Posted on October 7, 2018.
Posted on October 7, 2018.
Posted on February 27, 2017.
….sent to clients Feb 7…. Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance, Yunus Carrim, made it quite clear in terms of parliamentary rules that further debate on the FICA Bill aligning SA to global money laundering task force requirements are confined to the President’s reservations about the Bill’s constitutionality on the issue of warrantless searches. Nothing else was to be debated or considered despite attempts, he said.
After a “suspicious delay”, to quote the Democratic Alliance, of over five months during which the President unexpectedly failed to sign the Bill into law, it was suddenly returned to Parliament with the query a few days before closure for the Christmas recess.
It is suspected that the President’s office might have been making a pitch for more debating time on the Bill in 2017 and to allow the Bill to be re-scrutinised thereby causing further delay or even allowing for an ANC motion to reject the Bill. This is according to one Opposition member on the Committee.
Following this, in a meeting hastily convened before Parliament closed, parliamentary orders were changed and Chair Carrim re-scheduled the Committee’s last meeting which was to be held on the Insurance Bill. He instead scheduled an urgent meeting to debate the President’s move, calling for both legal opinion from the State Law Advisor and the attendance of National Treasury to learn of implications caused by the delay.
As of the result of this last-minute meeting, Parliament and Carrim have to some extent countered what seemed the purposeful delaying tactic. The Committee agreed to call for written submissions only, preferably containing legal opinion, on only the constitutionality of Clause 32, section 45B (1C) on warrantless searches, saying only such will be allowed and no generalised observations on any other clauses or the rationale behind the Bill will be heard.
In the meeting, MPs expressed anger at the waste of public money and even Chair Carrim expressed his frustration of having to go back to the drawing board on a Bill that had already been passed. “I am getting too old for these kind of games”, he said.
Carrim concluded, “This Bill was approved by Parliament in its entirety and by a majority vote after many months of debate. Legal opinion was called for on many aspects and its signature into law was urgently required to meet international deadlines. In terms of the Joint Parliamentary Rules therefore, only the one aspect that the President has queried could be considered and the Bill was to be returned with the opinion of this Committeeafter a vote in the NA.
It was agreed by the Committee that legal counsel specifically would be sought on the constitutional aspects raised and this would be returned together with the Bill as it stood for signature in an attempt to convince the President not to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court and further delay implementation of a law approved by Parliament.
Adv. Jenkins, State Law Advisor, told Yunus Carrim that he could see no grounds for the contention that the circumstances of warrantless searches were not properly circumscribed in the Bill and were thus legal. It was established that FICA had already conducted some 380 warrantless searches.
Adv. Jenkins pointed out that in terms of the Constitution and Parliamentary rules the President could only return a Bill once to Parliament, whatever the specific subject or subjects. Thus, this was the only issue that should be debated and considered by Parliament.
It would also be preferable, he said, to return also legal opinion based on supporting input from public hearings, but he advised that once again this should be confined to the subject matter, i.e. warrantless searches.
Meanwhile, President Zuma’s obviously purposeful delays have exposed South Africa to further detrimental opinion from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) who are holding a plenary meeting of the OECD in Paris in February, Treasury deputy director-general Ismail Momoniat told Chair Yunus Carrim.
South Africa could well be slapped with a warning letter or even a fine at taxpayer’s expense for failing to sign into law amendments to the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, he said, and added that this would not be helpful at the time of a Standard and Poor financial rating exercise to be carried out in the New Year.
Even a mild rebuke from the Task Force could have significant consequences for SA, DG Momoniat said, since it would raise concern among foreign regulators and banks about SA’s commitment to vigilant financial regulation. This in turn would have a ripple effect throughout the economy since correspondent relationships between the global network of banks are vital to effect payment for South Africa exports and imports.
Carrim responded that of the two bad options resulting from the President’s actions, the least damaging was to ignore OEDC opinion for the moment, take proper legal counsel on the issue and await the opening of a new session in late January/early February 2017 for a water-tight case to go back to the President’s office. DG Momoniat acknowledged that Treasury noted the course that was being adopted.
Jeremy Gauntlett S.C. was to be contacted and the question of warrantless searches be considered by him, the wording revised if necessary according to counsel given and the Bill returned to the National Assembly for adoption based on any revisions, if made.
The final position was therefore that all submissions to Parliament had to only deal with the constitutionality of section 45B (1C) dealing with warrantless searches in clause 32 of the Bill and those making submissions were requested to provide legal opinions for their arguments .
It was suspected that Black Business Forum and other groupings would make a determined effort widen the scope of the deliberations.
Any submissions on other provisions of the Bill, not the subject of the hearings, had to be made separately in more public hearings to be held on “Progress on Transformation of the Financial Sector”, tentatively set for 14 March 2017. Those additional hearings will be advertised separately, said Carrim’s parliamentary notice when published.
Previous articles on category subject
Posted on July 25, 2016.
