The Office of the Public Protector has declined to pursue an investigation concerning alleged failures by state organs to combat illicit financial flows (IFFs) as requested by ATM parliamentary leader Vuyolwethu Zungula.
Zungula had lodged the complaint on February 17, accusing several government departments and regulatory bodies of failing in their oversight responsibilities. He said this leads to the continued outflow of billions of rands from South Africa.
Case lacked necessary specificity
According to a letter from Lesedi Sekele, the chief investigator from the office of the Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka, the complaint lacked the necessary specificity and was framed too broadly to enable an investigation.
“In this regard, the complaint did not make averments regarding specific incident(s). But instead you phrased it in the form of questions.
“Due to the above, you were requested to avail more information in order to supplement and cure the complaint. In your response, you supplemented your complaint by referring to an affidavit purportedly deposed to by a whistleblower allegedly involved in various illicit financial schemes,” reads the letter.
Samancor Chrome case
Zungula had cited a case involving Samancor Chrome, where more than $500-million (R8.8-billion) was allegedly siphoned abroad by its directors and associates between 2005 and 2010, or even later.
He also alleged that despite this matter being brought to court by the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU) and presented to various government agencies and Parliament’s Finance Committee, no visible action was taken by the police, the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC), the Reserve Bank, or the Competition Commission.
Zungula said the Samancor case, including a 2021 allegation of mispricing under new management, highlights systemic state failures to prevent illicit flows, enforce regulations, and recover lost tax revenue.
The letter reveals that Gcaleka found that the original 2019 case is or was before the Johannesburg High Court. And this makes it inappropriate for her office to investigate the same matter.
No sufficient processes followed
She also found no evidence that affected parties exhausted available internal remedies with the relevant government bodies before approaching her office.
She said the complaint was also lodged more than two years after the incident. And the reasons provided for the delay were insufficient to establish what she called special circumstances required under section 6(9) of the Public Protector Act.
“Having regard to the information transversed above, this office has decided not to conduct further investigation on this matter as contemplated in Rule 11(1)(a) of the Public Protector rules. This office proceeds to close the file,” reads the letter in part.
