ATC230907: Report of the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests on the Alleged Contravention of the Code of Ethical Conduct and Disclosure of Members’ Interests: Honourable Qubudile Richard Dyantyi, MP and Honourable Pemmy Castelina Majodina, MP
Ethics and Members' Interest
Report of the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests on the Alleged Contravention of the Code of Ethical Conduct and Disclosure of Members’ Interests: Honourable Qubudile Richard Dyantyi, MP and Honourable Pemmy Castelina Majodina, MP
The Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests (“the Committee”) having considered the complaint against Honourable Q.R. Dyantyi, MP and Honourable P.C. Majodina, MP, reports as follows.
BACKGROUND
On 5 June 2023 the suspended Public Protector, Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane (“the Complainant”) submitted a complaint against three Members of Parliament, namely, the now late Tina Joemat-Pettersson, Honourable QR Dyantyi, MP and Honourable PC Majodina, MP (“the Members”). The complaint was submitted to the Office of the Registrar of Members’ Interests. The Complainant alleges that the Members breached the Code of Ethical Conduct and Disclosure of Members’ Interests (“the Code”).
THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE NOW LATE TINA JOEMAT-PETTERSSON
The Complainant submitted a complaint to the Office of the Registrar on Monday 5 June 2023. A letter was sent to Ms Tina Joemat-Pettersson on 5 June 2023 informing her of the complaint against her. No acknowledgment of receipt was received by the Office of the Registrar of Members’ Interests from Ms Joemat-Pettersson. However, later in the day on 5 June 2023 it became known that Ms Joemat-Pettersson had died.
Item 3.1 of the Code states that the Code applies to Members of Parliament. Ms Joemat-Pettersson ceased to be a Member of Parliament from the date of her death on 5 June 2023. Accordingly, the complaint against Ms Joemat-Pettersson does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee. The complaint against the now late Ms Joemat-Petterson was accordingly closed.
SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST HON DYANTYI AND HON MAJODINA
The Complainant states that she was informed by her husband, Mr David Skosana, of an alleged attempt of bribery and/or corruption by the now late Tina Joemat-Pettersson. The attempt at bribery was allegedly done on the request of Hon Dyantyi, MP and Hon Majodina, MP.
The Complainant attached, as evidence in support of her complaint, the affidavit made by Mr Skosana when he reported the matter to the South African Police Services (“the SAPS”)
The affidavit by Mr Skosana
Mr Skosana alleges that Ms Joemat-Pettersson made contact with him on 16 March 2023 while he was attending the section 194 inquiry which was held in the Marks Building on the Parliamentary precinct. He states that he did not know Ms Joemat-Pettersson at this time. Ms Joemat-Pettersson knew one of the sisters of the Complainant who was also in attendance at the inquiry. Ms Joemat-Pettersson passed her phone to him via a third person for him to insert his telephone number into her phone. He did this.
At or about 21 March 2023, Ms Joemat-Pettersson telephoned him and requested that they meet. She indicated that she would travel to Johannesburg and proposed that they meet at the Ocean Basket restaurant at Kempton Park. The meeting took place. During this meeting she informed him that she, Hon Dyantyi, MP and Hon Majodina, MP wanted to help the Complainant with the section194 inquiry into her fitness to hold office. Ms Joemat-Pettersson said that they were upset because they did not get ministerial positions in the latest Cabinet reshuffle. Ms Joemat-Pettersson then indicated that she and the other two Members of Parliament required R200 000.00 (two hundred thousand rand) each to assist with the inquiry. She said that she could not approach them empty handed and requested that he meet her the next day. Mr Skosana indicated that he was shocked that he was asked for a bribe but played along and asked whether R150 000.00 (one hundred and fifty thousand) per person would be okay.
Mr Skosana states that Ms Joemat-Pettersson told him that she came to Parliament specifically to give the Complainant support and to get his telephone number. She said that the position that the Complainant found herself in before the section 194 inquiry was very bad. She said the African National Congress (ANC) was going to impeach the Complainant and that Hon Dyantyi is being “used” to chair the inquiry. She said that the ANC was cruel towards the Complainant.
Ms Joemat-Pettersson asked that he keep all of this confidential. She told him that she had money problems and that she had to sell her house to pay legal fees. Further, that the Complainant should be lucky that the State is paying for her legal fees.
On 23 March 2023 another meeting took place at the same restaurant. Ms Joemat-Pettersson indicated that the President of the Republic of South Africa wanted the section 194 inquiry to be finalised and that the two other Members of Parliament were in Gauteng attending the ANC Lekgotla. She told Mr Skosana that time was running out. Mr Skosana states that he wanted to meet Mr Dyantyi. He states that since their first meeting Ms Joemat-Pettersson was putting pressure on him because she was under immense financial pressure.
