Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Who is this traitor F W De Klerk ex President of the Republic of South Africa.

No Fear No Favour No Forgiveness........


JOHANNESBURG 28 AUGUST 2013 17:37  STAFF REPORTED















FW de Klerk and the Mindset of Treason

FW de Klerk and the Mindset of Treason
F.W de Klerk was once seen as being one of the most conservative in the NP government. What is it that changed him? How does one man, bordering on the extreme right wing in his party change to become one of the most liberal and hand the country over to Marxist terrorists? Did the change come out of his own accord or was he forced to change?
From history we see that there are several reasons why people become traitors or cross over to the other side. The main reasons are represented by the acronym M.I.C.E… Money, Ideology, Coercion and Ego, or any combination of the above. Of these, Ego is the most common one. Traitors are criminals of the worst kind, and something that criminals all share is their own greed and the belief that they will never be caught. They have strong narcissistic tendencies and an inherent belief that they are somehow special.
What was it that moved F.W. de Klerk to become one of the worst traitors of his people to date? Was it one of the above, or all of the above…or was it a specific combination? In this article I will explore whether F.W. de Klerk fits the criteria to be called a traitor as well as delve a bit deeper into life of this infamous Nobel laureate.
The “I” for Ideology
Several authors as well as F.W. de Klerk’s own brother Wimpie de Klerk and F.W de Klerk himself, state that F.W. never really experienced a liberal Damascus conversion moment. With him it was a slow, gradual change. This is not entirely true. F.W. de Klerk did have a Damascus moment…well sort of.
To fully grasp his conversion, it is necessary to explore the ideology of F.W. de Klerk prior to his February 1990 speech. When we say he was conservative or religious, we need to define HOW conservative and HOW religious he actually was. For that, we need to digress slightly and explore the general beliefs and religious convictions of the Afrikaners in South Africa.
For the most part Afrikaners are staunch protestant people. Since the arrival of the first Dutch farmers at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652, they brought their Dutch Reformed Church (Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk) NGK and Calvinistic religion with them. Highly educated ministers or “Dominees” were imported from the Netherlands. NG Kerk dominees study theology for seven years at university.
By 1834 when the Great Trek started on the Eastern Frontier in what is today the Eastern Cape, the Dutch Reformed Church (NGK) was one of the mightiest organizations in the Cape, and was opposed to the Great Trek. The Farmers who trekked and who later started their own Republics namely the ZAR (Transvaal) and the Orange Free State therefore started a new Church independent from the Dutch Reform Church or NGK. This church is known today as the “Hervormde Kerk” or “Reconstituted Church”. The Hervormde Kerk (HK) also imported their own Dominees from the Netherlands.
At the time there was a debate going on in the Netherlands on whether hymns should be sung in church together with Psalms or only Psalms. The argument was, “In God’s Church, only God’s word”. The argument was that hymns were sometimes of unknown and therefore dubious origins, and could have been inspired by Satan who urged a drunk to write a hymn in his drunken state. Actually they found that some of the hymns were in contradiction to the Calvinistic teachings, the Canons of Dort and the Belgic Confession.
A dominee called Dirk Postma arrived in the Boer Republic of the ZAR to take up service in the Hervormde Kerk, but upon hearing that he might have to sing Hymns in church, he broke away with 15 members and a short while later started a new Ultra Conservative church called the Gereformeerde Kerk or (GK) and enrolled 300 members. So at this stage there were three of these Dutch Reformed Churches. The Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk (NGK) of the Cape, The Hervormde Church (HK) of the Transvaal and the Gereformeerde Kerk (GK), the Boer Church.
One of the founding fathers of the GK church was Boer President Paul Kruger himself. Together with his15 founder brothers and 300 new members they founded the GK under a seringboom in Rustenburg in 1859. Paul Kruger was a deeply religious man. He also believed that the earth was flat and claimed that he only ever read one book in his life and that was the Bible. He said that he did not need any other books. He knew most of the Bible off by heart.(Maritin Meredith Diamonds, Gold and War. (New York:PublicAffairs),pg 76.)
The GK or “Dopper” Chruch is still known today as the “Boer Church”.
Why is the GK church known as the “Doppers”? The word comes from the Dutch name for a small bowl. When one places such a small bowl on someone’s head and shave off all the protruding hair, one ends up with a peculiar conservative and puritan hairstyle of the time. The Doppers calls the DRC or Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk (NGK) members, “Gatjieponders”…the word comes from “Gat-Jappon” which literally translates to “Arse-coat” referring to the tuxedo style coats they used to wear 200 years ago. But I am digressing…
Nevertheless, all three churches – NGK, HK and GK – are sister churches and the dogma is basically the same, i.e. Calvinistic. The only difference is the singing of hymns in church. The GK only sings Psalms and what is called “Skrifberymings”, text out of the Bible rewritten to rhyme and given melodies.
Another difference is the belief of the Ultra Conservative “Dopper” Church, is that God personally intervenes in the lives of people, and that when one prays long and hard enough, God will show one the way…show one which course to take. They believe that one can get a calling from God. In Afrikaans it is called a “Roeping”. F.W. De Klerk was, and still is,  such an Ultra Conservative Christian… a “Dopper”, a member of the Boer Church.
During his times of intense introspection, F.W. de Klerk also searched for such a sign from God, to show him the way, a calling to do something great. The sign eventually came in the form of his personal friend and Dopper Dominee, Pieter Bingle of Cape Town. De Klerk, his wife Marike and Pieter Bingle knew each other since their student days at the Potchefstroom University. Pieter Bingle was at the wedding of his son and testified in the murder trial following the murder of former First Lady Marike de Klerk. Pieter Bingle and F.W. De Klerk are also members of the same Afrikanerbond lodge (afdeling) , Leeuwenhof in Cape Town.
At the inauguration of F.W. de Klerk as State President, Dominee Pieter Bingle gave a sermon…His text was from Jeremiah 23 verse 16 and 22.
Jeremiah 23: 16
Thus says the LORD of hosts:
Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you.
They make you worthless;
They speak a vision of their own heart,
Not from the mouth of the LORD.
Verse 22
But if they had stood in My counsel, And had caused My people to hear My words, Then they would have turned them from their evil way And from the evil of their doings.
In essence, Dominee Pieter Bingle told F.W. De Klerk to stop listening to the people and his advisers who were all “false prophets”. He told De Klerk that he was standing in the Council Chamber of the Lord, that he was an instrument of God. He told De Klerk that he who stands in the Council Chamber of the Lord will be aggressive enough to tackle problems and challenges fearlessly.
Further extracts from Pieter Bingle speech include:
New ways will have to be found where roads enter cul de sacs, or are worn out or cannot carry the heavy traffic. Excess baggage will be cast aside. Certain will stay and others will have to be discarded. Those stuck in the grooves of the past will find that besides the spelling, depth is the only difference between a groove and a grave.
Mr. de Klerk, as our new President, God is calling you to do his will. Today God calls you to serve as the President of South Africa. God’s commission is not to serve as the President of some of the people, but as the President of all the people of South Africa.
F.W. De Klerk was deeply moved by Pieter Bingle’s sermon. He was literally in tears. At a post inaugural meeting he told his friends and families that they should pray for him while the tears were flowing down his cheeks. He said that God called him to do a specific task…to save South Africa…To save all the people of South Africa. He said that he knew he would be rejected by his own people, but that he had to walk this road and that his friends and family should help him. He confessed that God had called him and that he could not ignore the call.
