Author: Kingsley Lucas Mahlasela Makhubela
Last saved by: Namhla Manjezi

Dr. kingsley mahlasela makhubela.
 164 Buffalo Thorn Road, Xanadu Estate, Hartbeespoort| 0828023584 |klmmakhubela@mweb.co.za
04 June 2021
The Chairperson: Powers and Privileges Committee; The Honourable MP Mapulane
Parliament Street
Cape Town,
8001.
By; email:nmanjezi@parliament.gov.za
Re: Response to Brand South Africa’s Submission of 26 May 2021
Dear Chairperson,
1.	I refer to the Chairperson’s letter of 31 May 2021 and BrandSouth Africa's attached email dated 26 May 2021. I am most grateful for the opportunity to respond to the submission by Brand South Africa. Furthermore, I am willing to place the content of this submission under oath before your Committee.
2.	The submission I am making is based on documentary evidence, and where possible, on my evaluation and analysis. A clear distinction is made between my analysis and factual available supporting evidence. Similarly, this submission may not be exhaustive given the magnitude of the problem and the time since elapsed. I shall endeavour to respond to all paragraphs. Still, where possible, I shall put together and respond to matters that have been separated in Brand South Africa submission without loosing the strategic thrust of my explanations.
3.	For the purpose of this submission, it is essential to provide a brief background of my conflict with Brand South Africa, mainly with the previous Board under Khanyisile Kweyama and Stavros Nicolaou. In 2017, I cancelled a tender that failed to meet required constitutional and PFMA standards. The tender was readvertised towards the end of 2017. This time around, corrupt officials made severe and false allegations against me after intercepting my communication with the CFO, Ms Nadine Tomas. The allegations were; I watch pornography on the office system, and this has resulted in the collapse of the IT system on two occasions; I sexually harassed an employee who left the organisation in 2016, I promoted two officials because I have a sexual relationship with them and because they are of the coloured race; I fraudulently appointed Ms Nadine Tomas as the CFO to come and manage “my” travel agency tender; I behave inappropriately in the presence of young female colleagues; and that I am too friendly to young female colleagues.
4.	The Board went ahead with all these investigations despite knowing it is false that I fraudulently recruited the CFO because Khanyisile Kweyama chaired the interview panel that included Stavros Nicolaou and other board members. So, how I can have influenced the appointment, as per malicious rumours spread about me at the time. 
5.	Following the whistleblowing report, I was subjected to investigation without even been furnished with details of the investigation by the Board. Notwithstanding this, I was cleared of all the allegations and promised an investigation report, which I never received. ENS IT forensic specialists conducted this first investigation.
6.	Instead, I was again subjected to forensic investigation on the same issues. I was then requested to take a leave of absence for the duration of the investigation, which I did. The leave of absence was from 20 April 2018 to 20 May 2018. What happened after that is the abuse of power and state resources by the Board. The argument was that whistleblowers were now willing to come out be identified. The Board refused to furnish me with the final forensic report and was instead charged with sexual harassment. The disciplinary hearing eventually cleared me of all sexual harassment-related charges. I have since received an ENS forensic report from a whistleblower, and the report cleared me of all other allegations, hence the refusal to share it with me. 
7.	The Board has, by my estimation, as confirmed by Khanyisile Kweyama at one disciplinary hearing. Spent more than eight million rands (R8,000,000.00) on ENS investigations and prosecution without following supply chain requirements in some instances, a matter that further compounded the Board’s relationship with Ms Nadine Tomas, I am made to understand. 

