Early 2012 Belamant-­‐amaB interview iro CPS’s tendered BEE consortium on the Sassa contract: “Our BEE, I won’t even argue, was probably not the best BEE deal. But we thought, you know what, if we’re going to win this or lose this because of BEE, well so be it. You can’t do a job because of BEE; you’ve got to be able to do the bloody work.” And on who Ekhaya and Retles are:
“One is led by a woman; I can’t remember her name; she’s a teacher. So I think there’s a lot of teachers involved in that one, which I’ve always supported because I think that teachers should be supported in a better way. And the other one is driven … I think it’s more like a financial banks company and I’m not 100% sure what they do to be quite honest. [Their name?] What did you call it, you had the names… [I have the names Retles, Ekhaya and Born Free]. Ja, but jeezelike it, which was the [mumbles]. Is it the name of the person that is running it? Because if you give me the name I’ll remember it. [Mokoetlane is Retles]. Mokoetlane, and what’s the first name? [Bulelwa] Bulelwa that’s it she’s the teacher. And the other one must be the other company. [The other is Ekhaya Skills Consulting and that is Nonhlanhla Ntshalintshali] Okay you can’t quote me on that but I believe you [laughs].” *** 28 Feb 2012 interview with Mazwi Yako. Someone tipped me off in 2012 that the original BEE tender was shaky, so I called Yako and he said the contract he signed was binding and he had heard nothing otherwise. I pressed him as to whether he had heard any rumours: “My view would be that, if you submit a tender, it gets awarded on the basis of what you have submitted. I cannot submit a tender today, and when you award it to me say, oh by the way there’s Craig, he’s a friend of mine, I want my partner to be Craig today. It was awarded and evaluated on the basis of what was evaluated in those documents, and I have a legally binding agreement that was also submitted and for, that still stands.” *** Early 2012 interview with Patrick Ntshalintshali He explained his role as Brian’s friend, meeting Mosomo’s broad-­‐based partners. Then I asked if Ekhaya was one of his companies. “Nah. Not at all. I’m not involved in this deal at all. I was not invited. Well I would have liked to have been invited. I’m just advising Brian. [Your sister is on the board of Ekhaya]. She was invited. I’m not invited. My company’s Mntungwa Investment. Mntungwa is in property development [And Coal of Africa]. And Coal of Africa and [inaudible] mining services. … [Mosomo, what is it’s link to Mvela?] When we did the Coal of Africa deal, Brian was the shareholder. Mvelaphanda had nothing to do with Mosomo. That’s Brian’s company – he set it up. … [And is there nothing to made of the fact that your sister was on the CPS BEE consortium] Nah. No nothing. [Repeats lies] [And who is Lisa Marks?] Who? [Lisa Marks] She’s our old secretary. [For who?] For … sorry? For Mntungwa. [Why would she be listed on the Mosomo share register as a contact? [Silence] Weeeell I have a Johannesburg office and then she sits in my office. I don’t know why. I’ll have to ask Brian that question. Maybe it’s because of the Coal of Africa deal. Remember Mosomo and Mntungwa shared that account.” ***
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Craig McKune <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 6:31 PM
Subject: amaB q: CPS's BEE partners?
To: Serge Belamant <[email protected]>
Hi Serge,
I'm following up on the stories about the future of the grant payments after CPS's contract
terminates. I was interested in the future of the BEE partners.
I saw in the reporting about your earnings call that there is a good chance CPS-Sassa contract
will be rolled over. If that happens, will Born Free, Ekhaya and Retles still be doing 75% of
the contract?
One of your affidavits makes reference to the fact that SASSA vetted CPS's consortium and
that the BEE agreement formed part of CPS's tender submission. Perhaps it is lost in the stack
of papers submitted in the litigation, but I cannot locate the agreement. Does Sassa have it?
Or can you please share it with me?
Best
Craig
Craig McKune
amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism
+27 71 493 6741
Skype: craigpatrik
Twitter: @CraigMcKune
***
Craig McKune <[email protected]> Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:47 AM To: Paseka Cornelius Letsatsi <[email protected]>, Kgomoco Diseko <[email protected]> Dear Paseka and Kgomoco, I am trying to find out what how CPS's BEE partnership currently works. It's a bit of a belated line of enquiry, but you might remember that one of the big issues in the ConCourt judgment was that Sassa did not scrutinise the BEE in the tender, and the judge had some strong words about this. What I know from the court record is that CPS tendered for Born Free, Ekhaya and Retles to be its BEE partners. They told Sassa and the courts that this consortium would manage and execute about 75% of the contract. The court papers make reference to the CPS-­‐BEE contract, which was provided to Sassa. • • • • • Are Born Free, Ekhaya and Retles still CPS's BEE partners? Have they done 75% of the work as tendered? Or if the consortium has changed and if they did not do the 75%, can you explain how and when things changed? Has the new CEO taken up his position yet? I would like to request an interview with CEO or acting CEO to discuss the transition and BEE. Will this be possible? I would be happy to do it in person or over the phone. Kind regards, Craig McKune amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism +27 71 493 6741 Skype: craigpatrik Twitter: @CraigMcKune *** Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:50 AM Craig McKune <[email protected]> To: Paseka Cornelius Letsatsi <[email protected]>, Kgomoco Diseko <[email protected]> Bcc: Stefaans Brümmer <[email protected]>, Sam Sole <[email protected]> Sorry, one more question! I referred to the CPS-­‐BEE contract. I could not find a copy of it in the court record. Please can you share a copy with me? Craig Craig McKune amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism +27 71 493 6741 Skype: craigpatrik Twitter: @CraigMcKune *** Kgomoco Diseko <[email protected]>
Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:54 AM
To: Craig McKune <[email protected]>
Please contact CPS
***
Craig McKune <[email protected]> Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:02 AM To: Kgomoco Diseko <[email protected]> Bcc: Stefaans Brümmer <[email protected]>, Sam Sole <[email protected]> Thanks for the quick response Kgomoco, I have contacted CPS. But Sassa has a direct interest in these questions -­‐-­‐ my worry is that these BEE partners were never used, and that no BEE partner managed and executed 75% of the contract. I imagine that would a big problem in the context of a competitive tender. Or maybe not, if Sassa was kept appropriately abreast of changes, according to whatever prescripts should apply. Therefore, I feel it is a question Sassa should answer. I would be grateful if you could help me with this. Secondly, has the new CEO taken his position? And can I interview him or the acting CEO? Best Craig Craig McKune amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism +27 71 493 6741 Skype: craigpatrik Twitter: @CraigMcKune *** Serge Belamant <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: Craig McKune <[email protected]>
Cc: Herman Kotze <[email protected]>, Nanda <[email protected]>
Dear Craig
All our BEE initiatives are disclosed and in the public domain.
Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:16 AM
March 31, 2016 will be the end of the 2012 tender 5 year period that resulted in the contract and SLA signed between Net1 and SASSA.
Such contract and SLA were found to be invalid by the CC but allowed these contracts to continue as if they were valid until a) a new tender was issued and awarded or b) SASSA took over by March 31, 2017 as the contracts expired. As of April, 1, 2017 these contracts will no longer exist. These however would then returned to their invalid status. This dilemma asks some interesting questions. For example, most contracts have clauses that continue passed their expiration or termination date. These conditions could no longer be enforced as an illegal contract cannot be enforced. All contracts that were dependent or conditional on the SASSA contracts would also be illegal and thus unenforceable e.g. BEE contracts, employment contracts, leases, security, etc.
