drawing on this well of bitterness to make up a damaging story about her sister after the existence of the Geneva bank account was first revealed in City Press in March 2007.
Against that accusation, she said, she had raised the issue before.
Her partner, Ted Dougherty, confirmed that she long ago relayed to him the outlines of Zarina's Geneva gambit and its implications.
Shirene said she also told her brother Adam, who lives in Canada, and her daughter Magali long before the details became public.
"I told Magali because she was staunch ANC and she said, 'Mum, you've got to go to the ANC and report them.' I said, 'Magali can you imagine what would happen if we brought this up? What would happen to their children?'"
An explanation
Shirene said Adam did not want to get involved and she was worried that a wedge had been established between her and her daughter.
"Since my sister went to visit her in June last year, she hasn't communicated with me. I don't know what Zarina has told her."
Shirene said she also wrote to Mac and Zarina asking for an explanation for why they had involved her.
They never wrote back or came to see her again, in spite of passing through London on many occasions.
In about 2007, she also wrote an email about Zarina to two other people: activist and artist John Matshikiza and former M&G editor Ferial Haffajee.
Matshikiza was a friend of Shirene's when he lived in London.
Involved in corruption
When she realised he had written the foreword to Zarina's autobiography, Dancing to a Different Rhythm, published in 2006, she made contact: "I needed to warn him so he would be prepared whenever it became public knowledge that she had been involved in corruption."
She said neither Matshikiza (who died in 2008) nor Haffajee replied to her.
Haffajee said that she received the correspondence and wrote back, but did not receive a reply. She said she recalled that Swiss accounts were mentioned amid "personal stuff" about Zarina and she passed the information on to the newsroom with a caveat about the source, but it was never followed up.
Corroboration of these contacts was provided by Zarina herself. Shirene showed the M&G an SMS from her most recent communication with her sister, in December last year, in which Zarina notes: "Shirene, the ever widening chasm between us can perhaps still be narrowed – the content of your emails to Johnny when he was still alive and a journalist, notwithstanding. Drop in in the new year."
But the casualness of the invitation infuriated Shirene: "Like ... I should 'drop in' – even if you might be busy  – [when] what I wanted to say was: 'I wanted to see you only to ask you why you burdened me with your foul secret which you expect me to take to my grave'."
* Got a tip-off for us about this story? Email amabhungane@mg.co.za
The M&G Centre for Investigative Journalism (amaBhungane) produced this story. All views are ours. See www.amabhungane.co.za for our stories, activities and funding sources.








-






-






-










COMMENTS BYS SONNY


-



-




-




It' s like a violent strike on a grape farm.

When the grapes go sour the apples turn rotten and fall from the trees.

The ANC was corrupt prior to 1994 - They are Corrupt NOW! 

Was this not in the same period Jesse Duarte was driving around with a 'Fragile' drivers licence?  Without having passed a driving test?

..........and the Premier raked in money for his design on the Gauteng number plates?.........

The World can change but corruption remains with us.


Fais Ombud finds Sharemax directors liable for investor's loss

Special Investigations

Author: Julius Cobbett|

31 January 2013 00:57

Fais Ombud finds Sharemax directors liable for investor's loss


Scathing determination declares Zambezi syndication 'nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.'

