Complaints against Mrs Winnie Mandela and Mr Mandla Msomi

Meeting report

ETHICS AND MEMBERS'INTERESTS JOINT COMMITTEE
8 May 2002
COMPLAINTS AGAINST MRS WINNIE MANDELA AND MR MANDLA MSOMI

Chairperson: Mr L Landers (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Report on Mrs NW Madikizela-Mandela (see Appendix 1)
Second Report on the complaint against Mr M Msomi (see Appendix 2)
Correspondence from Msomi
Submission to Court by Winnie Mandela
Correspondence From Daimler Chrysler

SUMMARY
The Committee resolved that both Mrs Winnie Mandela and Mr Msomi should appear before a five member sub-committee to explain the inconsistencies in their statements. In Mrs Mandela's case the Committee feel that there is a contradiction between the letter she wrote to the Committee and the court records when she applied for bail. Mr Msomi was not suspended by the Inkatha Freedom Party and his party representative supported him by saying that the inconsistencies can be explained to the Registrar verbally. The Committee strongly felt that they should be consistent with their decision to summon transgressors to give the necessary evidence.

MINUTES
Report on Mrs Mandela
The Committee wrote a letter to Mrs Mandela requesting her to submit documentation that indicates that she has no financial interest in the Mandela Family Museum but it is alleged that she did not collect the registered mail and the correspondence was subsequently returned to the sender. It was forwarded by the Committee to the Chief Whip and Mrs Mandela's office. Simultaneously the Committee instructed the Registrar to obtain the transcripts of her bail application. It has actually been established that the records state that she has made a sworn statement claiming that her expenditure far exceeds her income and that she is being supported by friends, family and supporters. She failed to disclose this to the Committee. It was also found on the Internet that she has registered the Winnie Mandela Family Museum in July 2001, which she subsequently failed to disclose in her submission to the Committee in September 2001.

On the strength of the Registrar's report the Committee felt that she should be summoned to appear before a five member committee in terms of Section 3.1 of the Procedure for the Investigation of Complaints.( See report)

Report on Mr M Msomi
The Committee needs to ascertain the facts behind the press reports about the alleged discount on the luxury cars given to Mr Msomi by the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), which Mr Msomi allegedly did not disclose to the Committee. The inconsistencies found in the in the various correspondence between the Committee, Registrar and Msomi was found not to be satisfactory. It was agreed that for the sake of consistency Mr Msomi should also be summoned to appear before the Committee as in the case of Mrs Mandela.

Discussion
Mr K Van der Merwe (IFP) said in order to avoid the hearing on Mr Msomi he would contact him personally to make the necessary documents available and if he refuses then the law can take its course.

Mr C Aucamp (AEB) suggested that three members should assist the Registrar to get the motivation and clarity from Mr Msomi so as to avoid the hearing, which is tantamount to a judicial process.

Mr EK Moorcroft (DP) said that it can be done if, and only if, Mr van der Merwe can bring his member to the Registrar.

The Chairperson asked that Members be consistent when dealing with the issue.

Mr Moorcroft agreed to a need for consistency because the allegations of non-disclosure are similar therefore they cannot be handled differently.

Mr Van der Merwe said the IFP has not held a hearing against Mr Msomi as his case is different from that of Mrs Mandela. She cannot be located for the documents to be served on her personally.

Ms TP Shilubane (ANC) asked what the difference is between calling a hearing and inviting Mr Msomi to see the Registrar because Mr van der Merwe has already been complaining of delays around the matter.

Mr Aucamp said he is advising the Committee not to call it a hearing because that may have legal implications.

The Chairperson said according to his assessment enough consensus has been reached and the popular feeling is that Mr Msomi should be called to a hearing.

Mr Van der Merwe asked whether the two Members can be represented by a lawyer.

The Chairperson said that is not the procedure they can be accompanied by any member when attending the hearings.

The meeting was adjourned.

Appendix 1:
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Report on Mrs NW Winnie Madikizela Mandela.
08 May 2002

At its meeting on the 19 February 2002, the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members Interests instructed the Registrar to obtain the full transcripts of the bail application records regarding the alleged receipt of donations.

The Committee further agreed that Mrs. Mandela be asked to submit any documentation in her possession to indicate that she has no financial interests in the Mandela Family Museum. Mrs Mandela did not collect the registered mail that was sent to her immediately after the Committee meeting.

The Post Office returned the correspondence, which was subsequently forwarded, to the Chief Whip with a request that the correspondence be forwarded to Mrs Mandela. The mail was also forwarded to Mrs Mandela's office.

In terms of the Committee instruction at its meeting on 19 February 2002, the Registrar obtained the bail application made by Mrs Mandela. In her statement to the court she said that she received donations to cover the shortfall of income.

The sworn statement made by Mrs Mandela in court contradicts her letter to the Committee. In terms of Section 3.1 of the Procedure for the Investigation of complaints the Committee must call a hearing when the facts are in dispute.

Recommendations
It is recommended that Mrs Mandela be called to a hearing to explain the inconsistencies in her statement to the Committee and her sworn statement to the court.

