COSATU has noted the
report in the Mail & Guardian, 1 April 2010, “Mrs Vavi, the
pension funds and the bribe”. The General Secretary has responded, with
the following answers to questions put to him by the M&G
reporter, Matuma Letsoalo:
Are you aware of the fact
that your wife Noluthando is contracted to SA Quantum and receives R60
000 a month for doing marketing for the company [SA Quantum] within the
labour Union movement, Cosatu and its affiliates?
Yes I am aware that my wife is doing consultancy work for SA Quantum.
The agreement signed between SA Quantum and her states that she
“undertakes to:
- Furnish professional consulting services
in respect of marketing, distribution and servicing strategies into the
employee benefits market;
- Keep quantum informed on developments,
trends, political dynamics and key role players in order to improve
Quantum’s understanding of the market; and
- Improve Quantum’s effectiveness in
distribution employees’ benefits solutions into the market.”
In this direct quote from
the contract, nowhere is it stated that she will do “marketing of the
company in the labour union movement, COSATU and its affiliates” as
your question seeks to imply. In my view there is no conflict of
interest at all. COSATU has no relationship with SA Quantum and if it
did that would constitute a conflict of interest indeed. The provident
funds of workers are controlled by workers and employers who have a
50-50 representation in the board in terms of the law. My wife has no
relationship with any of the provident fund boards. I have no direct
relationship with and provident fund board that has a relationship in
SA Quantum. As far as I know no union is able to dictate to the boards
of the provident funds in which company their monies should be
administered. These decisions are left to the boards controlled by
workers and employers.
Given that you are the general secretary of COSATU, don’t you
think the business that your wife is doing with a company that does
business with COSATU and its affiliates constitute a conflict of
interest?
As stated above, SA Quantum has no business relationship with COSATU
and I am not even aware which COSATU unions have their provident
funds/pension funds administered by SA Quantum. I assume that there
should be some who have a relationship. In that case there is no way
she can influence the decisions of the provident fund boards in terms
of where they invest their money or who should administer their
provident funds.
After COSATU first called for a lifestyle audit for public
representatives, you publicly declared some of your assets, including
the Morningside house, but did not mention anything about Zwelothando.
Do you have any reason why you did not mention this?
Zwelothando is a company owned 100% by my wife and not me.
Secondly I answered all questions to me by the Star journalist honestly
and truthfully. I did not hide any interest. I have no personal
business interest. I am not registered in any company as a director.
You can verify this with CIPRO. Noluthando has a consultancy company
called Zwelothando. She had that interest by the time we were married.
I married her not because of her consultancy interests or business
interests. I am not going to instruct her to withdraw from consultancy
or even business because she is married to me. I don’t seek to control
anyone in that manner. The only interest I have is that there should be
no conflict of interest with COSATU and or with government. This is so
precisely because if she was to win any contract with COSATU and or
government this will raise a question as to whether she won it because
she has my surname or is related to me instead of winning it above
board. I have an agreement with her that she should never do any
business with either COSATU or government. I am satisfied that SA
Quantum indeed has no relationship with COSATU and therefore the
conflict of the interest issues does not arise.
Don’t you think it would have been appropriate for you to
declare this publicly as well? Did you declare your wife’s business
interests in SA Quantum to Cosatu and its affiliates, who are doing
business with the company?
I have answered this question already. I did not declare because COSATU
does not have any business relationship with SA Quantum. I am not aware
of any relationship between SA Quantum with COSATU affiliated unions.
Even if there is as I assume there would be, the driving question to me
is whether any observer would reasonably believe that I have in any way
influenced worker provident funds to enter into a business relationship
with SA Quantum. The answer is clear that such a possibility does not
exist, as all provident funds board have a 50-50 representation between
workers and the employers.
It is clear from the tribute you delivered at the funeral of
former SA Quantum CEO Abraham Nduru in 8 December 2009, that you
personally had close ties with directors of SA Quantum, which did
business with your wife. How do you explain this?
I have known, and in fact have worked with, Abe Nduru for many years as
indicated in my tribute at his funeral. I don’t know any other director
of SA Quantum as your question suggest. Please read the speech again
and see if it suggests that I know the other directors as well.
Do you find it comfortable with your wife involved in business,
while you on the other hand are pushing the communists’ agenda? What
was your relationship with Nduru like? SA Quantum CEO Veon Back offered
us R120 000 not to write the story about SA Quantum’s business dealings
with Zwelothando Consulting, a name which appear to be a contraction of
her first name and your first name. Already Bock gave us a payment of
R40 000 and promised to give us the balance by the end of April. This
is to us a clear cover up for you and your wife. What is your reaction
to this?
