Civil society organisation Unite Behind has “more evidence” against corruption accused former Prasa CEO Lucky Montana and former board member Sfiso Buthelezi.
Unite Behind says the new evidence implicates Montana and Buthelezi in irregular expenditure that cost the entity billions, the high court in Joburg heard.
Led by activist Zackie Achmat, civil society organisation Unite Behind is fighting in court to protect the state capture report against former board members who are directly challenging former chief justice Raymond Zondo to have the report detailing maladministration at Prasa set aside.
Former Prasa board members Buthelezi, Dr Bridgette Gasa, Nkosinathi Khena, Mmatebogo Nkoenyane and Montana initiated a legal review application in 2022 challenging the commission’s report.
The board members accuse former chief justice Zondo of implicating them in the report without giving them an opportunity to challenge evidence before the commission.
The government spent almost R1bn on the commission to expose a trail of corruption and should the report be set aside it would adversely affect the commission.
On Thursday, judge Naki Stylianou heard arguments in the case of Unite Behind, which wants to be admitted as an intervening party in the case against Zondo.
Unite Behind leader Achmat argued the organisation “has more evidence” to prove and solidify the findings of the state capture report against the board.
“The report by the commission is the first of a series of necessary steps in holding the respondents [board] accountable for their roles in allowing corruption, maladministration, mismanagement and malfeasance within Prasa,” Achmat said.
“More information and evidence regarding their responsibility and complicity will be added in our answering affidavit in the main application [Zondo vs Prasa], if leave to intervene is granted.”
Achmat contended that Montana, now an MK party MP, was protected by Busisiwe Mkhwebane when she was public protector.
Mkhwebane and Montana are now MK party members.
When Thuli Madonsela vacated the public protector post in 2016, she had left a report on corruption at Prasa (“Derailed”) in which she found several tenders were awarded irregularly.
This was during Montana’s tenure and Buthelezi was the chair of the board.
In Madonsela’s report, Montana was directly implicated to have approved tenders which were not open to competitive bidding but were treated as unsolicited bids.
Buthelezi faced accusations that his private companies had benefited through Prasa tenders but he disputed this.
Mkhwebane cleared Buthelezi and Montana in her report as public protector. Buthelezi previously served as a deputy minister in former president Jacob Zuma’s cabinet.
Achmat argues Mkhwebane’s report was a “whitewash” and cites leaked reports from National Treasury’s probe on Prasa to have provided contrary evidence.
The investigation findings he referred to were conducted by various law firms.
Prasa board representative Salome Manganye argued Unite Behind’s application did not bring new evidence to the court that the commission did not deal with.
“The evidence related to Dr Gasa’s emails in relation to the appointment of Siyangena [a company that was awarded an irregular tender] … is already there. There is no basis for them to be there [joined as respondents],” she said.
Prasa awarded security contracts worth R5.5bn to Siyangena Technologies and a R3.5bn locomotive tender to Swifambo Rail. Both tenders were found to be irregular by the courts.
Manganye said the case was about procedural defects committed by the commission and the “only party that can speak to how the conduct of the commission was done is the commission, not Unite Behind”.
While the organisation described Mkhwebane’s report on Prasa as “whitewash” its findings are still binding as the report has not been set aside, she said.
Unite Behind’s lawyer Michael Bishop argued Unite Behind was a public interest organisation and should be part of the case.
While the former board wants the court to set aside the report should it find the commission committed procedural defects, Bishop argued against it.
“In this case it would be possible to recognise and declare the conduct of making a procedural error as invalid but not disturb the findings of the commission because those findings were justified despite procedural irregularities.
“That is one of the arguments that my client will make in court if granted leave to be part of the case.”
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.