8.	After I was cleared of sexual harassment charges, new charges were levelled against me: I spoke to Mr Menzi Simelane in violation of my leave of absence; I made disparaging and insensitive remarks against Khanyisile Kheyama after she was carjacked. Khanyisile Kweyama came to testify at the Sesi Baloyi hearing and stated that I knew people who highjacked her without providing any evidence to this effect. I shall now respond to the submission made by Brand South Africa. New charges were later introduced without any explanation; among the charges were; I failed to declare a conflict of interests with my former brother-in-law and that officials gave him sponsorship at my behest. I shall deal with this matter on the body of this submission; more charges were framed around me speaking to the media and admitting the prevalence of corruption within Brand South Africa. I had to defend my integrity following a smear campaign in the media space that four women made allegations of sexual assault against me. I shall now respond to Brand SA submission:
9.	Paragraphs 4 and 5 are self-explanatory; however, Brand South Africa is not responding to my complaints as reflected in the same paragraphs.
10.	It is factually accurate that when I handed over the document referred in paragraph 6 to Ms Thandi Tobias and Mr Lulu Johnson on 10 June 2020, and they promised to undertake an independent investigation on all the allegations contained in the document “Anatomy of Corruption at Brand South Africa”. I am not aware of any investigation and its outcome; perhaps the Committee can request such an investigation report from Brand South Africa.
11.	Paragraph 7 states that the allegations were referred to the Auditor General for investigation. However, on 14 November 2019, at my request, I had an audience with the late Auditor-General the late Kimi Makwethu and his team where it was explained to me that the Auditor-General’s office will not investigate my complaint but will endeavour to audit problematic area I have brought to the attention. Furthermore, the late Kimi Makwethu also encouraged me to consider approaching the police with the evidence. It should be noted that it was the previous Board of Trustee and Khanyisile Kweyama who informed the media that they had requested the Auditor-General to investigate mainly tender manipulation relate to the 2017 Avatar tender. The meeting with the late Kimi Makwethu took place before the facts and writing of the document “Anatomy of Corruption at Brand South South Africa”. 
12.	On 14 August 2020, I received a letter from Ms Mabatho Sedike, Corporate Executive in the Auditor General Office, making a follow-up to the meeting held on 14 November 2019 and saying that they are conducting an audit on Brand South Africa for the financial year 2019-2020. She promised to furnish me with a feed, and I am yet to get such feedback. The letter from Ms Sedike makes no reference to the forensic investigation as I was later promised by Ms Thandi Tobias and Mr Lulu Johnson. Similarly, it would be prudent for your Committee to be furnished with an investigation report referred to in paragraph 7.
13.	Concerning the BDO investigation, there are two reports. The first one is an interim, and it makes serious findings against corruption and specific officials in Brand South Africa, some of them still in the employment of the organisation. The findings are related to both the 2014 and 2017 tender manipulations and corruption related to Avatar. Though I furnished BDO with documentary evidence about Ms Khanyisile Kweyama conflict of interests with the 45 million rands (R45,000,000.00) tender, I refused to award for Avatar because of manipulation by some senior managers; no reference is made in the report. (THE Avatar tender recommendation was 78% retainer designated).
14.	The second BDO report, though it makes findings against some officials, failed a litmus test of an independent investigation; this is my extrapolation based on Board minutes of 29 April 2019 following the resignation of Ms Babalwa Ngonyama, Deputy Chairperson of the Board and Trustee of Brand South Africa. The minutes state, “Following the Carte Blanche interview, where the Board Chairperson and the CEO participated, she ADVISED the former to recuse herself from the Avatar matter. She then called the ARCO Chairperson to alert her that she would now be leading the process, but she was at pain trying to convince the ARCO Chairperson since she had apparently already made up her mind that the allegations against the Board Chairperson were not true”.       
15.	Ms Babalwa Ngonyama refused to rescind her resignation as Khanyisile Kweyama declined to recuse herself on a matter of Avatar tender as she was conflicted, and documentary evidence of her conflict is available. The Committee is at liberty to get more details from Ms Babalwa Ngonyama. Furthermore, the Committee should be furnished with the terms of reference for the BDO investigation. The probity of inquiry by BDO was probably set very low, given the content of the final report.