It seems to me that we will be starting with a blank page.
Regards
Serge ***
Craig McKune <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: Herman Kotze <[email protected]>, Nanda <[email protected]>
Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 12:53 PM
Okay thanks.
Those are very interesting questions - We'll watch and wait and see.
But back to the Born Free, Retles, Ekhaya consortium that you tendered: am i safe to conclude that this
was never consummated and CPS's only BEE partners are Born Free and Mosomo, who were signed on in
2014 or 2015 (I forget the date)?
UNANSWERED BY CPS/NET 1 *** Craig McKune <[email protected]>
Mon, Nov
21, 2016
at 10:33
AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: Herman Kotze <[email protected]>, Nanda <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Bcc: Stefaans Brümmer <[email protected]>, Sam Sole <[email protected]>
Dear Serge,
I found a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement between Cash Paymaster Services, Born Free, Ekhaya
and Retles -- You, Patrick and Bulelwa Makoetlane signed it on 13 June 2011.
I don't think this document was publicly disclosed as you claim -- certainly not to the courts or to
investors as it should have been.
Am I wrong?
You will recall you told Sassa's bid committees and the courts that this BEE consortium was going to
"manage and execute" 74.57% of the Sassa contract. But the MoA does not reflect that at all. It says that
CPS will subcontract 74.57% of the work to the BEE partners, which will then subcontract 74.45% of the
job straight back to CPS!?
This is very concerning. It proves that CPS did not have a BEE partner at all when it tendered (but for the
paltry 0.12% in value that remained with the BEEco in return for apparently doing nothing at all -- hardly
in the spirit of BEE). In other words CPS lied both to Sassa and the courts.
This looks like tender fraud and perjury.
Or, if CPS did not lie to Sassa, then Sassa must have willingly turned a blind eye to the terms of the BEE
contract, and thus be complicit.
I'm trying not to hit you with a wall of negative questions, as you say I did last time, and I really want to
discuss this openly.
Is my reading of this memorandum wrong?
Also important: Was this BEE partnership consummated? When?
All the best,
Craig
Craig McKune
amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism
+27 71 493 6741
Skype: craigpatrik
Twitter: @CraigMcKune
***
Serge <[email protected]>
Mon, Nov
21, 2016
at 11:06
AM
To: Craig McKune <[email protected]>
Hi Craig As usual you read things that are not there and ignore the factual evidence Please read the tender specs as well as our responses including our BEE sections, contracts to be entered into, allocation of work, etc. However to save you time, I am sure you will recall that the court find that SASSA had not evaluated out BEE proposal as we were the only company that could do the job. Surely paying 10 million people is more important than a BEE deal which we did anyway. Let me know what you are looking for as I might be able to help without getting involved with a matter that is dead and buried and as gone to all RSA court's, the SEC, the FBI and the Hawks. You will recall that to date, date, have been cleared on all counts. I can assure you that investigating authorities with our collaboration studied eveything in detail. I am not too sure where you are going with this as we are, at this point in time, out of it by April 1. We have done a superlative job for close to 5 years proving that the decision by SASSA was the right one as confirmed by the appeal's court. Unfortunately, PAJA became an issue for the CC. Too complex for me to understand. Regards Serge *** Craig McKune <[email protected]> Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:21 AM To: Kgomoco Diseko <[email protected]>, Paseka Cornelius Letsatsi <[email protected]> Hi Kgomoco and Paseka, I managed to dig up a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement between CPS and its tendered BEE partners Born Free, Ekhaya and Retles -­‐-­‐ Serge Belamant (CPS), Patrick Ntshalintshali and Bulelwa Makoetlane signed it on 13 June 2011. • Did CPS submit a copy of this to Sassa? It contains some extremely concerning terms. You will remember that CPS told Sassa that the BEEco would "manage and execute" 74.57% of the contract. Sassa's bid committees used this in their decision making. CPS and Sassa both told the courts the same thing when they deliberated on CPS's BEE partners. The MoA explains that, yes, CPS will subcontract 74.57% of the work to the BEE partners... but later it says that 74.45% of the contract value will be subcontracted straight back to CPS!? In other words, CPS did not have a BEE partner at all when it tendered (but for the paltry 0.12% in value that remained with the BEEco in return for apparently doing nothing at all -­‐-­‐ hardly in the spirit of BEE) and it lied to Sassa and the courts. • Was Sassa aware of the terms of this contract? This looks like tender fraud and perjury. • Am I wrong? Or, if CPS did not lie to Sassa, then Sassa must have willingly turned a blind eye to the terms of the BEE contract, and thus be complicit. • • • Please can Sassa comment? To Sassa's knowledge, was this BEE partnership (Born Free, Ekhaya, Retles) consummated? When? Again, I request an interview with the Sassa CEO to discuss its relationship with CPS and the pending transition and/or extension of CPS's contract. Please respond by tomorrow (Tuesday) 11.30am Best Craig McKune amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism +27 71 493 6741 Skype: craigpatrik Twitter: @CraigMcKune *** Craig McKune <[email protected]> Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 5:57 PM To: [email protected] Bcc: Stefaans Brümmer <[email protected]>, Sam Sole <[email protected]> Dear Patrick, Thank you for seeing me now. You will remember the ConCourt found against Sassa because Sassa failed to scrutinise CPS's tendered BEE consortium. Now questions are being raised about what happens once the CPS contract ends next March, so I thought I'd find out what became of the BEE consortium. I would like to meet with you to discuss this before we print -­‐-­‐ I'm happy to talk on background/not for attribution if you would prefer. I don't want to get this wrong, but the documents raise serious questions. The basic issues I want to discuss are these. CPS tendered to Sassa and told the court that the BEEco was going to "manage and execute" 75% of the contract. Yet your Ekhaya and Retles appeared to be incompetent to do this. The Memo of Agreement (you signed it) between CPS, Ekhaya, Retles and Born Free appears to show that there was no BEE partnership at all. CPS subcontracted 75% of the value of the Sassa contract to the BEEco, which subcontracted 75% straight back to CPS. This looks like a sleight of hand. In the end, this BEE consortium (Born Free, Ekhaya and Retles) played no part in the contract. This was never disclosed to the courts. Isn't this a big problem, given that CPS tendered for and was adjudicated partly on the basis of this consortium? Clearly Lunga Ncwana was intimate in setting up both this consortium and Mosehla's. This is a problem because of his close relationship to the minister. Can we meet, this week? Best Craig McKune amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism +27 71 493 6741 Skype: craigpatrik Twitter: @CraigMcKune *** Craig McKune <[email protected]> Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:12 PM To: [email protected] Bcc: Stefaans Brümmer <[email protected]>, Sam Sole <[email protected]> Hi again, I also wanted to ask you about the Coal of Africa deal. I'm very interested in Lunga's role there. The documents make it look as if you (Lunga) and Brian were fronting for Och Ziff so that they could pick up cheap shares. But I might be reading that wrong. Can we discuss that too if we meet? And given the American investigation into Och Ziff, did they investigate this too? Did you receive questions? Best Craig Craig McKune amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism +27 71 493 6741 Skype: craigpatrik Twitter: @CraigMcKune ***
Herman Kotze <[email protected]>
Tue, Nov
22, 2016
at 11:23
PM
To: Craig McKune <[email protected]>
Cc: Serge Belamant <[email protected]>, Nanda Pillay <[email protected]>, Dhruv Chopra
<[email protected]>
Dear Craig The Memorandum you refer to was part of our tender document (the signed Memorandum you've discovered was the document included) so it was fully disclosed to SASSA, the tender committees and formed part of the court record (which contained the entire bid document); in all three courts and thus forms part of the public record. In fact, all three judgements (available on our website) specifically make reference to the "74%" issue contained in the Memorandum and our BEE proposal (as this was one of the key objections raised by AllPay) -­‐ this issue was also extensively documented in the affidavits and heads of argument and debated at length in all three courts by all parties. In fact, the BEE issue formed the basis of one of the two reasons ultimately advanced by the ConCourt for the declaration of invalidity. It is therefore not, as you suggest, an undisclosed document -­‐ it is probably one of our most scrutinised and opined on documents? You already checked our BEE deal history and our current partners as part of your previous investigation -­‐ they are either shareholders in CPS (you inspected the shareholder register a few months ago and nothing has changed) or in Net1. Regards Herman ***
Craig McKune <[email protected]>
Thu, Nov
24, 2016
at 2:17
PM
To: Herman Kotze <[email protected]>
Cc: Serge Belamant <[email protected]>, Nanda Pillay <[email protected]>, Dhruv Chopra
<[email protected]>
Bcc: Stefaans Brümmer <[email protected]>, Sam Sole <[email protected]>
Dear Herman and Serge,
Thank you very much for your responses.