He indicates that Ms Joemat-Pettersson told him to get Adv Dali Mpofu SC to question the quorum of the inquiry. He said that Ms Joemat-Pettersson indicated that the record of the inquiry will show that it did not have a quorum at certain times.
Mr Skosana states that Ms Joemat-Pettersson told him that Mr Dyantyi was being managed in his role as the Chairperson of the inquiry. Also, that Ms Joemat-Pettersson volunteered sensitive information that would ensure that the Complainant gets impeached. She said that the Complainant would not be allowed to give oral evidence and that her written affidavit would constitute her evidence. Also, that the closing argument will be shorter as the parties must have written arguments to guide them. She informed him that Mr Dyantyi would tell everyone what to do. Ms Joemat-Pettersson then requested another meeting the following day.
Mr Skosana states that he did not immediately open a case at SAPS because he was planning to raise the money to lay a trap for them. Mr Skosana states that during the time of the bribe discussions, he noticed a change in the attitude of Mr Dyantyi toward the Complainant. He became more favourable toward the Complainant. This was also being reported on social media. But when it became clear that he was not paying the bribe, Mr Dyantyi’s attitude changed again. Mr Skosana then informed Ms Joemat-Pettersson that he would be calling a press conference to release the information and she then told him that she had “made up the whole thing”.
Mr Skosana states that when Mr Dyantyi forced the inquiry to proceed even though the issue of legal representation was not sorted, he decided to tell his wife, the Complainant about the bribery attempt. On 9 May 2023 the Complainant arranged for him to meet her lawyers so that he could share the information with them. Mr Skosana laid a complaint with the SAPS on 15 May 2023.
The Complainant
The Complainant states that in the context of the content of Mr Skosana’s affidavit, she directs a complaint against the three (now two) Members of Parliament, Hon Dyantyi and Hon Majodina for their role in directly or indirectly soliciting a bribe in respect of the process and/or outcome of the section 194 inquiry against her. She alleges that the Members breached items 4.1; 5; 6.1 and/or 7.1 of the Code or read with item 3.2 of the Code or such other relevant provisions of the Code or oath.
RESPONSE BY HON DYANTI, MP
The Member was given an opportunity to respond and did so on 12 June 2023. However, the response by the Member was brief for the reason that not all the evidence was forthcoming by the Complainant at this date. The Member also noted that he did not have access to the audio recordings even though it was made public during a press conference.
The Member denied the allegation of soliciting a bribe, and that the allegation is baseless and unfounded.
The Member served as the Chairperson of the Section 194 Inquiry (“the Inquiry”). In response to an application for his recusal as the Chairperson of the Inquiry, the Member entered representations dated 24 July 2023. These representations were provided to the Joint Committee of Ethics and Members’ Interests in furtherance of this response to the complaint. This document sets out in detail the Member’s response to the recusal application, and where relevant addressed the allegations contained in the complaint.
Ms Joemat-Pettersson attends the Inquiry in person- March 2023
The Member confirms that Ms Joemat-Pettersson was physically present at the meeting of the Inquiry on 16 March 2023. He indicates that she attended until lunch time and then requested via WhatsApp message to be excused. He noted that Ms Joemat-Pettersson sat on the same side of the venue as Mr Skosana and that they communicated during the meeting. Her behaviour during the meeting was disruptive and he called her to order. He never spoke to Ms Joemat-Pettersson on that day other than in the meeting. He exchanged WhatsApp messages with her that related to the first ANC elective congress that was underway in the Western Cape.
The Member states that the two sisters of the Complainant were introduced at the Inquiry on 15 March 2023 and attended on 16 March 2023.
Mandating a bribe
The Member states that he has no personal knowledge of meetings between Ms Joemat-Pettersson and Mr Skosana. He denies that he ever asked Ms Joemat-Petetrson to approach Mr Skosana or any other person on his behalf. Ms Joemat-Pettersson never shared information with him respect of any alleged interactions.
WhatsApp messages and Audio recordings between Ms Joemat-Petterson and Mr Skosana
The Member states that he cannot comment on the WhatsApp messages between Ms Skosana and Ms Joemat-Pettersson because the authenticity of the messages has not been established. The audio recordings are unclear, and the transcript is not certified. It does not reflect the meetings in its entirety. The audio recordings do not match the transcript as the audio recording is 9 minutes and 14 seconds in 4 parts and the transcript has 12 parts. It is alleged that the meetings held between Ms Joemat-Pettersson and Mr Skosana lasted about 1 hour but the audio recordings do not capture any detail. The Member states that the selective information available makes it impossible to ascertain the full extent of the conversation between Ms Joemat-Pettersson and Mr. Skosana.
The Member states that he finds it questionable why Mr. Skosana did not alert the South African Police Services to arrange the entrapment in this matter. The evidence that Mr Skosana has, has been released with great fanfare to the media but it was not readily available when it was requested as evidence.