I have stated in other interviews such as Destiny magazine,
November/December 2009, that sometimes that makes me feel
uncomfortable. This is so because some people would not buy a
suggestion that I have nothing to do with my wife business activities
and yet I seriously never ever attempted to micromanage her. I did not
her ask to enter business. This is her own initiative. I am not going
to divorce her though because she has business interest. I had enough
of that. Our relationship is not founded on whether she has a business
interests or that I am the leader of COSATU. As I said the only
protection I have is that she should never conflict me through getting
into business deals with COSATU or even with the government. So far she
has not done that. Regarding Abe Nduru as I have said above I have
known him since the days he was working for NBC. See my speech which
traces the relationship between COSATU and Abe Nduru.
Regarding the alleged attempt to silence Mail and Guardian, I
must state categorically that it has absolutely nothing to do with me
and the person best suited to answer your question will be the one who
offered you money. Veon Back has no reason to protect either me or
Zwelothando in this regard – there is no conflict of interests there is
no scandal. Lastly Zwelothando is not a contraction of my name
Zwelinzima and that of my wife Noluthando. It is a name on its own with
a completely different meaning. Zwelinzima means this world is
difficult/heavy/tough and Noluthando means love. Zwelothando means a
country of love.
___________________________________________________________________
Conveniently the Mail
& Guardian chose not to run this full response to their
questions, despite the General Secretary asking them to do so, through
a text message to Mr Matuma Letsoalo.
The article is a typical
example of journalists being used to fight factional battles. Mr Matuma
Letsoalo has a long documented history as a journalist of being used by
factions in COSATU to tarnish the name of its leaders, in particular
its General Secretary.
We wish to point the
following inaccuracies, sensationalism, innuendos and outright lies in
the article:
1.
The headline of the story
is: “Mrs Vavi, the pension funds and the bribe”. Whilst this headline
seems to be an honest summary and caption of the story, anyone reading
the headline and street posters, without reading the article, will go
home wrongly thinking that Mrs Vavi is involved in some scandal that
has to do with pension funds and she may have also be involved in
bribery. This is sensationalism at its worst.
2.
Despite the correction
printed above, the article, throughout and in particular in the first
paragraph, makes a damaging claim that Noluthando Vavi “is being paid
R60 000 a month to market financial products to union members”. Mr
Matuma prints this despite being in possession of the contract signed
by Mrs Noluthando Vavi and SA Quantum that categorically states the
terms of the agreement between the parties. There is no single line in
that agreement that says Mrs Vavi will be “marketing financial products
to union members”. This is being done deliberately to suggest improper
conduct on the part of Mrs Vavi and by association the COSATU General
Secretary, who is the real target of what is clearly a smear campaign.
3.
The article claims that
Veon Bock, CEO of SA Quantum, told the Mail & Guardian that
“she was engaged specifically to market its products which include
pension and other employee benefits to labour unions, particularly
COSATU unions”. The article further make the claim that “she has
already helped secure direct and indirect business with two of COSATU’s
biggest unions, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) and the
National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA), which together
account for about 500 000 of COSATU’s membership”.
4.
Whilst we cannot vouch for
what was said in the discussion between Mr Veon Bock and Mr Matuma
Letsoalo, we are in possession of Mr Motsoalo’s written questions to Mr
Veon Bock and his written responses. At no stage does Mr Bock make the
above assertions that “she has already helped secure direct and
indirect businesses with the two of COSATU’s biggest unions…”
5.
The article then
mischievously, inappropriately, and with a clear view to mislead
unsuspecting readers, makes a link between the speech the General
Secretary made at the funeral of Abie Nduru and the decisions of the
Metal Industry Benefit Fund. The speech, which is available on the
COSATU website, traces the relationship, between the General Secretary
and Abe Nduru, not as a personal relationship, but one that existed
between Mr Nduru and COSATU. This relationship predates the existence
of SA Quantum. Yet the article seeks to suggest that Mr Nduru or SA
Quantum or even with Mrs Vavi benefited from a relationship. There is
no shred of evidence to suggest that COSATU, the General Secretary or
his wife ever tried to influence the Metal Industry Benefit Fund to
have a business relationship with SA Quantum as emplied in the article.
6.
The article then goes
further to say that “Bock told the Mail & Guardian that
Noluthando had been instrumental in securing a contract with TEBA Bank,
owned by members of the NUM, Zwelinzima Vavi’s former union”. Again in
the written reply to Mr Letsoalo’s questions Mr Bock did not make this
claim simply because it is not true that Mrs Vavi was instrument in
securing any contract between SA Quantum and TEBA Bank. This lie is
being told in order to suggest that there is a conflict of interest
that is not there.
7.
The article, consistent
with its political purpose, then claims that “nevertheless the close
political and personal proximity of the key players has raised concerns
that the Vavis are profiting from the suggestion – however implicit –
that any deal proposed by Noluthando is backed by her husband and
COSATU”. It is true that COSATU General Secretary enjoys a close
relationship with the General Secretaries of NUM and NUMSA, but equally
he enjoys the same relationship with the leaders of all COSATU unions.
It is not true that he lobbied for the election of General Secretaries
of the two unions. Even if that was true that there is no relationship
between that and the innuendos in the article.