16.	Paragraph 8 suggests the Auditor-General and BDO found no evidence. However, it should be noted that in February 2018, the then newly employed CFO, Ms Nadine Tomas, discovered the 2014 Avatar tender was inflated by about five million rands (R5,000,000.00). She found this corrupt activity during the adjudication of the tender I previously cancelled due to corruption by a few individuals, including the then head of supply chain, Ms Jabulile Mndebele, who has since resigned from Brand South Africa. The Auditor-General has made a finding on the matter. I do not know if Avatar has refunded brand South Africa, and I suspect nothing has happened since the departure of Ms Nadine Tomas.

17.	Ms Nadine Tomas was then charged and dismissed for talking to me following allegations made on the whistleblowing facility. This is despite the fact that she was acting-CEO following my leave of absence on 20 April 2018. She approached the CCMA, and her dismissal was set aside, but Brand South Africa refused to reinstate her, threatening to take the matter for a review to the Labour Court. My conversation with her sometime in April 2021 indicates that Brand South Africa had not filled papers and requested a date with the Labour Court. Ms Tomas is one of the most ethical public servants and a qualified Chartered Accountant with vast experience in the public sector. The Committee may want to test my statement with Ms Nadine Tomas. 
18.	Failure to take meaningful action by the current Board left me with no other option but to personally report corrupt related matters to the police with case number 25/10/2020.
19.	Paragraphs 9 to 11 of Brand SA submission make references to my complaint to State Capture Commission. I can confirm that I have written to the Chairperson of the Commission, Deputy Chief Justice Zondo. The submission was made within the context of a plea by Deputy Chief Justice Zondo requesting senior officials to come forward and make submissions to the Commission. The last communication I received from the State Capture came from Advocate Pretorius informing me that my matter may not be heard by the Commission owing to time constraints; he further indicated that the Commission would come back to me in this regard.
20.	Paragraph 13 reference to the complaint I made to the South African Police Service is factual. It relates to the possible falsification of qualifications by Ms Khanyisile Kweyama in both the public and private sectors. It is also worth noting that Ms Kweyama has since tendered her resignations to Steinhoff and Telkom SA following media reports and police investigation. In all probabilities, the timing of her resignation is linked to the ongoing police investigation on her academic falsification. I have since learnt there were three whistleblowing reports related to Ms Khanyisile Kweyama’s qualifications misrepresentation. One was made with Deloitte in April 2018, two more with an entity called Vuvuzela in 2019 and 2020. Both Deloitte and Vuvuzela were legally contracted to independently manage Brand South Africa Whistleblowing complaints. I suspect a coverup by the board secretary regarding the 2018 whistleblowing made to Deloitte because I was still in Brand South Africa. No such information was brought to my attention. I do not know if such information was given to the entire Board of Brand SA. The information should be available from the two companies. 
21.	A complaint has also been laid with SAPS against possible misrepresentation of qualifications to parliament by Ms Sithembile Ntombela, a General Manager at Brand SA. Whistleblowing was also made regarding Ms Ntombela in sometimes during April 2020. Information related to Ms Ntombela qualifications can be found in Brand SA Annual Report 2017/2018.
22.	The other complaints to SAPS relate to tender manipulation and possible corruption that include some former Board members and previous and current serving officials of Brand SA. 
23.	The suggestion that my complaints are without basis is not factual because the body of evidence suggests otherwise. This Board has in its possession the ENS Forensic Report and evidence of abuse of protected disclosure which is a crime; 2014 Avatar tender inflation by implicating some officials; BDO reports, notwithstanding their limitations;  and National Treasury findings of tender manipulations related to FTI. It is worth mentioning officials involved in the FTI tender manipulations were given backdated warning letters. Tender manipulation and corruption are disciplinary issues and criminal matters that should have been reported to the police by the Board.
24.	Paragraphs 14 to 19 of Brand SA submission under the heading “The disciplinary process against Dr Makhubela” will be responded to from my paragraphs 25 to 31.
