Newsroom > Open Letters

Admin

04 Jun, 2018

OPEN LETTER TO NMBM SPEAKER LAWACK The Speaker of Council NMBM Attention: Councillor Lawack RE – ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT AGAINST THE CITY MANAGER: MR JOHANN METTLER This correspondence serves to inform you that the UDM has brought some serious allegations of misconduct against the City Manager, Mr Johann Mettler to the attention of the Executive Mayor, Councillor Trollip on 22 May 2018. A copy of such a letter was copied to you as a Speaker of council. The UDM’s intention was for such allegations against the current City Manager to be tabled and considered by a municipal council as provided for in regulation 5 (1) of the Disciplinary Regulation for Senior Managers, 2010 promulgated in terms of the Municipal Systems Act, 2000. The Executive Mayor is, in terms of regulation 5 (2) of the above-mentioned disciplinary procedure, legally obliged to table these serious allegations of misconduct against the City Manager in council within seven (7) days of receipt thereof. The Executive Mayor has unfortunately not yet directly responded to my correspondence as to the way forward on these serious allegations against the City Manager other than conceding in the Herald dated 25 May 2018 to the fact that an act of misconduct has indeed been committed by the City Manager. I am therefore addressing this correspondence directly to you based on the provisions of both the Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers, 2010 and the Municipal Regulations on Financial Misconduct Procedures and Criminal Proceedings, 2014. The above two (2) pieces of municipal regulations are extremely significant as they constitute a cornerstone for dealing with all forms of misconduct committed by municipal senior managers. Relevant sections of these regulations are outlined here below. Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers, 2010 Regulation 5 (1) clearly stipulates that any allegation of misconduct against a senior manager must be brought to the attention of a municipal council. Regulation 5 (2) stipulates that any allegation referred to in sub-regulation (1) must be tabled by the mayor or municipal manager, as the case may be, before municipal council not later than seven (7) days after receipt thereof, failing which the mayor may request the speaker to convene a special council meeting within seven days to consider the said report. Municipal Regulations on financial misconduct Procedures and Criminal Proceedings, 2014 Regulation 3 (1) states that any person must report an allegation of financial misconduct against the Accounting Officer; a senior manager or chief financial officer of the municipality to the municipal council, the Provincial Treasury and the National Treasury. Regulation 3 (2) states that the mayor, the accounting officer or chairperson of the board of directors, as the case may be, must table an allegation referred to in sub-regulation (1) before the municipal council or board of directors in the case of a municipal entities, not later than seven (7) days after receipt thereof or at the next sitting of the council or the board of directors. Regulation 10 (2) states that if there is a likelihood of further financial loss for a municipality or municipal entity as a result of a financial offence, the accounting officer, council, board of directors must report the matter without delay to the South African Police Services and not wait the completion of any investigation referred to in regulation 5 and 6 related to the financial offence. The above regulations are in line with section 173 (1) of the Municipal Finance Management Act, 2003 which clearly stipulates that the Accounting Officer of a municipality is guilty of an offence if that Accounting Officer fails to take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorised, irregular or fruitless and wasteful expenditure. In view of the above, the UDM unequivocally re-iterates its demand of tabling and considerations by council of all the following allegations of serious misconduct against the City Manager, Mr Mettler: a) Unlawful extension of scope of work of Mohlaleng Media b) Irregular appointment of the former Acting Executive Director: Corporate Services through her company – Logodisa c) irregular termination of employment contracts of senior managers d) Irregular appointment of Senior Managers (section 56 managers) e) Misappropriation of municipal funds for the implementation of M-SCOA f) Irregular appointment of Sebata Municipal Solutions g) Irregular appointment and improper conduct of Gray Moodliar Attorneys h) Political Interference in municipal administration particularly on forensic investigations and human resources management matters (h) Irregular purchasing of Murray and Roberts building by a municipality (i) Misappropriation of funds on N.U 29 Housing demolition Project (j) Irregular commissioning of Wi-Fi Project through High Mast Light All the above allegations of serious misconduct against the City Manager, Mr Mettler have been elaborated upon in my letter dated 22 May 2018 addressed to the Executive Mayor and copied to you Your attention is specifically drawn to the fact that the Executive Mayor has already conceded in public that the act of irregular conduct by both the City Manager and Ms Zitumane has been committed. It is with this in mind that the UDM directs this correspondence to you as the Speaker of council so as to ensure that a report containing all the allegations of serious misconduct against the City Manager, Mr Mettler are tabled in council for its consideration as provided for in both the Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers, 2010 and the Municipal Regulations on Financial Misconduct Procedures and Criminal Proceedings, 2014. I also wish to remind you that the continuation of the alleged irregular expenditure as highlighted above in respect of all the allegations against the City Manager is costing this municipality ernomous amounts of money and the sooner these allegations are tabled in council, the better. I must not hesitate to mention that this is a legal requirement which must be adhered to by everyone and not an individual opinion seeking exercise. Your response is awaited in this regard Yours Sincerely Councillor M. Bobani Copy: Head of Special Investigation Unit: Adv L. Mothibi MEC: Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs : MEC Xhasa Auditor-General of South Africa: Mr Makwethu Director-General: National Treasury – Mr Dondo NMBM Executive Mayor: Councillor Athol Trollip EFF: Councillor Vena AIC: Councillor Buyeye COPE: Councillor Sijadu ANC: Councillor Suka PA: Councillor Daniels United Front: Councillor Mtsila ACDP: Councillor Grootboom SAMWU: Mr Nodongwe

Admin

04 Jun, 2018

Dear Mr De Kock EXPRESSION OF CONCERN: CONDUCT OF THE BANK IN THE MATTER OF MR NDARA The email from Mr Mahoney to Mr Ndara dated 29 May 2018 bears reference. Mr Ndara has since brought the contents of this email to my attention, which came as a complete surprise. I had simply requested Mr Ndara to establish the exact date for the agreed upon meeting with Mr Mahoney where all parties would be present to take this discussion forward. I had already received communication from WesBank confirming the same, seeking suitable dates for all concerned where the dealership employees would also be present. The initial view was to meet in East London, but we were later advised of Gauteng as an alternative venue and we chose the latter. Subsequently there was an undue delay upon which I asked Mr Ndara to follow up. In his email, Mr Mahony also advised that the dealer could not engage in a meeting whilst Mr Ndara was present, yet he was present in all other meetings, there seems to be something very strange going on here? DISCUSSION I must admit that this whole episode has left me perplexed. You ought to remember that in the first instance our meeting was not informed by a change of heart on the part of the bank, but it was in reaction to the exposure of the situation in the public domain. Hitherto you have not offered anything contrary to what the complainant has presented. You, and legal counsel, confirmed that either parties do not even know and had not seen papers related to this matter and yet you pronounced on how the bank have done nothing wrong in as much as you pleaded ignorance in our presence. The dealer is clearly defying your suggestion that “we get their side of the story” and strangely for us, who are from the outside looking in, this meeting was supposed to clear Wesbank and therefore confirm that it is the dealer who may be at fault. So, when the meeting is in the balance what do you really expect us to think? Here is what comes to mind: • Should the meeting proceed, the bank knows that it is in an untenable situation as the facts are not in dispute. • Now that we have presented WesBank with the necessary documents, which proves that in your own words, a grave injustice was done, there suddenly is backtracking regarding the meeting. • There is an illogical proposal to exclude the complainant from the discussions. • As the person who brought this into the public domain, and as such initiated these discussions, I still await communication from you that unequivocally confirms WesBank’s position. • Similarly, if there is none forthcoming I shall assume this sudden change of events has your stamp of approval. • The assertion about WesBank not having done anything wrong is increasingly, without merit given the posture of the bank. WAY FORWARD Sir, I would like to reiterate that our meeting on the 10th of May 2018 was not informed by a meeting of minds or a change of heart. You yourself mentioned in the meeting that the matter has dragged on for such a long time and that it has been a source of frustration. Now that I have satisfied myself that, whilst I gave you the benefit of the doubt, you have chosen to demonstrate that you do not take this matter seriously, I therefore take this to be an invitation to see how best to deal with this matter and that you are no longer open to discussion in an environment that will safeguard the bank’s reputation. I shall henceforth petition the institutions that should by law take an interest in this matter, as well as other institutions that by their virtue are there to advance our constitutional democracy and the justice that we seek for all. I appreciate having engaged with you and look forward to further engagements albeit on different platforms. Yours faithfully Mr Bantu Holomisa Member of Parliament President of the United Democratic Movement

