ActionSA is not convinced that Minister of Justice, Thembi Simelane, has adequately answered critical questions posed in the Justice Portfolio Committee meeting today, which we believe vindicates our call for the Minister to face these questions in a court of law where mere protestations of innocence do not suffice. The recent search and seizure warrant issued reinforces this belief.
As we await the Public Protector’s final determination next Wednesday on how she intends to deal with our complaint, ActionSA contends that today’s Portfolio Committee meeting was nothing more than a ‘talk shop”, as we expected, and that this matter is best ventilated by an independent investigation by the Public Protector or in a court of law.
ActionSA exposed and observed numerous inconsistencies in the Minister’s explanations of how, during her tenure as Mayor of the Polokwane Municipality, she personally took a so-called “loan” from the same allegedly corrupt investment brokerage, namely Gundo Wealth Solutions, that facilitated the unlawful investment of R349 million from the Municipality into the now-collapsed VBS Bank.
It is well-established that the said investment brokerage was not a registered financial service provider, making it implausible that the supposed “loan” of R575,600 to the Minister was above board, which she now claims to have repaid with an additional staggering R274,399 in interest above the capital loan amount loan amount.
This exorbitant 47% interest above the principal “loan” over a relatively short term raises further suspicion and demands more intense scrutiny, as no credible financial advisor should ever propose such a punitive transaction to a ‘client’, which is why we have requested the Minister to furnish us with the loan agreement and the business acquisition agreement.
Beyond the above issues of concern, we have raised questions about the relevant declarations that should have been made about this loan and ownership of the said business that was purchased from the loan proceeds, yet these declarations remain elusive.
Given these numerous concerns and the Minister’s lack of detailed, coherent and fully substantiated responses during her appearance before the Portfolio Committee appearance, we remain of the belief that this matter is best served by scrutiny of the Public Protector and a court of law.
Minister Simelane’s Appearance before Justice Committee Nothing More Than a Talk Shop
ActionSA is not convinced that Minister of Justice, Thembi Simelane, has adequately answered critical questions posed in the Justice Portfolio Committee meeting today, which we believe vindicates our call for the Minister to face these questions in a court of law where mere protestations of innocence do not suffice. The recent search and seizure warrant issued reinforces this belief.
As we await the Public Protector’s final determination next Wednesday on how she intends to deal with our complaint, ActionSA contends that today’s Portfolio Committee meeting was nothing more than a ‘talk shop”, as we expected, and that this matter is best ventilated by an independent investigation by the Public Protector or in a court of law.
ActionSA exposed and observed numerous inconsistencies in the Minister’s explanations of how, during her tenure as Mayor of the Polokwane Municipality, she personally took a so-called “loan” from the same allegedly corrupt investment brokerage, namely Gundo Wealth Solutions, that facilitated the unlawful investment of R349 million from the Municipality into the now-collapsed VBS Bank.
It is well-established that the said investment brokerage was not a registered financial service provider, making it implausible that the supposed “loan” of R575,600 to the Minister was above board, which she now claims to have repaid with an additional staggering R274,399 in interest above the capital loan amount loan amount.
This exorbitant 47% interest above the principal “loan” over a relatively short term raises further suspicion and demands more intense scrutiny, as no credible financial advisor should ever propose such a punitive transaction to a ‘client’, which is why we have requested the Minister to furnish us with the loan agreement and the business acquisition agreement.
Beyond the above issues of concern, we have raised questions about the relevant declarations that should have been made about this loan and ownership of the said business that was purchased from the loan proceeds, yet these declarations remain elusive.
Given these numerous concerns and the Minister’s lack of detailed, coherent and fully substantiated responses during her appearance before the Portfolio Committee appearance, we remain of the belief that this matter is best served by scrutiny of the Public Protector and a court of law.