25.	 I have provided details in the document “Anatomy of Corruption at Brand South Africa”. Without belabouring the point, The Board cancelled a supply chain process to appoint the presiding officer for my disciplinary process. It interfered with the appointment when it instructed management to “A report by the Board Secretary that the process of appointing the presiding officer for the disciplinary inquiry was almost finalised took the Committee aback since the profile of the service providers for indentified through the SCM process had not been shared with the Committee members for their consideration. Against this background, the Committee ADVISED Management to withhold the letter of appointment if it had not yet been sent to the preferred service provider. If had already been sent, Management was DIRECTED to either withdraw or rescind the letter and share the profile obtained through SCM for the Committee’s assessment prior to making the final appointment. The Committee was of the view that it was imperative to get it involved to a certain extent in the process since it was directly involved in the case, SCM cannot unilaterally make the call. It further stressed the importance of ensuring SCM compliance”. (HR Committee Minutes: 23 October 2018). The reference to SCM compliance becomes redundant by virtue of the Board’s involvement at that stage, and this argument is dealt with in the preceding paragraphs. Mr Stavros Nicolauo chaired the HR Committee.

26.	The supply chain process at Brand SA and indeed across the public sector is designed to ensure transparency in the appointment of any service provider, and interference by management, let alone the Board, is highly irregular. It is even worse on matters where the Board has an interest such as this one as articulated in the HR Committee record of decisions. The independence of the SCM processes is a fundamental foundation of the checks and balances of our system of governance.
27.	The Board’s preferred disciplinary presiding officer was Adv Sesi Baloyi. The Board previously appointed her to preside over my sexual harassment disciplinary hearing. Her appointment was rescinded after management that included Ms Nadine Tomas raised concerns that she was appointed irregularly. To this end, records indicate: “The decision to appoint Advocate Baloyi to chair the inquiry was rescinded on account of non-compliance with the prescribed SCM process”. (HR Committee Minutes: 05 July 2018). 
28.	The law firm appointed to bring back Adv Sesi Baloyi MT Silinda & Associates Inc, and whose Director Mr Ramothwa was serving with Ms Khanyisile Kweyama in another company bord, a matter that Ms Khanysile Kweyama acknowledged she was conflicted. Yet, nothing was done to ensure the process of appointing the presiding disciplinary officer passes the transparency litmus test. It worth noting the procedure followed for the appointment of the presiding officer for the sexual harassment disciplinary hearing process. Without the Board’s involvement, SCM appointed Tokiso Dispute Settlement to find a presiding officer, thus ensuring that the presiding officer was independent of all disputants. The presiding officer's appointment was independent mainly because Ms Nadine Tomas was the acting CEO and could not allow any manipulation of the process.   
29.	The information related to the appointment of Sesi Baloyi is in the Board’s possession as demonstrated in this submission, and this is part of the information that Brand SA says is seeking legal advice for me to hand over.
30.	I have also received some threats from Ms Khanyisile Kweyama and Mr Stavros Nicolauo attorneys to hand over all Brand SA-related documents, ostensibly related to corruption and malfeasance at the organisation. The current Board has also tried to bully, intimidate, blackmail and bribe me to hand over the documents in my possession, which was done in writing. To this end, I am in possession of the documents and letters.
31.	The submission by Brand SA that I should have challenged Adv Sesi Baloyi findings at the CCMA or the Labour Court is without basis because the internal process through the executive authority did not provide concurrence for the Board’s recommendations for dismissal. 

32.	Furthermore, I shall respond to paragraphs 20 to 25 of Brand SA submission under the title “Dr Makhubela’s Dismissal” in the preceding paragraphs 33 to 47, and in no particular order:
33.	On 09 January 2018, I received an email from Mr Sgwili Gumede, who is married to the younger sister of my former wife. Mr Gumede suggests he was in the process of forming non-profit sports organisations that he will use to promote the Nation Brand and wanted some collaboration with Brand SA. He also suggested an MOU should be discussed. I accordingly forwarded the email to Ms Mpumi Mabuza and Ms Sithembile Ntobela with the message: “Please look at this message from Sgwili Gumede, and advise if there’s any value for collaboration”.  This message was given some different meanings by the previous and current Board, such as, instructing, behest and ordered.
