Sisulu in aviation court row

The Defence establishment failed this week to meet a court date to explain its seemingly bizarre actions in negotiating two separate and mutually exclusive tenders for the same VIP air transport contract at the same time.

With Defence and Military Veterans Minister Lindiwe Sisulu as first respondent, and the Defence Secretariat and Armscor included in the list, the military were required by an order of the Pretoria High Court to provide reasons for the cancellation of an R826 million contract awarded to aviation outfit AdoAir earlier this year.

Thereafter the court would decide whether to order the military bosses to reinstate the contract.

By an earlier high court decision, the government was compelled to cancel a separate contract concluded with provider ExecuJet in terms of a second tender process – entered into while the AdoAir contract was still being finalised, and without AdoAir being informed there were any problems.

But no record of the decision was provided to clear the confusion, nor was any affidavit opposing the AdoAir application lodged with the court. Now a new court date has been set for December 29 for the matter to be argued and finally decided.

DEAL GROUNDED: The Department of Defence has been ordered by the High Court to provide reasons why it cancelled its contract with AdoAir.

INLSA

Confirming that an affidavit opposing the AdoAir application for the reinstatement of its five-year lease contract was in preparation, Defence ministry spokesman Ndivhuwo Mabaya said the matter would from now be handled by the Department of Defence. “We will be asking for the minister’s name to be removed from the list of respondents,” Mabaya said. “This is a question of procurement and she is not in charge of procurement.”

Mabaya went on to explain that the reason no record had been furnished to the court of the cancellation of the AdoAir contract was that no such decision had been taken in the first place.

He said that, though the contract was initially given to AdoAir “the parties couldn’t agree on terms and no contract was actually entered into”.

AdoAir contests Mabaya’s version, specifying in court papers that after the contract was originally awarded in March this year – and the company entered into fine tuning negotiations with the Defence department – no glitches were encountered. Nor was there any failure to agree on terms, nor any objections or reservations registered by the military.

It was, by AdoAir’s account, all systems go, when the bombshell hit – in a report published on the South African Air Force’s website stating the contract had been taken away from AdoAir and a new lease had “been concluded with a large and respected South African company”, later identified as ExecuJet.

The ExecuJet contract, it transpired, had been concluded on the basis of an entirely separate tender for the same service, this one issued by Armscor rather than the Defence department.

Then it got really confusing. With the Defence department failing to respond to AdoAir’s requests for clarification, the chief of the Air Force, Lieutenant Carlo Gagiano stepped in, reassuring AdoAir’s executives that the contract remained valid and would be going ahead – and indicating he would sign off the deal himself.

But on July 4, apparently overriding Gagiano’s intervention, then Secretary of Defence Mpumi Mpofu dispatched a letter indicating the department had reservations around the deal and all bets were off. AdoAir insists that no such reservations had been registered in the appropriate forum of meetings with government stakeholders to finalise the contract.

Mpofu’s claim was therefore regarded as claims not made in good faith.

In the fallout, both Mpofu and Gagiano tendered their resignations, though in the event Mpofu’s was accepted while Gagiano was persuaded to stay on.

Contacted by The Sunday Independent, AdoAir’s lawyer Dr Gerrie Ebersohn dismissed as “absolute nonsense” later justifications from the government that the company had been unable to raise financing to buy the two jets required in terms of the lease agreement. As is recorded in the court papers, Nedbank had guaranteed funding for the deal.

To date, AdoAir has successfully sued for the cancellation of the wildcard Armscor contract awarded to ExecuJet, but confusion still reigns around its own on-off deal with the Defence department.

As recently as August – after the cancellation of the ExecuJet contract – a flurry of meetings took place where, according to AdoAir executive Daniel Joubert in a supplementary affidavit, the department indicated it was “finalising a review of the ‘process’ so the parties can proceed with the tender awarded to the applicant”.

This was especially motivated in light of the fact that South Africa’s presidential Boeing was due to be grounded for maintenance from September and urgent interventions needed to be made.

Then silence again until, finally, on November 1 – with the court order to explain the de facto cancellation of the contract already in force – Sisulu’s attorneys Xulu Liversage Inc said they had been instructed to reopen negotiations and to agree on time frames with a view to validating the AdoAir contract.

But this also proved another false start and the trail went cold yet again.

Meanwhile, VIP aircraft are chartered in terms of special legislation governing so-called “transversal” contracts – those that fall outside of the supply chain management system because they are designed to service more than one government department – administered by the National Treasury. As such they are not subject to the usual checks and balances to which public sector tenders are subjected.

