"With friends in the right places Siyabonga Gama was destined to return to Transnet, despite his past."
Transnet - Siyabonga Gama
Published: 2011/03/03 09:16:08 AM
Since the day he was finally dismissed from Transnet last June for misconduct, Siyabonga Gama’s allies have been expecting his return.
Within days of her appointment as minister of public enterprises in May 2009, Barbara Hogan came under sustained pressure from top ANC officials to implement a decision — allegedly made by her predecessor Brigitte Mabandla and endorsed by the ANC’s deployment committee — to appoint Gama to the top job in Transnet.
That Gama deserved to be Transnet chief executive, a job for which he had applied many months prior to his dismissal, was a conviction so strongly held by the ANC top brass, that several senior leaders — including ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe, President Jacob Zuma , minister of justice Jeff Radebe and former minister of communications Siphiwe Nyanda — insisted that Hogan expedite his appointment.
It is possible the ANC believed due process had been followed and that it would have been legitimate for cabinet to appoint him as, it believed, he had been short-listed by the Transnet board for the job. (The board puts forward a maximum of three candidates from which cabinet selects one.)
But though the ANC was informed that Gama had been short-listed by the board — information which was implied in a letter from Mabandla to the president — he hadn’t. Because of this, Mantashe has continued to insist Gama was robbed of the position that should have gone to him in 2009. “There was a process (that agreed to appoint Gama) before Hogan. The ANC takes the view based on what the previous minister said. That does not amount to applying pressure on the minister. It is not ANC pressure or pressure by myself,†he says. (Previous minister Mabandla denies that she put forward Gama’s name for consideration for the CE appointment by cabinet.)
On the basis of Mabandla’s letter and misinformation provided by a member of the Transnet board who supported Gama, the deployment committee — an informal structure chaired by the ANC deputy president, which approves “deployments†of ANC members to key positions in the executive, legislatures, business and civil society — also endorsed Gama as the candidate.
After a tense stand-off with Zuma and the ANC, Hogan was eventually fired from cabinet in November. Tension over new appointments to the Transnet board and her failure to appoint Gama were key reasons for the breakdown in her relationship with Zuma. Since Hogan’s departure, talk has been rife in the ANC about Gama’s imminent return to the parastatal, with much speculation on what position he would be offered. Some in the know thought he would become chief operating officer.
Last week, Gama was finally reinstated by a new board, itself only two months old, and was deployed to a post in the chairman’s office. Gama’s reinstatement has come under fire from stakeholders and observers, including the trade unions, the political opposition, the media and commentators. Transnet has yet to properly explain what process was followed to effect a reversal of a previous board decision which, after a disciplinary hearing that produced a 200-page report, chose to fire him.
Transnet says Gama’s case was the subject of an appeal in the Transnet bargaining council at the time the new board came into office. The process was then suspended to allow the parties to talk and a settlement was reached. The basis of the settlement was that the board “took the view that the sanction of a dismissal was too harsh and therefore considered a final written warning to be more appropriate,†it says.
The ANC’s vehement support for Gama arises from the belief that he is an exceptionally good manager who proved himself at Portnet and at Transnet’s freight rail division, both of which were turned around under his leadership.
“Here is an African, who comes from humble beginnings, who rose through the ranks,†says Mantashe. “He turns two major divisions of Transnet around but when the position of chief executive comes up, he is not good enough. This is the active destruction of black talent.â€
Though Gama did appear to enjoy a good reputation as a manager prior to the drama that led to his dismissal, the report and findings of the disciplinary committee into his conduct indicate his behaviour was, at best, negligent if not highly suspicious in his oversight of the contracts cited in the charges.
The inquiry, conducted by advocate Mark Antrobus, looked into two specific contracts. The first was a security contract that Transnet concluded with General Nyanda Security (GNS) to provide services to combat cable theft.
There is no doubt the GNS contract was fraudulently awarded. Besides Gama, two members of his staff were fired for their part in it. In July 2007 Transnet issued an open, competitive tender for the job and four firms were short-listed. GNS did not tender.
But Transnet’s internal audit found that before the open, competitive tender could be awarded, GNS submitted a proposal to the two members of Gama’s staff, saying it could provide this service. Within days of receiving the GNS documentation, the open tender process was suspended and finally cancelled. A closed or “confined†tender process, which allows for only one company to submit a bid on the basis of urgency or if that company has a unique offering, was initiated. The problems uncovered by the internal audit, and submitted as evidence to Gama’s disciplinary inquiry, were legion. First, no urgency for the confined contract could be established. The security service in question was being carried out by the existing service provider and cable theft was declining, in contradiction of an internal motivation that claimed it was increasing.
Secondly, the investigation found GNS was “a shell companyâ€. It had no employees and its only assets were a handful of motor vehicles. Furthermore, no due diligence was carried out to establish whether it could provide the service.
Thirdly, while the existing service provider had policed cable theft for a contract amount of R500 000 per month, the GNS contract was for R1,5m.
Gama, whose responsibility was not the day-to-day management of procurement, was the senior manager with whom the buck stopped. It was his responsibility to sign the contract. However, in the case of a confined contract, Gama had the authority to sign for a maximum of R10m, while the GNS contract totalled R18m.
So, whether or not he was party to the manipulations of his underlings, Gama exceeded his authority in signing the contract. In defence, he claimed that he had “absent-mindedly†signed the document without reading it, misunderstanding its nature (as a confined contract) and the sum of money involved, and that his signature was an oversight.
The disciplinary committee found Gama guilty of negligence for this oversight and a second — a contract involving the procurement of locomotives — where he signed a contract which included a clause that was against the express interests of the board.
Transnet’s assertion that Gama’s sanction was too harsh rests on this finding of “negligenceâ€, which it argues was not serious enough to warrant dismissal. But Antrobus’s report is strongly critical of Gama. The fact that no wilful misconduct was proved does not stop him from pointing out “the highly suspicious circumstances†around the GNS contract or that Gama’s cursory attention to important documents was not appropriate for a person of his seniority.
The details of the investigation against Gama have been dismissed by the ANC on the basis that it is a racial conspiracy. With conviction high among top ANC officials, including the president, that Gama is a manager of quality and a victim of conspiracy, it should surprise no-one if his star continues to rise.
