Thursday, June 29, 2017

Gupta-owned company blocks improved health-care in Mpumalanga

This story exemplifies how state capture affects poor people

By Nathan Geffen
28 June 2017
Photo of clinic
This clinic in Hendrina, Mpumalanga, is 95% complete according to a report. The failure of a Gupta-owned company to pay the company responsible for building the clinic means that it is not clear when it will open. Photo supplied
Kwazamakuhle clinic in Hendrina was supposed to open in April. This 24-hour facility will improve health-care for approximately 20,000 people living in this Mpumalanga Province township. But three months later it remains unfinished with no indication of when it will be ready.

The clinic is incomplete because Optimum Coal, a company owned by the Gupta family, failed to pay the company responsible for building the facility. The building of the clinic is part of Optimum’s social and labour commitments in terms of the Mining Charter. All this was explained in a GroundUp article published in December.

Now court documents obtained by GroundUp show Optimum’s cavalier approach to its contractual obligations. Yet there appears to be not the slightest effort by the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) to take action against Optimum. Another story of Gupta shenanigans might leave readers jaded, but this story exemplifies how state capture affects poor people.

As described in our previous article, Optimum committed to paying for the new clinic. Three amounts had to be paid to the company building the clinic, Re-Action Consulting: R5.6 million on 7 January 2016, another R5.6 million on 16 March 2016, and R3.8 million in August 2016. The first two tranches were paid while Optimum was owned by Glencore. It was then bought by Gupta-owned Tegeta, which failed to make the August payment as well as additional management fees owed to Re-Action.

Nevertheless Re-Action continued to build the clinic using its own funds. However, it has drawn a line in the sand that the finishing touches to the clinic will not be completed nor the facility handed over to the health department until it is paid the money it is owed.

Following months of demands for payment, Re-Action initiated litigation against Optimum in the High Court in Johannesburg. It is asking for Optimum to be wound up on the basis that it is unable to pay its debts.

The court record shows how Optimum has stalled the payment by insisting on documentation from Re-Action and then, upon receipt of this documentation, requesting additional documentation.

Optimum’s own consultant says pay

Presumably in preparation for the defence of its court case, in March Optimum hired Accura Development Management to assess the “general quality and outstanding work” of the Hendrina clinic. The report confirms Re-Action’s view of things. It found that the clinic was 95% finished and of acceptable quality. The report contains a list of unfinished items, but these appear minor and could certainly not have been expected to have been ready by the time the August 2016 payment was due to Re-Action.

The Accura report further makes it clear that the payment due to Re-Action in August 2016 was not dependent on the clinic being complete. Accura recommends: “Optimum should withhold 5% of the project value as retention which must reduce to 1.25% on practical completion and 0% on final completion.” The 5% retention has already been deducted from the amounts that Re-Action has invoiced Optimum, and for which it is now litigating.

At first Optimum did not make the Accura report available to Re-Action. Optimum quoted from the report in its correspondence with Re-Action in order to justify its non-payment. In the court papers Re-Action describes these quotes as “selective” and “misleading”. To eventually get the Accura report, Re-Action had to make a discovery application under the Uniform Rules of Court (download it here).

Is Optimum solvent?

It is unclear why Optimum has failed to pay Re-Action. Its court papers offer a series of excuses that are “spurious” as described by Craig Assheton-Smith, Re-Action’s attorney. Assheton-Smith says Optimum’s actions are “clearly designed to delay” a payment that is contractually clear. He says there is no “bona fide” dispute, and concludes that Optimum is unable to pay.

In Optimum’s court papers it denies that it is unable to pay its debts and claims to have placed the disputed funds in its attorney’s trust account, but it provides no evidence for this. In fact in a letter dated 19 January 2017, Optimum’s attorney states that there is no obligation to maintain the funds in the trust account.

We asked Optimum if it was solvent, as well as several other questions, but the company’s attorney merely responded: “The matter is currently the object of litigation. In light thereof we do not intend to respond to your queries.”

A mining expert told GroundUp the amount of money at stake here was “small change” in this industry. In an industry where transactions in the millions of rands are common and the completion of a public clinic would be a much needed PR win for the Gupta family, it is unclear what other explanation there can be for the non-payment other than Optimum having a serious cash-flow problem.

No enforcement from Government

Last year President Jacob Zuma threatened to remove Lonmin’s mining rights if it did not hurry up with the implementation of its housing plan. Optimum appears to be under no such pressure.
On 7 February representatives of the DMR, Optimum and Re-Action met at Optimum’s offices to try to resolve the impasse. Optimum’s executive, George van der Merwe, once more said that the company required documents from Re-Action before payment could be made, but he was unable to say what documents these were. It was agreed that Optimum would supply these within seven days. It did not, and the DMR took no action. (Later, in March, Optimum sent a request for a list of documents, irrelevant to the payment due, which Re-Action nevertheless for the most part says it provided.)

We emailed a short list of questions to the Ministries of Mineral Resources and Health on Tuesday morning. Despite extensive follow-up efforts, neither had commented by the time of publication, more than 26 hours after our initial enquiries. No one answered the switchboard line of the Mpumalanga Department of Health.

Re-Action’s lawyers asked for the case to be heard urgently, but this was denied by the court. It is therefore likely to be years before this matter is concluded, Re-Action is paid, and the clinic is handed over.

In a nutshell, Optimum, perhaps because it is short of liquid assets, is unable or unwilling to pay for the clinic. It is in effect being protected by the DMR. (It’s a matter for speculation what has happened to Optimum’s money.) This is state capture at work. And the people of Hendrina are the victims.
Correction: The article originally gave the incorrect population for Kwazamakuhle (the township at Hendrina).

Published originally on GroundUp .

Understanding the OGOD judgment

The role of religion in public schools is not settled quite yet

By Safura Abdool Karim
29 June 2017
Photo of street names
Image copied for fair use from <a href="http://blog.centerforpubliceducation.org/tag/religion-in-schools/">The Centre for Public Education</a>.
On Wednesday the Gauteng High Court handed down a judgment on the role and place of religion in public schools.

The case was initially brought by the Organisasie vir Godsdienste-Onderrig en Demokrasie (OGOD), an association that deals with constitutional violations concerning religion and public schools, against six public schools in Gauteng and the Western Cape. However, the relief sought by OGOD was to apply to any public school within South Africa, not just the six listed in their application. The Ministers of Education and Justice were also joined in proceedings. Also, a number of civil society organisations, including CASAC (Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution), the trade union Solidarity and Afriforum were joined as friends of the court.

CASAC, represented by SECTION27, argued that some of the practices adopted by schools are inconsistent with the Constitution. Other amicus, Cause for Justice, the South African Council for the Protection and Promotion of Religious Rights and Freedom and Afriforum argued in favour of maintaining a place for religion within public schools over a secular approach.

In essence, the OGOD’s application asked the court for a declaration confirming that certain types of activity are breaches of the National Religion Policy and also unconstitutional. These include promoting only one religion, associating the school with a particular religion and requiring a learner to disclose adherence to a specific religion. OGOD also sought interdicts against seventy-one different kinds of conduct by schools, including “having a value that learners strive towards faith”, referring to any deity in a school song and prayers dedicated to a specific God, on the grounds that this conduct did not comply with national policies and legislation. OGOD also attempted to interdict the teaching of creationism.

The schools relied on section 15(2) of the Constitution. Under section 15, religious observances may take place at state and state-aided institutions if they are conducted in an equitable manner and that attendance is free and voluntary. The Schools Act makes a similar provision for religious observance provided that it is in line with the Constitution.

The schools argued that they were entitled to the right to freedom of religion under the Constitution and to have an ethos that referenced a particular religion. Also, the schools argued that section 15(2) allowed for religious practices and observances to be conducted at schools, if students and staff attendance is free and voluntary as opposed to compulsory or coerced.

The court found that the interdicts sought by OGOD could not be granted on procedural grounds, namely that the application had been incorrectly formulated to rely directly on the Constitution rather than the specific school policies and rules as formulated by the School Governing Bodies (SGBs). Also, the court found that the provincial governments should have been joined as parties to the application. So the court did not rule specifically on whether the conduct highlighted by OGOD, including the teaching of creationism and the handing out of Bibles was unlawful.

Despite finding that the interdicts could not be granted, the court did decide on a narrower issue, where a public school endorses one religion to the exclusion of others. The six schools joined in the application all based their ethos on Christian values. The question the court considered was whether this adoption and endorsement of Christianity by public schools was in line with the Constitution and the recognition of diversity.

The court found that there was no law or provision in the Constitution which gave public schools and SGBs the right to adopt an ethos from one religion to the exclusion of others. All that the laws provided for was that SGBs could make rules that provided for religious policies and observances to be conducted on an equitable basis. This means that schools must treat different religions with an “even-hand”, which includes not favouring one and excluding other religions.

The court held that public schools may not adopt one religion to the exclusion of all others. The court made a declaratory order confirming that a public school cannot promote that it adheres predominantly to only one religion to the exclusion of others or hold itself out as promoting the interests of one religion over others.

In essence, this means that public schools may still conduct religious observances and promote religious values provided that these observances and values recognise a diversity of religions (including atheism or an absence of belief) and do not place one religion above all others. How this practically impacts the formulation of a school’s ethos remains to be seen.

Published originally on GroundUp .

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

White farmer evicted by heavily armed Zim riot police VIDEO


Under ZUNU PF rule white farmers have been the source of many misfortunes, evictions, land grabs and killings. The latest forceful eviction of another white farmer is reminiscent of the brutal, ugly and often violent removal of white farmers during the 2000 Mugabe land grabs.

Robert Smart, a farmer outside Rusape town, was forcefully evicted from his farm. Several workers and villagers stood in solidarity with the threatened farmer and reports indicate that the police used teargas, and live ammunition to disperse crowds. There are reports of police assaulting people, although no serious injuries are reported.

The police and ZANU-PF youth ransacked the house, and massive looting occurred. The defiant police also instructed laborers to slaughter a goat and prepare a meal for them, while they removed goods from the residence.

At the end of the day, there was nothing left and the life of yet another white farmer ruined through the actions of the obnoxious and defiant Mugabe regime.

While in South Africa farm murders are devasting and on the increase, can the same dreadful and often brutal evictions or land grabs be on the agenda.

WATCH THE VIDEO  - HERE IS THE LINK 

Published on South Africa Today

The Fall of South Africa – VIDEO


The mere mention of South Africa in a discussion provokes deep images of institutional racism, discrimination and violence. Stefan Molyneux is joined by Simon Roche for an in-depth look at the controversial history of South Africa, the untold story of Apartheid, rising criminality, an astronomical murder rate, President Jacob Zuma’s reign of terror, the epidemic slaughter of white farmers, Afrikaner land confiscation and the growing possibility of civil war.

Simon Roche is Head of the Office of the HQ of the world’s largest non-state civil defense organization, Suidlanders of South Africa. Once an ANC activist, Simon Roche now works with Suidlanders to prepare for impending catastrophe in the Rainbow Nation.

WATCH THE VIDEO -  HERE IS THE LINK FOR VIDEO

Published on South Africa Today



Newly repaired community hall torched

City officials to meet with Joe Slovo Park leaders in a bid to end protests that started after shack demolitions

By Barbara Maregele
27 June 2017
Photo of fire debris
Joe Slovo Community Hall was torched by protesters on Monday night. Photo: Barbara Maregele
Joe Slovo Park community leaders and representatives from the City of Cape Town are expected to meet today over the recent spate of protests in the area.
On Sunday afternoon, a group of protesters torched a MyCiTi bus after the City’s Anti-Land Invasion Unit demolished about 20 shacks.

At about 8pm on Monday, protesters burnt the community centre and a small hall on Democracy Way which was being used as a local clinic and church. The Joe Slovo community hall was also gutted.
By Tuesday, City officials had cordoned off the community hall to assess the damage and clear debris. Inside, charred rubble and melted plastic chairs were scattered across the floor; the kitchen was gutted, and the bathrooms badly vandalised.

A female firefighter, who asked not to be identified, said she is traumatised after being caught in a tense standoff between protesters throwing stones and police firing tear gas.

“I was so scared, because it was the first time I experienced this. At one point, I was separated from my team and my eyes started burning. Later, I found out that it was teargas. I’m still coughing,” she said.

Loyiso Nkohla, the City’s community liaison officer, said he could not comment on the matter until officials had met with community leaders. He said for safety reasons a closed meeting would be held at Milnerton police station.

Community leader Cowen Banjatwa said the people whose shacks were demolished are from Ward 4 and that they cannot afford the rents in the area.

Banjatwa said he woke to the sound of people shouting and the smell of teargas. “My eyes and my wife’s eyes were burning in our shack. Now, people don’t have places to stay and they are angry. I don’t encourage what happened, but we need to sit down and discuss with the City to find solutions before this continues.”

“There is a great need for housing here and nothing has been done about it for years,” he said.
Phoenix resident Gavin Williams, whose formal house is directly behind the torched Democracy Way hall, said he feared for the safety of his family on the night of the protest. “We heard something happening outside, people shouting and going on. Then we smelt the smoke and the teargas. The neighbours all came out and started throwing buckets of water on the hall because the fire was about to jump over to our houses.”

“We had to take our four-month-old baby away because of all the smoke. Even the fire brigade was scared to come … We had to go and fetch them. The police also only came when everything was done,” he said.

Lorenzo Hutchinson said protesters started to stone them when he and his neighbours were trying to douse the flames. “We were trying to save our homes, but they started throwing us with stones. We have nothing to do with what they are protesting about, but they attacked us. That’s not right,” he said.

Mayoral Committee Member for Safety and Security JP Smith said the City has spent years transforming the hall into “one the community can be proud of”.

“The hall has been severely damaged and will be closed until further notice. The fire damage is extensive, resulting in almost all of the ceiling boards in the main hall being destroyed. This is hard to swallow when [on Monday] the Recreation and Parks Department finished extensive repairs to all ceilings boards and doors in this facility after years of motivating for funding,” he said.

“The nearest community halls are the Summer Greens Hall and the Milnerton Hall, and the City’s Recreation and Parks Department will accommodate users of the Joe Slovo Hall,” said Smith.
A small hall used as a local clinic and a church on Democracy Way were completed gutted. Photo: Barbara Maragele

Correction: The headline of this article was changed. Originally it incorrectly said the newly repaired hall was on Democracy Way.

Published originally on GroundUp .