The provision of VIP aircraft has resulted in ongoing scandals in recent months, with Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe left stranded in Finland and President Jacob Zuma piloted to New York by an airman convicted of mercenary activity.

- IOL

Dismay over pay, perks of politicians

Politicians face a “rising tide of criticism” over their salaries – and the perks that come with their jobs – causing citizens to question their integrity, the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers has warned.

The commission has released its long-awaited recommendations on what constitutes acceptable “tools of trade” – resources required by public office-bearers to perform their duties – and how and by whom these benefits should be managed.

It said suitably qualified individuals would avoid seeking public office “when the ethical compass of public office-bearers is subject to challenge”.

“The provision of tools of trade costs the state money and the current exact value of the tools of trade is not possible to quantify as the public office-bearers’ institutions do not track or account properly for (them),” the commission noted.

On Tuesday, Parliament approved a 5 percent salary increase for President Jacob Zuma, bringing his annual package to about R2.48 million.

Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe is to be paid out the presidential pension due to him since he made way for President Jacob Zuma in May 2009, but will “repay” the salary he has earned as Zuma’s deputy.

In effect, he will receive only the difference between what he has earned as deputy president and the higher amount due as his presidential pension. But he will not be earning a salary and receiving a pension.

The commission recently recommended an increase of 5 percent for all public office-bearers. This has been approved by Zuma.

The recommendations also come amid revelations about questionable spending by several politicians.

Recent examples include:

* International Relations and Co-operation Minister Maite Nkoane-Mashabane’s spending nearly R240 000 to charter a jet in Norway after she missed her scheduled flight because she refused to have her handbag X-rayed by airport security.

* Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs Sicelo Shiceka’s blowing R370 000 on a trip to Switzerland to visit his girlfriend, who was in jail on drug-related charges, and R280 000 on a short stay at the exclusive One&Only hotel in Cape Town.

* Public Works Minister Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde’s approving the purchase of 17 ministerial homes for Zuma’s expanded cabinet at a cost of R183m to the taxpayer.

* Communications Minister Roy Padayachie’s racking up a car rental bill of R1.2m when he was deputy minister of public administration.

A common theme in these cases is that the spending was said to be within the limits set by the Ministerial Handbook. The handbook contains detailed regulations on the tools of trade applicable for senior politicians.

The commission noted this fact, but suggested that this argument “challenges the appropriateness of those guidelines in the first place”.

Following a public outcry in 2009 over similar splurges, the government undertook to review the handbook – a process that was to have been completed by June last year.

In April, 10 months later, Minister of Public Service and Administration Richard Baloyi said the new handbook would be published “soon, very soon”.

Baloyi said on Tuesday “we have started the process” of reviewing the handbook. But he said the job could not be completed until the commission had made its recommendations on tools of trade. He would meet the commission “soon” to discuss how its recommendations should be incorporated into the handbook.

Commission secretariat chief Peter Makapan said:

“The minister sent a draft of the revised handbook to the commission to get our input. The handbook was discussed at our last meeting on Saturday. When the cabinet reviews the handbook, it will have to consider our recommendations.”

The commission has made only broad recommendations. The details of what ministers may spend on houses, cars, official entertainment, office equipment, travel, staff and other tools of trade will again be left to the cabinet it seems.

Nevertheless, the commission’s recommendations contain a golden thread urging greater transparency and accountability by politicians.

Recently, members of the executive, citing “security” concerns, have refused to answer MPs’ questions about travel and subsistence expenses.

Significantly, the commission singled out “travelling facilities”, saying they should be managed in “the most cost-effective manner”. - Political Bureau

Travelgate informer wins round in court

Parliment could face a R1-million legal bill after losing the latest round in a running battle with its former chief financial officer, Harry Charlton.

On Friday the Supreme Court of Appeal set aside a Labour Appeals Court order that granted parliament permission to exempt Charlton, the Travelgate whistle-blower, from the Protected Disclosures' Act when it fired him in 2006.

John McRobert, Charlton's legal representative, said the court ruling meant the matter would now go to the labour court for a hearing on the merits of his client's dismissal.

"Our view has always been that parliament is trying to delay," McRobert said.

"Thankfully he's prevailed now, and with costs, so we can go to court and ventilate the whole matter on the merits."

Charlton's victory means that parliament will now have to pay the full costs of the appeal process, including the fees of senior counsel.

A source close to the legal process, who asked not to be named, said parliament faced a legal bill of at least R1-million.

Secretary to parliament Zingile Dingani on Friday declined to comment, saying he was not aware of the court ruling.