34.	On 13 January 2018, I received a message from Ms Mpumi Mabuza that says, “Dear CEO, Sithembile & I reviewed the below and attached. Sgwili is indeed currently assisting us with 2 MOU’s with local sporting bodies. I believe the Rugby Union one is ready for signature (right Sithe?). With regards to these two proposed concepts for the for Sports Business Council – it would definitely be valuable for Brand South Africa to have an association with them when they are formed and look into areas of collaboration once they up and running. 
35.	All proposals and suggestions by private and public formations and individuals to the CEO are, as a matter of process, forwarded to line function managers for considerations, and the proposal from Mr Gumede was handled in the same manner. My office often forwarded such messages to line managers without consulting me to facilitated speedy handling of such queries or suggestions from the public. The only difference with this one is because it was sent to my personal email address (I have attached the email for ease of reference).
36.	Mr Gumede’s proposal could not take off as recommended by Ms Mabuza, and it did not make any sense to discuss an MOU with organisations that are yet to be formed.
37.	I took a leave of absence on 20 April 2018 and have since not returned to the office leading to the expiry of my contract on 31 July 2020. Brand SA document at my disposal, including those presented at the second disciplinary hearing chaired by Adv Sesi Baloyi, indicates that Brand SA signed an MOU sometime in July 2018. Ms Jenine Hills, a former Brand SA Board member, testified at the hearing that I was at the Marketing Committee of Brand SA when she raised the issue of what she called a million rand (R1000’000’00) dinner sponsorship for Mr Gumede and that I signed the MOU. Ms Hills definitely lied to the hearing and exposed the levels of desperation for Brand SA to dismiss me at all cost.

38.	The disciplinary hearing heard from Ms Nadine Tomas signed the MOU in her capacity as acting CEO. The MOU was negotiated and developed by Ms Sithembile Ntombela, with no monetary commitments by Brand SA. Ms Tomas claims crucial evidence related to the process leading to MOU were stolen from her office following her suspension by the Board. 
39.	Evidence presented by Brand SA indicated that the Board cancelled both the MOU and the sponsorship commitment made to Mr Gumede by Sithembile Ntombela sometime in August 2018. Minutes of the Board and its Committees confirmed the cancellation, and Ms Nadine Tomas had also confirmed the cancellation when she testified at Sesi Baloyi’s hearing.
40.	The Submission by Brand SA that Sesi Baloyi’s recommendation for dismissal was premised on my failure to disclose a conflict of interests when the four million rands (R4,000,000.00) was awarded to Mr Gumede is false, and the current Board of Brand SA is lying to Parliament. There was no contract awarded to Mr Gumede when I was still at Brand SA, and the document and evidence presented at the hearing indicated this.
41.	The Committee should request Brand SA to furnish it with detailed documents related to the contract: nature of the contract, the instruction I allegedly gave, when was such instruction given, who signed the payment order before it was cancelled by the Board. I am on record that the MOU and dinner sponsorship was negotiated and concluded when I was on a voluntary leave of absence and without my knowledge.
42.	The conflict of interest matter was a desperate ploy by Brand SA to keep me out of the organisation and has nothing to do with unethical conduct on my part. To this end, minutes of the Board indicate: “The Board has received a report that the CEO and his (former) brother-in-law had summoned potential witnesses to a meeting on the non-disclosure matter. By implication, witnesses could be intimidated and evidence tampered with should he be reinstated while the charges were pending. Accordingly, the CEO should be kept on suspension until the new inquiry has been completed”. (Board Minute: 03 October 2018; para 12-13). The information given to the Board is absolutely false. Mr Stavros Nicolauo used the same argument at the disciplinary hearing and promised that witnesses would testified to this end; however, no such witnesses were presented because they don’t exist at all.  