In an internet search of the South African Companies Regulatory Office it was revealed that the Winnie Mandela Family Museum was registered on the 3 July 2001, Mrs Mandela disclosed her financial interests on 19 September 2001. Mrs Mandela was therefore required to disclose her financial interest and did not do so. It is recommended that she be asked to explain the omission.

Sections of the Procedure for Investigation in event of a hearing is as follows:

2.1 In the event of a hearing being held, the member and the complainant must be given a minimum of 10 days' notice. At this stage any prospective witnesses must be notified.
3. Hearings
3.1 Hearings must be held when the facts are in dispute. The Committee may decide to call a hearing if the investigation of the Registrar is inconclusive or if the Registrar is unable to make a recommendation or if the Committee decides that a hearing should be held.
3.2 The hearing will be on an inquisitorial basis and witnesses may be called.

3.3 In each case the committee has the discretion regarding the weight to be attached to different forms of evidence and the extent of cross-examination of witnesses.

3.4 The member must be notified of his/her right to be represented by another member, to call material witnesses and have an interpreter present.

3.5 The fill committee may preside at the hearing. The Committee may appoint from its members a panel for the hearing provided that every political party is entitled to be present. [Decision required on this]

3.6 The Registrar presents the evidence on behalf of the Committee.

3.7 The Registrar may call witnesses.

3.8 The proceedings will be recorded.

3.9 The proceedings remain confidential until the Committee tables its report.

3.10 The Committee will decide in each circumstance on issues related to costs for witnesses and complainants.

3.11 The Committee must make a fill and considered finding supported by reasons on the validity of any complaint at the conclusion of its investigations, which it must make public, together with any sanction imposed, and must, if the hearing was in closed session, also supply an adequate summary of the facts. The findings of the Committee must be reported to the relevant House of Parliament within seven days of a hearing or, if the House is in recess, within seven days of the date on which it resumes business.

3.12 In conducting hearings, the Committee may adopt any procedures it deems reasonable, just and fair.

Appendix 2:
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND MEMBERS' INTERESTS

REPORT NO 3 ON THE COMPLAINT AGAINST MR M MSOMI.
03 May 2002.

On the 19 February 2002, the Committee agreed that the Registrar put the following questions to Mr M Msomi regarding the alleged receipt of a discount that was not disclosed.

1. Why was the vehicle LWD 3.9 RODEO Chassis number K35JNRTE 006104 purchased through MM Worfel as indicated on the invoice?
2. Did you receive any discount over and above a normal trade discount on the vehicle?
3. Did receive any preferential discount because you are an MP or because of your role as Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises?
4. Who was paid for the vehicle?
5. The media have indicated that you corresponded directly with Mr Worfel regarding the service of the motor vehicle, if this is correct why did you not deal directly with the dealer? Please submit any correspondence in this regard to the Committee?
6. With regard to the purchase of the Auto Elegan V6 Chassis number 2100656A 433202 can you please explain why the car was invoiced in 1998 and the price calculated in 1997?
7. The workshop enquiry report states that the Pretoria fleet sold the car on the 15 September 1997. Can you explain why the car was invoiced on the 25 July 1998?
8. Can you provide the Committee with the motor vehicle registration papers and the transfer of ownership papers for both motor vehicles?
9. Can you also provide the Committee with copies of your motor vehicle HP agreements if motor vehicles were paid by other means, please furnish the Committee with the appropriate documentation?
10. Can you please indicate what year the vehicles were manufactured?
11. Can you indicate what the kilometres of both cars were on the date of purchases and the condition of both vehicles?

Mr Msomi in his response denies any improper conduct, and states that he purchased the vehicles at market value. Mr Msomi did not submit any documents verifying his statements.

On request from the Registrar, Mr Msomi submitted on 29 April 2002 copies of the financing agreements he has with Wesbank.

These documents reveal that the purchase prices of the vehicles contained in the invoices that Mr Msomi submitted to the Committee does not match the amount paid in the finance agreements.

The documents also reveal that Mr Msomi only signed the finance agreements on the 24 February 1999.

The documents show that the Colt Rodeo was invoiced at R 121 811.00, however the agreed selling price in terms of the finance agreement was R102 435.00, the documentation further indicates that there was no deposit or trade in

The Auto Elegan was invoiced at R50 000.00, the purchase price according to the finance in this instance was R195 988.00 there was also no trade in or cash deposit.

To facilitate the work of the Committee Mr Msomi was asked to clarify the differences in the cost of the vehicles and to explain why the finance agreements were only signed in February 1999.

Mr Msomi's states that he only took ownership of the motor vehicles in December 1998.

Mr Msomi further states that the differences in price between the invoice and the finance agreement indicate the depreciation in the value of the car from the invoice date to the date the finance agreements were signed.

The Committee in its consideration of the matter must determine if Mr Msomi received any benefit and if this appears to be the case then it must determine whether the omission was a wilful breach.

The information at hand makes it difficult to determine conclusively that Mr Msomi had received a benefit. However it seems as if the questions raised have not been adequately answered and because the facts are in dispute it is therefore recommended that the
Committee:

1. Hold a hearing as is required in terms of the Procedure for the Investigation of Complaint.
2. Requests relevant documentation pertaining to this matter from all relevant role players including the Directorate Public Prosecutions if this is required.