Admin

31 May, 2018

Mr CM Ramaphosa President of the Republic of South Africa Union Buildings Private Bag X 1000 Pretoria 0001 and Deputy Chief Justice RMM Zondo Chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture Private Bag X1 Constitution Hill Braamfontein 2017 Dear Mr President and Deputy Chief Justice THE PUBLIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION, THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE PENSION FUND AND SUSPECTED CORRUPTION; A SCANDAL BIGGER THAN THE GUPTA-FAMILY’S STATE CAPTURE? 1. I refer to the below information which is a summary of the alleged corruption involving, in main, the Chief Executive Officer of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) Dr Daniel Matjila. 2. The allegations contained therein describes serious corruption, dodging of due diligence, misrepresentation, money laundering and purging of staff (possibly for a cover-up) in deals of the PIC, which could only be the tip of the proverbial iceberg. 3. The extent of the rot could in fact be worth billions of rands, which makes it potentially bigger than the Gupta Scandal. Through PIC, Dr Matjila appears to have tentacles across various sectors of society – from unions, political parties and possibly parts of the fourth estate. He seems to have built a platform that has so far protected him from scrutiny and they have been protecting him against accusations of serious corruption. 4. There are many other nauseating examples of corruption which the media (like amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism) have uncovered and have put in the public domain. Yet we have not seen the authorities do anything about the allegations of corruption and irregular deals, especially those within the past nine years. 5. It is therefore the United Democratic Movement’s urgent request that this matter forms part of the inquiry into state capture, because of the potential scope of the corruption. The commission’s terms of reference could be widened to include these allegations, especially considering that this could only be the tip of the iceberg and that more corruption will be exposed in its investigations 6. Because of the sophistication with which this alleged wheeling and dealing in the PIC was done, we suggest that a team of specialist professionals (including but not limited to forensic auditors, as well as finance and investment experts), should speedily investigate this matter, before proof of these misdeeds are ferreted away. 7. Mr President, you have categorically stated that you will root out corruption in government, which includes State Owned enterprises; but in this instance it will also directly affect hundreds of thousands of families for whom this is a life or death situation. Yours in stamping out corruption Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President Re: Investigation of CEO, Dr Daniel Matjila, with regards to irregularities at PIC Background Public Investment Corporation (PIC) is one of the largest asset manager managing South African government public funds. Its biggest client is the Government Employee Pension Fund (GEPF), which constitute approximately 90% of its fund under management. GEPF is a defined benefit fund, which means it is guaranteed by the employer. Employer, with regards to GEPF, is the South African Government. Any shortfall in member benefits or liabilities are therefore guaranteed by the government. It is for this reason that any maladministration from the asset/investment management is detriment to both the members of the fund and the fiscus. There have been several irregularities that have been raised in the media which are of concern and could impairment the ability of GEPF to meet its obligations over the long-term, such eventuality could trigger support from the fiscus. The following deals need further investigations by an independent party: Steinhoff Steinhoff on the unlisted side where PIC gave R 9.3 billion to an entity led by Jayendra Naidoo called Lancaster01. The shareholding of Lancaster01 is as follows is as follows: GEPF 50%, J Naidoo, 25% and community trust 25%. (Why such a narrow-based BEE structure with one person getting 25% of the deal? Does the community trust a front?). The transaction was done in two phases: • Phase 1 PIC gave Lancaster R 9.3 billion secured by both shares and collar structure if share price decline for capital preservation. • Phase 2 was the restructuring of the transaction wherein PIC was to partially forego its security to another lender Citibank. Citibank funded Lancaster02 Investment in STAR worth over R 6 billion. • Compromising of the security package in favour of J Naidoo in phase 2 resulted in impairment amount worth billions of rands. (could be up to R 5 billion possible loss for doing a favour to J Naidoo and Citibank) Ayo Technologies Ltd • Ayo Technologies Ltd, a start-up company, listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and due diligence was waived. Funds were disbursed without a condition precedent – put option being in place. Put option is an insurance instrument that would protect PIC if the share price declines. • PIC was the only material participant in the private placement despite media reports of oversubscription. • Lack of market participation could be indicative of the poor underlying investment value. The share price has remained below listing price and have experience very limited liquidity. • PIC invested R 4.3 billion, current market value is R 3.3 billion. Already lost R 1 billion on market to market basis. Sagarmantha Technologies • The CEO lobbied the investment committee members even by using letters from unions and convenient press release from a political party. Has the CEO allowed governance processes within PIC to breakdown to such a level that he felt better outsourcing the function of PIC Investment Committee to the political and union formations? Why did he deem it fit to have the letters from unions be sent to investment committees if he believes in the internal process that they will do the right thing? What was his intention to have these letters given to members of investment committee? • Despite the lobbying, the deal was declined due to critical media scrutiny. • Sagarmatha technology proposal lacked investment rationale and largely mirrored the same methodology used to get R 4.3 billion for AYO technology and backed by the same sponsor –Iqbal Surve. • GEPF was expected to invest a minimum of R 3 billion. S&S Oil Refinery • S&S Oil Refinery in Mozambique. PIC funds are tied in an asset that is currently not producing much of what have been projected? And the sponsor-Momade Rassul is alleged to be an underworld figure. Rassul is based Nacala in Northern Province of Mozambique was arrested on 29 June 2017 facing an assortment of serious charges including money laundering, illicit enrichment, tax fraud, foreign currency manipulation, smuggling and misappropriation. • Total investment at risk of full write down is R 1 billion. Erin Energy Media reported on a dodgy deal concluded with an American – Nigerian businessman – Kase Lawal. The ownership of the underlying oil asset by Erin Energy was disputed at the point of PIC investment, but the PIC proceeded. Erin Energy failed to get full ownership of the asset. Considering the PIC’s $270-million equity investment and the fact that Erin had drawn $65.6-million against the $100-million PIC-backed loan but held $9.1-million in cash security, the PIC could lose roughly R 4 billion. The girlfriend story • PIC utilisation of CSI budget to fund the project introduced by the girlfriend of the CEO. • CEO asked an Investee company to financially assist the girlfriend. Note that the CEO has not disputed this. It borders on money laundering and serous conflict of interest, this is subject to Police investigations. Other issues for further investigations: Corporate finance Advisory on deals seem to be for selected few. • Sao Capital has been an advisor on many deals. Why does the company have such a great strike rate within PIC? How many deals have they done through PIC? • Kurhisani has been an advisor in many deals – MOGS, Distell, etc. Why does the company have such a great strike rate within PIC? How many deals have they done through PIC? Recent purging of staff Head of risk is fired. Head of IT, IT security and Company secretary are under suspension. Over the last few years the PIC has victimised a lot of black professionals. Independent investigations of the staff issues will show the extent of the rot.