Regarding the MoA:
Okay, I see in Serge’s affidavit he said: “The agreement was submitted and formed part
of the tender submission.” (Though Sassa seems to be battling to find it in response to
my questions…)
However you are wrong to say the MoA formed part of the court record – it did not. It
was not part of CPS’s bid document as provided to the court.
I would like to know why it was not submitted in the court’s discovery process.
You are correct your and Sassa’s affidavits and the judgments state that CPS’s BEE
consortium was to “manage and execute” 74.57% of the contract value. The bid
committee records mention the same basic fact.
Indeed, the MoA does support this:
ii. To this end the consortium will acquire a company (which will serve as
trading entity for the Consortium members and in which each of them will hold
shares in such proportions as may be agreed upon between them) and procure
that such company conclude a co-operation agreement with CPS in terms of
which 74.57% of the economic benefit of the Contract flows to such company, in
lieu of services rendered by the said company in relation to the Contract.
But your affidavits and Sassa’s bid committees ignored a critical clause in the MoA:
1.2.31 "Services Agreement" means an agreement concluded between CPS and
Newco in terms of which CPS renders certain support services to Newco, against
payment of 74.45% of the Transaction Fee
In other words, yes, CPS will subcontract 74.57% of the work to the BEE partners – but
the BEE partners will subcontract 74.45% of the work straight back to CPS.
In other words, it is untrue that the BEE partners were to “manage and execute” 74.57%
of the contract.
From this, I think it is fair to conclude:
•
Sassa’s bid committees labored under a falsehood when they decided the tender.
• Had Sassa properly scrutinized CPS’s BEE tender, it would have found it be a typical front -- CPS
paying off black people, pretending that they would be empowered by managing the contract, when the
opposite was true.
• Sassa and CPS misled the courts by telling them the BEE partners would “manage and execute”
74.57% of the contract – perjury.
•
That suspicions are raised that Sassa and CPS deliberately withheld the MoA from the court – perjury.
Do you think my interpretation is wrong or unfair? If so, please explain – I truly
am open to consider your version.
Regarding the current status of CPS’s BEE partners:
At 23 August 2015, CPS’s security register recorded that Net 1 held 4000 shares and
BVI 1567 held 571. So can I conclude that CPS’s only BEE partner is BVI 1567 at
12.49%?
On the face of it, that looks like a serious problem to me.
You entered a competitive tender process in which you promised Sassa that Born Free,
Ekhaya and Retles would be your partners, yet you never implemented this and brought
in someone completely different two and a half years later – and you did not disclose
this to the court.
What would be the point of open, competitive tendering if this was allowed?
Had Sassa properly scrutinized your BEE tender (as we know they didn’t), it would have
been a waste of their time, as you never consummated that arrangement.
This strikes me as a fraudulent misrepresentation of your BEE partners.
Again, if you see it differently, if you think I am wrong or being unfair, please
explain it to me.
Please explain what role, if any, BVI 1567 had in "managing and executing" the
contract and how they have been empowered through the process, aside from
dividends.
Kind regards,
Craig
Craig McKune
amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism
+27 71 493 6741
Skype: craigpatrik
Twitter: @CraigMcKune
***
Serge Belamant <[email protected]>
Thu, Nov
24, 2016
at 3:43
PM
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: Craig McKune <[email protected]>
Cc: Serge Belamant <[email protected]>, Herman Kotze <[email protected]>
Dear Craig
You are missing the fundamental point of our BEE deal as presented in our RFP response.
We have been in the welfare space since 1999 and as such do not need anyone to perform the grant distribution function. We employ 3000+, the majority of which are black or Indian people, to perform these very critical functions. In each province, we ensure that our staff members speak and understand the language and culture of the local population so that we gain their support and confidence and provide them with the best service possible. In our RFP response, you will see that we speak about two area of work, the distribution of grants and the promotion and distribution of financial services in general. The first is provided by CPS, the second was meant to be provided by our BEE partners who would benefit from both these operations but substantially more from what we did not have, namely financial services; this is where the long term real value lies (not dependent on the SASSA contract) and this is what we intended to share with our BEEs in a 75/25 ratio depending on the work they could perform, funding provision, etc. As you have read in the press, our financial services initiatives have been fought/obstructed by many parties, some for socially motivated reasons (however ill informed) other from purely competitive reasons. I am not going to comment if we agree with any of our opponents views. Our views have been made clear in our court papers, press releases and numerous lawsuits. It is sad that our contract with SASSA was found to be invalid, not because of anything we did but because the court found that SASSA had not considered BEE and were not clear enough regarding their biometric requirements (not true but AllPay did a good job convincing the court that this was so – this does not make it so however). No one ever seems to mention that these aspects were not found to be problematic by the appeals’ court which comprised 5 senior judges. They ruled that our tender response met the requirements of SASSA in all aspects. Candidly, BEE could not trump the best solution when the lives of 10 million people was at risk. We were the only bidder that qualified and truthfully, we are currently the only bidder that can deliver the service as requested by SASSA as we are the only company that can provide a fully comprehensive biometric solution, an offline solution, an interoperable solution with the NPS and functionality that is capable to support new and more comprehensive social programmes (our solution is proven, all new bidders may or may not be able to deliver). Please try to focus on what SASSA’s requirements are rather than how BEE was meant and then did work as the contract that defined their participation was found to be invalid and thus no contractual obligation could be enforced anyway. We stuck to what we had said (BEE deal) and implemented such the best way we could although that many parameters had changed the entire business plan as a result of the CC decision. Please try to see past the typical South African view that all tenders must be fraught with corruption. Please note that our system over the last 5 years has worked perfectly and has proven that what we had promised was delivered and much more for the benefit of the state and of millions of people (not typical in corrupt tenders where nothing is actually delivered). Our system has put RSA on the map regarding social welfare distribution and financial inclusion; Something to be written about and to be proud of. Maybe you can do us and the system justice and give some credit to the people that backed it for the good of all South Africans.
