Funds given to Absa must be recovered

REPORT REVEAL: Busisiwe Mkhwebane releases reports on various investigations in Pretoria
Picture: AFP

Government ‘acted against constitution in ignoring 1997 report’

The government breached its constitutional duty to spend public funds wisely when it made no effort to act on the findings of a 1997 report which alleged the South African Reserve Bank irregularly gifted Absa R1.125-billion.

This was among the findings released by public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane in her first major report reveal yesterday, in which she also ordered that the Special Investigating Unit recover the funds from the bank.

The highly anticipated CIEX investigation findings have been seven years in the making.

The investigation emanated from a complaint laid by Advocate Paul Hoffman‚ who questioned why the government had spent £600 000 (R9.95- million) contracting a company to investigate the circumstances surrounding a loan made by the Reserve Bank to Absa predecessor Bankorp.

The deal‚ conducted in the dying years of apartheid between 1985 and 1992‚ was referred to as a lifeboat and was never repaid. The report‚ compiled by UK-based recovery and investigations agency CIEX‚ alleged that R24-billion was unlawfully given to Bankorp.

At the time, CIEX advised the Mandela administration that it could recoup the funds. “The correct amount of the illegal gift granted to Bankorp Limited/Absa bank is in the amount of R1.125-billion,” Mkhwebane said. “Two investigations into the matter established that the financial aid given to Bankorp/Absa was irregular.”

In response to the findings‚ Absa said it had met all its obligations in respect of the loan provided by the Reserve Bank by October 1995.

“It is our firm position that there is no obligation to pay anything to the South African government‚” it said. The bank was studying the report and would consider its legal options‚ including seeking a high court review, it said.

Absa acquired Bankorp in April 1992. Absa had submitted to the public protector in January that there was a misunderstanding on the part of the public protector regarding the contracts that were signed between Absa and the Reserve Bank after Absa had bought Bankorp.

Mkhwebane said the government’s spending on a report that was never used was contrary to the principles of Batho Pele in that there was no value for money.

She said the government’s inaction was in contravention of Section 195 of the constitution‚ which called for the public administration to be governed with high value for ethics, and for the promotion of efficient‚ economic and effective use of resources.

Allegations that South Africans were prejudiced by the conduct of the government and the Reser ve Bank were substantiated, she said.

Hoffman‚ who lodged the complaint on behalf of the Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa in 2010‚ welcomed the findings, saying his complaint had been vindicated.

“We have waited seven years for this. We complained that not following up on the CIEX report was a waste of public money,” he said.

Mkhwebane said the money given to Absa belonged to citizens‚ and failure to recover the gift resulted in prejudice as these funds could have benefited the broader society instead of a handful of Absa shareholders.

She has referred the matter to the Special Investigating Unit to recover the “misappropriated public funds unlawfully given to Absa bank”.

She has also instructed the SIU to approach President Jacob Zuma to reopen and amend Proclamation R47 of 1998‚ to facilitate the investigation and recovery process.

Mkhwebane ordered the Reserve Bank to cooperate fully with the SIU in the recovery.

She recommended that the chairperson of the portfolio committee on justice and correctional services initiate a process of amending Section 224 of the constitution.

The section deals with the SARB’s primary objectives. Section 224 (1) reads: “The primary object of the South African Reserve Bank is to protect the value of the currency in the interest of balanced and sustainable economic growth in the Republic.”

Mkhwebane said it should instead read: “The primary object of the South African Reserve Bank is to promote balanced and sustainable economic growth in the Republic‚ while ensuring the socio-economic well-being of the citizens is protected.”

Section 224 (2) reads: “The [SARB], in pursuit of its primary object‚ must perform its functions independently and without fear‚ favour or prejudice‚ but there must be regular consultation between the bank and the cabinet member responsible for national financial matters.”

Mkhwebane said it should instead read: “The [SARB], in pursuit of its primary object‚ must perform its functions independently and without fear‚ favour or prejudice‚ while ensuring that there must be regular consultation between the bank and parliament to achieve meaningful socioeconomic transformation.”

Hoffman said he suspected the re c – ommendation that the constitution be amended to include protecting citizens’ socio-economic conditions was beyond Mkhwebane’s powers.

Leave a Reply