"You are the first person to call me about this. I've not heard anything about it, not even my legal people have told me about it so I have no comment to make."

Charlton was dismissed for "work-related misconduct", but he insisted that he had been sacked for blowing the whistle on the abuse of parliament's travel scheme by MPs which involved more than R16-million.

He challenged his axing, arguing it was unfair because the information he provided was covered by the Protected Disclosures' Act.

But parliament argued that MPs were neither employees nor employers in terms of the act.

The Labour Court dismissed parliament's application for exception, but the case went to the Labour Appeals Court which upheld the exception application.

Charlton then challenged this ruling in the Supreme Court of Appeals. - timelive

Minister’s handbag incident costs taxpayers extra

The contents of International Relations Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane's handbag are not up for discussion, her spokesman said on Friday.

“I can't believe you are asking that,” Clayson Monyela said when asked why she recently refused to have her handbag scanned at an airport in Norway.

“It's not an issue we want to debate... She was strong and defended her principle, and we have moved on from there.”

Monyela said the Vienna Convention exempted diplomats from luggage searches at airports, and the minister - as the country's top diplomat - was right to stand her ground.

“At every airport, no diplomats are searched. This is why she refused.”

The minister's handbag drama in Norway cost South African taxpayers more than R200,000.

Nkoana-Mashabane, who was on a state visit to that country earlier this month, refused to have her bag passed through an X-ray scanner at an airport in Oslo, the Mail & Guardian reported.

As a result, she missed her scheduled commercial flight to her next diplomatic engagement in Bulgaria. A private-charter executive jet, which cost R235,343, was then hired to transport her.

It was unclear what she was carrying in her handbag and why she was keen to avoid security screening.

The Democratic Alliance and the Freedom Front Plus expressed outrage over the incident.

DA spokeswoman Lindiwe Mazibuko said Nkoana-Mashabane should pay back the money out of her own pocket.

“Yet again, ordinary South Africans have had to foot the bill for the vanity and excesses of those who are meant to be public servants.

“Government ministers should be subject to the same security regulations as every other airline passenger, and there should be no provision that allows members of the executive to bill the public for their superiority complexes.”

The DA also wanted her to reimburse her department for the cost of the flight she missed, as it resulted in her missing the meeting in Bulgaria.

“It is time for members of our government to understand that they are not more important than the citizens they serve,” Mazibuko said in a statement.

“The handbag incident underscores just how out of touch this government is with the economic realities of the majority of South Africans.”

FFPlus spokesman Corné Mulder said the minister could have handled the situation differently.

“It is absurd that South Africa has to waste money because the minister insisted on her right to diplomatic immunity,” he said in a statement.

“She could have seen to it that her political counterpart in Oslo was contacted immediately to resolve the situation.”

She should have allowed her handbag through the scanner so as to not miss her flight, said Mulder.

He asked why the South African embassy in Oslo had not made prior arrangements to prevent the “embarrassing and expensive” situation. - Sapa

So it begins: Hotel secrecy for safety of ministers: Manyi

Ministers could not answer questions about their use of hotels as such detail could be used to “ambush” them, government spokesman Jimmy Manyi said on Thursday.

“It is indeed a security issue and it would be quite frankly irresponsible for ministers to put in on (a) website,” Manyi told a regular post-Cabinet briefing in Cape Town.

“It would be a serious, serious breach of security.”

He said Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe had at Wednesday's Cabinet meeting reiterated a call to ministers to answer written parliamentary questions timeously.

The media asked why ministers were citing security reasons for declining to respond to questions from the opposition aimed at establishing how taxpayers' money was spent on travel and accommodation.

Water and Environment Affairs Minister Edna Molewa and State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele recently did so in response to questions from the Democratic Alliance.

Last year, the defence ministry declined to give details of President Jacob Zuma's local and international flights since he took office, stating that this could put his life at risk.

Manyi said even if the information being requested was old, it could still be of use to criminals planning to attack members of the executive, and could therefore not be made public.

“The issue here is that where two years ago, up to the same date, the minister keeps going to the same place, they are mapping out a clear roadmap for what criminals should do, because we are saying here is the predictable situation,” he said.

“So if you want to do an ambush why don't you target this place? This is the context.”

Manyi said on such questions the minister would provide the information to Motlanthe's office, who could then share it privately with the MP who asked the question.

“If certain of the questions pose a security risk, ministers will go and tell the leader of government business what those are, so that opposition members can go to the leader of government business and check that out,” Manyi said.

“So in that way the question is answered in a way that does not compromise security.”