Regards
Serge *** Kgomoco Diseko <[email protected]>
Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at
2:09 PM
To: Craig McKune <[email protected]>
Cc: Paseka Cornelius Letsatsi <[email protected]>
Dear Craig
The issues you are raising were argued in three different courts and the Constitutional Court made a
ruling which we respect as a State institution. It is unwise for us to take the matter into the public
discourse since the matter was finalized by the court. The transition to a SASSA takeover and
related matters will be clarified as soon as Minister Dlamini makes an announcement about the
matter and the press will be briefed.
*** Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 2:40 PM Craig McKune <[email protected]> To: Kgomoco Diseko <[email protected]> Cc: Paseka Cornelius Letsatsi <[email protected]> Bcc: Stefaans Brümmer <[email protected]>, Sam Sole <[email protected]> Dear Kgomoco, I just need to highlight that Sassa failed to disclose this contract to the court, therefore the court was denied an opportunity to deliberate on its full contents. As a result, it is not true, as you claim that: "The issues you are raising were argued in three different courts." I think it's fair to conclude, therefore, that Sassa is guilty of perjury. * Please comment and explain if Sassa disagrees. Kind regards, Craig Craig McKune amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism +27 71 493 6741 Skype: craigpatrik Twitter: @CraigMcKune NO ANSWER FROM SASSA ***
Craig McKune <[email protected]>
Mon, Nov
28, 2016
at 1:51
PM
To: Serge Belamant <[email protected]>
Cc: Herman Kotze <[email protected]>, Dhruv Chopra <[email protected]>, Nanda <[email protected]>
Bcc: Sam Sole <[email protected]>, Stefaans Brümmer <[email protected]>
Dear Serge and Herman,
Thank you very much for your responses. I am considering them seriously.
I’d also like to ask you about Lunga Ncwana please.
We have received a number of tipoffs that describe Lunga Ncwana’s role in CPS’s bid,
the tender and other processes around the payment of social grants.
Indeed, Ncwana has close links to all of your BEE partners.
Retles Trading was plainly not equipped not “manage or execute” the Sassa contract. It
consists of two teachers who used to provide textbooks to schools in the Western Cape
before running into trouble with Sars and falling on hard times. It was all but liquidated
in 2010, before it ran into the Sassa opportunity. The company is located at the house of
Jongi and Bulelwa Makoetlane -- its owners -- literally around the corner from Lunga
Ncwana’s house. Bulelwa and Ncwana know each other well as they grew up together.
Ekhaya Skills Development Consultants was also in deregistration before the Sassa deal
came along. It is another small company that purportedly provides “skills training” and
showed no capacity for being able to “manage or execute” the payment of grants. It is
nominally owned by Patrick Ntshalintshali’s sister, but he borrowed it for your
consortium for the Sassa contract. Ncwana previously hid behind Ntshalintshali who
fronted for him in a significant BEE deal. The concern raised is that Ncwana hid behind
Ntshalintshali in the CPS BEE consortium too.
Ncwana’s company Mntungwa is provided as a contact in Mosomo Investment’s
company records. Lunga Ncwana and Brian Mosehla are friends – for example, Mosehla
was Ncwana’s best man at his wedding. As we know, Patrick Ntshalintshali (Ncwana’s
front) worked for Mosomo. Ncwana kept close company with Mosehla when the latter
was putting together the BEE deal with Mosomo and CPS.
Ncwana's close ties to your BEE partners are unlikely to be coincidental, and they are
noteable because Ncwana has a very close relationship with Social Development
minister Bathabile Dlamini. The two are in regular contact and meet often.
This political exposure raises the concern that Ncwana might have used his influence to
favour CPS and its BEE partners and benefits might have flowed unduly to undisclosed
people.
Please can we discuss this urgently?
Can you comment?
What knowledge do you have of Ncwana’s role?
Best,
Craig
***
Serge Belamant <[email protected]>
Mon, Nov
28, 2016
at 2:16
PM
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: Craig McKune <[email protected]>
Cc: Herman Kotze <[email protected]>, Dhruv Chopra <[email protected]>, Nanda <[email protected]>
Dear Craig
I am pleased that you are being responsible in this matter of national importance.
BEE participation and thus BEE consortiums are as you know required by law. As you know we have been involved with certain of our BEE partners since 2000 (effective 1999), the year we bought CPS from FNB. We kept the same BEE partners for many years in all of our provinces for continuity. This was prior to SASSA’s formation and our listing on the NASDAQ. SASSA took over all provinces and we had to consolidate our BEE initiatives as there was now only one tender and not 9. This was very difficult as it was much easier in the past to identify and select local partners rather than national ones. Local partners spoke the language, understood their province, culture, etc. and could lobby at the appropriate level. This level was provincial and not national. When SASSA finally tendered in 2007, if I recall the date correctly, we submitted a BEE structure which comprised of some but not all of our previous partners. We also included new participants who we felt could bring value to our company and perform certain functions which we could not perform ourselves. These functions included, marketing of our services, relationship with local authorities, on the ground support with communities, education, local management, etc. Although we won this tender 100% in terms of both functionality and pricing, such tender was cancelled apparently due to a) our BEE solution was found to be inadequate and b) we were to utilise merchant stores as a part of our solution. In other works it was cancelled due to ulterior motivated reasons. E.g. We would have won the tender even if we were given 0 out of 10 for BEE and merchant stores were used for many years and are currently part of all bidders’ solution. (You should investigate why this tender was not awarded to us in totality; by the way the BEE partners we had then were not the same as the BEE partners we have now). The cancellation of this tender resulted in both AllPay and Empilweni to retain their business in certain provinces and thus for the overall cost of delivering a national solution to be substantially higher. The reason I am informing you of this history is that there are always many different parties that wish to be our BEE partners but unfortunately not all can be accommodated. This creates multiple lobbying groups and often results in unfounded accusations (against the winner) as each losing party attempts to retain their own business. Thank goodness that it seems that the powers at be see through all of this and awarded the tender (cannot speak for other tenders) to the company that could actually deliver. We have always done so for many decades! Let us be honest, AllPay could not do this as per the documented legal record. In 2011, SASSA issued a new tender and our BEE, at the time, recommended for additional parties to be included to strengthen our BEE proposal. These new entities were to assist in setting up an infrastructure to promote and sell our financial services related products. As I mentioned before, our tender response included the marketing and selling of all of our financial products and services. The BEE deals we concluded were all disclosed including the trusts, companies and individuals involved and each company and their shareholders were checked as per our stringent rules and processes that include full FCPA training, monitoring of adherence to FCPA and signed commitments by all (including our ability to investigate financial statements). We of course wish for our BEE partners to continue with the appropriate level of lobbying at all levels, if they could, as well as to deliver the very critical localised (on the ground) functions. I am sure that all bidders’ BEE partners did and do the same as ours. It must be made clear however that lobbying, marketing, educating, demonstrating (our technology), etc. is legal in all respects and form a very important part of information dissemination. What is illegal in the US play book, is to pay or offer to pay a government official to swing his vote in favour of any solution. This is a serious offence in the USA which can prove expensive for the Company and for criminal charges to be instituted against the perpetrators. As you know, this was, compliments to ABSA, investigated in 2012 onwards by the SEC/FBI and the Hawks (2 cases, one by the DA, I believe, and one by ourselves). We have been cleared by the SEC and Hawks and await the FBI’s final clearance although we have not heard from them for 2 years or so.