JOHANNESBURG – Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam has found four Sharemax directors liable for an investor’s loss.
The determination is unusual because it is normally only financial advisers who are held liable for bad investment advice.
However, in a lengthy determination, Bam has set out why she believes the Sharemax directors should be held accountable. The determination was signed on Tuesday. It can be downloaded in two parts here: part 1, part 2.
The determination could pave the way for thousands of other investors to claim losses from Sharemax’s directors.
In her latest determination, Bam is scathing of the Sharemax directors, who she accuses of “violating the law.”  Bam's determination was received after close of business on Wednesday and the Sharemax directors were not immediately available for comment.
Bam writes: “The facts before this office support the conclusion that the investment, as promoted and executed by Sharemax, was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. The directors of Sharemax violated the law and on this basis [they too] must be held liable for the investors’ loss.”
The complaint in question was laid by pensioner Gerbrecht Siegrist, 73, who is now destitute after investing her capital in two Sharemax-promoted syndications: Zambezi and The Villa.
The complaint was initially laid against her financial adviser, CJ Botha. However, the following six respondents were added to the complaint: Sharemax Investments, FSP Network (trading as Unlisted Securities South Africa), and the following four Sharemax directors: Gert Goosen, Willie Botha, Dominique Haese and Andre Brand.
Siegrist’s late husband left her an amount of money which was intended to provide her with an income. This money was placed in conventional investments, but on Siegrist’s broker’s advice, she invested R460 000 in Zambezi on April 2, 2008, and a further R120 000 in The Villa on July 15, 2008.
Siegrist’s broker, CJ Botha, claims that Siegrist instructed him to invest in Sharemax. But, says Bam, in the same breath Botha “admits that the complainant wanted an investment where her capital would be safe.”
Bam notes that Zambezi was a risky investment unsuitable for pensioners. Yet she notes that brokers who sold Sharemax products “almost without fail targeted pensioners.”
Bam found that the directors of Sharemax and FSP Network “were aware of the fact that the scheme [Zambezi] was both illegal and not commercially viable and yet they recklessly took investors’ funds. Investors whom within their knowledge were almost without exception pensioners who could ill afford the inevitable loss.”
Key to Bam’s determination is the finding that Sharemax and its directors were ultimately responsible for advice rendered by CJ Botha.
Bam links Sharemax to Botha through FSP Network, which traded under the name Unlisted Securities South Africa (USSA).
USSA provided many financial advisers with the necessary Financial Services Board (FSB) licence necessary to sell Sharemax products. The business was described by Bam in a previous determination as “nothing short of the hiring out of a licence for a small monthly fee.”
For more on USSA, see: the following articles: Broker offers widow costly Sharemax advice, FSB linked to Sharemax “licence for hire” scheme, and FSB official’s husband pays 13% return.
At its peak, USSA had 1376 representative brokers, all of whom sold Sharemax products. Bam notes that all of USSA’s registered brokers were only allowed to market Sharemax products.
What’s more, Sharemax director Gert Goosen was also USSA’s sole director and key individual.
Bam writes that Sharemax and USSA were “joined at the hip.”
“What Sharemax attempted to do was to create a buffer between itself and the brokers and the investors,” notes Bam. “This was a futile exercise as in law, Sharemax and its directors will, ultimately, be responsible for the conduct of their section 13 representatives.”
Bam says that Sharemax director Dominique Haese “gives no explanation as to why Sharemax stood by and took money from investors, via their ‘supervised’ broker network, who were clearly investing in a product that was not suitable for them.
Bam says that Haese must have known that the majority of the investors brought in by the representatives were pensioners.
Bam ordered all seven respondents, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, to pay Siegrist the amount of R580 000. If the respondents comply with the order, they are entitled to Siegrist’s share certificate.
Image source: A risk-reward matrix from Bigstock















Released men linked to dozens of armed robbery cases

Without Fear or Favour - The Truth is Paramount......











Court records show that the prosecutor, Yuri Gangai, told the court that if the men were granted bail they would automatically be deported.
31 January 2013 | PAUL KIRK
    
THE six men acquitted last week in Durban of robbing a casino walked out  of Westville Prison despite being being linked to dozens of armed robberies and murder in other parts of the country.

The group, which allegedly terrorised banks, cash-in-transit companies and casinos around the country, were arrested by members of the Cato Manor Serious and Violent Crimes Unit during 2010 – weeks after they allegedly robbed Sibiya Casino north of Durban. 

The modus operandi used during that robbery mirrors that of a gang that  stormed the Carnival City Casino on Monday. 

When the group was initially arrested  it was decided they  would first  stand trial in Durban for the Sibiya Casino robbery where a patron  was shot dead, as this had been the most recent case against them. 

After the Durban trial they  were to be taken to Gauteng to stand trial.

Spokesman for the Police Ministry, Zweli Mnisi, did not respond to e-mails and telephone calls at the time of going to press. 

During a bail application after their arrest, prosecutor Yuri Gangai told the court that the six men had featured in 35 to  40 armed robbery dockets. Thulani Hlatswayo, Malvern Ndlovu, Lumkani Dube, Bongani Lukhele, Philani Gumpu and Innocent Shabalala are also wanted for at least three armed cash heists in which police officers were shot.

According to an affidavit by Captain Neville Eva of the Cato Manor unit, which was used to oppose bail, Ndlovu and Dube are allegedly linked to nine and 12 robberies respectively in Gauteng.  Lukhele and Gumpu are linked to three robberies in Johannesburg.  