Admin

24 May, 2018

Mr Sy Mamabolo Chief Electoral Officer Independent Electoral Commission Private Bag X112 Centurion, 0046 Dear Mr Mamabolo MTUBATUBA BY-ELECTIONS: VOTER REGISTRATION AHEAD OF BY-ELECTIONS IS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER AS THE RESULTS PROVED The United Democratic Movement (UDM) hopes that the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) is happy and it appreciates the current state of affairs in the Mtubatuba Municipality following our continuous warnings against the registration of voters when there are by-elections. We warned that such registration might 1) have a negative impact, that 2) the results might not be accurate and that 3) there might be loopholes for the manipulation of the voters’ roll. The UDM has, for time immemorial, warned at the National Party Liaison Committee meetings that this practice must be stopped. Unfortunately, the IEC is hellbent in continuing on doing this. What happened in Mkhanyakude District during the by-elections in Ward 4 in the Mtubatuba Municipality, where it was found that some voters who are not residents in that particular ward – and were residents of adjacent wards – who voted. This could have been prevented if the IEC had listened to the UDM’s counsel. The UDM hopes that the IEC will now take our position on this matter seriously. The IEC is expected to be responsive and listen to the voice of political parties as they are important role players in the electoral process. The results in the by-elections of Ward 4 have been compromised and it cannot be credible. Yours in nation building Mrs Thandi Nontenja UDM Representative on the National Party Liaison Committee thandi@udm.org.za

Admin

11 May, 2018

Dear Mr De Kock LETTER OF GRATITUDE Our meeting of the 10th of May 2018 refers. I wish to express my gratitude that you convened us in the manner that you did. We are particularly grateful that you took time out of your busy schedule to prioritise this matter and to listen to us and allow us to engage with you. I believe it was a worthwhile and valuable exercise, where both sides of the story were expressed and pondered. Given yesterday’s deliberations it also became quite evident that something was amiss; all considered there is certainly a problem that needs to be attended to. 1. Observations Against the backdrop of the meeting I would also like to make the following observations: • I noted your firm response that the bank is not responsible or that it cannot be held accountable for the dealer’s actions. • As a layman, I had difficulty staying abreast of your perspective in this instance. The reason being that at all, if not most dealerships, there are bank representatives, who actually perform and participate in the acquisition process of a vehicle, liaising with and on behalf of banks. • It hence becomes difficult for me to grasp if the bank will now want to exonerate itself, when there is a problem. • Mr Ndara outlined to all of us in detail how the problematic deal came to be. I must say again I appreciate your frankness when you responded to him by saying “If what you are saying is true and accurate, then I must sympathise with you because you will have been done a grave injustice” • In all honesty anyone who would hear and intimately understand how the deal was concluded, can only sympathise with the situation in which he now finds himself. You will have noted the scathing comments made on my social media platforms; it was clear that the majority of responders either sympathised or empathised with him. • The other significant point that came from the meeting was that, he could have obliged and continued to make payments towards the vehicle, and had he not spent it on lawyers perhaps he would have settled the balance of the debt, but the principle superseded all. • In fact, Sir, Mr Ndara did not take a decision to pay himself. His lawyer at the time, Mr Ben Du Plessis, based in Pretoria, wrote to the bank in October of 2007 requesting documentation that de facto amended or cancelled the original agreement of 2004 that had been signed by both parties. When a month went by without a response, he advised Mr Ndara of his rights in terms of payments especially in view of the two reloaded agreements. 2. Facilitation of a meeting with the dealership I also believe that in view of master agreements between banks and dealerships, it is rather unfortunate that in this case the bank and the dealership worked together in the courts pursuing Mr Ndara. That is what makes me rather uncomfortable with your having to preside over the matter. Nevertheless, now that you have made this suggestion and also your response to Mr Ndara’s narration I do believe that you are engaging with us in good faith. I would therefore suggest that you proceed and arrange the meeting with the dealership so that everyone involved is present. Given that this is a credit agreement and to give more clarity and to lend credence to the meeting, you must also invite a representative from the National Credit Regulator, the custodian of credit agreements. Such a move would allow all of us to gain clarity and help us to move in the right direction. This by no means stops anyone who wants to go to court, but in the spirit of yesterday’s meeting I believe it is very important that we meet as such. 3. Way Forward At the end of the day, the bank is licensed to operate and as such it is obligatory that it also operates within the parameters and conditions of the license that it has been granted. We have various bodies like the Parliamentary Committee on Finance, the Financial Services Board, Ombudsmen, National Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Reserve Bank Disciplinary Committee who may take a particular interest in this matter. However, given our engagement yesterday I am convinced if we soberly apply our minds we may well be able to find one another here, as we are not only dealing with our opinions but more fundamentally we are also dealing with the laws that govern this country. As a member of parliament and the president of a political party it is my duty to see this matter through. I have no intention of abandoning this process. I intend to follow through until this matter is resolved either way. Once more I appreciate your leadership yesterday and I look forward to further engagement on this matter. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa Member of Parliament President of the United Democratic Movement

