The EFF wants deputy president Paul Mashatile to account under oath for his dealings with the consortium to whom the lucrative licence to operate the national lottery was awarded. The licence is said to be to the value of more than R80bn. The EFF challenge is effectively an attempt to redefine what constitutes direct interest, with the party arguing the grey area in the wording of the national lottery tender opened the door for politicians to abuse the process through family members.
The move by the EFF, which has formally applied to be joined as an intervening party in the legal challenge launched by some of the losing bidders, suggests it suspects Mashatile might have acted in his personal, rather than official, capacity in the awarding of the contract. One of the directors of Sizekhaya, the consortium in question, is Mashatile’s sister-in-law, advocate Khumo Bogatsu. Sizekhaya has consistently denied that Mashatile played a role in its May award of the licence by Parks Tau, minister of trade, industry & competition, asserting that its success was solely due to the strength of its bid.
The EFF, in its intervening application deposed by the party secretary-general Marshall Dlamini, questions section 13(2)(b)(iv) of the Lotteries Act, which says that “no political party in the Republic or political office-bearer has any direct financial interest in the applicant or a shareholder of the applicant”. “The deputy president’s family connections to Sizekhaya are central to the factual matrix demonstrating how section 13(2)(b)(iv)’s limitation to ‘direct’ interests permits political office bearers’ families to hold unlimited indirect interests in lottery operations,” the EFF affidavit reads. “For these reasons, the deputy president arguably has a direct and substantial interest in these proceedings.
Read Full Article on Business Day
[paywall]
He may be entitled to be heard on both the factual allegations concerning his family and the legal implications of the relief sought. “The EFF emphasises that these facts are not raised to impugn the deputy president’s personal integrity but to illustrate the statutory framework’s systematic failure. “Even assuming the deputy president had no knowledge of his family’s involvement — which assumption we make without conceding — the statutory framework’s permission of such arrangements demonstrates its constitutional inadequacy.”
[/paywall]