Outside of this framework, I cannot shed much more light on any specific person, or companies that may have been or are involved as our BEE partners, with regard to their activities outside of our business initiatives. The decision by the CC to declare our contract with SASSA invalid made it very difficult to implement our business plan in the way it was originally planned. You are aware that if a contract is declared invalid, all clauses in it are invalid. Although the CC then ruled that we could continue to provide a solution until SASSA took over or until March 31, 2017, whichever came first, it unfortunately created massive uncertainty whereby no one was any longer prepared to invest massive amounts of funds not knowing for our long the tender would remain in full force and effect. The duration could have been 2, 3 or 4 years. It was simply not financially viable for any BEE to invest (or obtain funding) to provide the infrastructure they were to build under these difficult and unpredictable circumstances. I cannot comment on Mr Ncwana specifically ( I believe that I have met him a number of times – regarding, amongst other things, the funding of a soccer club – we did not fund it), except that if he did or does form part of our BEE lobbying group and assists with our business objectives, we would have no problem with his involvement or that of any other person(s) for that matter as long as these individuals adhere to FCPA rules and regulations.
Regards
Serge *** Craig McKune <[email protected]> Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 2:17 PM To: [email protected], [email protected] Bcc: Stefaans Brümmer <[email protected]>, Sam Sole <[email protected]> Dear Lumka, I am researching a possible article looking once more at Cash Paymaster’s BEE arrangements. As part of this, my attention was drawn to Lunga Ncwana after we received a number of tipoffs about him. Ncwana is closely tied to CPS’s tendered BEE consortium (Retles, Ekhaya and Born Free) and its actual BEE consortium (Mosomo et al) Retles Trading was plainly not equipped not “manage or execute” the Sassa contract. It consists of two teachers who used to provide textbooks to schools in the Western Cape before running into trouble with Sars and falling on hard times. It was all but liquidated in 2010, before it ran into the Sassa opportunity. The company is located at the house of its owners, Jongi and Bulelwa Makoetlane, literally around the corner from Lunga Ncwana’s mother’s house. Bulelwa and Ncwana know each other well as they grew up together. Ekhaya Skills Development Consultants was also in deregistration before the Sassa deal came along. It purportedly provided “skills training” and also showed no capacity for being able to “manage or execute” the payments of grants. It is nominally owned by Patrick Ntshalintshali’s sister, but he borrowed it for CPS’s consortium for the Sassa contract. Ncwana previously hid behind Ntshalintshali who fronted for him in a BEE deal. The concern is raised that Ncwana hid behind Ntshalintshali in the CPS BEE consortium too. Ncwana’s company Mntungwa is provided as a contact in Mosomo Investment’s company records. Lunga Ncwana and Brian Mosehla are friends – for example, Mosehla was Ncwana’s best man at his wedding. As we know, Patrick Ntshalintshali (Ncwana’s front) worked for Mosomo. Ncwana kept close company with Mosehla when the latter was putting together the BEE deal with Mosomo and CPS. Ncwana's ties to these three BEE partners are unlikely to be coincidental, and they are noteable because Ncwana has a very close relationship with Social Development Minister Bathabile Dlamini. They are in regular contact meet often. This political exposure raises the concern that Ncwana might have used his influence to favour CPS and its BEE partners and benefits might have flowed unduly to undisclosed people. Please can the minister comment? Please can she describe her relationship with Ncwana? Ncwana has met with the minister and discussed aspects of the transition from the CPS contract. Please can the minister explain the context of these meetings and Ncwana’s role. Has he ever provided any benefits to her -­‐-­‐ cash or other? Please explain. Best, Craig McKune amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism +27 71 493 6741 Skype: craigpatrik Twitter: @CraigMcKune *** Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 2:24 PM Craig McKune <[email protected]> To: Kgomoco Diseko <[email protected]> Cc: Paseka Cornelius Letsatsi <[email protected]> Bcc: Stefaans Brümmer <[email protected]>, Sam Sole <[email protected]> Dear Kgomoco and Paseka, As you know, I am researching Cash Paymaster’s BEE arrangements. My attention has been drawn to the role of Lunga Ncwana. He is closely tied to CPS’s BEE partners. Retles Trading was plainly not equipped not “manage or execute” the Sassa contract. It consists of two teachers who used to provide textbooks to schools in the Western Cape before running into trouble with Sars and falling on hard times. It was all but liquidated in 2010, before it ran into the Sassa opportunity. The company is located at the house of Jongi and Bulelwa Makoetlane -­‐-­‐ its owners -­‐-­‐ literally around the corner from Lunga Ncwana’s mother’s house. Bulelwa and Ncwana know each other well as they grew up together. Ekhaya Skills Development Consultants was also in deregistration before the Sassa deal came along. It is another small company that purportedly provides “skills training” and showed no capacity for being able to “manage or execute” the payment of grants. It is nominally owned by Patrick Ntshalintshali’s sister, but he borrowed it for the CPS consortium for the Sassa contract. Ncwana previously hid behind Ntshalintshali who fronted for him in a significant BEE deal. The concern raised is that Ncwana hid behind Ntshalintshali in the CPS BEE consortium too. Ncwana’s company Mntungwa is provided as a contact in Mosomo Investment’s company records. Lunga Ncwana and Brian Mosehla are friends – for example, Mosehla was Ncwana’s best man at his wedding. As we know, Patrick Ntshalintshali (Ncwana’s front) worked for Mosomo. Ncwana kept close company with Mosehla when the latter was putting together the BEE deal with Mosomo and CPS. Ncwana's close ties to CPS’s BEE partners are unlikely to be coincidental, and they are noteable because Ncwana has a very close relationship with Social Development Minister Bathabile Dlamini. The two are in regular contact and meet often. This political exposure raises the concern that Ncwana might have used his influence to favour CPS and its BEE partners and benefits might have flowed unduly to undisclosed people. Please can Sassa comment? Ncwana has met with the minister to discuss aspects of the transition from the CPS contract. What knowledge does Sassa have of this? Please explain his role. Kind regards Craig McKune amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism +27 71 493 6741 Skype: craigpatrik Twitter: @CraigMcKune *** Craig McKune <[email protected]> Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 3:53 PM To: [email protected] Bcc: Stefaans Brümmer <[email protected]>, Sam Sole <[email protected]> Dear Brian I am researching Cash Paymaster’s BEE arrangements again.
My attention has been drawn to the role of Lunga Ncwana.
He is closely tied to all of CPS’s BEE partners.
Retles Trading was plainly not equipped not “manage or execute” the Sassa contract. It consists of two teachers who used to provide textbooks to schools in the Western Cape before running into trouble with Sars and falling on hard times. It was all but liquidated in 2010, before it ran into the Sassa opportunity. The company is located at the house of Jongi and Bulelwa Makoetlane -­‐-­‐ its owners -­‐-­‐ literally around the corner from Lunga Ncwana’s mother’s house. Bulelwa and Ncwana know each other well as they grew up together.