Admin

02 May, 2018

Mr Chris de Kock WesBank Chief Executive Officer Enterprise Road Fairland 2170 Dear Mr De Kock CORRUPTION IN MOTOR VEHICLE SALES – IMMORAL ALLIANCE BETWEEN BANKS AND CAR DEALERS Background In November of 2004, a senior government official, Mr Mzukisi Ndara is induced into buying a 2004 Nissan X-Trail 2.2 Diesel S.E. with approximately 7,000 kilometres distance travelled on the odometer, with a registration number DFR 613 EC. Mr Ndara was led to believe by the Dealer Principal, Jean Van Aardt, of Datnis Nissan in King Williamstown, that he offered him a “special deal” as a form of redress following a complaint of dishonest and unethical conduct by an employee, Sandra who was reporting to Van Aardt at the time. This deal was concluded on the 25th of November 2004 and financed by the FirstRand bank trading as Wesbank. Mr Ndara brought this matter to my attention, with the words, “General I have been everywhere in the last twelve years now I come to you seeking your help”. Whilst I am not a legal practitioner nor a judge for that matter, having gone through the documentation pertaining to this deal, it is not only an insult to Mr Ndara but to the people of South Africa in general, that FirstRand bank (t/a as Wesbank) and the Datnis Nissan dealership still have trading licenses and continue to operate and do business in this country. A former Judge President and an eminent jurist’s reaction on the matter when confronted with the facts in 2013 was that “this is so immoral, this does not even belong in a Court of Law, this should be published in order to embarrass those responsible and to hold them accountable”. Thirteen years down the line, in 2018, Mr Ndara has absolutely nothing to his name, instead carries a mountain of debt, owing to this saga and is also subject to harassment, threats and near financial ruin owing to what happened to him on that fateful day in 2004. What was a beginning of promising career in the public service back in 2004 turned into a lingering nightmare. Several of our public and private institutions, who have been privy to this damning story, that has been ruthlessly carried out with utmost arrogance, bravado and downright impunity, have failed this man. The Banking Association of South Africa, The National Credit Regulator, the National Treasury, the Motor Industry Ombudsman, and some media houses are aware of this. On discovery that this deal may have been concluded fraudulently Mr Ndara opened a case of fraud with the East London branch of the Special Commercial Crime Unit (Hawks) in March 2014. The case number is KWT Case No. 386/05/2014: SCCU Reference: 1/1/2-24/2004. At the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) the case was assigned to one Advocate Tenjwa Sellem who incidentally holds a Masters Degree in Law and boasts 18 years’ experience. A criminal investigation by Sellem working with Captain Dyasi of the Hawks found prima facie evidence of fraud to be ventilated in court. A decision to prosecute and make arrests was made by Sellem following the six months investigation. Warning statements had already been obtained from the accused. To Mr Ndara’s disillusionment this decision was overturned by Sellem’s immediate supervisors Advocates Deshriee Naicker and Theunis Goosen on the basis that the elements of fraud were an honest mistake and that Mr Ndara had suffered no prejudice. In fact, Advocate Goosen contended in writing that a car can be deemed new and used at the same time. Mind you, the NPA is an institution that is expected to prosecute without fear or favour. This decision was taken against the backdrop of clear, damning and undisputed evidence in the docket. The Special Deal The Dealer Principal, Van Aardt offers Mr Ndara a special deal to appease him for a wrong committed against him by an employee of Datnis Nissan. Unbeknown to him and in his first six months in government employ at the time, he is duped and falls for a scam that was to cost him two properties, vehicles and a clean credit record. His only offence was trust and benevolence. The so called special deal amounted to the following; • A used 2004 Nissan X-Trail 2.2 Diesel Manual, was sold for a price of a brand new 2004 Nissan X-Trail 2.5 Petrol Automatic. • The deal was processed by the bank relying on what is clearly a fraudulent Offer to Purchase document bearing no signature of Mr Ndara. • The bank approved financed for a brand New superior vehicle worth R 29,7990.00 and still delivered a used inferior model, knowingly worth R 27,0000.00. • In addition to this Mr Ndara was also charged as part of the purchase price, “extras” that are fictitious to the tune of approximately R 35,140.00. Incidentally these “extras” of which R 25,900.00 is a Group life insurance…. R 6,190.00 is another insurance… R 1,060 is a courtesy car…All improbable and are NOT extras just gimmicks to increase the retail price…. FRAUDULENTLY. • To top it all, the on the finance side, whilst he had a very good credit record with a secure employment he was charged an interest of 15,25 fixed and yet Wesbank had an agreement with government called the Wesbank Senior Manager Scheme that financed any official of government employed at the level of a Director upwards an interest rate of 9% finance charges. • All this amounted to an instalment of R 8,000.00 for a used Nissal X-Trail over 13 years ago. Incredibly even if once were to buy today the 2018 Nissan X-Trail top of the range they wouldn’t pay that instalment. • Furthermore, whilst he had been assured the special deal would mean that there will not be a burden from trade-in of his 2003 Nissan Almera and yet an amount of R 27,000.00 was added on to the X-Trail unbeknown to him. Wesbank Wesbank leadership starting with your predecessor, Brian Riley abdicated all responsibility in full violation of the laws of this country. It is quite clear that no due processes or even Wesbank’s own policies were followed in concluding this deal and yet the bank approved it and sold this vehicle to Mr Ndara under these horrendous and unlawful conditions. On receipt of a letter of enquiry about the price from Mr Ndara in November 2005, instead of cancelling this deal, the Office of the CEO at Wesbank chose to continue this deal and to amend the conditions of sale, under the pretext that they were assisting him. Notably whilst Mr Ndara was ignorant of the fraud at the time, he wrote in the conclusion of this letter that “I want out of this contract, so that I could have my life back”. This was ignored by the bank and they chose to extend the period of the contract and adjust the interest rate in full violation of the Credit Agreements Act of 1980, which by the way is a criminal act that carries a prison sentence. In January 2007 Mr Ndara wrote another letter complaining bitterly about this contract and the inclination by the bank to “make profit out of an unsavoury situation” the bank again chose to undertake another “reload” and consequently this one vehicle now has three different account numbers which I reiterate is against the laws of our country. Hence my contention earlier that this company should no longer be doing business in South Africa. On being served with legal papers alleging fraud and seeking damages, the bank has had the audacity to argue that the matter has prescribed, de facto arguing that a criminal act has prescribed. This matter has called into question many of our institutions designed to protect the vulnerable precisely against such unwarranted and callous treatment of ordinary South Africans by elites in this country. It is equally shocking to learn that as part of Case No. 3180/2013 Mr Ndara gave evidence narrating all of the above and the record of these proceedings as I write this is missing from the Grahamstown High Court, as it is detrimental to the bank ‘s case and contrary to a judgement that was given against him upholding prescription. In the same vein, the same contract is not deemed to have prescribed in the East London Magistrate Court when the litigants are the bank. Implications for our constitutional democracy The South African Constitution is hailed in Africa, and around the world as one of the best, precisely due to its founding values, ethos, a slew of rights (including the Bill of Rights) that assure each one of us, of dignity, shelter, access to healthcare, education and justice …just to name a few. As a constitutional democracy, we are made to understand or led to believe, that the extent to which our beloved country is ahead of the pack, is premised in the main, on the healthy tension or contestation amongst, the Executive (led by the President), Parliament (led by the Speaker) and the Judiciary (led by the Chief Justice), with the rights of the individual as the centre of it all. All in all, how do we sustain the confidence of ordinary South Africans, in the belief and the durability of our democracy and its institutions. Clearly for Mr Ndara whatever hope and aspirations he had, have waned considerably given a heart wrenching, devastating and ruthless episode by the FirstRand Bank that has gone out of its way to enforce what is clearly a fraudulent contract, to his detriment and that of his family for 13 years now. Our constitution safeguards amongst other values, Human Dignity, needless to say Mr Ndara lost that many years ago, in writing this as an open letter to the leaders of our institutions, this serves to highlight discrepancy of a brand promise of a new South Africa and the lived experience of a nation that tends to devalue the life of an African Child, that makes a mockery of the Bill of Rights, and the “rainbow nation” of South Africa, positioned as a beacon of light and a ray of hope in Africa, and the World. I therefore call upon you Mr De Kock to occupy moral high ground and resolve this matter with the urgency it deserves. Recently (February 2018) the Sunday Times approached you seeking answers to this, instead you chose to engage a huge Public Relations company to peddle lies and fabrications on your behalf and continue to disrespect and disregard a cry for justice. Your lies included that Mr Ndara himself had insisted on this deal. You also claim that you have since sold this vehicle and yet that is also untrue. This is one last opportunity for you and your management to redeem yourselves and resolve this matter expeditiously. My expectation is that other institutions mentioned here will fall in line, take responsibility and cease to shield and protect high profile individuals who undermine the rights of ordinary South Africans through greed, corruption with wanton disregard for rights of others who are condemned to perpetual poverty as a result. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa Member of Parliament President of the United Democratic Movement

Admin

09 Jan, 2018

Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo Private Bag X1 Constitution Hill Braamfontein 2017 Dear Sir STATE CAPTURE INQUIRY: INVESTIGATION NEEDED INTO AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS AND ZONKIZIZWE INVESTMENTS’ INVOLVEMENT IN GAUTENG ROU HOUSING LOAN PORTFOLIO DEAL BETWEEN HLANO FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS To provide context, we refer you to a 2016 agreement between Hlano Financial Services, Nimble Collection Services and the Department of Human Settlements regarding the resolution of Hlano Financial Services’ ROU housing loan portfolio – see attached. We in particular refer you to a November 2015 collection mandate between Hlano Financial Services, and Nimble Collection Services and NMI Housing Solutions in respect of the Gauteng ROU housing loan portfolio. We point you to a “bulk settlement” of R350 million, specified on page 6 of the document, which government was requested to consider and approve as the aggregate outstanding balance of R443 million in respect of 5,159 properties located in the Gauteng region over which Hlano held mortgage bonds. On a Zonkizizwe invoice, dated 16 August 2018, (attached) African National Congress (ANC) Treasurer General Paul Mashatile, was invoiced for “consultancy services” rendered in terms of “collection of Hlano Financial Services; Gauteng Housing Loan Portfolio at 3% of R350,000,000.00”. It is clear that something untoward is going on here. The origins of Zonkizizwe Investments are common knowledge and like with former ANC Treasurer General Dr Zweli Mkhize’s involvement in the Afric Oil/Public Investment Corporation loan mess, it seems as if the incumbent ANC Treasurer General is also involved in odd transactions involving the ANC, Zonkizizwe Investments and government. I further draw your attention to a letter dated 22 March 2017, regarding a further 2016/2017 budget adjustment request, from the national department of human settlements to its Gauteng counterpart which lists an approved amount of R200 million for “Hlano Financial Services”. What is the connection between this R200 million-item to the aforementioned R350 million? What was the money used for and, if it relates to the same deal, where did the balance of R150 million go? Perhaps Zonkizizwe’s management and Mr Mashatile should be made to explain if they had any involvement in this? Given the above information, it is clear that there might be some elements of state capture in this deal and the United Democratic Movement humbly requests that the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture also investigates this matter. Lastly Sir, even if claims were to be made that any or all pertinent documents were lost in last year’s fatal fire that destroyed Gauteng Health, Human Settlements and Co-operative Government and Traditional Affairs’ office building, it would be easy enough to have a look at the bank statements to see how much money were paid into whose bank accounts. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President