43.	The first time I heard about a four million rands (R4,000,000.00) contract awarded to Mr Gumende was on 21 July 2019, when a person or group of people who called themselves: BrandSA whistleblower email: brandsawhisleblower@gmail.cm. Emails were sent to various media houses in the country attacking and insulting me. Some of the insults were sexual as the suggestions were made that impregnated a former colleague. Ironically the same allegations were made by people who misused the whistleblowing facility, and evidence is contained in ENS forensic report. I now know that Brand SA Board was behind this media disinformation campaign.
44.	The email sent to media houses says: “Almost R4 million went into the business of his former brother in law that he basically instructed Brand SA employees to award business to. The same brother in law did business with Brand SA about 2 years ago, using a different business, for R3 million which he also did not disclose”. What a coincidence with Brand SA submission.
45.	The late Minister Jackson Mthembu and his deputy were not spared the either, and the email states: “The politicians Minister Jackson Mthembu and his deputy) are protecting him and want to bring him back to Brand SA. They do not want Brand SA Management and the former Board to release the information relating to his guilt to come out in public”. The submission to the Committee makes me conclude that it is based on a smear campaign by those who have taken upon themselves to tarnish my reputation in the public service.
46.	The disciplinary process chaired by Adv Sesi Baloyi was dealing with the one million rands (R1,000,000.00) dinner sponsorship, and at no stage during the hearing was any reference to four million (R4,000,000.00) contract as alleged in the submission to your Committee by Brand SA. Similarly. Furthermore, the is no reference to four million rands (R4,000,000.00) in the charge sheet presented to me by Brand SA; this is not a typo error but a material misrepresentation of facts to the Committee.
47.	Documents presented at the hearing indicate that Sithembile Ntombela internally suggested dinner sponsorship was two million rands (R2,000,000.00), yet half of the money was promised to Mr Gumede. Other documents discussed by the Board confirms this contradiction. I believe that the sponsorship to my Gumede was used as a ploy to syphon money out of Brand SA, and this a matter that was not investigated by the Board given that the acting-CEO was also kept in the dark about this matter. It should be recorded that Brand SA disputed the reference to the two million rands (R2,000,000.00) argument presented to Ms Sithembile Ntombela, the organisation’s witness at the disciplinary hearing.
48.	Paragraphs 26 to 32 of Brand SA submission under the heading, Role of the Executive Authority; The Late Minister Jackson Mthembu (“the Minister) will be covered from paragraphs 49 to 57 of my response.
49.	On 02 December 2019, I was called to a meeting by the Chairperson of the Board, Ms Thandi Tobias, at the Houghton Hotel; she was accompanied by Dr Keabetswe Modimoeng and Mr George George Sebulela, all new Board member of Brand SA. They informed me of a decision by the new Board to request me to resign as the CEO of Brand SA in order not to loos any benefits and for a good reference from Brand SA. 
50.	I indeed refused to resign after providing them with details of my conflict with Ms Khanyisile Kweyama and Mr Stavros Nicolauo previous Board. I also took them into confidence about why the disciplinary hearing and recommendations by Adv Sesi Baloyi were flawed and my available options should the Executive Authority accept the recommendations for dismissal. I also took the opportunity to brief them about corruption at Brand SA, which is the crux of my intractable disciplinary hearing processes. The new Board member undertook to revert to me after consultations with the Board.
51.	My refusal to resign was no disrespect to the new Board, but a moral decision not to succumb to corruption to save myself, that it would have been a disservice to many honest employees of Brand SA to abandon them with the false hope of protecting parochial and selfish interests.
