Interim Report of the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests with regard to the complaint against Mr T S Yengeni MP

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 On the basis of a report in the Sunday Times, 25 March 2001, Mr D Gibson, MP lodged a complaint with the Chairperson of the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests in respect of alleged non-disclosure by Mr T S Yengeni, MP.

1.2 At its meeting on 28 March 2001, the Committee instructed the Registrar to request a response from Mr Yengeni to Mr Gibson's letter of complaint.

2. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MR YENGENI AND THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS WITH REGARD TO THE COMPLAINT

2.1 The Registrar, as instructed by the Committee, sent a letter to Mr Yengeni on 30 March 2001.

2.2 Mr Yengeni responded on 6 April 2001. In his response to the Registrar, Mr Yengeni questioned whether the relevant rules and procedures had been followed.

2.3 In consultation with the Chairperson and on the basis of legal opinion obtained from the Chief Parliamentary Law Adviser, a second letter, dated 10 April 2001, was sent to Mr Yengeni informing him that the letter of the 30 March 2001 was sent on the instruction of the Committee and that he is required to respond.

2.4 On 10 April 2001 the Registrar received a letter from Mr Yengeni's personal assistant indicating that Mr Yengeni would only be in a position to respond after 2 May 2001 as Parliament was in recess.

2.5 The Registrar subsequently received a response from Mr Yengeni on 18 April 2001. Mr. Yengeni responded to the questions on the allegation of non-disclosure of a benefit that he received in respect of his motor vehicle and secondly the non-disclosure of his home in Tigerhof.

2.6 Mr Yengeni indicated that he had disclosed his home in 1996 and that his understanding of the rules was that a once off disclosure was sufficient. With regard to the motor vehicle Mr Yengeni stated that the vehicle was legitimately purchased and that its acquisition did not in any way amount to a gift or donation and therefore there was no need for disclosure.

3. CONTENT OF THE COMPLAINT

The complaint submitted by Mr Gibson raised the following matters:

3.1 That Mr Yengeni did not disclose erf 18250 Cape Town.

3.2 With regard to motor vehicle CA 80233, that the licensing application indicates that Stannic was the financier and that Mr Yengeni appears to have received free use of a motor vehicle for a period of seven months and that the benefit was not disclosed.

3.3 That the Committee should consider whether it is appropriate for the Chairperson of the Defence Committee to enter into an agreement with a company that either itself or whose affiliates are or were involved in tendering for arms or sub-contracts.

4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 In respect of the alleged non-disclosure of erf 18250 Cape Town.

4.2 Five members of the Committee were of the view that -

(a) Mr Yengeni's explanation was not sufficient for them to determine the facts; and

(b) Mr Yengeni therefore should be required to appear at this point before the Committee to give an explanation of the alleged non-disclosure concerning the acquisition of the motor vehicle.

4.3 The majority view was -

(a) Mr Yengeni did not comply with the Code;

(b) Mr Yengeni's non-compliance was not mala fide.

4.4 Accordingly the Committee recommends that Mr Yengeni must submit the details of erf 18250 to the Registrar by 31 May 2001.

The Committee voted 24 in favour of the majority decision with 5 against.

4.5 In respect of the alleged non-disclosure of the benefit of motor vehicle CA 80233 as well as the appropriateness of the Chairperson of the Defence Committee entering into an agreement with a company that either itself or whose affiliates are or were involved in tendering for arms or sub-contracts. The Committee deliberated at length on these matters.

4.6 The view of seven members of the Committee was that -

(a) the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests should proceed directly with its own investigation of these matters;

(b) Mr Yengeni is refusing to cooperate with the Committee, and this constitutes contempt of the Committee;

(c) Mr Yengeni should be required to appear at this point before the Committee to give an explanation of the facts concerning the acquisition of the motor vehicle.

4.7 A majority view -

(a) noted that the allegations contained in the Sunday Times, 25 March 2001, were made in the context of the Strategic Defence Procurement Process;

(b) further noted that on 2 November 2000 the National Assembly accepted the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that a forensic investigation be conducted into allegations of impropriety in relation to this process;

(c) further noted the report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, tabled in and adopted by the National Assembly on 4 April 2001, that such an investigation is being co-ordinated by the Office of the Auditor-General and comprises the Office of the Public Protector and the Investigating Directorate for Serious Economic Offences in the Office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions;

(d) believes that the subject matter of the complaint falls within the scope and ambit of the above investigation and that a separate investigation by the Committee would traverse the same issues. Therefore a parallel investigation, at this point, into these matters is not desirable.

Accordingly, the Committee in respect of the above two matters, recommends that Parliament should await the report of the joint investigating team, the Committee should consider the report in order to proceed with the complaint.

The Committee voted twenty-two in favour of the majority view with seven against.

The report is tabled for consideration by the National Assembly.