Ekhaya Skills Development Consultants was also in deregistration before the Sassa deal came along. It is another small company that purportedly provides “skills training” and showed no capacity for being able to “manage or execute” the payment of grants. It is nominally owned by Patrick Ntshalintshali’s sister, but he borrowed it for the CPS consortium for the Sassa contract. Ncwana previously hid behind Ntshalintshali who fronted for him in a significant BEE deal. The concern raised is that Ncwana hid behind Ntshalintshali in the CPS BEE consortium too. Ncwana’s company Mntungwa is provided as a contact in Mosomo Investment’s company records. Lunga Ncwana and your good friend, as you know. As we know, Patrick Ntshalintshali (Ncwana’s front) worked for Mosomo. Ncwana kept close company with you when you were putting together the BEE deal with Mosomo and CPS. Ncwana's close ties to CPS’s BEE partners are unlikely to be coincidental, and they are noteable because Ncwana has a very close relationship with Social Development Minister Bathabile Dlamini. The two are in regular contact and meet often. This political exposure raises the concern that Ncwana might have used his influence to favour CPS and its BEE partners in that benefits might have flowed unduly to politicians and officials for this purpose. Please can you comment and explain Lunga Ncwana’s role?
Kind regards Craig McKune amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism +27 71 493 6741 Skype: craigpatrik Twitter: @CraigMcKune *** Lumka Oliphant <[email protected]>
To: Craig McKune <[email protected]>
Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 5:53 PM
>
>
>
> Dear Craig
>
> You have put it very well that you are researching for an article and maybe your research has led you to
the wrong door.
> You covered the SASSA court case extensively and some if not most of your questions were dealt with
during the case. It would be to your advantage to go back to the different judgments by the different courts
on the BEE partner of CPS.
> We are aware that you have been pestering and harassing different employees of SASSA to try and
confirm this information you believe you have uncovered.
> You went even further to ask for off the record briefings from Executives of SASSA, a right you have as
a journalist.
> You have alluded to a close relationship and I would like to believe that a journalist of your calibre
would be able to substantiate this claim and ask direct questions as a matter of fact.
> You further ask about the transition and about meetings based on hearsay. It is difficult to respond to
hearsay. It looks like one is being subjected to the court of public opinion.
> You must be commended for being bold.
>
>
*** ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Craig McKune <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:54 PM
Subject: amaB q in respect of Sassa and Mosehla's payoff
To: Serge Belamant <[email protected]>, Herman Kotze <[email protected]>, Nanda
<[email protected]>, [email protected]
Dear Serge and Herman,
Thank you again for your responses so far.
There is another matter that I am considering reporting. It is the manner in which, through a
series of trades, you handed Brian Mosehla $7.8-million in 2014.
He took no risk at all in the deal, appears to have done no work nor added any value and in
four months walked off with the money plus lucrative CPS shares.
You appear to have timed the various agreements with developments in the Constitutional
Court so that Net 1 sold low and bought high, leaving Mosehla rich and your shareholders
poorer.
The deal seems to be commercially inexplicable, therefore, it seems likely that decisions were
taken for ulterior purposes.
But I would like to hear your explanation please.
1. Please comment on and explain if and why you dispute the conclusions above and below?
2. You signed the LOI with Mosehla in November 2013 at a 25% discount to the share price,
with Net 1 agreeing to “lend” the money to Mosehla. These are substantially better terms for
Mosehla than the 2012 deal which was 15% and he had to raise his own funding. The 2013
terms seem exceptionally generous. Please comment?
3. When the US SEC asked you in March 2015 essentially the same question as my #2, you
told them it was because Mosehla’s shares were locked in, hence the discount. But that was
materially misleading: You failed to disclose to them that in August 2014, you had already
bought out Mosehla completely, so the lock-in was inconsequential. Please comment and
explain.
4. Because, in Sassa’s eyes, CPS had already tendered a BEE consortium (Born Free, Ekhaya
and Retles), you did not need a BEE partner at Net 1 level. There appears to be no
commercially rational reason for why your shareholders should have forked out for Mosehla.
Please explain?
5. When you signed the letter of intent, you set a deadline of December 1 2013, a Sunday, for
the relationship agreement to be signed. Of course the ConCourt issued its merits judgment
on the Friday, and the share price was sure to tank the next week. It did and you missed your
deadline by nine days without offering any explanation to shareholders. You waited and then
signed the BEE deal at the rock-bottom price of R60 per share. It appears as if you traded on
the timing of the court judgment. Please comment?
6. Before issuing the shares, you extended your January deadline to March and then again to
April. The only non-waivable condition precedent to the issuing of those shares was SARB
approval. It is a remarkable coincidence that -- after five months delay – this condition was
met on the eve of the judgment. And this date is according to your regulatory filing which
was actually made two weeks later and backdated. It suggests you only made the decision to
retrospectively issue those shares once it was clear from the remedies judgment that, with
Sassa’s help, you had a chance of keeping the tender (The loophole in the judgment by which
Sassa could elect not to award the new tender). Please comment and explain.
7. Indeed, Sassa officials themselves admitted this week that the cancelled 2015 tender
contained “unrealistic” terms – no doubt chief among them the low fee demand of R14.50 vs
CPS's current R16.44. Predictably they received no serious bids, and the concern is that this
was by deliberate design to favour CPS and its BEE partners. Please comment.
8. Another remarkable coincidence is that just days after Sassa irregularly paid CPS R275million – based on Sassa’s and your clear misrepresentation of the contract – you bailed out
Mosehla and extinguished his “loan” for almost exactly the same amount. It suggests this
R275m payment was designed to cover Net 1’s shortfall for having to bankroll a
commercially inexplicable BEE deal. Please comment.
9. You bought out Mosehla completely in August 2014, netting him $7.8-million for his
pocket and lucrative shares in CPS. He had not put down a penny, he took no risk, he did no
work and he brought no discernible BEE value to Net 1 whose only SA contract was with
CPS, which had its own BEE consortium. It is absolutely unclear why Net 1 and its
shareholders gave him this money. Please comment.
10. There is one more remarkable coincidence: Just one month after Mosehla’s payday, his
good friend and the minister’s confidante Lunga Ncwana bought himself a R28-million house
in Bishopscourt. The concern is that Mosehla paid him off for lobbying Sassa and the
minister. Please comment.
11. In sum, it looks like Sassa and Minister Dlamini bent over backwards to favour CPS,
which in turn channeled huge benefits to BEE partners linked to the minister. If you do not
think this is a fair interpretation, please explain why.
Kind regards,
Craig McKune
amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism
+27 71 493 6741
Skype: craigpatrik
Twitter: @CraigMcKune
*** Craig McKune <[email protected]> Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:56 PM To: Lumka Oliphant <[email protected]>, [email protected], Paseka Cornelius Letsatsi <[email protected]>, Kgomoco Diseko <[email protected]> Dear all, Please can Sassa and the minister respond to these same questions [AS ABOVE, IRO MOSEHLA AND $7.8M], which contain very serious allegations against them, by Monday 12pm. Best Craig McKune amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism +27 71 493 6741 Skype: craigpatrik Twitter: @CraigMcKune NOT ANSWERED BY SASSA OR DLAMINI *** ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Serge Belamant <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 6:19 PM
Subject: RE: amaB q in respect of Sassa and Mosehla's payoff
To: Craig McKune <[email protected]>, Herman Kotze <[email protected]>,
Nanda <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Cc: Serge Belamant <[email protected]>
Dear Craig
You give all this too much thought and read too much into everything except the obvious. If you were part of our company and our board and discuss our business dealings with our bankers, attorneys, etc. you would understand the logic of what we did and the justification thereof.