52.	The next time I heard from the Board was on 10 June 2020 at the meeting held again at the Houghton Hotel with Ms Thandi Tobias and Mr Lulu Johnson. The two informed me of the Executive Authority’s refusal to give concurrence for the dismissal recommendation. They told me the Minister’s view for an amicable resolution for the way forward, including the option for a new contract at the end of my contract in July 2020 and paying me for the remainder of my contract. To this end, they enquired about my availability, to which I agreed to accept a new contract.
53.	The meeting discussed many issues related to Brand SA, and I shall for now spare the Committee of the details; needless to say, the conclusion was once again that they would revert after consultations with the Board. I informed the two that any way forward should include a public acknowledgement that I was a victim of abuse of power by the previous Board.
54.	Refusal for concurrence by the Executive Authority is again confirmed in a media statement issued by the late Minister Jackson Mthembu to City Press, which states: “ The Minister’s response to the Board’s decision was informed by the Trust Deed, the body of information provided to him by Makhubela and the information provided by Brand SA; The Minister subjected the matter to legal scrutiny and received a legal opinion. The Minister, after consideration of all the information presented to him, acted on the basis of a sound legal advice” (City Press: 16 August 2020).  
55.	The late Minister Jackson Mthembu was a man of integrity and principles, and there is no way he would have condoned any form of misconduct irrespective of the person involved. I am confident the late minister would have given concurrence if the body of information presented to him confirmed that, indeed, there was misconduct on my part. To suggest he compromised the integrity of his oath of office is regrettable, to say the least.
56.	My limited knowledge of the Minister has left me the impression that he took his oath of office and responsibilities very seriously. He could not possibly release a misleading statement to the press and the public.
57.	On 17 August 2020, my attorneys wrote to Brand SA: “It is trite that Sesi Baloyi SC made a recommendation in line with Brand South Africa’s policy to the Board of Trustees. The said recommendation, for it to be effected, needed the concurrence of the Minister and it is common knowledge that the Minister refused to give concurrence to the recommendation of Sesi Baloyi SC. That effectively means, without the Minister’s concurrence, our client is not guilty of the charges that were proffered against him. We therefore urge yourselves to desist from making inferences that our client was found guilty of charges that were proffered against him”. Brand SA represented by Higgs Attorneys responded to my attorneys on 07 October 2020 and stated: “We have been instructed further that client denies having misled the public and will desist from making inferences that your client was found guilty of charges proffered against him”. Unfortunately, the Board now seeks to misrepresent the facts, now that Minister Jackson Mthembu is late. However, facts speak for themselves. 
58.	Paragraphs 32 to 38 of Brand SA under the heading “R9 000 000 Offer to Dr Makhubela” are responded to on my paragraphs 59 to 63.
59.	The previous Board of Brand SA first discussed the idea for a separation settlement under the leadership of Ms Khanysile Kweyama and Mr Stavros Nicolauo on 29 May 2018, the same Board meeting that received the ENS Forensic report. It is clear to me the separation settlement was used as an instrument to permanently keep me out of Brand SA, given forensic outcome findings that have just been presented to the Board.
60.	Furthermore, on 31 October 2018, following the dismissal of sexual harassment charges, the Board decided to state its expectations of the separation settlement when it stated: “The Board should explore the option of seeking a settlement with the CEO, and this should not only be viewed from a cost perspective, but also from a vantage point of reputation management; the envoy should explore every possible way to lever the CEO into accepting a settlement deal” (Board Minute: 31 October 2018). The information was indirectly conveyed to me that I can negotiate any amount of money, and the Board would accept. 
61.	Accepting any amount of money would have meant a betrayal to my ethos and commitment to building a prosperous South Africa for all, for a clean and ethical leadership to the honest employees at Brand SA. Hence, I was willing to be dismissed if need be, but I knew the truth would come out one day, no matter how long it may take. To this end, I was also prepared to forfeit any monetary benefits related to the remainder of three years of my five years contract.
