[ad_1]
Former Chairman of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services, Vincent Smith, testifies at the Judicial Inquiry Commission on September 4, 2020 in Johannesburg, South Africa. (Photo by Gallo Images / Papi Morake)
Much of Friday’s proceedings in the Zondo commission focused on a ‘loan’ of more than R600,000 from former Bosasa chief operating officer Angelo Agrizzi to former chairman of the parliamentary portfolio committee on correctional services Vincent Smith.
In his explosive testimony prior to the Zondo commission, Angelo Agrizzi stated that Bosasa had made payments entirely in excess of R600,000 to Vincent Smith, who was a member of parliament, but Smith claimed on Friday that it was a personal loan from Agrizzi to cover his daughter’s college expenses.
When questioned by lead evidence advocate Viwe Notshe, Smith, who was chairman of the parliamentary portfolio committee on prison services from 2009 to 2014, admitted that the committee knew as early as 2009 that the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) was investigating allegations. of corruption. against Bosasa.
Bosasa, which was led by Gavin Watson, received numerous lucrative bids from the Department of Correctional Services (DCS), amounting to billions of rands over the years. Minutes of the portfolio committee meetings running from 2009 to 2013 noted the SIU investigation, with numerous mentions of Bosasa and concerns about the contracts awarded to them. One such meeting, on February 22, 2012, noted that longtime committee members expressed surprise at some of the reasons given by the department for extending DCS contracts from 2008 to 2012.
Therefore, Notshe established that Smith was well aware of SIU’s investigations into Bosasa and that the company was the recipient of lucrative contracts from DCS, such as a R838.3 million contract for “nutritional services.”
Then went to Agrizzi’s testimony that he and Watson met with Smith and two other MPs at a hotel in Rivonia, Johannesburg in 2011, where “terms of engagement” were agreed. According to Agrizzi’s earlier testimony, Smith received R 45,000 and the other two MPs paid R 30,000 and R 20,000.
In response, Smith said that Watson, with whom he had been friends since 1990, had asked him for a meeting in Johannesburg, and when he returned from Parliament to Johannesburg on a regular basis, he agreed.
He said it was common for people to want to introduce themselves to a new chair of a portfolio committee for a department they were doing business with.
“I told Watson that I was uncomfortable meeting him on my own and that it was best if I went with someone else from the committee,” Smith said.
Smith has denied receiving money at that meeting, and Notshe did not press the issue of a R45,000 payment, although he asked why Smith did not invite Watson to come to Cape Town and meet him in Parliament, especially since he knew than there. They were allegations of corruption against her company.
Smith’s response was that he had an existing relationship with Watson and logistically it made sense. Also, Smith said, he had been meeting with Watson on “other business.” These “other matters” were not questioned by Notshe.
Smith said he never discussed the SIU investigations or the allegations against Bosasa. This was because the portfolio committee promised not to sabotage the work of the SIU.
He said Agrizzi’s accusations that he was paid to intervene on Bosasa’s behalf through his position as chair of the portfolio committee made no sense in light of his sustained objection to outsourcing by DCS, which would have included the subcontracting to Bosasa.
“The narrative is not confirmed with the minutes we have.
“My position was not anti-Bosasa but anti-outsourcing. There were no sacred cows. “
However, Smith was unable to point to any minutes from the committee meetings in which he raised the issue that DCS was continuing to award contracts to an allegedly corrupt company.
“We deal with major companies, not specific ones,” he said.
But the harshest criticism came regarding Smith’s loan of more than R600,000, which he claimed was a personal loan from Agrizzi, to pay his daughter’s fees to attend a university in Wales.
Agrizzi testified that it was money paid by Bosasa, but Smith said it was a personal agreement between him and Agrizzi, whom he approached in 2015, after his tenure as chair of the portfolio committee.
Smith said he would pay Agrizzi in 2023 after the shares he held in a real estate development had to be paid.
The shares were held by his company, Euroblitz, of which he was sole director, and the money was paid to Euroblitz in two amounts. Rs 20,000 paid in 2015 and Rs 395,000 in 2016.
This was a verbal agreement, as at that time he had developed a relationship with Agrizzi, as he had helped Agrizzi’s son find employment and Agrizzi had helped to derive assistance for Smith’s son who had developed “behavior problems.”
“I did not borrow money from any company,” Smith said.
However, a bank statement as evidence showed that the payment of the 395,000 rand was listed as “resettlement due to car accident”.
Although Smith declared his position as director of Euroblitz to Parliament, he did not declare the personal loan, although the loan was reflected in Euroblitz’s financial statements.
Notshe submitted evidence that the R395.00 was credited to the Euroblitz account from a Bosasa trust account maintained by his lawyers, and an email from Agrizzi to the lawyers indicated that it should be referred to as “car accident resettlement”.
Supreme Court Vice President Zondo commented that it appeared that it was trying to hide the true nature of the deal, that it made no sense if it was a legitimate personal loan. Zondo also commented on it It was strange for a person to make a loan of more than 600,000 rand without any written agreement, without having seen the share agreement that guaranteed the amount to be repaid.
Furthermore, Agrizzi bringing the matter before the commission as part of a corrupt arrangement meant that he lost the significant amount of money that would be returned to him in 2023, unless he did not pay the money.
Smith agreed that the fact that the money had been paid to Euroblitz and not his personal account, and that it was not itemized as a loan, meant that it was not on a direct inspection directly linked to him personally.
When asked by Notshe what interest rate had been agreed upon for repayment of the personal loan, Smith, who was ahead of the day’s proceedings, said that his legal counsel advised him not to answer the question as it could incriminate him.
Zondo said this did not prevent the commission from reaching a finding on the matter.
Smith insisted that he had no authority to determine who the department awarded contracts to or influence who received bids, and that Agrizzi’s loan was carried out when he was no longer chair of the portfolio committee.
The state capture complaints commission continues next week on Eskom-related matters, in particular the suspension of several executives. DM