Detail in the WhatsApp messages
The Member states that it is clear that there are gaps to the WhatsApp messages. In particular he questions who “uncle Vic” is and why Ms Joemat-Pettersson wanted “to leave this”, if she was allegedly acting on behalf of the Member. When Mr Skosana threatened Ms Joemat-Pettersson with holding a press conference, Ms Joemat-Pettersson indicated that there was nothing to tell. The Member questions why there is a gap in time in the WhatsApp messages and the request by Ms Joemat-Petterson in the message dated 2023/04/17 at 20:14pm that Mr Skosana contact Ms Batha Dlamini to which Mr Skosana agreed. The Member states that this communication is strange in the context of an alleged bribery deal which was soured.
Audio recordings discredit that he instructed Ms Joemat-Pettersson
The Member denies that Ms Joemat-Pettersson solicited a bribe on his behalf. He states that the audio recordings do not make mention of this at all. He states that the audio recordings indicate that Ms Joemat-Pettersson asks “what do you think we should give them? The Member states that if he had asked for a bribe that Ms Joemat-Pettersson would have told Mr Skosana what the amount of the bribe was. However, the recordings indicate that amounts of R20 000 to R300 000 are discussed. Ms Joemat-Pettersson’s discussion in the audio recordings are not commensurate with someone who had to execute a specific bribery mandate of R200 000 as alleged.
Expectation to become a Minister
The Member denies that he had the ambition to become a Minister. He indicates that it is the prerogative of the President of the RSA to appoint ministers.
The Inquiry was being “project managed”
The Member denies that the Inquiry was being “project managed” by Ms. Majodina.
He states that political parties have their own whippery system and political matters are taken to the study groups or caucus meetings as may be necessary. There is nothing unusual or untoward about this.
RESPONSE MY HON MAJODINA, MP
The Member was given an opportunity to respond and did so on 06 June 2023. The Member states that paragraphs 10 and 23 of the Complainants affidavit relate to her. It states the following:
“10. At the meeting and during many subsequent conversations between the two, Honourable Joemat-Pettersson solicited a financial bribe of R200 000 each for herself, the Chairperson Mr Dyantyi and Honourable Penny (sic) Majodina the ANC Chief Whip in exchange for “assisting” to make the enquiry “go away” or otherwise not to reach the predetermined outcome of her impeachment.
23. The first complaint is directed to Mr Dyantyi, Ms Joemat-Pettersson and Ms Majodina for their role in directly and/ or indirectly soliciting a bribe in respect of the process and/or outcome of the section 194 enquiry against me. Such conduct constitutes multiple breaches of clause 10 of the Code in that the named contravention, inter alia, clauses 4,1, 5, 6.1 and/or 7.1 of the Code.
The Member denies that she breached the various clauses of the Code. She states that she did not partake in any discussion to solicit a bribe from Mr. Skosana the Complainant’s husband. She never met Mr. Skosana. She received a text message on 27 May 2023 from the Sunday Independent journalist, Mr Mzilikazi wa Africa, requesting her response to the allegations. She promptly responded and denied the allegations.
THE CODE
Item 4 of the Code provides as follows:
4.1 A Member must:
4.1.1 abide by the principles, rules and obligations of this Code;
4.1.2 by virtue of the oath or affirmation of allegiance taken by all the elected Members, uphold the law;
4.1.3 act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them;
4.1.4 discharge their obligations, in terms of the Constitution, to Parliament and the public at large, by placing the public interest above their own interests;
4.1.5 maintain public confidence and trust in the integrity of Parliament and thereby engender the respect and confidence that society needs to have in Parliament as a representative institution; and
4.1.6 in the performance of their duties and responsibilities, be committed to the eradication of all forms of discrimination.
COMMITTEE DELIBERATIONS
The Committee noted that the version of events offered by Mr Skosana to the SAPS which forms the basis of the complaint does not specifically mention the two Members of Parliament. There has been a lot of speculation and fanfare about the content of the audio recordings, but the audio recordings do not mention the two Members of Parliament. The WhatsApp messages do not link the two Members of Parliament to the allegation. The WhatsApp messages and audio recordings seem to have missing parts of communication between Ms Joemat-Pettersson and Mr. Skosana and therefore may not be a true reflection of the communication between them.
The evidence before the Committee does not provide a conclusion on probability that Honourable Dyantyi, MP and/ or Honourable Majodina solicited a bribe of R200 000 in respect of the Section 914 Inquiry. It also does not show that Hon Dyanti, MP or Hon Majodina, MP breached the Code.
The Committee found that the complaint is unfounded and that Hon Dyantyi, MP and Hon Majodina, MP did not breach the Code.
REPORTED FOR INFORMATION
THE CO-CHAIRPESONS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND MEMBERS’ INTERESTS: LYDIA MOSHODI AND BEKIZWE NKOSI