Sometimes things are complicated because they are and not because of any other reason.
We wanted to do a BEE deal (we believe in BEE for RSA that is tangible and realistic) which would allow our BEEs to be empowered without debt as soon as possible. Our BEE agreements gave us (not the BEE) the right to extinguish the BEE loan by clawing back their shares when the share price doubled in value. This actually happened (difficult to predict, else we would all be very wealthy) so we called for the loan to be extinguished by recalling about 50% of the shares issued to our BEE (there are tax issues to be considered as well, not tax evasion but tax optimization just in case you go off at a tangent). In 2014 (check the date in case I got it wrong) SASSA went to tender again (constitutional court ruling). We felt that it would be prudent to have empowerment at the CPS level as well, which resulted in us swapping Net1 shares for CPS shares and some cash. Please note that building a BEE group requires resources for it to be able to grow its businesses which businesses may not be the same as line as ours (diversification -­‐ business principle). Once the tender was issued and we got sight of it, we decided not to tender (published). The tender was then cancelled. Our BEEs continue with their shareholding in CPS. When you make a statement like “he took no risk at all” you are right. BEE deals are based on offering discounts and payment structures where the BEE group does not take any real commercial risk except that of losing (giving back) what was given to them (also some reputational risk). In this case, swapping to CPS from Net1 may still prove a bad decision for our BEEs to have made when we lose the business (April 2017) as their shares in CPS may well be worth far less than they are worth today. Net1 shares however may also suffer as a result, but only temporarily as we have diversified our business and continue to grow both locally and internationally. If our SASSA work terminates on April 1, 2017, the Net1 share would have been a better bet for our BEE; by definition therefore, this would prove to be better for our own shareholders. Since you are investigating, can I suggest you spend some time on how well we have delivered for the last 4.5 years. This was never discussed at the CC or anytime afterwards. Surely this is more important than BEE or what deal they made or what BEE laws and regulations dictate. Your investigative scent should rather be focused on tender awards where BEE deals are done but there is no delivery by the bidder let alone its BEE (there are many of those). You are chasing the wrong rabbit here. This one is as white as can be (no racism intended).
By the way, I am surprised at your comment about leaving shareholders poorer. Is BEE not designed for companies to build black business by offering them stock at preferential rates which by definition means that all BEE deals must be bad for shareholders? Would my company offer me shares at BEE rates? No they would not. BEE is about rebuilding RSA and a black business class ; It is an investment in our country’s future! I do not and will not ever insult my black partners by referring to them as my BEE partners. They are my business partners who can bring certain skills we do not possess. These skills include RSA knowledge under the new regime, enterprise memory, understanding the state of mind of RSA leaders and of its people, understanding the issues facing our country (what are the problems and where could we help), understanding the many languages spoken, the cultural heritage of our ethnic groups, how to implement local infrastructure, etc. these are areas of knowhow for which many companies pay large amounts for consulting firms to provide their views. It is our view that our BEEs are much better and far more accurate. Regards
Serge *** Craig McKune <[email protected]> Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:45 PM To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Bcc: Stefaans Brümmer <[email protected]>, Sam Sole <[email protected]> Hi again Brian and Brian, Please could Brian Mosehla answer these questions too, originally addressed to Net 1, but they apply to him. By Monday please. Best Craig McKune amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism +27 71 493 6741 Skype: craigpatrik Twitter: @CraigMcKune ***
Craig McKune <[email protected]> Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 7:42 PM To: Patrick Ntshalintshali <[email protected]> Bcc: Stefaans Brümmer <[email protected]>, Sam Sole <[email protected]> Dear Patrick, Please see my questions in the email below to Brian. Please respond to these as they apply to you. Further, I'd like to raise a matter of serious concern: You told me bald-­‐faced lies previously. In February 2012 I asked if you were involved with your sister's company Ekhaya and the CPS BEE deal. Our conversation: “Nah. Not at all. I’m not involved in this deal at all. I was not invited. Well I would have liked to have been invited. I’m just advising Brian. [Your sister is on the board of Ekhaya]. She was invited. I’m not invited. My company’s Mntungwa. Mntungwa is in property development [And Coal of Africa]. And Coal of Africa and [inaudible] mining services. … [Mosomo, what is it’s link to Mvela?] When we did the Coal of Africa deal, Brian was the shareholder. Mvelaphanda had nothing to do with Mosomo. That’s Brian’s company – he set it up. … [And is there nothing to made of the fact that your sister was on the CPS BEE consortium] Nah. No nothing... [And who is Lisa Marks?] Who? [Lisa Marks] She’s our old secretary. [For who?] For … sorry? For Mntungwa. [Why would she be listed on the Mosomo share register as a contact?] [Silence] Wellllllll I have a Johannesburg office and then she sits in my office. I don’t know why. I’ll have to ask Brian that question. Maybe it’s because of the Coal of Africa deal. Remember Mosomo and Mntungwa shared that account.” * You were involved in the CPS BEE deal. Your sister assigned you power of attorney. You attended Sassa briefings for Ekhaya. You provided your address, not the company business address on tender documents, etc. * Mntungwa is owned by Lunga Ncwana. * I have seen Och Ziff's investment memoranda and Lunga (using you as a front) and Brian were acting as a BEE front for $40m US hedge fund... which recently pled guilty to violating the FCPA. * Mvelaphanda was party to an agreement among Och-­‐Ziff, AGC, and Coal of Africa regarding the same structure. * Lisa Marks' Mntungwa domain name was registered 10 months after the Coal of Africa deal. So there must be another explanation. Questions: Please comment. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Please comment. You were clearly also acting as a front for Lunga Ncwana in the Net 1 deal. Please comment. What was the percentage split ownership between Mosomo and Mntungwa in Firefly? Why did AGC need to use Lunga Ncwana as its front in the Coal of Africa deal? Why did Lunga Ncwana need to hide behind you in the Coal of Africa deal? Please can you give me Lunga Ncwana's contact details so I can pose the same questions to him. I tried his front door, but he had me frog-­‐marched from his pavement. Kind regards, Craig McKune amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism +27 71 493 6741 Skype: craigpatrik Twitter: @CraigMcKune ***
Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:07 PM
Patrick Ntshalintshali <[email protected]>
To: Craig McKune <[email protected]>
Clearly in your books the only person that tells and knows the truth is you Craig. The SA courts, FBI and
SEC are incompetent to you. Continue to create as many stories in your mind as you possibly can.
Just leave me out of it.
So stop harassing me. Never email or talk to me again.
Wish you well
*** Brian Mosehla <[email protected]>
To: Craig McKune <[email protected]>
Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:08 PM
Hi Craig,
herefind the register you have been harassing me for, i think we need to have an arrangement that i send
one to you every december.
i suggest this approach because it will stop this bi-annual harassment.
lastly, i would appreciate if you stop contacting me, i am very disappointed in your journalism and wish
you well in righting untrue facts about me.