Admin

18 Oct, 2017

Dear Mr Maimane NELSON MANDELA BAY COALITION: MISTAKES WERE MADE REGARDING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SPEAKER OF COUNCIL CONDUCTED THE NMBMM COUNCIL MEETING OF 24 AUGUST 2017 1. I refer to matter of the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality (NMBMM) Council meeting of 24 August 2017 at which a motion of no confidence was instituted by the Patriotic Alliance (PA), against our Deputy Executive Mayor, Cllr Mongameli Bobani. 2. The United Democratic Movement’s (UDM) lawyers have secured the closed-circuit television recording (available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzwt1-3KK09fRElhN0kzblVtT2s/view?usp=drive_web) of the aforementioned meeting from the Municipality. 3. I now wish to draw your attention to the meeting we had on 17 September 2017 when we talked about the state of the coalition. During our conversation, you conceded that the Democratic Alliance (DA) had made mistakes in dealing with the coalition partners and you had committed to set right such mistakes. 4. After having watched the recording today, I wonder if, when you referred to mistakes the DA had made, did you include the way the DA had handled the ousting of Cllr Bobani? 5. The UDM would like to understand how the Speaker of Council (as seen in the recording), in the very first instance only allowed one person of each political party to speak on the item and then ignored speaker, after speaker, who protested this decision. The DA professes to be proponents of democracy, but we fail to understand how, what happened on that fateful day, could be considered democracy. 6. When a councillor asked that the proposer of the motion, Cllr Marlon Daniels of the PA, explain what he meant by Cllr Bobani’s “erratic behaviour”, he never did. It appears as if this matter was just steamrolled through Council to suit a hidden agenda. We now know what that agenda had been, after we heard why the PA withdrew from your separate and bilateral “coalition agreement”. 7. Sir, do you consider the handling of the Council meeting as one of the mistakes the DA had made? Are you prepared to rectify this mistake by immediately reinstating Cllr Bobani as Deputy Executive Mayor? Yours truly Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement Copied to: Rev Kenneth Meshoe, MPPresident, African Christian Democratic Party Mr Mosiuoa Lekota, MPPresident, Congress of the People Dr Pieter Groenewald, MPLeader, Freedom Front Plus

Admin

13 Sep, 2017

Mr Mmusi Maimane Democratic Alliance Federal Leader Dear Mr Maimane NELSON MANDELA BAY COALITION: UDM REACTION TO DA’S USE OF PwC “DRAFT REPORT” TO BESMIRCH OUR CLLR BOBANI AND THE UDM: APOLOGY REQUIRED FROM YOU AND YOUR PARTY I refer to the “draft report” which had been prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) in terms of which the Democratic Alliance (DA) had masterminded a dubious campaign to remove from office the United Democratic Movement (UDM) Deputy Executive Mayor of the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality (NMBMM), Cllr Mongameli Bobani, under false pretences. The DA has very publicly, consciously and concertedly undermined one of its coalition partners. You had relied on an embargoed PwC “draft report”, which we certainly would not have seen had we not demanded a copy at a meeting of coalition partners on 22 August 2017 – only two days ahead of the DA bulldozing a questionable motion of no-confidence in Cllr Bobani through Council. The fecklessness of the “draft report” forced you to keep it secret, but it did not preclude you from (ab)using it. You and your colleagues have publicly criticised me (personally) and the UDM, saying that we condone corruption. The DA based its whole concerted campaign to get rid of Cllr Bobani, and besmirching the good name of the UDM, on a document in which PwC had not expressed an opinion and it had been clear that the document was preliminary. Little wonder that you kept it hidden in your briefcase as there is nothing in the “report”, contrary to your public misrepresentations, implicating Cllr Bobani. It is highly suspicious and abnormal that the accused, his party, the coalition partners and the NMBMM Council itself had been kept in the dark about the “draft report”. Yet, the “draft report” was given to you personally? Why were you, as a national leader of a political party, privy to this information at all? Is this a “municipality document” or a “DA document”? What were/are your and the DA’s motives in keeping this “draft report” to yourselves and using the information to attack the UDM? Another inaccuracy which the DA has peddled is that the UDM voted with the African National Congress (ANC) in the NMBMM Council. Firstly, differing from the DA is not tantamount to voting with the ANC. Secondly, your attention is drawn to our Co-Governance Agreement, where it is clearly stated that, should the coalition partners not agree on an agenda item, that item should be withdrawn for further discussion. Yet, your Executive Mayor, Cllr Athol Trollip, did not honour this arrangement and forced items onto the Council agenda, thus painting the other coalition partners into a corner, where the only option was to not vote in favour of an item we could not support. The case, currently underway in the Port Elizabeth High Court, is an opportunity for you to explain yourselves to the South African public and the voters of the NMBMM in particular. Lastly Sir, I submit that you and your colleagues have actively misled the public on this matter. The UDM would like to see you publicly and unreservedly withdraw your unsubstantiated accusations and apologise to me, to Cllr Bobani and to the UDM. Prove to the Nation that you are better than the manipulative, destructive liars within the ANC who you purport to oppose. Yours truly Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the UDM  Copied to: Rev Kenneth Meshoe, MP President, African Christian Democratic Party Mr Mosiuoa Lekota, MP President, Congress of the People Dr Pieter Groenewald, MP Leader, Freedom Front Plus

Admin

14 Jul, 2017

Honourable Ms Baleka Mbete, MP Speaker of the National Assembly PO Box 15 Cape Town 8000 Dear Madam Speaker Inappropriateness of your presiding over the debate on the motion of no confidence in President Zuma The above matter has reference. I write on behalf of the leaders of the African Christian Democratic Party, African People’s Convention, Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance, Economic Freedom Fighters, Inkatha Freedom Party and the United Democratic Movement. We met on 13 July, this instant, and resolved that it would not be proper for you, as Speaker of the National Assembly, to preside over the debate on the vote of no-confidence in President Zuma. We base our argument on the following grounds: You are on record instructing African National Congress (ANC) Members of Parliament in the National Assembly to vote in favour of their President; In the event of the success of the motion, you are enjoined by the Constitution to act as President; and You are also in the running for ANC President and by extension the President of the Country. Making matters worse is your recent attack on the judiciary. You have said that certain judges are biased against your party. Your action undermines your duty to act as liaison between Parliament, as an institution, and the other arms of State. It means that you still fail to separate your role as the head of the National Assembly and that of ANC Chairperson. All of the aforementioned demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are patently biased and therefore conflicted and compromised. We also wish to remind you of the wise advice given by the Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, in the 22 June Constitutional Court’s judgement, He said the following about the power of those in public office: “They are therefore not to be used for the advancement of personal or sectarian interests. Amandla awethu, mannda ndiashu, maatla ke a rona or matimba ya hina (power belongs to us) and mayibuye iAfrika (restore Africa and its wealth) are much more than mere excitement-generating slogans.” We hope that you will to do the right thing in the interest of the Nation and recuse yourself from presiding over this debate. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President