Eva said the Home Affairs Department had told him that the men were all Zimbabweans and that only Hlatswayo and Shabalala were in the country legally. Gumpu boasted that he had been a former Zimbabwean special forces soldier and had served as a bodyguard to President Robert Mugabe. 

In opposing bail, according to court records, Ndlovu has six arrests warrants issued against him relating to the armed robbery of banks.

Court records seen by The Citizen  show that the prosecutor in the case, Yuri Gangai, told the court that if the men were granted bail they would automatically be deported as they were illegally in South Africa. But instead of being deported when released from prison, the men walked free.

Durban’s Daily News yesterday reported that a suspended member of the Cato Manor Organised Crime Unit had tipped off police in Gauteng that the Carnival City robbery was being planned from the prison where the men were being held. The newspaper quoted the un- named suspended officer as saying that he was certain the Carnival City robbery was carried out by the group released from Durban.

Several sources said that the South African Banking Risk Information Centre (Sabric) had been tipped off that the  group might be acquitted and might  plan more 
robberies. 

These sources all told The Citizen that no specific information on where the men planned to strike had been provided. The sources all indicated that the SA Police Service  had been warned that, should the men be acquitted, they should not be released as they were wanted for scores of cash heists. 

Sabric spokesman Bongani Diako could not be reached at the time of going to press.

The Citizen

-



-



COMMENTS BY SONNY



-



-


Why were the investigating officers not in Court?
THE PROSECUTOR YURI GANGAI (Russian?) HAD A DUTY TO KEEP THE PRISONERS IN CUSTODY?
Was he in any way involved in their negligent/criminal release?
The NPA is responsible for this miscarriage of Justice!
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THESE CRIMINALS SHOULD BE SUSPECTED OF ROBBING CARNIVAL CITY CASINO ON MONDAY MORNING?
The members of the suspended Cato Manor Serious and Violent Crime Unit cannot be held responsible for this National blunder!










Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Telkom: Political party funding questioned

Without Fear or Favour - The truth is Paramount.....





FILE PICTURE: Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa - ANC Representative....



TELKOM is sponsoring today’s New Age business breakfast with Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa, but neither the newspaper nor Telkom would say yesterday how much the sponsorship was costing the utility.
31 January 2013 | NGWAKO MODJADJI & SAPA
    
TNA spokesman Gary Naidoo said he did not know how much Telkom was spending. Telkom spokesman Pynee Chetty said: “Details of Telkom’s product advertising agreements and sponsorship between Telkom and its media stakeholders are confidential.”

Earlier this month, City Press
reported that some of the biggest state- owned companies were paying millions of rands to bankroll the business breakfasts hosted by the Gupta family.

These included Transnet, Telkom and Eskom.

It was previously reported that Telkom had sponsored 12 business breakfasts to the tune of R12 million in the 2012/13 financial year, according to the newspaper.

Following the report,  DA leader Helen Zille pulled out of a TNA breakfast, saying that   she did not know it had been  sponsored with  public funds.

Zille said she had written to President Jacob Zuma asking for a commission of inquiry to be appointed into the funding of the paper.

“We believe that the information we have collected so far represents more than sufficient evidence to warrant a full judicial commission of inquiry into the government’s funding of The New Age,” she said.

Zille added that such an investigation should establish precisely how much of The New Age’s revenue was derived from the state, as well as  the legality of using public money to fund a pro-government newspaper that was ostensibly started by a benefactor of Zuma and the ANC.

Political analyst Ralph Mathekga said yesterday that at  the heart of the row  was the question of the secret funding of political parties.

“There needs to be more effort to ensure that there is disclosure as to which companies fund which political parties,” said Mathekga. “Voters deserve to know this information so that companies do not capture political parties through...  donations.” 


The Citizen



-


Disclosure of party funding is the way to go, say experts




Some say the regulation and forced disclosure of private funding for 
political parties will help build confidence in South Africa's leadership.


Against the backdrop of a vociferous 10-day row between Democratic Alliance (DA) leader Helen Zille and the New Age, South African political experts are calling for the private funding of political parties to be regulated by law.
The spat between Zille and the newspaper came to a head on Wednesday when the DA's leader, following allegations of hypocrisy regarding party funding from the New Agerevealed the name of a party donor whose identity she had previously undertaken to protect.
Addressing journalists in Parliament on Wednesday, Zille revealed that Stefan Nel, an executive director from the Gupta-owned Sahara Computers, had donated a total of R300 000 to the party. She said the money came from his personal bank account.
Just the day before, Zille wrote in a newsletter on the DA website that the party "makes a commitment of confidentiality to our donors".
"Ideally," wrote Zille, "the DA would prefer full transparency. But if we were the only party to apply it, most of our donations would dry up – together with any prospect of sustaining democracy in South Africa."
Political analysts say that the DA's move to protect – and then reveal – Nel's identity has highlighted the need to enforce the disclosure of private donations made to political parties.
"What has happened in the past few days has indicated that the problem is not only with the governing party, it's with the system," Steven Friedman, director for the Centre of the Study of Democracy told the Mail & Guardian on Wednesday.
"If you don't have regulations and forced disclosure, you have problems."
'Disadvantageous catch-22'
Fabian Scherer, political analyst at Political Analysts South Africa, said that as long as parties were not obliged to disclose the origin of their private donations, they were operating in a "disadvantageous catch-22 situation".
"The party is faced with a difficult choice," said Scherer. "Either it keeps the donor's name secret, and therefore promotes doubt about the moral integrity of its financing, or it discloses the name and frightens off future donors."
Juli Kilian, spokesperson for the Congress of the People (Cope) underscored this difficulty. 
"Donors to opposition parties fear reprisal and loss of business from government," she said. "They will only support when they are assured of confidentiality."
But in Friedman's opinion, opposition party donors should see disclosure as a safety net against mistreatment, rather than as a risk.
He said that if a company made a public donation to an opposition party and was then unexpectedly rejected from a government tender soon afterwards, it would be "very obvious" that the company was falling prey to political mistreatment. At the moment, when companies befall such treatment, the offending parties are not held accountable.
"I think that disclosure is actually the best thing for opposition party donors," he said.
'Encourages corruption'
According to Martins, the current lack of legislation makes it difficult to examine if private donations are being accompanied by a shady kickback for the donor.
Friedman agreed. "I certainly think our current system encourages corruption," he said. "The DA said 'we didn't give any favours in return [for the donations from the Gupta companies]'. But if we don't know who made the donation and how much they donated, then how do we know that is true? The public is entitled to more than the say-so of the senior politician."
In an interview with Polity.org.za, political analyst Ebrahim Fakir said that the non-disclosure of party funding not only affected the health of the South African democracy but subverted "our entire system of public values".
According to Fakir, the public cannot know the level of influence that is being exercised over a party by a private donor if they do not know the extent of its donations.

'Reduction of confidence'
Anonymous party funding "contributes to the reduction of confidence in the democracy," said Martins, and Kilian said it directly undermined the democratic process.
"Buying off government politicians by cash or kind in government has become a way of life. The more bribes [the politicians] get, the more money they can spend on patronage and expensive election campaigns to stay in power," she said. In her opinion, "an entire new regime of party political funding is needed. There is just too much chicanery going on and transparency must become institutionalised."
Mametlwe Sebei, founding member of the newly-formed Workers and Socialist Party (WASP), said his party undertook to fully disclose its funding details.
"We are going to be absolutely transparent [about who donates to our party] and we are going to fight for all parties to be transparent," he said.
Whilst WASP did not intend on taking a "morally purist" point of view and would not reject endowments from small businesses, it would not canvas any big businesses for money, he said. Rather, it would rely on the donations of its working-class members.
"It is the only way we can keep ourselves pure from corruption," said Sebei.
When queried about the ANC's policy on party funding disclosure, ANC spokesperson Jackson Mthembu said that he could not comment on queries of a "financial nature". ANC treasurer general Zweli Mkhize was not available for comment.


Mail & Guardian

-




-

COMMENTS BY SONNY

-

-

No wonder the price is exorbitant and the service delivery zero.......

What confidence?

Parastatals 'bullied' into supporting the 'New Age'