He dismissed a journalist's suggestion that if criminals were planning to attack ministers, they would more likely do so between their easily identifiable offices and official residences.

“They are forever out there in their constituencies. They are criss-crossing the country. They are never in their homes,” Manyi said.

DA MP David Maynier, who put the questions to Molewa and Cwele and planned to ask the same information from other ministers, said he had not been told he could obtain the answers from Motlanthe's office.

He dismissed Manyi's arguments on security.

“I see no reason why a retrospective answer giving the names of hotels, the duration and the cost of the stay would endanger the ministers.

“I see it as an attempt to cover up the 1/8Higher Education Minister 3/8 Blade Nzimande syndrome of ministers staying in luxury hotels at great expense to the taxpayer.”

It was revealed last year that Nzimande spent 15 nights in the Mount Nelson in Cape Town, one of the most luxurious hotels in the country.

- Sapa

Parliament writes off Travelgate losses

Parliament has decided to write off the 12 million rand in outstanding debt owed to it by MPs who were implicated in the “Travelgate” scandal.

A letter from National Assembly speaker Max Sisulu to Democratic Alliance MP Ian Davidson also said that no further action would be taken against politicians implicated as the records of the travel agency used, Bathong Travel, were destroyed.

“As the debt was not recoverable and still on Parliament's books, it resulted in an audit query. Taking into consideration both these factors (the query and the fact that there were no records), the administration advised the presiding officers to write off the debts. In the light of this it is not possible to recover monies from members,” Sisulu's letter said.

Only six out of 79 of the MPs implicated in the scandal have been criminally prosecuted and, according to Sisulu, the remaining 73 would not be charged.

“I trust that this settles the matter”, concluded Sisulu in his letter.

However, Davidson said it did not and that if the matter were left as it were, then it would reinforce the perception that public-office bearers could steal from the people of SA with impunity.

“We cannot endorse a mass bail-out of Members of Parliament (MPs) whose conduct was both illegal and morally reprehensible,” Davidson said.

Davidson said he would write to Ben Turok, Ethics Committee chairperson, and request that, in light of the list of Travelgate MPs being made public, that he fully investigate all who have failed to pay back the money owed to Parliament.

“The action taken by the Ethics Committee against Yolanda Botha last week should be the rule, not the exception. MPs that have defrauded and undermined the integrity of Parliament must be investigated and brought to book,” he said.

The list of MPs implicated in the Travelgate scandal included a number of high-ranking African National Congress members, including State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele, whose wife has been found guilty of drug smuggling. - I-Net Bridge

Taxpayers to pay Travelgate debt

Taxpayers will fork out millions of rands to pay off debts racked up by MPs in the Travelgate scandal.

Despite numerous undertakings to act against MPs over the years since the scandal broke, Parliament has failed to recover about R12.2 million owed by its members after the institution controversially purchased the debtors’ book from the liquidators of Bathong Travel in 2009.

Bathong was one of six travel agencies implicated in the infamous and unresolved travel voucher scandal.

Information released this week has revealed that when the Bathong debts were purchased for R380 000 MPs still owed about R5.4m, of which the liquidators had managed to recover only R413 303 – or 7.6 percent – from 19 of the 89 MPs on the agency’s books.

More recent information has shown that this amount eventually rose to about R17m as more “debts” were uncovered, leaving Parliament in the red to the tune of about R12.2m. This debt will now be written off, Secretary to Parliament Zingile Dingani told journalists in Cape Town this week, which leaves taxpayers to foot the bill.

Parliament buried this information until Eastern Cape High Court Judge Sytze Alkema ordered its release on July 28, when the Centre for Social Accountability, an NGO from Rhodes University, successfully challenged Parliament’s refusal to provide the information via the Promotion of Access to Information Act.

Judge Alkema had harsh words for Parliament, saying it was clear throughout the process that it was more concerned with its public image – and those of its members – than with getting to the truth or collecting the outstanding debts.

“The above entries (from parliamentary minutes) indicate a strong desire, for reasons not known but giving rise to wide speculation, on the part of Parliament to prevent those claims from being pursued. It was particularly anxious to protect those claims from public scrutiny in a court of law,” the judge said.

“Parliament was acutely aware of the public interest in the matter … It went to some lengths to prevent the publication of information contained in the schedules (the list of 89) in order to protect it against adverse public opinion – even purchasing the claims. But public opinion is not the same as public interest. Public interest is at stake when the structure of institutional democracy is threatened by a culture of ‘secretive and unresponsive’ government,” Judge Alkema concluded.

- IOL