8.
In introducing the story
“On how the deal (bribery) went down”, Mr Letsoalo states that “COSATU
General Secretary insists his wife’s role in the marketing financial
products is no scandal. But the company that pays her to do it clearly
disagrees”. The article does not back this assertion. Mr Letsoalo
merely concludes that by paying a bribe, the company was admitting
guilt to some wrong doing. This is wrong and actually it amounts to
character assassination.
COSATU also condemns
strongly the attempt by Mr Veon Bock to bribe journalists doing their
work. This is clearly unethical and it amounts to an attack on media
freedoms. The General Secretary also condemned this in his response
above, a condemnation which strategically Mr Letsoalo decided not to
print.
The only sin committed by
COSATU is to take a strong stance against corruption. This article
together with other attempts before to turnish the name of the COSATU
leadership will not deter us from campaigning to rid South Africa of
corruption. The General Secretary of COSATU has come under immense
personalised attack from those who have something to hide from life
style audits. Recently he was said to own a R6 million house – when
this was proven to be a lie, it was said that he abused a COSATU credit
card – no evidence was produced and when these forces were challenged,
then they spread a rumour that his wife is deep and has won governmetn
tenders everywhere – they have not produced shred of evidence to back
this, then it was said he has a two months old baby out of wedlocks –
till to day they have not produced the baby and the mother. Quite
clearly there is an attempt to discredit him as the principal
spokesperson of COSATU. They will not succeed to silence us!
Veon Bock’s responses to
Mail & Guardian
Matuma,
Below are my responses to your questions. As indicated to you before,
our clients are Retirement Funds and not Trade Unions. Retirement Funds
are run by independent Boards of Trustees made up on a 50/50 basis by
members and employer representatives.
I therefore want you to read my response against this background.
Regards,
Veon
Dear Mr
Bock It is with regret to
inform you that we are intending to publish the story on Friday on both
your attempt to bribe me and the original story about your company- SA
Quantum- payment to Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi’s wife-
Norah Noluthando Vavi. The intention from the start in my accepting
payment from you was in order to expose your attempted bribe. Now, I
would like you to answer the following questions for me;
- If there is nothing wrong with SA
Quantum doing business with Zwelinzima Vavi’s wife- Norah Noluthando
Vavi, why would you go to the extent of offering me R120 000 [and in
fact paying me R40 000 in cash as the first instalment on Saturday
March 27 2010] in what clearly appears to be a cover up for the Vavis?
I deny paying you the sum
of R40,000 in cash or offering you R120,000. The agreement with Mrs.
Vavi, which was entered into by the Late Mr Abe Nduru is above board
and at no stage did Mrs. Vavi consult or market the services of SA
Quantum to COSATU affiliated Retirement Funds nor is a condition of the
agreement that Mrs. Vavi consult or market the services of SA Quantum
to COSATU affiliated Retirement Funds.
- Why should I not consider the agreement
to pay me R120 and the actual R40 payment as an attempt to bribe me and
as criminal act?
I deny that an agreement
of this nature exists.
- Why out of all people did SA Quantum
chose Vavi’s wife to do marketing for the company within the labour
federation?
Mrs. Vavi is an
independent business woman and has a right to earn a living, as do any
other individual. Why did the Mail & Guardian employ you?
- How much has SA Quantum paid Zwelothando
since it entered in a contract with Vavi’s wife?
I quote clause 4 of the
agreement: “4.1. In consideration for the rendering of the services
contemplated in clause 3, Quantum shall pay Zwelothando a consulting
fee amounting to 5% (five percent) of first year income on business
generated for Quatum by Zwelothando. No consulting fees shall be paid
unless all the retainers are paid in full.” Furthermore clause 5 of the
agreement states that: “Zwelothando is not, and will never be deemed to
be an employee of Quantum.”
- Why would it be wrong for me to assume
that the payment by SA Quantum to Zwelothando, constitute a kick back
or an attempt to influence Cosatu or its affiliates through Cosatu or
Vavi- to channel business opportunities to SA Quantum?
As explained to you
before, Mr Vavi does not excercise control over Boards of Trustees of
Retirement Funds, which are our clients and independent legal
structures outside of COSATU. The Boards of Trustees are made up on a
50/50 basis of members’ representatives/employer representatives.
- During our first meeting, you stated
that SA Quantum was doing business with Numsa, NUM and Theba Bank,
which is owned by the mine worker’s union [NUM]. Which other Cosatu
unions are you [SA Quantum] doing business with within Cosatu?
As indicated to you
before, we do not deal with COSATU or any of its affiliates. We deal
only with Retirement Funds, which are independent of COSATU and they
make use of various service providers. I would appreciate it if
you could respond to my questions before 10am on Wednesday, for
deadline reasons
Best
Regards Matuma Letsoalo
Hasta Siempre la comandante
Sithembewena Tsembeyi
Socialismo o Muerte...