De Klerk, the narcissist, felt himself special…singled out by God Almighty to do this job…to commit the ultimate treason against his people.
From that day on, De Klerk knew what to do. God told him to hand over the country to a gang of Marxist terrorists.
Whilst De Klerk enjoyed his liberal Damascus moment, on the other side of the parliamentary benches, the Conservative party felt different. These people were also Christians who believed God told them to oppose De Klerk’s decisions such as Dr. Andries Treurnicht who was a Dutch Reform minister for 14 years himself and later became leader of the Conservative Party, the opposition of the National party.
But why was F.W. de Klerk in doubt to start off with? What cognitive dissonances were playing off in his mind at the time of his Bingle induced Damascus moment? Well, several things played a role. For that we need to go back to the mid 1980’s and the discussions between people at grill parties (Braais) a favorite past time of South Africans. We have to backtrack into the fears and doubts of the people of the time.
In 1985 president P.W. Botha scrapped the Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act which outlawed interracial marriage and interracial sex. Since 1983 P.W. Botha split the Afrikaners down the middle with the HNP and CP on the right, and the NP and the PFP on the left. The PFP was run by a liberal Afrikaner called Dr. Van Zyl Slabbert. Inside the NP itself, one had three factions – Liberals (Verligtes), Moderates (Draadsitters), and Conservatives (Verkramptes).
Around the Braais one would find friends and family with the entire spectrum of political views debating religion and politics, of which few actually had any idea. The Afrikaners of the time were for the most part political ignoramuses. Their political believes were based on Black and White racial politics and the threat of Communism, which was from the Devil. Asked them what “Liberal” and “Conservative” meant, they probably would not know. Typical braai conversation between a liberal and a conservative Afrikaner and the liberal would ask the conservative would be:“OK, so you believe in Apartheid, but when you go to heaven, would there also be Apartheid in heaven? Does God have a heaven for blacks and another for whites, or how does it work? Or do you believe that only whites go to heaven? Do blacks also have souls or only whites? What about all those converted blacks out there who converted to Christianity?”
Another question would be, “OK, so you say you are so conservative… The laws have now changed. It is now possible for whites to marry or have sex with blacks…What are you going to do when your son or daughter comes home with a black man or a coloured woman?” So with these questions in the minds of white South Africans of the time let us consider the de Klerk family.
The De Klerk Family
When one thinks that F.W. de Klerk was Ultra Conservative then it is still nothing compared to Marike (Willemse) de Klerk, his first wife. She was an extremely benevolent person who helped the poor Afrikaners a lot, but she was even more conservative than F.W. De Klerk. Her father, Wilhelm Willemse, was an academic, writer and Professor of Social Pathology and Psychology at Pretoria University.
Nevertheless, the couple never had any children of their own. They adopted three children together – Jan, Willem, and Susan – whom they obviously brought up with their religious convictions and conservative values. Little Willem de Klerk, turned out to be the black sheep of the family.
He was about 18/19 at the time that P.W. Botha abolished the Immorality Act in 1985 that prohibited sex between whites and coloureds. He was also one of the first to take advantage of this new found freedom. F.W. de Klerk’s youngest son had a weakness for the coloured girls of Cape Town.
While he was a student at the Cape Technikon he met a young coloured lady that took his fancy called Erica Adams. Erica was the daughter of a Coloured politician namely Deon Adams of the Labour Party. They were madly and passionately in love and wanted to get married, but their engagement didn’t sit well with Marike at all. She resented the idea of coloured grandchildren, much less from the apple of her eye.
She told him, in no uncertain terms, that he was putting his entire father’s work in jeopardy and that would destroy South Africa if he continued the relationship. After two years of severe pressure from his mother, Willem finally ended the relationship with Erica. Instead, Willem went on to marry a white Afrikaner girl called Hermien Mostert, a former teacher with a senior post at Woolworths.
Nevertheless the marriage lasted four and a half years and the couple got divorced around the same time that F.W. de Klerk got divorced from Marike. During Willems marriage to Hermien, rumours started circling that he and a dark-haired woman frequented a popular restaurant in Kloofnek, Cape Town. Who was this mystery dark-haired woman? Her name was, Nicole Norodien – another coloured lady that Willem eventually married in Paarl in 2003.
As with Hermien, Willem started divorce proceedings with Nicole in 2009 (the case is still ongoing). This was after she had an affair with a Johannesburg Businessman, Ernest Lefebvre. During the divorce case she claimed that De Klerk was “unpredictable and aggressive” towards her, and that he is “emotionally and verbally abusive”. Norodien described him as “regularly intoxicated”, adding that he drank “excessive” amounts of alcohol and that he had been having an several affairs.
Nevertheless he had two children with Norodien and because of this, Norodien wanted the court to order De Klerk to pay her maintenance of R15 000 a month, as well as comprehensive medical aid cover, a car worth R300 000, a house of up to R2-million or R20 000 a month for accommodation and “household necessaries” worth R200 000. The question begs to be answered: Was Norodien right? Was Willem de Klerk now having another affair with another coloured woman? Yes.
Willem De Klerk, now 44 years old, has just (May 2011) settled out of court with another coloured woman named DesirĂ© Joseph , a 27 year old midwife at the Tygerberg Hospital. She comes from the Boland town of Wellington where her parents own a furniture shop. Furthermore, she also claimed that he was the father of her child Ana-Wilmien, but Willem insisted on paternity tests – which proved he was indeed the father.
The end result today is that former President F.W. de Klerk now has three coloured grand-children. What white Afrikaners spoke about around braais happened to him. His son came home with a coloured woman (several in fact) and several grandchildren. How could he still morally justify Apartheid when his son was producing coloured grand children on a regular basis?  F.W. de Klerk’s superior education as a lawyer, his conservative convictions and his Ultra Conservative religious beliefs all came to naught when his youngest boy came home with a coloured girl.
As a once Ultra Conservative politician it must have chewed F.W. de Klerk up inside. Although Willem was an adopted child, he was still raised in the De Klerk household. He attended church and Sunday school, graduated with a “Boere Matriek” called “Katkisasie”, accepted into the Gereformeerde Kerk, the Boer church, yet he still discarded all of those conservative upbringings and went for race mixing. Under Apartheid laws F.W. de Klerk’s son would have been in prison.
F.W. de Klerk had to make peace with this and that his grand-children would be coloureds. As such, his Ideology changed from Ultra Conservative to Liberal. A rare occurrence indeed, as normally it’s the other way around.
Summary
With de Klerk, it clear that the entire scope of MICE was used to get De Klerk to capitulate and commit treason. His sins were covered up into the finest detail. The public was duped. The F.W. de Klerk that we saw on television was a tall clean shaven intelligent man always with a smile on his face. The people were taken in by him. He was the new broom, and boy was he sweeping clean…getting rid of all those cob-webs of the old Apartheid era. The real F.W. de Klerk was a different man altogether.
Today F.W. de Klerk is fully aware of the fact that white South Africans and other minorities consider him a traitor. In August 2010 F.W. de Klerk was interviewed by Murray La Vita of Beeld and F.W. said that the name “traitor” doesn’t bother him. The world acknowledged it after all when he received second prize at the Nobel prize ceremony, next to ex-terrorist Mandela.