62.	It took the Board eight months from the sexual harassment disciplinary hearing to institute the second process of the disciplinary hearing Chaired by Sesi Baloyi. Meanwhile, the Board was happy to keep me away from Brand SA on full pay. The psychological impact of being paid without work is seriously damaging, particularly if one is a qualified professional, like my situation. The current Board’s submission that I was happy to be paid millions of rands for doing nothing adds salt to the would.
63.	It is not factually accurate that I am to blame that it took three years to finalised the disciplinary process. The only time I requested a delay was in February 2019 because the Board did not get concurrence from the Executive Authority, and I did not have a legal representation. For the record, the delay was only for a week. Meanwhile, a pattern of behaviour by Brand SA indicates that it has taken six from the first meeting in December 2019 to deal with a ministerial concurrence.
64.	 The last paragraphs 39 to 42 of Brand SA submission under the heading “Dr Makhbela’s unauthorised access to Board Minutes” and responded in the preceding paragraphs 65 to 70, also with no particular order. 
65.	On 15 August 2020, I received an urgent letter of demand from Nicqui Galaktiou Inc attorneys saying they represent former Board SA members. Without going into the details of the letter of demand, it was basically threatening me with court action if I don’t hand over the document “Anatomy of Corruption at Brand South Africa” and all Brand SA documents at my disposal. I did not respond to the letter as I view it as a blatant threat, intimidation, bullying and legal coercion, and I willing to defend myself should they serve me with court papers.
66.	The demands are a mirror of what Brand South Africa sent to me and referred to as a Confidential Settlement. The document is essentially a gagging order that I should sign an agreement to hand over the documents, an undertaking not to speak to any about the content of the document I authored, to disclose the names of people who are in possession of the document and to handover all boards minutes in my possession. Names of all former Brand SA Board members was included in the letter.
67.	On 16 August 2020, Mr Stavros Nicolauo copied me an email sent to the same attorneys saying, “thanks Nicqui, will you ask him to acknowledge receipt”. He was presumably referring to the email sent by attorneys to me because he responded to it.
68.	Ms Khanyisile Kweyama was on TV speaking about the same matter of documents and responding to the media on the leaked document I authored. 
69.	Relevant laws of our country protect people who make protective disclosure, and this covers where such people believe a miscarriage of justice is likely to occur; furthermore, the Minimum Information and Security Standard (The MISS) does not allow classification of corruption-related information, though Miss would not cover brand SA.
70.	Brand SA should not be allowed to continue misusing the recourses of the state to protect corrupt practices. Threats of legal action to handover documents indicate abuse of state power to weaken the fight against corruption. My track record in government has shown, and I will be the first to protect any information that may pose a threat to the Republic's national security and interests. In this case, the documents I have pose reputational damage to corruption if there is such a thing.
71.	Finally, having responded to Brand SA submission to the Powers and Privileges Committee of our parliament, it is necessary, for a moment, to reflect on the human cost the aforementioned dynamics have had on the human and institution, more importantly, the people I worked with at Brand SA and their passion and desire to honestly serve our country.
72.	Furthermore, what I was subjected to for the past three years has undoubtedly taken a heavy toll on officials who took a stand against corruption and stood out to be counted in this respect, be it testifying in support of those targeted or taking a career risk to defend and protect that is right and just. Unfortunately, all these colleagues have become victims of a small corrupt group of individuals that have weaponised the whistleblowing system.
73.	Brand SA was a career of choice destination with four PhD graduates, which at one stage constituted 7% of the workforce. We also had several colleagues with Masters Degrees, some with double masters. From what I read in the media, the organisation is haemorrhaging and losing dedicated and qualified staff, a matter that should concern all patriotic South Africans.
I am taking the liberty to copy:
1.The Speaker of the National Assembly, Hon Ms Thandi Modise
2. Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration, Hon
  Mr Tyotyo Hubert James.       
I look forward to your response and kind consideration,
Sincerely,
Dr KLM Makhubela, PhD.