Edition: April/June 2019
In search of truths
Contradictions and clarities revealed in public servants’
|Sithole . . . no consultation|
In essence, the PSA wanted to know how the PIC directors were appointed; for example, whether the Minister had exercised “due regard” to nominations submitted to him by depositors. It turned out that there were none. The PSA additionally wanted to see documents in support of the PIC’s contention that the loan had in fact been guaranteed by government.
On February 5 last year the PIC issued what purported to be a joint announcement by itself and the GEPF. It stated that the PIC, on behalf of the GEPF, had agreed to advance Eskom the bridging loan for the purpose of funding Eskom’s operations for the month of February; that the PIC had obtained approval in line with its investment mandate and corporate governance requirements; that the GEPF and PIC board took comfort from the fact that the bridging loan was fully backed by a government guarantee; and that the PIC and GEPF were encouraged by the recent changes in Eskom governance.
A few days later, on February 13, the PIC issued a statement expressing its concern about the “false, misleading information” in the media about the decision by the PIC and GEPF to provide Eskom with the short-term R5bn loan facility. “The decision to advance the bridging loan facility to Eskom was taken in consultation with the GEPF,” it said.
In replying to the respondents’ answering affidavits, however, Fredericks contends that this PIC statement is directly contradicted by Sithole. Under oath, Sithole now said that the PIC had not submitted an application for the bridging loan to the GEPF; that the application had not been considered by the GEPF, and that the GEPF “did not participate in taking any decisions relevant to the Eskom bridging loan”.
Fredericks further insists that National Treasury did not have any records relating to the PIC board request and that, on the Minister’s version, there was clearly no valid government guarantee for the loan. Whereas the PIC claimed that the Minister had considered and approved the guarantee, the Minister said “that he did not and that it was not necessary for him to have done so”.
In his affidavit for the Minister, Mngomezulu addressed the PSA’s concern that the PIC board’s media statements – to the effect that there is a guarantee – are untrue: “I can confirm that a guarantee does indeed exist. Part of the guarantee is used towards a Domestic Medium Term Note (DMTN) Programme, which Eskom is proceeding with, under the oversight of the JSE.”
He explained that Eskom does not have to request government approval prior to issuing notes under the DMTN programme. Instead, for monitoring purposes, Eskom needs only to notify National Treasury of issuances made against the loan’s amount.
“There is thus no loan agreement entered into or discussed with the lenders,” the affidavit continues. “There is furthermore no individual guarantee documentation for note holders which is prepared for individual issuances, such as in the case of the R5bn in notes bought by the PIC...I (therefore) submit that the DMTN programme presents no cause for alarm.”
The DMTN programme provides for government to issue guarantees, in respect of notes issued by Eskom, so that Eskom is enabled to raise finance for its capital-expenditure programme. No note has been disclosed in relation to the short-term R5bn bridging facility and neither has a guarantee related to this facility been produced.
So far as the GEPF is concerned, Sithole pointed out that it was not a party to the loan agreement and that the PIC had not submitted to it an application for the bridging loan. The GEPF is a defined-benefit fund and the members’ entitlements to benefits “are not in any way affected by any of the investments which it makes,” he added.
In any event, said Sithole, the GEPF denied that it had failed to exercise its fiduciary duties. The PSA’s allegations had ignored the facts that the so-called bail-out – fully backed by a government guarantee -- was not free because Eskom was obliged to repay the full R5bn plus interest and had done so.
On affidavit for the PIC, Matjila stated that the PSA was aware from the outset that the PIC had not only complied with its requests but also that the documents requested could be obtained from the Minister and/or National Treasury. Unfortunately, he added, the PSA had adopted an unreasonable approach by subjecting the PIC “to this frivolous and unnecessary litigation”.
Should the PSA persist with this approach, he warned, the PIC’s answering affidavit “serves as a notice to PSA that...the PIC will seek a punitive costs order against the PSA”.
Since the PSA now has much of the information it sought, unclear is what’s to be done with it. For the contradictions exposed, there’s at least clarity on how the guarantees are seen to be valid and on how the PIC works in relation to the GEPF.
Most usefully, the request for information on how the Minister appoints PIC directors appears to have borne fruit. Indications are that in future the PIC board, as with the GEPF board, will include representatives of stakeholders; in other words, presumably, trade unions such as the PSA.
Lawyers in this PAIA application were Fasken Inc (for the PSA), State Attorney (for the Minister), Werksmans Attorneys (for the PIC) and Ndobela Lamola Inc (for the GEPF).