The South African Communist Party (SACP) says those implicated in state capture should be given a fair chance to give their side of the story before being judged.
Deputy Minister of Public Enterprises Ben Martins, who is also a senior leader of the SACP, is due to testify before Parliament’s public enterprises portfolio committee this week.
Eskom’s suspended head of legal and compliance, Suzanne Daniels, made a surprising disclosure in November when she told the committee that Martins was present at a meeting with businessmen Ajay Gupta and Duduzane Zuma when moves to delay a court case involving disgraced former Eskom CEO Brian Molefe were discussed.
The allegations against Martins are said to have embarrassed the SACP, which has long called for tough action to be taken against those implicated in state capture.
Martins has since rubbished Daniels’ testimony and threatened legal action. He filed a report to the SACP denying the allegations made against him.
SACP spokesman Alex Mashilo said on Monday should any "incontrovertible" evidence emerge, the party would take decisive action.
"In the first instance, the SACP called for the inquiry. Our decision is that all those who have allegations against them must co-operate with the process. Our decision is categorical. Should any incontrovertible evidence emerge the SACP will take decisive action," he said.
"The universal rule of justice, audi alteram partem, which means hear the other side of the story in a credible process rather than just one side of the story without a credible process, and the twin rule of incontrovertible evidence are very crucial when allegations are levelled against you or someone else. In other words, you do not become guilty the moment allegations are levelled against you or someone else.
"You become guilty the moment incontrovertible evidence comes forward in a credible process. This is why the SACP called for the inquiry.
"It will be unjust to call for the inquiry and then bypass it by reaching premature conclusions outside of it. The SACP will take a lead and certainly act decisively should incontrovertible evidence emerge from the process," said Mashilo.
Should any incontrovertible evidence emerge, the party will act decisively
On Tuesday, the public enterprises committee will hear evidence from former Passenger Rail Agency of SA CEO Lucky Montana. Montana has alleged that during a meeting with the Guptas at the home of Martins — transport minister at the time — he fought the Gupta family’s push to "manipulate" a R53bn tender to procure new trains back in 2012.
The committee has already heard from high-profile witnesses such as Public Enterprises Minister Lynne Brown, Molefe and former Eskom chief financial officer Anoj Singh.
In his testimony last week, Singh, who is alleged to have played a crucial role in facilitating the plundering of Eskom by the Guptas, said management and the board of directors changed the operating model in 2010. This change envisaged a shift from a decentralised operating model to a matrix organisational structure.
The change, he said, allowed for a lack of accountability and watered down responsibility.
"I was not the person who approved any transactions on my own but acted on the resolutions of the board of directors or a subcommittee," Singh said.
The prepayment of R1.6bn and the associated guarantee issued to Tegeta was authorised by the board.
The prepayment of R600m was authorised by the board tendering committee. The deal with McKinsey and Trillian, which worked alongside the former before discussions about them becoming a supplier development partner were terminated in March 2016, was also approved by the board tendering committee, Singh said, as was the Optimum Coal Mine penalty settlement of R577m.
Singh said as a chief financial officer, he had no knowledge of negotiations with Tegeta for the prepayment of R600m as he was not involved in the negotiations for that contract.
"The prepurchase of coal was approved by the board tendering committee at its meeting on 11 April 2016. I did not attend this meeting nor was I aware of the meeting taking place as I am not a member of the [committee].
"I was informed about the meeting by the head of the legal team on April 12 2016 and that the meeting resolved that the CFO [chief financial officer] should perform certain duties," Singh said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.