The public enterprises department is alleged to have leaned heavily on state-owned enterprises to enter into financial agreements with the "New Age".
Click here to find out more!
The New Age is owned by the politically well-connected Gupta family, which enjoys friendly ties with both President Jacob Zuma and Public Enterprises Minister Malusi Gigaba.
Evidence of the direct involvement of the ministry in the parastatals' doing business with the newspaper comes in the wake of disclosures that Eskom, Transnet and Denel spent R25-million on sponsoring New Agebusiness breakfasts. The breakfasts, which feature political heavyweights, including Zuma, and which industry experts say are highly profitable for the newspaper – are also broadcast live by the South African Broadcasting Corporation at no cost to the sponsors or the New Age.
The newspaper is secretive about its business and does not submit its circulation for auditing, but state and parastatal support appears to form the backbone of its circulation, advertising and sponsorship income.
According to accounts by several sources and documentary evidence, Siyabonga Mahlangu, who is special legal adviser to Gigaba, has been key in putting pressure on the state-owned enterprises. "Mahlangu was the person who arm-wrestled all the parastatals to support the New Age," a former board member of a state-owned enterprise said.
A parastatal manager said Mah­langu, a former ANC lawyer, was perceived as serving the political interests of Gigaba, who considered the good opinion of the New Age and its political and financial backers to be valuable.
But Gigaba's spokesperson, Mayi­hlome Tshwete, denied it and said the minister "has never instructed, implied or insinuated for the New Age to be given preferential treatment". He said Mahlangu also denied claims that he had pressured any parastatals "into deciding which newspapers they should buy".
Intimately involved
However, the Mail & Guardian has seen evidence that Mahlangu was intimately involved in working out the details of SAA's subscriptions to the New Age. Two well-placed sources, who asked not to be identified, also said that Mahlangu had initiated discussions with SAA about the New Age and, as a result, the airline bought more copies of the paper than before and at a higher price.
One of the sources also claimed that Eskom had been put under similar pressure, which resulted in the parastatal's decision to contract the New Age to host six breakfast sessions at a total cost of R7 185 658.
Eskom refused to answer questions about Mahlangu's involvement but said: "The decision to sponsor was reached as a result of mutual discussion over a period of time.
"The main benefit for Eskom and its shareholder was brand awareness and highlighting of the need to conserve electricity. The breakfasts also created opportunities for constructive engagement with our stakeholders in different parts of the country."
A person privy to discussions within Eskom, however, confirmed that pressure to sponsor the breakfasts had come from Gigaba's department.
In the case of SAA, according to documents seen by the M&G, before the intervention by the department of public enterprises early last year, the airline was already receiving a total of 40 770 copies of the New Agea month, or roughly 2 000 a day, for R2 a copy.
Internal SAA assessment
In March last year, the New Age had a meeting with George Mothema, the head of stakeholder relations in the office of the SAA chief executive officer, Siza Mzimela.The newspaper punted a proposal for subscriptions to be pushed up to 7 000 a day at the full cover price of R3.50 a copy and for SAA to commit itself to advertising amounting to nearly R10-million a year. But the proposal ran into resistance from the SAA marketing staff, who argued the New Age was poor value for money because it charged advertising rates comparable to its competitors but had a much lower circulation and readership. Tellingly, the internal SAA assessment was that the only real value the newspaper offered was with "government marketing".
But, despite this, the company concluded an agreement in April for 3 000 copies a day at the full cover price, which means SAA now gets about 63 000 copies a month. By comparison, the airline's next biggest subscription is to the Star, which supplies about 50000 copies a month at less that R4 a copy, a steep discount on its R6.70 cover price.
It appears SAA also committed itself to spending a relatively small amount annually on advertising in theNew Age.
But the airline's spokesperson Tlali Tlali said: "The assertion that SAA received an instruction from the shareholder's office to get into a contract with the New Age is pure fiction.
"The New Age is one of the daily publications supplied to SAA. We recently increased subscription volumes after we held discussions with the publication. The decision was based on and informed by a number of considerations. These included the need to improve on our service offering in line with our customer needs and global airline trends. This move also provides for product variety for our passengers."
Malicious allegations
A former New Age insider, who asked not to be named, said: "That newspaper's relationship with government is rock solid. You could say there is a mandate to support the New Age.
"We tried to source advertising from the private sector, but they would ask us: 'Guys, where are the numbers?' They would not advertise without circulation figures.
"But with the parastatals it was different … In some cases, more junior media practitioners in government would also be cautious of advertising in the paper because they could not justify the spending.
"A simple phone call from one of the Guptas to a minister and the junior official would phone back, asking why the New Age had tried to make him look stupid by going above his head and calling his superior. After that, he would agree to advertise."
The New Age dismissed the allegations as malicious and untrue.
* Got a tip-off for us about this story? Email amabhungane@mg.co.za

The M&G Centre for Investigative Journalism (amaBhungane) produced this story. All views are ours. See www.amabhungane.co.za for our stories, activities and funding sources.






mail & guardian




-





-






COMMENTS BY SONNY 




-




-





One party State - One Party Media!