Admin

12 Jul, 2017

Honourable Ms Baleka Mbete, MP Speaker of the National Assembly PO Box 15 Cape Town 8000 Per email: speaker@parliament.gov.za   Dear Madam Speaker YOUR REQUEST FOR INPUT FROM POLITICAL PARTIES ON A SECRET BALLOT ON THE MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA This matter has reference. 1.    The context of the Constitutional Court judgement In giving the Constitutional Court’s unanimous judgement, on 22 June 2017, on the matter of the Speaker’s discretion to decide whether a vote on a motion of no-confidence (MONC) in the President of the Republic should be secret or not, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng stated the following: “South Africa is a constitutional democracy – a government of the people, by the people and for the people through the instrumentality of the Constitution. It is a system of governance that “we the people” consciously and purposefully opted for to create a truly free, just and united nation. Central to this vision is the improvement of the quality of life of all citizens and the optimisation of the potential of each through good governance.” About the power of those in public office the Constitutional Court said: “They are therefore not to be used for the advancement of personal or sectarian interests. Amandla awethu, mannda ndiashu, maatla ke a rona or matimba ya hina (power belongs to us) and mayibuye iAfrika (restore Africa and its wealth) are much more than mere excitement-generating slogans.” The context provided by these pronouncements is critical when considering whether the ballot on the MONC in the National Assembly (NA) should be secret or not. It means that any decision, which the Members of Parliament (MPs) in the NA makes, should be weighed in terms of the primary directive of improving the lives of all South Africans to the exclusion of “the advancement of personal or sectarian interests”. 2.    Protection of MPs and their freedom fulfil their obligation to South Africans The question is therefore whether the NA MPs enjoy the protection and freedom to fulfil their Constitutional obligation to make decisions in the best interest of our people. In our submissions to the Constitutional Court, the United Democratic Movement (UDM) raised the issue of widespread intimidation of members of the African National Congress (ANC) in order to quell dissent within the party. There is a copious number of examples, as reported by the independent media, which detail the threats made on the person and employment of ANC MPs in the NA. These threats started right after President Zuma reshuffled his cabinet, and continue to this day. One cannot make the mistake of thinking these are idle threats. The Minister of Police announced, on the 29th of May 2017, that there had been thirty-three officially recorded politically motivated murders in the KwaZulu-Natal alone. We have not seen this level of political intolerance since the mid-nineties. As if this is not enough, during the ANC’s recent Policy Conference the very same Minister (who is also a member of the ruling party National Executive Committee (NEC)) described those NA MPs who may vote with the Constitution and the people of South Africa, as “suicide bombers”. A very violent analogy, to describe a potentially violent situation. The whole fracas around ANC MP Dr Makhosi Khoza’s point of view on the secret ballot is another case in point. Just today it was reported that her daughter received death threats from the same people intimidating her. Not only is she under threat, but her family too! On the 7th of July, the Chief Whip of the majority party in the NA threatened members of his party with disciplinary action if they dare to not toe the party line. If this is the level to which people will stoop, how can MPs vote without fear of what the Constitutional Court called “illegitimate hardships”. 3.    “Proper and rational basis” for the Speakers decision on a secret ballot The UDM again refers you to the Constitutional Court’s judgement that states that: “There must always be a proper and rational basis for whatever choice the Speaker makes in the exercise of the constitutional power to determine the voting procedure. Due regard must always be had to real possibilities of corruption as well as the prevailing circumstances and whether they allow Members to exercise their vote in a manner that does not expose them to illegitimate hardships.” You have been given the responsibility, as the impartial Speaker of the House, to consider the quite unabashed intimidation already suffered by ANC MPs, as well as the threat of future adverse repercussions should the vote be open. These are not matters to be toyed with and we beseech you to apply your mind, being fully aware of 1) the entire ruling of the Constitutional Court and 2) what might happen to these public representatives if the ballot is not secret. 4.    The UDM wants a secret ballot In conclusion, I wish to reiterate the arguments we placed before the Constitutional Court and stress the UDM’s point of view that NA MPs must be protected so that they may vote according to their conscience and therefore in the favour of our people. Yours sincerely Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President

Admin

22 Jun, 2017

Dear Madam Speaker CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULING ON SECRET BALLOT AND THE MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC We refer to our letter, that was subsequently withdrawn, sent on 3 April 2017 wherein we lodged a motion of no-confidence in the President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr JG Zuma. In light of today’s ruling of the Constitutional Court regarding your discretionary power to allow for a secret vote in the motion of no-confidence, we again lodge a motion of no-confidence in the President in terms of Section 102, subsection 2 of the South African Constitution and Section 129 of the Rules of the National Assembly. We call on you to do the right thing and grant an urgent debate, and allow for a secret ballot for a vote of no-confidence in President Zuma. We therefore request an urgent meeting with you to discuss the matter. Yours sincerely Mr Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, MP UDM Chief Whip

Admin

03 May, 2017

Mr Dan Plato Western Cape Minister of Community Safety 35 Wales Street 5th Floor Cape Town 8000 Dear Mr Plato UDEMWO calls for quick intervention on crimes against the women and children on the Cape Flats The unabated incidents of rape and murders, on the Cape Flats, targeted at women and children caught our attention. Since the beginning of the year, several women and children have fallen victim to such crimes and we are worried that not enough is being done to eradicate this phenomenon. Gang related violence, drug and alcohol abuse seem to be endemic to these areas. The situation is out of control with the City of Cape Town Metro Police reportedly saying that teams will only enter ‘red zones’ in large numbers to avoid potential threats and attacks from residents. There is obviously a challenge with the affected communities not trusting the police and this must be addressed without further delay. The United Democratic Movement Women’s Organisation, would like to know what drastic interventions, if any, you and your department are taking to deal with the problem. It cannot be that we fold our arms while these terrible crimes continue; something must be done to restore dignity to these citizens and heal the ills in this society. We urge that you and all the involved stakeholders to come up with strategy that will see to the safety and protection of the vulnerable. In the meantime, we welcome the arrest of the four suspects in the horrendous murder of four-year-old Iyapha Yamile in Khayelitsha over the long weekend. May justice be swift. Yours in Nation building Ms Thandi Nontenja UDEMWO Secretary General

Admin

18 Apr, 2017

Dear Leaders A NATIONAL CONVENTION: THE UDM’s VIEWS ON SOLUTIONS TO THE CRISIS IN SOUTH AFRICA AND LOOKING BEYOND MARCHING FOR THE REMOVAL OF PRESIDENT ZUMA 1. Introduction When South Africans marched under the leadership of the opposition parties at the National Day of Action (12 April 2017), I advised that we cannot march forever, but that we must find a way to converge under one roof to discuss South Africa’s future. The United Democratic Movement (UDM) is of the view that we must find a vehicle that will provide a safe space for all stakeholders, irrespective of political affiliation, to assemble and hammer out a common future vision for South Africa that is binding to all. We may therefore soon need to have a National Summit, which should ultimately culminate in a National Convention, where leaders of political parties and civil society can exchange ideas on how to take South Africa forward. We should find solutions to our current set of challenges and most importantly, set the ball rolling so that we may leave behind a prosperous country for future generations. The UDM was not left off the hook with this statement and I was asked what the next step should be. This, in my view, confirms that our Nation yearns for an alternative route towards finding sustainable solutions to our vexing problems and remove the dark cloud that hangs over our fledging constitutional democracy under the leadership of the African National Congress (ANC). 2. Background South Africa is at a crossroad and is in urgent need of visionary leadership who provides guidance in finding lasting solutions to the challenges we face. The uprisings, as is expressed through peaceful marches, reflect a deep-seated frustration about the direction the Country is taking. A relatively tiny group of almost 800,000 ANC members is effectively holding a nation, of an estimated 56 million citizens, at ransom. It acts in the name of 11 million voters, some of whom have since joined hands with other citizens, which includes the plus-minus 8 million people who did not vote ANC, in protest of its leadership and its sponsored President. The ANC not only sometimes sponsors bad policy choices, but it is also hellbent on defending one individual, lacking responsible leadership, who has been found (by the highest court of the land) to have contravened the Country’s Constitution. Instead of providing good leadership, ANC leaders feed the Nation with flimsy excuses for not acting against one of their own. The Country has, as a result, slipped farther down the slope with no hope of the ANC ever providing the kind of leadership that is required. Who ever thought that this country, endowed with so many resource, would be reduced to ‘junk status’? It is the same ANC that is undoing the legacy of the likes of Mandela, Sisulu, Luthuli, Tambo and many others who fought for a free, democratic South Africa. It is disingenuous to call 2017 the “Year of Oliver Reginal Tambo”, while the words and actions of the current batch of ANC leaders are in stark contrast to the values OR Tambo espoused. The “self-correcting nature” of the ANC is long gone and South Africa cannot invest in this myth going to the 2019 National and Provincial Elections. It may be that the outcomes of the much-awaited ANC Elective Conference of 2017, will be worse than expected. Unfortunately, and because the ANC is the governing party, South Africa will not emerge unscathed from its internal implosion. 3. The way forward Consistent with the UDM’s views, I want to suggest – in broad strokes – the following steps as a matter of urgency. South African from all walks of life – including political parties, civil society organisations and any interested individuals – should get together as soon as possible to craft a new vision for South Africa. This should not only culminate in a roadmap for extracting us from this ANC-made quagmire, but one that will result in a prosperous future for our people. 3.1. Meeting of leaders The UDM therefore suggests that the leaders of political parties and civil society must first meet to thresh out the issues to be tabled at a future National Summit. This meeting of leaders will only set out an agenda for consideration at the aforementioned summit. At this meeting, a steering committee must be formed to prepare for the bigger forum of a National Summit. The funding of this process should be tackled i.e. should private funders be solicited and/or should Government be approached for assistance. The steering committee should also be capacitated to attend to practical matters such as determining a suitable venue and sending out invitations. 3.2. The National Summit Once we find common ground at this proposed National Summit, and agree on minimum binding principles, working groups must be formed, to tease out the details of the programme to be implemented, that should report to the summit plenary for further discussion and adoption. A new vision, as mentioned earlier, should in practical terms respond to burning issues such as land, economy, employment, corruption, good governance, education, health, review of our electoral system, party funding and others. 3.3. The National Convention Any resolutions adopted at the National Summit, should then be tabled at a National Convention where all interested South Africans and/or organised civil society, as well as Government, should be present. In conclusion, I want to stress that we can wait no longer to act; it is now or never. Yours in finding a solution. Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement

Admin

03 Apr, 2017

Dear Madam Speaker MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC IN TERMS OF SECTION 102 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH AFRICA AND SECTION 129 OF THE RULES OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY With his unexplained, and seemingly unilateral, cabinet reshuffle the President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr JG Zuma, has effectively relegated the South African economy to junk status. Whether he considered the consequences his decision seems doubtful. South Africans will soon feel the pinch – but ultimately the poorest of the poor will be hardest hit when food, transport and other necessities become unaffordable. The United Democratic Movement adds its voice to that of our colleagues in other parties, and I herewith lodge a motion of no confidence in the President in terms of Section 102 of the Republic’s Constitution, as well as Section 129 of the rules of the National Assembly. Yours sincerely Mr Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, MP UDM Chief Whip

Admin

27 Mar, 2017

Letter written to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Ms Baleka Mbete, from Mr N Kwankwa, MP (UDM Chief Whip in the National Assembly) Dear Madam Speaker THE PEOPLE’S PARLIAMENT MUST GET ITS PRIORITIES RIGHT: PARLIAMENTARY OVERSIGHT VISITS ARE NOT PROPERLY RESOURCED This matter has reference. Last week, the Parliamentary Portfolio Committees on Public Enterprises and Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, went to Johannesburg for an oversight visit. The visit pertained to the resolution of a conflict between Eskom and Soweto residents (particularly in Diepkloof, Orlando East and Soweto pensioners) regarding installation of prepaid meters in the area. We were on site for several days; arriving on Tuesday, 21 March staying until Friday, 24 March 2017. Our programme consisted of meeting sessions with the aggrieved community members, aged persons, from 10:00 to 16:30 – which means that we were continuously engaged for six and a half hours per day. Absolutely zero provision was made to ensure our basic comfort; there was not even a jug of water available. Madam Speaker, I am not talking about luxuries here! Just a simple thing, like keeping us hydrated during the course of our work, was seemingly too much to expect. On one occasion, the Members of Parliament went on a hunt, on foot, to find a decent eating establishment in a shopping mall; this was not a productive use of our time. On another occasion, I had slipped out (in the rain) of the consultation session to buy something to eat and drink, since I could no longer concentrate. I hurried to minimise the time spent outside that session. The only available shopping spot was a spaza shop, where the selection was so limited, I out of desperation, bought a packet of biscuits. As I slipped back with the open packet of biscuits, a queue of elderly people started to form in search of something to eat. I shared my meagre proviant, not only with them, but also with my colleagues (a packet of biscuits only went so far). The seniors complained bitterly. They asked what kind of Parliament, forces the elderly to engage with it, for hours at a time over several days, without any light refreshment, whilst we as representatives of Parliament, knew that they were elderly and that many suffered from diabetes. I, to my horror, later discovered that the packet of biscuits had expired. Having bought it at a spaza shop might explain that, but keep in mind that aside from eating them myself, I shared these biscuits with the pensioners and colleagues. The repercussions of possible food poising would have been devastating. In the end, should that have happened, it would have made me personally responsible for such a dire consequence. The whole situation was embarrassing for me as a Member of Parliament, because I was forced to leave a meeting, which was disrespectful, and could have led me to missing important information. It reflected badly on Parliament, and I certainly felt beleaguered. When I raised my dissatisfaction about the situation with the committees’ leadership, they explained that this situation arose because of budget cuts on oversight work. Madam Speaker, we are constantly reminded that Parliament must cut back on its expenses; and especially eliminate frivolous ones. The United Democratic Movement (UDM) wholeheartedly agrees with the instruction of National Treasury that we should tighten our belts, but I have two problems with what happened last week: 1) Providing water (at the very least) would not have broken the bank and it would have ensured a basic level of comfort for the Members of Parliament, as well as the elderly members of the public, during hours’ worth of consultation time with the affected communities. It requires sustenance and stamina to keep mentally engaged and physically able to do such work. 2) Secondly, any contention that there is no money to provide for, even the basics, is preposterous. This is because, as late as December last year, Parliament’s Secretary was defended on the official parliamentary Twitter account following an exposé in City Press that revealed Mr Gengezi Mgidlana spent over R40 000 on being chauffeur-driven in a Mercedes-Benz on a so-called study visit in Budapest in July 2016. We also read that an extra R1020 was incurred for a taxi trip to the airport. To add further insult, this was not the first time that his lavish travel style has been on South Africans’ dime. Earlier reports revealed that he, together with senior parliamentary staff, spent millions of Rands on so-called benchmarking trips last year. Flying business class and staying in five-star hotels in the United Kingdom and Turkey. While in London, we heard, Mr Mgidlana stayed in a R14 050-per-night (at that time, R42 150 for three nights) room at the luxurious Conrad London St James Hotel. In another instance, he had also incurred a bill of R52 638 for six nights at the Michelangelo Hotel in Sandton earlier in 2016. What makes matters worse, is your past condonation of this abuse of public money by the Parliamentary officials in question. Madame Speaker, it is clear that something is wrong with the running of Parliament’s business. How is it possible, never mind justifiable, that the Secretary of Parliament can literally blow millions of Rands, but a few thousand Rands can’t be made available to facilitate our work as public representatives. Lastly, as part of the cost saving measures, Members of Parliament had been told that we are provided with a subsistence and travel allowance and we should spend this money on sustenance during the day. That is all fine and well, but I had left work on Friday and was only refunded the food expenses I incurred that evening. This lackadaisical administrative approach creates concern about Parliament’s administration and its finances. Given the Secretary of Parliament’s (and other officials) reckless spending and clearly frivolous joy-rides, the call for us to tighten our belts rings hollow. Madam Speaker, Government does not have its priorities right. To my mind, it is clearly more important to ensure the quality of our work in service of the People’s Parliament (by providing at least some basic sustenance to Members of Parliament – as well as the public – on oversight visits) than having Parliament’s officials romping around the world in the most expensive way possible. The UDM calls on your office to review Parliament’s budget, especially the allocation of travel expenses to officials, as well as the allocation of resources to ensure that one of the core functions of Parliament, i.e. oversight visits, are adequately resourced to maximise the positive impact our work must have on the daily lives of South Africans. Yours sincerely Mr Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, MP UDM Chief Whip