FEINT & MARGIN

COMMENTS BY SONNY

How much water would be needed by F W De Klerk to wash all the feet of the Afrikaner Nation (Volk) whom he BETRAYED?
HISTORY WILL REVEAL HIS GUILT & REDEMPTION!

HOW MANY MORE MURDERS, FARM MURDERS, WHITE GENOCIDE AND RHINO MURDERS WILL IT TAKE FOR THE WORLD TO SIT UP AND TAKE NOTICE.....?

During the Anglo Boer War, the Boers used to execute traitors by firing squad.

To have and to hold Mr Zuma accountable – a pipedream made in the Concourt

No fear No Favour No True Justice.........



Ranjeni Munusami 28 August 2013 SOUTH AFRICA  01:46






On Tuesday, President Jacob Zuma was conferred with an Honorary Doctorate of Leadership from the Lim Kok Wing University in Malaysia, which he accepted on behalf of all the people of South Africa. (Congratulations to you all.) On the same day, the Constitutional Court of this country was ruling on the Democratic Alliance’s appeal on the scheduling in Parliament of a motion of no confidence debate against the president. The DA lost the appeal but the court compelled Parliament to change its rules to allow such a debate in future. Perhaps at another time, this will come in handy to opposition parties. But it will take a lot more than a change in parliamentary rules to hold the Teflon Man to account for his leadership. By RANJENI MUNUSAMY.


  In his acceptance speech after receiving the Honorary Doctorate of Leadership in Malaysia, President Jacob Zuma quoted Dr Tan Sri Lim Kok Wing, the founder of the university which was conferring the award on him.
“Life is about choice. We can choose to just complete a job or set out to do our best. It is better to attempt our best because then we test our limits. In doing this, we learn new things about ourselves and very often the work we produce will turn out to be outstanding.”
The irony of the highest court having to rule on a case about the right to vote him out of office for being a bad leader was obviously missed on the president. It is unclear what criteria the university used to decide to confer the award on Zuma or whether it was aware that eight opposition parties wanted the Constitutional Court to allow them to debate a motion of no confidence in the president.
The DA and seven other opposition parties in Parliament had attempted to bring the motion of no confidence before the House for debate last November. The motion was motivated by the Marikana killings, the Nkandlagate scandal, the non-delivery of textbooks to schools in Limpopo and the Eastern Cape, the downgrading of South Africa's credit rating by two major ratings agencies, the mounting disrespect for our Constitution and judiciary, high unemployment; and the “uncontrollable and rising tide” of corruption in the public service.
The ANC used its majority to block the matter from coming before the House and the Speaker Max Sisulu concluded that because there was no consensus in the programming committee, he could not schedule the debate.
On Friday 16 November 2012, the DA, through its parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko, took the matter to the Western Cape High Court seeking to compel the Speaker to urgently schedule the debate a vote in the National Assembly before the following Thursday, 22 November when Parliament went into recess. Judge Dennis Davis ruled that the Speaker did not have the residual power under the rules of Parliament to break the deadlock or schedule a debate of a motion of no confidence, acting on his own.
On Tuesday, the Constitutional Court upheld Davis’s ruling that the Speaker did not have the power to schedule a motion of no confidence in the president for debate. However, in a majority judgment written by Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke, the court found that the parliamentary rules were unconstitutional as they did not “provide for a political party represented in, or a member of, the National Assembly to enforce the right to exercise the power to have a motion of no confidence in the President scheduled for a debate and voted upon in the National Assembly within a reasonable time, or at all”.
This finding was suspended for a period of six months to allow the National Assembly to “correct the defect”. Five other judges concurred with Moseneke’s judgment, while three judges, including Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, supported a minority judgment by Judge Chris Jafta that the separation of powers doctrine prevented the court from intervening in matters relating to Parliament.
Both the ANC and the DA, as well as the Speaker, claimed the outcome in the Constitutional Court as a victory for them.
“We hope that this judgment will serve as a strong lesson to the DA that internal parliamentary matters should be left to Parliament's own determination, not the courts. Parliament should not be controlled through the courts by those with deep pockets to bankroll their frivolous litigations,” the office of the ANC Chief Whip Stone Sizani said.
The ANC said it also welcomed the court’s directive that the rules be reviewed to allow MPs to propose motions and provide for a deadlock breaking mechanism.
The DA said the judgment was a “victory for democracy” as it prevented the ANC from using its majority to bully the opposition. It said the majority judgment “highlighted the importance of a motion of no confidence in the President as an instrument to hold the executive accountable”.
“The Constitutional Court declared that the National Assembly’s Rules ‘may not deny, frustrate, unreasonably delay or postpone the exercise of the right’ to debate a motion of no confidence. It also highlighted that this should be done within a reasonable time as the ‘motion deserves the serious and prompt attention of the responsible committee or committees of the Assembly’,” the DA said. The order to the Parliament to change the rules within six months was “the principle we believed was worth fighting for and we are vindicated in our belief,” the DA said.
Sisulu said the judgment was a victory for Parliament and welcomed the final settlement of this matter by the Constitutional Court. “Members are encouraged to use the review of the Rules process to make meaningful contribution and improve the Rules of the National Assembly rather than resorting to recurrent applications to the courts,” the Speaker said.
The crux of the majority judgment however was this: “A motion of no confidence in the President is a vital tool to advance our democratic hygiene. It affords the Assembly a vital power and duty to scrutinise and oversee executive action… The ever-present possibility of a motion of no confidence against the President and the Cabinet is meant to keep the President accountable to the Assembly which elects her or him.”
The court went on to say that this right is “central to the deliberative, multiparty democracy envisioned in the Constitution.”
“It implicates the values of democracy, transparency, accountability and openness. A motion of this kind is perhaps the most important mechanism that may be employed by Parliament to hold the executive to account, and to interrogate executive performance,” the judgment read.
This is a significant pronouncement by the Constitutional Court as it defines the mechanism by which the president could be held accountable. Up to now, it has been impossible to do so, or even to get a straight answer from Zuma on the many crises besieging his government.
Whether it is the poor performance of the economy, missing school books or the massacre of mineworkers by the police, the answers always lie deeply buried, which task teams or commissions of inquiry have to unearth. Even when it comes to renovations at his private home at Nkandla, the president is unable to provide answers. Accountability remains a moving target when it comes to the Zuma presidency.
Six out of 10 Constitutional Court judges decided that Parliament needs to be empowered to exercise oversight over the executive and that if the president is not able to perform the duties entrusted to him, there should be a mechanism to remove him from office. Four out of the ten judges however were happy to step behind the “separation of powers” shield and not intervene in matters relating to Parliament, even in a case where the rules were unconstitutional. In this case, they were outnumbered by those who felt there needed to be a constitutional safety net to ensure accountability.
“If a motion of no confidence in the President were to succeed, he or she and the incumbent Cabinet must resign. In effect, the people through their elected representatives in the Assembly would end the mandate they bestowed on an incumbent President,” the majority judgment read.
Of course this is all in theory. If the rules are amended timeously in accordance with the court deadline, there could still be a debate in Parliament on a motion of no confidence in the president before next year’s election. The vote, however, would fail going by the current political party representation in the National Assembly.
Considering that the president does not have to attend parliamentary sittings, Zuma would probably be absent in the event of such a debate and allow his party heavy-hitters to fight off the opposition. Even if the opposition parties make compelling arguments for his removal from office, Zuma will no doubt remain unscathed and bounce back as his party’s candidate for president in next year’s election.
The only instrument which can hold Zuma to account is that election. But Zuma is the ultimate political survivor and is bound to be back – carrying his Honorary Doctorate of Leadership and a copy of the amended rules of Parliament. DM
Photo: Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng after holding a ceremonial court session for the late former Chief Justice Pius Langa at the Constitutional Court in Johannesburg, Tuesday, 27 August 2013. Picture: Werner Beukes/SAPA

Daily Maverick

 COMMENTS BY SONNY

Zuma may not even have a primary education but he placed his pawns well with the assistance of his

'back-room-boys!'

We are sure he cannot play Chess but has placed the pieces well.

He has avoided prison and has surrounded himself with bodyguards.

TRUE TRAITS OF A DESPOT DICTATOR IN THE MAKING!

THE WORLD IS WAITING TO PICK UP THE PIECES!!

WILL SOUTH AFRICA SURVIVE THIS ORDEAL?

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Thuli Madonsela: Maladministration at the top of the Independent Electoral Commission

No Fear No Favour No Tender Fraud......



Greg Nicholson    27 AUGUST 2013  SOUTH AFRICA 00:27


                                                        NO CONSCIENCE?
When her business partner was vying to supply the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) with accommodation, Pansy Tlakula should have immediately recused herself from the process, said Public Protector Thuli Madonsela on Monday. Tlakula did the opposite. A new report shows how the head of the IEC risked its reputation when she was the organisation’s CEO. By GREG NICOLSON.





Everyone knew the IEC needed to leave Walker Street. After occupying the building for almost 13 years, the national office in Sunnyside, Pretoria, had become too small. The bathroom facilities couldn’t cope. Outside space was rented for meetings. Even the hallways were being used as offices. The rent was rapidly increasing. Simply put, the building was a health and safety hazard.
On 12 January 2009, the Commission, which consists of five members who run the country’s elections, decided the IEC would move to Menlyn Corporate Park. Soon to be built, it featured 9,059 square meters at the cost of R110.30 per square meter. It would have 300 covered parking spaces, not far off the N1, near schools and public transport routes.
Advocate Tlakula, then CEO, however, intervened. The decision to move to Menlyn hadn’t followed procurement policies and could cause an auditing problem. Besides, it was “too busy” for the IEC’s needs, she complained. Tlakula, who is now IEC chair, took control of finding a new home for the organisation.
She avoided one problematic move only to now stand accused by the Public Protector of “grossly irregular” procurement in another, characterised by “violation of procurement legislations and prescripts”. Less than a year from a national election, she has “risked the loss of public confidence in the Electoral Commission”, said Madonsela in her report into the IEC’s move to Riverside Office Park.
Tlakula suggested the procurement process start again. This time she would handle it through the executive committee. Before the Commission had even rescinded their decision on Menlyn, she had advertisements in the media calling for requests for proposal. Already the process was flawed; anything over R100,000 is supposed to be advertised for tender. Tlakula stayed heavily involved. As the chairperson of the executive committee and CEO of the institution, she effectively led both the initiation evaluation and adjudication of the bids.
Her team didn’t choose whom to award the contract to, but they submitted two options to the Commission. Menlyn Corporate Park was the first, which had previously been rejected due to the faulty process. Abland (Pty) Ltd’s building in Centurion was the other and it subsequently won the bid after outscoring Menlyn on the key criteria – price, location, square meters, age of building, car parking, access to motorway, proximity to shops and schools, and availability on 1 April 2010.
There were faults throughout the process. According to the Public Protector, apparently there was no set budget for the relocation. The procurement didn’t follow any of the available options and Madonsela found it constituted maladministration. But the organisation also struggled to stick to its own rules. The IEC judged bidders on whether their buildings would be ready by April 2010 but it did not move in to Abland’s Riverside Office Park until September that year, meaning some bidders like Mookoli were unfairly disadvantaged and others may have never applied.
Tlakula’s own failings led to a scathing review from the Public Protector. She is a director of Lehotsa Holdings, whose chairman and co-director is parliament’s standing committee on finance chairman Thaba Mufamadi. He is also the chairman of Manaka Property Investments, the BEE partner and 20% owner of Abland. In the past, Tlakula had introduced Mufamadi to colleagues as her business partner and there were rumours the two were in a romantic relationship. Madonsela concluded that Tlakula failed in her duties by not declaring the conflict of interest and recusing herself from the procurement process.
“During the evaluation of the bids by the executive committee, there was no way in which Tlakula could not have been aware of this fact as the evaluation and the adjudication of the proposals was done by the executive committee which included and was chaired by her,” found Madonsela. “Tlakula only declared her interest in Lehotsa Investments in the Commission’s annual and general declaration of interests forms in compliance with the annual financial disclosure framework which is a standard disclosure of interest form and which did not relate to a specific procurement transaction. This declaration said nothing about her business relationship with Hon Mufamadi. The declaration only covered Lehotsa as a company in which she has shares and not the names of her co-directors or shareholders.”
Tlakula maintains she has done nothing wrong. “How can I be conflicted in a company that I don’t have any interest in?” she asked on radio on Monday. She has a different definition of “conflict of interest”. Because her company did not have a direct interest in the bids and did not profit from awarding the contract to Abland, Tlakula argued the criticism was unfounded. Madonsela countered, “Such argument is in fact a source of concern. It would have been reasonably expected that the chairperson of a body such as the Electoral Commission should understand that things that can undermine objectivity transcend financial interests.” (The report suggests the two clashed regularly and at one point it accuses Tlakula of being “not entirely honest”.)
The money suggests Mufamadi benefited, even if Tlakula did not directly. In addition to being awarded the lucrative contract, Abland was paid millions for providing turnkey services to get the offices ready for use. It also got that contract without going through the necessary tender requirements.
For United Democratic Movement leader Bantu Holomisa, the report was a vindication. Along with anonymous IEC employees, he brought the issue to Madonsela in October 2011. “I’m of the opinion it would be difficult to retain her services. She would just be a liability given the damning report,” Holomisa told Daily Maverick. “The image of the IEC is gone.”
The Democratic Alliance (DA) also has its doubts. Its MP Manny de Freitas wants an urgent meeting with the portfolio committee on home affairs to discuss the matter. In the report, former chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Electoral Commission, Brigalia Bam and Thoko Mpumlwana both raised concerns that South Africa’s lauded institution could be tarnished.
Madonsela has recommended the speaker of Parliament consult the Electoral Committee on what action to take against Tlakula before advising the president on how to act. Parliament, the IEC and President Zuma now need to decide on whether to suspend Tlakula.
Madonsela also wants the Electoral Commission to review and possibly cancel the Abland lease and turnkey agreements and will ask the national treasury’s chief procurement officer to consider a forensic investigation. Signaling that the problems go beyond Tlakula, the Public Protector also suggested other role players in the Commission and IEC executive may need to be disciplined.
The institution responsible for ensuring free and fair elections now faces a deficit of trust. Madonsela titled her report “Inappropriate Moves”. Ahead of the 2014 vote, there’s not much time to move to restore the IEC’s credibility. DM
Photo: Electoral Commission CEO Pansy Tlakula is seen at a news conference at the Results Operations Centre in Pretoria, Monday, 16 May 2011 where she briefed reporters on the IEC's readiness for the local government elections. Picture: Werner Beukes/SAPA



Daily Maverick



Pansy, say it ain’t so



Ever calm and thoughtful, Pansy Tlakula was a palate cleanser in South Africa’s often foul tasting political banquet. The possibility of her suspension from the Electoral Commission over a failure to disclose conflict of interest in a lease agreement would have enormous repercussions on the political landscape: the loss of a steadfast hand on the tiller of next year’s elections. By STEPHEN GROOTES.


I’m often asked if I’m ever driven to tears by our politics, and if so which emotion I feel at the time. There were plenty of occasions when the tears came from frustration, there’ve been others, more recently, when I simply felt fed up with an untenable and wrong situation. And there’ve been others when the tears come from laughter. But today, the tears are coming from disappointment. We have very few people in our public life we trust completely, who we must trust completely. And when one of them falls, we’re all that much weaker for it.
I’ve known Pansy Tlakula for many years. She may not know this of course, but I’ve been one of those people who have bugged her for a sound bite, called her at some unearthly hour of the morning begging for an explanation of some arcane electoral point. Sitting in a live radio studio, waiting for the green light indicating her phone line was connected, the calm would immediately descend. Good, calm radio was on its way, delivered by someone who really has natural authority. If she were speaking at a conference, I’d stay.
And I was always rewarded. There was always something. Something that made you realise, in this country, this South Africa, there are people who really are impressive. Clever. Thoughtful. Able to deal with anything. She was one of those people who, when the chips were down, when you’d been following Julius Malema for a full week, could somehow cleanse your political palate in five minutes. You realised we were all going to be all right, because she was in charge, she would make sure everything worked properly.
Everything she touched, worked. Periodically, I would find myself in the cavernous election results centre at the Pretoria Showgrounds, surrounded by hundreds of my colleagues, all jostling, competing, laughing and gossiping. These were my happiest days as a journalist. Politicians you’ve been on the campaign trail with hugging you, Gwede explaining in great and excruciating detail why your predictions were wrong, Zwelinzima (may he now campaign in peace) laughing with you, Blade cracking jokes. And the numbers are coming in. The new political playing field is being set for the next five years. Power is being assigned. The people have spoken, and now the great listening begins.
The person at the centre of all this since 2002 has been Pansy Tlakula. She’s been organising these amazing gatherings of South Africans, from Umgeni to Umhlanga, from Tembisa to Houghton, everyone would gather in the same place, at the same time, to do the same thing. Knowing that their vote would count, properly. Trusting the people in charge.
And now we all feel let down. Because of some stupid building lease. Because Tlakula, who as an advocate, really really really should know better, didn’t disclose conflicts of interest. Because when the Public Protector came knocking, the IEC’s top officials didn’t respond properly. They didn’t hand over all the information that was needed. They didn’t just put their hands up and promise to deal with everything immediately and at once. Instead, expensive lawyers were involved.
It’s one of those moments when you feel the stuffing being knocked out of you. When the ground moves because everything you thought you knew is no more. It’s when you realise there really was a political conspiracy against President Jacob Zuma, or that no one will be punished for Waterkloof Air Force Base, or that the DA now controls a town in the North West. You suddenly have to question everything else you thought you knew.
It’s horrid.
What’s worse is what could follow. Under the Constitution, as Thuli Madonsela points out in her report the Electoral Commission (without Tlakula) and the speaker, Max Sisulu, now have to get together to work out what to do. Their advice goes to the President. Already, the DA and the United Democratic Movement (it was UDM leader Bantu Holomisa who laid the original complaint here) have already asked for Tlakula to be suspended.
It’s hard to argue against them. Quite frankly, if I had to pick between a dishonest chief judge and a dishonest IEC chair, I’d pick the judge. Some things have to be sacrosanct. Like Caesar’s wife, the head of the IEC has to be purer than pure, above reproach, better than all of us. Not someone who cocks up a bloody lease agreement. I mean really. Who does that? Bheki Cele?
So now Zuma will have to decide what to do. And the real question will be, as it always is in politics, if Tlakula goes who will replace her.
Here’s a little homework for you. Think of five South Africans who are neutral enough, respected enough, authoritative enough, and trusted enough to do that job. People who everyone, from the EFF and Agang, to the ANC and the DA, through to the Freedom Front Plus and the IFP will trust.
Still thinking? Me too.
And now, Zuma might have to find someone, just months before an election. As parties have already started to campaign, as people are already considering how to win this group over, and how to stop that group wearing blue shirts. When, already, politicians have started to lose their marbles.
Normally, you would simply pick someone else from the Electoral Commission to take over. But several of their number also don’t come out of this smelling particularly good. So some more thinking may be required.
There will now be some, those with their eyes very much on what happened up north recently, who will already start to question whether next year’s elections here will be credible. I won’t be one of them. I will miss Pansy Tlakula, sure. I will miss her steadiness and her firm hand on the unpredictable tiller that is this country at election time. But the processes in place at the IEC, the other people who are there, have grown in her image. The image I had of her before I read Madonsela’s report. I have faith in them. I have faith in the institution.
I also have faith in another fact, a process I know to be true. It’s that if you think a service delivery protest can be bad, it will be nothing compared to the anger of this electorate should it feel its vote has been scorned, has been trifled with, treated Zanu-PF style.
So next year’s elections will happen, on time. They will be credible. They will be well run. But probably not by Tlakula. DM
Grootes is the host of the Midday Report on Talk Radio 702 and 567 Cape Talk, and the Senior Political Correspondent for Eyewitness News. He’s been part of the political hack pack since before the Polokwane Tsunami, and covers politics in a slightly obsessive manner. Those who love him have recommended help for his politics addiction. He quotes Amy Winehouse.
Photo: Electoral Commission CEO Pansy Tlakula speaks at a news conference at the Results Operations Centre in Pretoria, Monday, 16 May 2011 on the IEC's readiness for the local government elections. Picture: Werner Beukes/SAPA

DAILY MAVERICK







COMMENTS BY SONNY


TRUE ANC/ /SACP CADRE - THEY CANNOT ACCEPT  THE TRUTH EVEN WHEN THEY CROSS THE

LINE.

ROGUE POLITICIANS BENT ON CRIME AND FRAUD.

SHE IS THE ONE WHO IS GOING TO LEAD THE ANC THROUGH THE NEXT FREE AND FAIR 

ELECTIONS COME 2014.

YOU CAN EXPECT ANOTHER 'ZIMBABWE RIGGING' OF THE POLLS / VOTES!

Monday, August 26, 2013

2014: Election of the least distrusted

No Fear No Favour No Free Elections 2014...........



Ranjeni Munusami  SOUTH AFRICA  26  August 2013   02:12



                                                       TERRIBLE TWINS
                                                          ANC BURNS
                                                   BITE THE ELECTION BULLETS
Next year, at least 23-million eligible voters in South Africa will have the dilemma of deciding whom to entrust with their vote. It will not be an easy decision, given how public trust in political leaders and government has been eroded, particularly over the past decade. Agang leader Mamphela Ramphele set out to earn some brownie points when she decided to air her financial interests, but it did not go down as well as she hoped. It is the ANC’s election campaign however that will be most interesting. Other than trumpeting the positive delivery stats, how will the ANC go out on the stump and convince people to invest their trust in them again? To paraphrase former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, they will keep promising to build bridges even where there is no river. By RANJENI MUNUSAMY.



According to the transcript of an interview with former president Thabo Mbeki in March this year, the Sunday Times asked him what he thought the qualities were of a good leader and good leadership. Considering this was an off the cuff response, it would appear that Mbeki must have given this issue some serious thought since leaving office.
His reply to the question was: “I think that to provide proper leadership, certainly as this relates to government, one has to have a very good understanding of one’s country and its challenges, including the global setting; work on the basis of a clear programme to address these challenges; always act on a principled basis; listen constantly to, and respect the views of the people; and conduct ones’ self within the context of a value system at whose centre must be the obligation always and only to serve the people.”
Perhaps it is hindsight that gave Mbeki this perspective as his administration was not always defined by what he himself describes as good leadership criteria. The “listen constantly to, and respect the views of the people” part certainly tripped him up. Although Mbeki’s term as president was tarnished by his Aids denialism, his “quiet diplomacy” policy on Zimbabwe and his alleged interference with the security agencies, the ANC under his leadership garnered the highest percentage of votes in all the elections: 69.7% in 2004.
The 2004 election was, however, after the government’s Aids turnaround, when it began distributing life-saving antiretroviral treatment and before Mbeki fired his then deputy Jacob Zuma, which made him unpopular in the party. The 2004 election was the first time South Africans were voting for a second term president, and even though only 56% of eligible voters took part in the election, the results were an overwhelming vote of confidence in the ANC leadership.
When Zuma became president in 2009, it was through 65.9% in the national ballot – 11,650,748 votes out of the 17,680,729 votes cast. The number of seats occupied by the ANC in the National Assembly dropped by 33, with the Democratic Alliance (DA) increasing its tally by 20 and the then new party, the Congress of the People (Cope) securing 30 seats. Cope did remarkably well for a new party formed as a breakaway from the ANC just a few months before the election. It secured 7.66% of the vote.
In 2014, Zuma will top the ANC ticket for a second term of presidency under very different circumstances. The electorate is able to gauge the ANC’s election promises against five years of Zuma administration. The post-Mangaung ANC is also quite different from the post-Polokwane ANC, with factional divides causing the sidelining of disaffected groups, such as in the former ANC Youth League, Limpopo, North West and Free State structures.
There is also former Youth League leader Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters to contend with, which is targeting the poor, youth and disgruntled communities. Depending on what happens in Cosatu, with its suspended general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi, the ANC might not be able to count on the unequivocal support of the entire federation as it did in previous elections.
But the biggest challenge for the ANC in its election campaign will be how it navigates the crises that have plagued the Zuma administration, causing disillusionment and the breakdown of trust in his leadership. Zuma has faced attempts by the DA and seven other opposition parties to table a motion of no confidence in his leadership, but the ANC’s majority in Parliament blocked the matter from proceeding. However, on the election stump, every political party challenging the ANC will be making the very same arguments they intended to make in Parliament about why Zuma could no longer be trusted to lead.
These include the Marikana killings, the R206-million upgrade to Zuma’s Nkandla home at taxpayer’s expense, the non-delivery of textbooks to schools in Limpopo, the successive downgrades in South Africa’s credit rating, rising unemployment, corruption and what was termed by the opposition as “mounting disrespect for our Constitution and judiciary”. A year after the Marikana massacre, there are no answers as to why police fired live ammunition as the mineworkers. There has also been a grand cover-up of the Nkandla renovations, with the minister of public works arbitrarily declaring the government investigation report top secret. And no action was taken against whoever was responsible for textbooks not being delivered to Limpopo schools in 2012.
Since the opposition parties attempted to table the motion of no confidence in November 2012, there have been other issues that have eroded trust in the Zuma presidency further.
Fifteen South African soldiers were killed after they were caught in combat in the Central African Republic (CAR) as a result of a questionable deployment of troops to that country. After the soldiers’ deaths, government battled to explain the circumstances in which they were killed and why they were there in the first place. The Sunday Times has now revealed that there were secret talks between Zuma and the ousted CAR president Francois Bozize around the troop deployment. However, the truth about what exactly happened might never be revealed publicly.
In May, the president and his government was drawn into a new controversy after a plane from India carrying guests of the Gupta family landed at the Waterkloof Air Force Base in Pretoria. In the days that followed it emerged that the landing was illegal and that others state facilities and personnel were abused to allow special privileges for Guptas and guests attending an extravagant wedding at Sun City. A government investigation also revealed that Zuma’s name, under the alias “Number One”, was used to circumvent normal procedures and allow the plane to land at airbase. This was due to his special relationship (the nature of which is undisclosed) with the Gupta family.
Among the other controversies plaguing Zuma’s presidency is the issue of the “spy tapes”. They were accepted as evidence by the National Prosecuting Authority that the corruption case against him had been compromised by a political agenda. As a result of transcripts of some of the recorded conversations alleged to be on the tapes, the then national director of public prosecutions Mokotedi Mpshe decided to squash the Zuma prosecution, just a few weeks before the 2009 election. While few people questioned the decision at the time, the refusal by the NPA and Zuma’s legal team to hand over the evidence to the DA has resulted in growing public doubt in the existence of the tapes.
During all these scandals, Zuma has done little to build trust in his presidency and reassure the public that he is in firm control of the country. His leadership style is to deflect responsibility to others and to dodge answering sticky questions. The opposition is by now well aware of Zuma’s weaknesses and the DA in particular know how to press his buttons by continuously asking questions that he refuses to answer. And every time Zuma ducks an issue, it further erodes public trust.
The decision by Agang leader Mamphela Ramphele to disclose her financial interests publicly was aimed at showing up Zuma further. In her media briefing to disclose her net worth of R55-million, Ramphele called on Zuma to do the same in the interests of transparency. Zuma ignored the call, while the ANC stepped in to pummel Ramphele, accusing her of flaunting her personal wealth. The move might have also backfired for Ramphele. Instead of building public trust, it exposed the hypocrisy of her party now opposing black economic empowerment, after she reaped benefits from it. The Sunday Independent also revealed this week that Ramphele’s wealth was estimated by Forbes magazine to be about 10 times what she claimed it to be.
There is no party that will contest the 2014 election without having to confront the factor of diminished public trust in politics. Each party has its own baggage and this might define how they structure their election campaigns. The DA, for example, embarked on the “Know your DA” campaign a few months ago to deal with perceptions that it is a party that still protects white privilege and either collaborated or did not do much to fight Apartheid.
The greatest challenge for parties will be to get voters to the polls. The disillusionment with politics, corruption scandals and the performance of public representatives could lead to a larger stay away from the polls or negative voting. While race and old loyalties might still define voting patterns, protest action and the level of disenchantment across races and classes in society might change the odds in the 2014 election.
The year 2014 could be the first elections where it is no longer whom people trust the most, but whom they distrust the least. And there could lie a massive threat to Zuma and the ANC: the election that would measure the remaining pool of goodwill against the rising level of annoyance with the liberation movement is a scenario that could fast start eroding previously unquestioned inevitability of the ANC's win and their continuous rule until the second coming of Jesus.
But even that might not be so easy to decipher. Hopefully, in eight months, it will be. DM


DAILY MAVERICK



COMMENTS BY SONNY

Will Helen Zille be able to pull the 2014 Elections through or has she become a concubine 

of the ANC?

With her Botox Enhancements and Toyi Toyi abilities she fits the part well!!

The future of SOUTH AFRICA depends on the next Elections in 2014.

HOPE TO GOD THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO RIG "THIS ONE!"

WHILE THE ANC PROMISES TO BUILD BRIDGES THEY ARE BUSY BURNING THEM!

GOD SAVE SOUTH AFRICA!!

Friday, August 23, 2013

Withdrawal of directives in respect of property syndication companies promoted by Sharemax Investments (Pty) Limited.

Withdrawal of directives in respect of property syndication companies promoted by Sharemax Investments (Pty) Limited.



In respect of property syndication companies promoted by Sharemax Investments (Pty) Limited





8 Feb 2012

The Office of the Registrar at the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) has carried out its mandate to ensure the compliance of Sharemax (Pty) Limited and its property syndication companies with the Banks Act. The SARB has also withdrawn the directives issued to Sharemax and its property syndication companies to repay investors.

This follows the approval of the schemes of arrangement by the High Court on 20 January 2012 and the subsequent registration of Sharemax and the property syndication companies with the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission on 24 January 2012.

Sharemax and its syndication companies were investigated by the Registrar’s office and it was concluded that the funding models used by the entities were in contravention of the Bank’s Act. Directives were issued to Sharemax for the repayment of funds to individual investors in September 2011.

The SARB appointed independent fund managers to take control of the assets of Sharemax and its property syndication companies. Following the High Court decision, these fund managers have been relieved of their duties.

The SARB inspects various schemes of a similar nature on an annual basis and actions taken by the Registrar’s Office are dependent on the merits and demerits of each case.

Refer to the fact sheet for further details.

Enquiries:
Hlengani Mathebula
Head: Strategy and Communications
Tel: 012 313 4210
Cell: 082 448 9219

Issued by: South African Reserve Bank
8 Feb 2012


I


Charges laid over Sharemax scheme

-

18 Oct 2010


Sharemax’s attorneys, Weavind & Weavind have apparently been charged with fraud by Pierre Hough, managing director of Chase International who laid the charges at the Brooklyn Police Station on behalf of one of his clients.



According to station commander, Brigadier Andre Wiese, a case of fraud had been opened but this matter had been transferred to the commercial crimes unit in Pretoria.

Hough says Weavind & Weavind failed to respond to a demand for repayment of a R200k deposit originally paid to the attorneys by one of Chase International’s clients. He has apparently lodged a claim with the fidelity fund of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces in an effort to get the client’s money back.

Hough has accused Weavind & Weavind of theft amid allegations of fraudulent non-disclosure and misrepresentation in the prospectus published for the Zambezi Retail Park.

Hough has also accused the attorneys of transferring money out of their trust account prior to the property being transferred to the syndication vehicle. The Department of Trade and Industry specifically prohibits the withdrawal of funds from a trust account prior to the properties being transferred.

Apparently Zambezi Retail Park and The Villa – other properties in the Sharemax portfolio – have not yet been transferred to the syndication company.

Readers' Comments Have a comment about this article? Email us now.



About the Author

29 May 2013 Financial statements reveal R2.2bn loss for Sharemax investors
Download the financial statements Nova Group’s directors wouldn’t make public.

Financial statements for Nova Property Group show that investors who bought Sharemax products have lost R2.2bn. Nova is the company that owns all the properties that used to belong to investors in the various Sharemax property syndication companies. Nova was formed as a result of a ‘Section 311’ rescue scheme which received court sanction in January last year.

The full Article on Moneyweb is available HERE.

The Financial Statements are available HERE.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

08 March 2012Was Dawie Roodt fired from Sharemax?
Was Dawie Roodt fired from Sharemax?

War of words erupts over Roodt’s departure from Sharemax’s syndication companies.

Was Efficient Group economist Dawie Roodt fired from the boards of Sharemax’s syndication companies?

Moneyweb Radio presenter Magnus Heystek claims that he was informed by corporate lawyer Connie Myburgh that Roodt was “fired”. Myburgh is the architect of the Sharemax rescue plan, which received court sanction early this year.

This is not the first time Moneyweb has heard of Roodt’s alleged sacking. Dominique Haese, CEO of the Sharemax syndication companies, has also made the allegation, albeit indirectly.

During a recent telephone conversation with this journalist, Haese claimed she was aware of the identity of a director who had allegedly leaked documents to Moneyweb. Haese said that the guilty director had been “fired” from the Sharemax syndication boards, and that “steps are being taken against him”.

Haese did not mention Roodt by name, but he is the only director to have left during the relevant time period.

Roodt was appointed to the boards of the Sharemax syndication companies in November 2010. He apparently resigned in July 2011. At the time, Roodt was hesitant to disclose the reasons for his “resignation”. He would only say: “I don’t think I can make a contribution to the [restructuring] process anymore.” He added: “I think it’s also safe to say there were some disagreements.”

Sharemax later confirmed that Roodt had resigned.

But this media release has allegedly been contradicted by Myburgh in a fiery telephone call which took place last Friday evening, immediately after the broadcast of Moneyweb’s Afrikaans radio programme, RSG Geldsake met Moneyweb.

Presenter Magnus Heystek’s version of events follows:

“Dawie Roodt was on our radio show on Friday to speak about the Budget. During the show, a listener called in and asked why Dawie had resigned from the Sharemax boards. Dawie was diplomatic in his answer.”

Roodt answered in Afrikaans: “I was not happy with how things were done and consequently I decided to end my relationship with Sharemax.”

Readers who wish to listen to the relevant portion of the radio show can download it here.

Heystek continues: “As soon as we walked out of the studio, Dawie’s phone rang. He showed me the screen and I could see it was Connie Myburgh calling.

“Dawie answered his phone, and I could hear that he was having a heated conversation with Myburgh.”

At some point in the conversation Roodt handed the phone to Heystek so he could speak to Myburgh.

Says Heystek: “Myburgh informed me that Roodt had been fired from the boards of the Sharemax syndication companies. He promised to send me a letter that would prove this.”

On the following Tuesday, Heystek called Myburgh to ask whether he would send the promised letter.

“What followed was a verbal tirade,” says Heystek. “Myburgh made a number of allegations against me, Moneyweb, and [forensic accountant and Sharemax critic] AndrĂ© Prakke. He called Dawie a liar and denied saying he had been fired.”

Heystek says he knows Connie Myburgh because they studied at the same university. “Myburgh was also in my office four years ago to discuss a property in Mauritius.”

Roodt declined to comment on allegations that he was fired. Neither Myburgh nor his attorney, Coenie Willemse, responded to a request to comment
Posted by Gareth Shepperson at 16:49

Sharemax - How do investment managers make money?



PART 2 How do investment managers make money?

By Cilleste van der Walt 2013

The explanation in Part 1 is far removed from what happened in the Sharemax case. Up until now, no one has really asked how Sharemax, apart from the financial advisors, made their money. Sharemax is the proverbial “asset manager” in this case.

To begin with, Sharemax paid the advisors an advance commission of 6%. Thus, if you invested R100 000, only R94 000 was left over once the fee had been paid. For this fee, the advisors did no market research, no benchmark was set and it was one of the most illiquid investments in the market to boot. It was the first layer of fees. In the case of the investment discussed in Part 1, Solidarity Financial Services builds a relationship with the client for eight years before getting to the advance fee of the Sharemax advisors.

The advisors and Sharemax proclaimed far and wide that the 6% advance commission did not affect the clients’ investments and that Sharemax paid the commission. My question is then: Where did Sharemax get the 6% to pay in advance? A Sharemax consultant tried to convince me that Sharemax earned its money from the rental income yielded by a building. Sharemax took a portion of the rental income, which was how it made money. If Sharemax only started making money when the rental income realised, where did it get the 6% advance commission?

If, for example, Sharemax took 8% of the rental income on a building valued at R10 million that yielded a rental income of 10% per annum, then Sharemax’s fee should have been R80 000 (8% of R1 000 000) per annum on the building. The R10 million building was sold to 100 investors who invested R100 000 each. At 6% advance commission to the advisors, R600 000 should have been paid out in commission, which is equal to 7,5 years of Sharemax rental income. Is the picture beginning to take shape?

If Sharemax had sold the R10 million building for R20 million to 200 unsuspecting investors, the calculation would have been as follows: R1 200 000 could have been paid to the advisors (6% of R20 million), leaving R18,8 million. Sharemax would then have hoped for the building’s value to double in six years and, therefore, the building should have been worth R20 million after six years (which was the case in some instances). Meanwhile, the rental income was still only R1 000 000 per annum, but Sharemax had to pay out an income for 200 investors. Consequently, Sharemax had to subsidise R1 000 000 per annum for six years. Of the R18,8 million, R12,8 million therefore remained and the building had cost R10 million. Therefore, the advance profit on the project was 28%, after the advisors had taken an exorbitant commission and the rental subsidy had been paid.

The above situation still may not seem too unfavourable for an investor if the property market is experiencing an upward swing, which is why Sharemax managed to stay afloat for 12 years. The problem is that Sharemax eventually became such a web of cross-subsidies, commissions and fees that not even reasonably bright people could unravel it. The death knell came when Sharemax started financing developers and devising a stiff profit for itself in the projects before there was a rental income from the buildings. The cost to erect The Villa in the east of Pretoria would have been higher than Menlyn’s valuation at the time – absurd!

The Fais ombudsman, Noluntu Bam, has described Sharemax’s last two syndication schemes, the Zambezi Retail Centre and The Villa in Pretoria, as pyramid schemes. There is one big difference between Sharemax and a proper pyramid scheme, which is that an ordinary pyramid scheme pays out your returns using another investor’s money, whereas Sharemax paid you with your own money!

I have one question for everyone who still claims that Sharemax did nothing wrong: Why did Sharemax have to close its doors when it stopped getting investments? I am convinced that Allan Gray will remain standing if it doesn’t get any new investments.

I also have a question for the investors: If you had known beforehand how Sharemax made its money, would you still have invested with the company? Apart from all the laws that were broken, it was bad business. It’s high time that the directors were held accountable for the losses that the investors suffered.



Share this:PinterestFacebookTwitterGoogle +1
This post is also available in: Afrikaans

Posted in General News | Leave a response

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.

« Previous Next » KontakContact us
Name*
Email address*
Lidnommer / ID nommer
Message*
Kopiereg © 2013 Solidariteit.
Kontak ons nou!facebook
twitter




SHAREMAX INKOMSTE PLAN EN SHAREMAX WAARBORG PLAN