When asked for information on how the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) had invested its funds, Dr Daniel Matjila, Chief Executive Officer, told parliamentarians that the most he could do, even with ‘listed’ investments, was to give only names. Any terms and condition of any investment agreement could not be made public. On ‘unlisted’ investments, he held back completely.
He was then formally asked by David Maynier (DA) if the PIC had invested, directly or indirectly, any funds in any Gupta-owned enterprise. He was also asked for details of any financial implications upon the Government Employee Pension Fund (GEPF) and other pension fund assets resulting from the dismissal by the President of former Finance Minister Nene.
Dr Matjila responded that the fund “could not cross the line of disclosing private information” and the members of the Standing Committee on Finance, before whom he was appearing “should not read into his statements any insinuation that the PIC was protecting information.” He noted that he was totally aware of the fact that the PIC was under investigation for passing funds to the ANC and any such idea “was totally false”.
As far as funds to any Gupta owned business was concerned, Dr Matjila replied that the organisation stood by its earlier answers to the media that it had not invested directly in any Gupta owned enterprise. Following this remark, ANC MPs stood by Dr Matjila and told Opposition members that the PIC could not become “entangled” in such questions which were veiled with gossip and insinuation. It was the word “directly” used by Dr Matjila that caused the question.
This point was emphasised by Yunus Carrim, Chairman of the Committee, that most of the questions that were concerning Mr David Maynier should only be dealt with after the investigation of the possibility of ANC funding by the PIC had completed its course. He said that Dr Matjila was bound by circumstances to say nothing.
Present at the standing committee meeting was Deputy Minister of Finance, Mcebisi Jonas, who said the reporting process of h a pension fund to the committee should not get side-tracked with politically motivated questions. Maynier had asked this time about the possibility of “indirect” investments by PIC of any Gupta businesses.
On the issue of the effect of the ‘9/12 issue’, as referred to by Dr Matjila when Nhlanhla Nene was fired, he reported that the impact of this event had caused “significant losses” to the PIC portfolio. The GEPF lost R95bn, the Unemployment Insurance Fund lost R7bn and the Compensation Fund had lost R3bn – all managed by PIC and the event had been most worrying.
However, he said that the performance of all the funds had been subsequently excellent in the sense that recovery was achieved quite quickly – in fact “the recovery represented more than all the PIC funds lost within those two days of crisis.”
David Maynier (DA) remarked that funding was still shrouded in mystery and that he was “extremely uncomfortable” that the PIC would give no information at all on the “unlisted” investments of PIC.
Reporting generally, Dr Matjila said the fund had benchmarked itself and its operations compared favourably with “top private sector investment companies”. The GEP Fund “had shown over five years a 14.3% interest factor compared, he said, to a global median of 9.9% and a local investor median of 10.1%.” It had invested approximately R33.9bn in numerous portfolios aimed to drive transformation and create jobs, he said.
He told parliamentarians that the PIC “had invested approximately R33.9bn in numerous portfolios aimed to drive transformation and create jobs.” He said any risk taking was carefully managed and remained on the conservative side. Furthermore, he assured MPs that PIC did not take any risk that could not be “managed”.
Listed investments growing
Dr Matjila said that for all investments, the total allocation was now R400bn and “partners were always sought that would make positive returns”. ‘Listed’ investments in the last five years had grown from R495bn to R892bn recording a growth factor of 12.5% per annum.
The PIC always held to principle, he said, that there was always a need for BEE compliant businesses to be considered so that it attracted a portion of government expenditure. ‘Unlisted’ investments, nevertheless, had large share of the market holdings, he said, with roughly R55 billion allocated to this form of investment. The total allocation for PIC investments, including GEPF and UIF, was approximately R400bn.
On investment policy, Dr Matjila said that his team liked to look at partnering with other stakeholders that added value and knowledge to make sure that maximum benefits and input from any arrangement were received.
On SMME development, Dr Matjila said that PIC was “in discussion with groups such as Spar and Woolworths to ensure that small business was represented in their current growth patterns.” He said it would seem important for PIC to participate further in the Barclays Africa “sell down”. PIC, he noted, had invested in many international and local companies with assets within South Africa “in order to drive economic growth and increase job creation.”
Dr Matjila turned finally to ‘unlisted’ investments and said PIC had a slate of roughly R55bn to work from. Such investments were usually international, he said, and were not necessarily BEE compliant. David Maynier (DA) asked whether the GEP Fund management was “comfortable with the fact that a confidentiality clause existed on so many investments and the fact that disclosure to Parliament was denied.” Some ANC members also mentioned disquiet on this issue. Maynier said he intended to pursue the issue of non-disclosure of “unlisted” investments further.
Previous articles on category subject
Retirement savings subject of treasury probe – ParlyReport
Treasury calls for “Twin Peak System” with two financial bills – ParlyReportSA
Draft List: The minimum number of words is invalid - it must be a number