Admin

26 Sep, 2016

Dear Mr Mashinini REQUEST FOR AN URGENT MEETING OF THE LEADERS OF ALL POLITICAL PARTIES REPRESENTED IN PARLIAMENT The above matter has reference. It has come to my attention that the African National Congress (ANC) has declared the Deputy Chairperson of the Independent Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC), Mr Terry Tselane, an enemy. It is alleged that, at the IEC National Results Centre (in Pretoria) for the 2016 Municipal Elections, the Secretary General of the ANC, Mr Gwede Mantashe and his deputy Ms Jessie Duarte, in the presence of the State President (who is also the ANC’s President) caused a stir by confronting Mr Tselane and, amongst others, alleging that he: Was an enemy of the ANC; Was conniving with the opposition parties against the ANC; Had single-handedly removed teachers as IEC electoral officers during the 2016 Municipal Elections in order to benefit opposition parties; and that His behaviour has benefitted the opposition parties. These are serious allegations, considering that it was made against a member of the Electoral Commission. It is interesting to note that Mr Mantashe seems to be confirming that the appointment of teachers as electoral officers, is designed to disadvantage opposition parties and unduly benefit the ANC. Such an admission vindicates the view always held by opposition parties with regard to the ‘exclusive’ appointment of teachers as electoral officers. Many of these teachers, if not all, are members of a Cosatu affiliated teachers’ union, Sadtu. Cosatu is in alliance with the ANC and has always taken a firm decision to support the ANC in every election that has taken place since the advent of democracy in South Africa; its decisions binds Sadtu and its members. These allegations place a grey cloud over other Electoral Commissioners. It will not be far-fetched to question whether their loyalties are with the country, its citizens and the Constitution or with the ANC. This is important, because from these allegations, it is clear, that any Electoral Commissioner who does not sweeten the ANC will be regarded as an enemy and will be dealt with accordingly. These developments may necessitate that the current composition of the Electoral Commission be urgently scrutinised to ascertain whether they are all in the service of the nation or in the service of a political party. I am also made to believe that the ANC has begun to question Accenture, a company that has been contracted and worked with IEC to provide technical solutions for a stable technical environment to support elections processes. In my recollection, the credibility of this company has never been questioned by the ANC and it is interesting that it is only now emerging after the elections results that have shocked the ruling party. It begs a serious question; why does the ruling party now have an issue with Accenture and why was this matter never tabled at the appropriate body i.e. the National Party Liaison Committee. I am also aware that the ANC is allegedly considering to alter the current party representation on the IEC’s Party Liaison Committees in favour of proportional representation. We wish to obtain a detailed understanding of this development and its rationale. The alleged meeting that took place on Monday, 19 September 2016, at Luthuli House, which was attended by some of the ANC ‘top six’ and Electoral Commissioner, is of serious concern. It is further disturbing that it is alleged that some of the issues raised above were discussed in the said clandestine meeting. Accordingly, I request that you convene an urgent meeting of all the leaders of parties represented in the South African Parliament to consider, amongst others, the matters raised above. I hope this will be attended to urgently. Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement

Admin

11 Jul, 2016

Dear Minister Mokonyane MANDILENI COMMUNITIES IN THE EASTERN CAPE SUFFER BECAUSE OF LACK OF WATER SUPPLY – WE SEEK YOUR INTERVENTION During my recent travels through the country on the campaign trail, I visited the Mandileni community outside Mount Frere in the Eastern Cape on Thursday, 7 July 2016. The people in this community suffer a number of hardships and complain of a lack of service delivery; most notably the lack of a reliable, healthy water supply. The area is completely dry and at the moment the residents of Mandileni share an unfenced water-well with livestock. To make matters worse, the well will not produce water for much longer. Upon enquiry I have discovered that the Alfred Nzo District Municipality does not have the capital, nor the capacity, to assist these people in dire need. I herewith plead for your immediate intervention and assistance, and suggest that you dispatch departmental engineers to the area to find a long-term solution and that, in the meantime, maybe tanks could be erected to store water and/or the South African National Defense Force could cart water to the desperate villages. Kindly advise Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement

Admin

04 Jul, 2016

Dear Honourable Minister Joemat-Pettersson and Eastern Cape MEC F Xasa UNFULLFILLED PROMISE FOR PROVISION OF ELECTRICITY AT MQHELE A/A , XHORA, MBHASHE MUNICIPALITY – EASTERN CAPE The above matter has reference. Here under is a complaint laid to me in a meeting I was invited to by the community of Mqhele on 30 June 2016, held at their community hall. Their main complaint is lack of fulfillment by authorities who promised them that their area would be electrified as early as 1 June 2016. Further reference  is made to MEC Xhasa’s promise at a meeting he had with the community of Mqhele on 12 May 2016, that officials from Eskom will visit the affected area with the relevant material to make electricity accessible to all citizens. I may as well remind you that, the 1st of June was set as a deadline for the delivery of this essential service . According to the community ‘s report a certain Ncamile Mbuqe of Eskom was also present in their meetings with MEC Xhasa when the deadline of 1 June 2016 was announced . Indeed on 1st June 2016 , Eskom trucks with loads of electricity poles came but to the dismay of the community , they passed the affected villages to Bafazi A/A .When the community tried to stop the Eskom vehicles and enquire about why they were passing their villages, police were called to intervene. As if that was not enough, the Mayor of Mbhashe Municipality responded to the protesting residents by throwing insults and rebuked them for lack of literacy and knowledge. Later on the community was told that they might get electricity in 2017. The community feels that the MEC deceived them by telling them that they would get their electricity on 1 June 2016 yet he knew that was not the case. If this is not a punishment meted against the rural poor for taking it to the streets in demand of an essential service, then the Department of Energy and the Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, are enjoined to make a prompt and decisive intervention. Even with the dawn of democracy, 22 years ago, these poor citizens of Xhora and Mqanduli  in general remain with no access to electricity.  Instead they are being sent  all over without being told the truth. It’s becoming clear that Eskom is a political tool. Why would an MEC made such a commitment fully knowing that Eskom is not his competence.  This confusion must be clarified without delay. All of you who are embroiled in these empty promises must go back to that community and tell them the exact story. In this regard, I call on your offices to make an urgent and decisive intervention to ensure that electricity is available to these citizens too. I hope this will receive your favourable consideration. Your prompt response is awaited. Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President

Admin

19 Apr, 2016

Dear Mr Mantashe CONDOLONCES TO THE ANC AND EKURHULENI COMMUNITY The United Democratic Movement (UDM) would like to convey a message of condolence to the families and friends of those who lost lives in the bus tragedy that occurred between Winburg and Ventersburg, on their way back from ANC Manifesto Launch in Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape over the weekend. We also extend condolences to the ANC and Ekurhuleni community at large for the tragedy. We wish a speedy recovery to those who were injured. As UDM we feel that the accident could have been avoided if the drivers were responsible enough hence we are calling for proper investigation into the matter. Kind regards, Mr Bongani Msomi UDM Secretary General

Admin

11 Apr, 2016

Dear Honourable Speaker NOTICE OF A MEETING WITH PRESIDING OFFICERS – 13 APRIL 2016. The above matter has reference. Your notice of a meeting between the Presiding Officers and Leaders of Political Parties in Parliament is confirmed. On the 18th of February 2016, I wrote to you requesting that your office direct the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence to conduct hearings on what I referred to, as; “The threat presented by the Gupta family to the security of the country’s resources”. I have not received a response to this letter either than a request for a signed version, which was delivered to your office. On the 7th of April 2016, I wrote to you requesting for a disciplinary enquiry against President Zuma. Again I have not received a response to this letter either than an acknowledgement. Given the above, I confirm that I will attend the meeting with Presiding Officers, only on condition that your office replies to the contents of the two letters referred to above. Kind regards, Mr. Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement