Judicial Commission

of

Inquiry into Allegations

of

State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the

Public Sector Including Organs of State

Report: Part V

Vol. 2: SABC,

Waterkloof Landing

and

PRASA

Chairperson: Justice R.M.M Zondo

CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
 THE SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SABC AND TNA MEDIA (PTY) LTD ON THE TNA
BREAKFAST BRIEFINGS ............................................................................................... 466

Ms Mokhobo’s evidence ............................................................................................. 466

THE SALE OF ARCHIVE CONTENT BY THE SABC TO ANN7 TO THE GUPTA ANN7 TV
STATION .......................................................................................................................... 478

Evidence of Mr Josias Johannes Scott ..................................................................... 478

Evidence of Mr Rajesh Sundaram on the Sale of SABC Archives ........................... 483

Evidence of Ms Y. van Biljon ...................................................................................... 485

THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SABC AND TNA MEDIA ON THE NEW AGE
NEWSPAPER ................................................................................................................... 487

President Zuma’s version to Mr Sundaram’s evidence .............................................. 489

BROADCAST DIGITAL MIGRATION ............................................................................... 491

Dr F. L. Mutuvhi ........................................................................................................... 491

Mr A.L. Jansen van Vuuren ........................................................................................ 493

Mr L.R. Kruger ............................................................................................................. 494

Ms L. Mokhobo: Former Chief Executive Officer ...................................................... 496

Mr Yunus Carrim ......................................................................................................... 497

THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SABC AND MULTI-CHOICE ..................................... 502

EVENTS LEADING TO THE SIGNING OF THE MULTICHOICE CONTRACT................. 503

Mr Y. Carrim’s version: .............................................................................................. 507

 The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC)

1338. The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) is one of the state owned entities

in respect of which the Commission conducted an investigation of and held an inquiry

into, certain allegations that were thought to fall within the terms of reference of the

Commission. Members of the Commission’s Investigation Team and members of the

Commission’s Legal Team interviewed, consulted with and took statements from many

people who made statements or deposed to affidavits or affirmed declarations.

However, as it turned out, a number of persons from whom statements had been taken

or who had deposed to affidavits were not called to give oral evidence. That was either

because ultimately the view taken by me as the Chairperson of the Commission was

that the matters dealt with in those statements or affidavits did not fall within the terms

of reference of the Commission or that, although they may have fallen within the terms

of reference of the Commission, the matters were not sufficiently important to warrant

that the witness or witnesses concerned be called.

1339. The Commission takes this opportunity to express its gratitude to all such persons for

their co-operation with the Commission and for the time they set aside to try and assist

the Commission with its investigations.

1340. There were some witnesses who gave oral evidence the relevance of which was

questionable at the time they gave it which I allowed because the evidence leader had

indicated that there was to be evidence at a later stage which would reveal the

relevance of such evidence but there was no further evidence led. The result was that

the relevance of the evidence that was given was not established. That evidence has

been excluded. The Commission also wishes to thank those witnesses for their co-

operation with the Commission.

 WATERKLOOF LANDING

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 579

REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATING TEAM ..................................................................... 582

OTHER EVIDENCE LED .................................................................................................. 593

EVIDENCE OF MR SUNDARAM ..................................................................................... 608

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................. 611
 WATERKLOOF LANDING

Introduction

1612. The Waterkloof Air Force Base is an airbase of the South African Air Force. It is currently

classified as a national key point – a strategic entry into the Republic of South Africa.

The role of Waterkloof Air Force Base is to provide military air transport and other

unique services in the interests of the South African Air Force. Waterkloof Air Force

Base only receives flights classified as military flights, VVIP flights or VIP flights. Its

Standard Operating Procedures indicate that “no commercial or charter flights would

receive permission to land at Waterkloof Airbase except in an emergency situation”.

Waterkloof Air Force Base remains the prime military airfield. Not only does it run the

Ditholo Air Force training area in Hammanskraal but it also oversees Swartkop AFB,

the latter interestingly known internationally as one of the longest-running air force

stations in the world.

1613. One of the matters that the Commission investigated is the incident of the landing of a

private aircraft carrying guests of the Gupta family at Waterkloof Air Force Base on

30 April 2013 in Pretoria. The passengers were from India and coming to attend a Gupta

wedding at the Sun City Hotel, North West Province.

1614. If there was ever anything clear about the mandate of this Commission from the onset,

it was that it included an investigation or inquiry into whether Mr Jacob Zuma as

President of the Republic was captured by the Gupta family with the result that he

abused his position as President of the country in order to assist the Guptas and his

son to get certain contracts and jobs from government departments and state-owned

entities and/or that he turned a blind eye to wrongdoing by the Guptas and their
 PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 614

MR POPO MOLEFE’S EVIDENCE ................................................................................... 624

Introductory matters 624

The initial problems 626

MR MOLEFE’S MEETING WITH THE ANC’S TOP 6 ....................................................... 633

The meeting with former President Zuma 636

Mr Molefe’s version 637

Minister Peters’ version

639

Mr Montana’s version 639

Minister Radebe’s version 640

Analysis 641

Developments soon after the meeting 643

The vilification of Mr Molefe and his Board 644

Other entities also did not act 659

THE SWIFAMBO AWARD ............................................................................................... 663

General introduction to the award in the locomotives tender 663

Brief overview of events preceding the procurement process 667

The procurement process 668

THE ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES .................................................................................. 671

 PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA

INTRODUCTION

1710. As a result of serious allegations, including of corruption, that the Commission received

in respect of the Passenger Rail Association of South Africa (PRASA), the Commission

heard extensive evidence on alleged wrongdoing at PRASA.

1711. PRASA is not specifically mentioned in the Public Protector’s State of Capture Report,

dated 2 November 2016, that led to the appointment of the Commission. However, in

terms of Tern if Reference 1.9 of the Terms of Reference of the Commission, among

the matters that the Commission is required to investigate, inquire into, make findings

and report on and make recommendations on include: the nature and extent of

corruption, if any, in the award of contracts and tenders to companies, business entities

or organisations by Government agencies and entities.

1712. Significantly, however, some 15 months before the then Public Protector, Ms Thuli

Madonsela, released her State of Capture Report she also released her report on an

investigation she had conducted into PRASA. Her report was titled: Derailed. In that

Report, she made several findings of maladministration at PRASA. Some of the

remedial actions she took in Derailed are the following: the Chief Procurement Officer

of National Treasury is required to conduct a forensic investigation into all PRASA

contracts above R10 million since 2012; PRASA’s Acting Group CEO was to

commission that forensic investigation; and the chairperson of the PRASA’s Board of

Control (the Board) was to support the forensic investigation by National Treasury.