***
Craig McKune <[email protected]> Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:50 PM To: Brian Mosehla <[email protected]> Bcc: Stefaans Brümmer <[email protected]>, Sam Sole <[email protected]>, Karabo Rajuili <[email protected]> Thank you kindly Brian, Okay so am I correct that when Net 1 bought out your shares -­‐-­‐ that you got for free and turned over in four months -­‐-­‐ leaving you with $7.8m in cash plus millions in annual free cash flows from CPS, that was all for one man? Or for your trust, which I understand benefits you. Were there no broad-­‐based beneficiaries this time? I am still not clear what value you brought to CPS to earn this? Can you explain? I noticed that Lunga Ncwana bought a R28m house a month later -­‐-­‐ Had you shared any of your Net1 proceeds with him? Did you share with anyone else? Who? Best Craig Craig McKune amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism +27 71 493 6741 Skype: craigpatrik Twitter: @CraigMcKune NOT ANSWERED BY MOSEHLA *** Brian Kahn <[email protected]> Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Craig McKune <[email protected]> Cc: Jonet Crone <[email protected]>, Zandile Hlongwane <[email protected]> Our offices will close for the holiday season on Tuesday, 20 December 2016, and will re-­
open on Monday, 9 January 2017. Craig 1
This firm has been retained by Mr Raymond Lunga Ncwana and Mr Brian Kgomotso Mosehla and
have been instructed to address you in regard to the matters referred to in an email addressed by you dated
2 December 2016 at 19h42 to Mr Patrick Ntshalintshali.
2
At the outset we must make it absolutely clear that what is referred to hereunder is not intended to
be exhaustive of all matters and things affecting the issues and our client’s rights to deal therewith in due
course and if necessary in the appropriate forum are expressly reserved.
3
In the aforesaid email you state, inter alia, the following:-
“I have seen Och Ziff’s investment memoranda and Lunga (using you as a front) and Brian were acting as
a BEE front for $40m US hedge fund... which recently pled guilty to violating the FCPA” (the bold
print and the underlining is yours – not ours).
4
The “Lunga and Brian” to which there is reference therein is clearly a reference to our aforesaid
clients.
5
5.1
We have been instructed by our clients to place the following on record:-
they were not “acting as a BEE front for $40m US hedge fund” as you alleged; and
5.2
the “hedge fund” in question (which our clients assume based on, inter alia, your investigative
endeavours during 2013 is the Och Ziff Hedge Fund) did not plead guilty to violating the FCPA; it
pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA.
6
Your above quoted assertions are vague and misleading but whatever criticisms one can level
against same, the essence thereof insofar as our clients are concerned is that they acted “as a BEE front”
in the circumstances as alleged by you (to the extent that the circumstances are identified) which is in any
event denied.
7
Against the aforesaid backdrop, should you or any publication seek to publish allegations of and
concerning our clients which are (1) of a defamatory nature and/or (2) adversely impact upon their good
names and reputations and/or (3) attack or adversely impact on their constitutional rights to, inter alia,
privacy and dignity, so you will render yourself – and the publications in question – liable and
accountable to our clients.
8
Please note that I am being assisted in this matter by my colleague, Jonet Crone, and her candidate
attorney, Zandile Hlongwane, and that any email addressed to me should please be copied to them and
vice versa. Their particulars are as set forth thereunder:-
Jonet Crone
Direct telephone number:
Mobile number:
Email address:
011 577 5620
072 779 6680
[email protected]
Zandile Hlongwane
Direct telephone number:
Mobile number:
Email address:
Sincerely Brian Kahn 011 577 5632
073 890 5184
[email protected]
Managing Director *** Craig McKune <[email protected]> Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:58 PM To: Brian Kahn <[email protected]>, Jonet Crone <[email protected]>, Zandile Hlongwane <[email protected]>, [email protected] Bcc: Stefaans Brümmer <[email protected]>, Sam Sole <[email protected]>, Karabo Rajuili <[email protected]> Dear Brian, Thank you for your response regarding the Och-­‐Ziff plea. By way of follow up: 1. What work did Mr Mosehla do in the DRC for African Global Capital, Africa Management Limited, Palladino, Mvelaphanda and/or Och Ziff? 2. Have your clients Mr Mosehla and Mr Ncwana been contacted by any US authorities in respect of their respective investigations into a. Och Ziff b. Gold Fields c. Net 1? And in each case are you able to provide any details? 3. I copied two sets of questions to you earlier for Mr Mosehla. I received no response. I copy a third query to Mr Mosehla below. I invite you to respond to all three of these on both Mr Mosehla and Mr Ncwana's behalf (he declined to speak to me when I approached him a while back). 4. For Mr Ncwana, we have received tipoffs from numerous people, including that Mr Ncwana -­‐ was involved in the 2012 Sassa tender with Mr Mosehla and Mr Ntshalintshali -­‐ is very close to Minister Dlamini. She’s alway at his place. -­‐ entertained Minister Dlamini and former Minister Sexwale at his Bishopscourt home -­‐ has a "business" relationship with the minister, not romantic -­‐ was "always around" Brian in 2012 while he was working on aspects of the Net 1 deal and the Sassa contract -­‐ tells Minister Dlamini what to do -­‐ paid for Minister Dlamini's Travelgate fine -­‐ advised Minister Dlamini who to appoint to advise on the grants payment transition -­‐ recommended that Minister Dlamini appoint Patrick Monyeki to the above task -­‐ has attended meetings with Dlamini on Sassa and DSD matters even though he has no official role at either entity -­‐ had discussions and negotiations with Serge Belamant about aspects of the Sassa tender and BEE deals a. Please comment and explain. b. The implication is that Mr Ncwana has influence over a minister who was party to the award of a tender that involved his contacts (Mr Ntshalintshali, Ms Mokoetlane and Mr Mosehla) and that this looks like a serious conflict of interest. Please comment and explain. c. It raises the concern that Minister Dlamini specifically favoured CPS so that its BEE partners and her close acquaintance might benefit -­‐-­‐ a corrupt relationship. Please comment and explain. d. Please can Mr Ncwana explain his relationship with the minister e. Please can Mr Ncwana explain his relationship with Mosomo, Business Venture Investments 1567, Mr Mosehla, Ekhaya Skills Development, Patrick Ntshalintshali, Retles Trading and Mr and Mrs Mokoetlane. 5. Please can Mr Ncwana describe his business relationship with EOH? Please can you respond by 12pm Friday. Best Craig McKune amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism +27 71 493 6741 Skype: craigpatrik Twitter: @CraigMcKune NOT ANSWERED BY NCWANA, MOSEHLA OR KAHN *** Craig McKune <[email protected]> Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 6:01 PM To: Lumka Oliphant <[email protected]>, [email protected], Kgomoco Diseko <[email protected]>, Paseka Cornelius Letsatsi <[email protected]> Dear all, Please note the questions below [ABOVE, PERTAINING TO MOSEHLA, NCWANA AND THE MINISTER] as they pertain to Sassa -­‐-­‐ please feel free to respond further as you see fit. We have already dealt with these issues, but there are some more specific allegations regarding Minister Dlamini and Lunga Ncwana, and I would like to hear her response to these. Please respond by 12pm Friday Best Craig McKune amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism +27 71 493 6741 Skype: craigpatrik Twitter: @CraigMcKune NOT ANSWERED BY SASSA ***