Ramaphosa's energy plan Webinar banner

We'd like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick

More specifically, we'd like those who can afford to pay to start paying. What it comes down to is whether or not you value Daily Maverick. Think of us in terms of your daily cappuccino from your favourite coffee shop. It costs around R35. That’s R1,050 per month on frothy milk. Don’t get us wrong, we’re almost exclusively fuelled by coffee. BUT maybe R200 of that R1,050 could go to the journalism that’s fighting for the country?

We don’t dictate how much we’d like our readers to contribute. After all, how much you value our work is subjective (and frankly, every amount helps). At R200, you get it back in Uber Eats and ride vouchers every month, but that’s just a suggestion. A little less than a week’s worth of cappuccinos.

We can't survive on hope and our own determination. Our country is going to be considerably worse off if we don’t have a strong, sustainable news media. If you’re rejigging your budgets, and it comes to choosing between frothy milk and Daily Maverick, we hope you might reconsider that cappuccino.

We need your help. And we’re not ashamed to ask for it.

Our mission is to Defend Truth. Join Maverick Insider.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Pressure on Bain mounts as SA govt’s failure to cut t...

South Africa

AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY

Pressure on Bain mounts as SA government’s failure to cut ties is questioned

Illustrative image | Sources: Ismail Momoniat, acting Director-General of the National Treasury. (Photo: Gallo Images / Financial Mail / Robert Tshabalala) | Former SARS commissioner Tom Moyane during the revenue’s preliminary collection results announcement on 03 April 2017 in Pretoria, South Africa. (Photo: Gallo Images / Rapport / Deon Raath) | Former partner at BAIN SA, Athol Williams testifies at the Zondo Commission on 24 March 2021 in Johannesburg, South Africa. (Photo: Gallo Images / Papi Morake) | Unsplash

Britain’s decision to ban management consultancy Bain & Co from receiving government contracts for three years has sparked calls for the South African government to follow suit. 

Acting head of Treasury, Ismail Momoniat, has added his voice to growing calls for Bain & Co to be blacklisted from doing work with the South African government.

Referring to Bain’s involvement in the capture of the South African Revenue Service (Sars) during the administration of former president Jacob Zuma, Momoniat told News24 on Wednesday night: 

“In my view, what they did at Sars is akin to treason.”

Momoniat said Treasury is “actively exploring how to accelerate the process with the SA government to take appropriate action against Bain”.

The question of why the British government has imposed punitive measures against Bain ahead of the South African government was raised by local think tank, the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF), in a statement on Thursday.

“The United Kingdom government can only be applauded for its momentous decision to impose a three-year ban on Bain & Company from receiving work from the UK’s Cabinet Office,” the foundation stated.

“But South Africans must wonder why their own government has taken no equivalent action.”

The HSF argued that this was particularly the case given that the reason for the UK’s blacklisting is Bain’s “grave professional misconduct” — the words of UK Cabinet Office secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg — in South Africa.

“It is to be welcomed indeed that corporate actors who sought to enrich themselves from South African state capture earn global shame,” the HSF wrote.

“But it sends the most troubling message if the stiffest penalties they earn are from authorities other than our own.”

Momoniat acknowledged to News24 that “many of our institutions have been too slow to investigate or act against Bain”.

He said, however, that Treasury was now working to speed things up.

On Wednesday, whistle-blower Athol Williams — whose testimony to the Zondo Commission was vital in building a picture of Bain’s actions regarding Sars — told Daily Maverick that Bain currently still holds at least one South African government contract, with Sasol, and possibly more.

“Their business is booming. They have moved to new offices,” Williams said.  

Since the announcement of the UK government’s decision, Bain has said it is “disappointed and surprised”. The global management consultancy has previously acknowledged “serious failure” in its actions around Sars and has stressed that it has paid back all fees earned on the project.

The HSF says this isn’t good enough.

“The fact that Bain has paid back its fees to Sars is no redress, but is a gesture contemptuous of the magnitude of harm it helped cause,” the foundation said.

“The resulting shortfalls in revenue collection significantly set back South Africa’s constitutional democracy and most acutely prejudiced those who are poorest and most vulnerable in South Africa.”

The final report of the Zondo Commission found that the Bain-facilitated dismantling of Sars — which began in 2013 — “offers one of the clearest demonstrations of the patterns of State Capture”.

In a statement published on its website following the publication of the final Zondo Commission report, Bain wrote that it “does not accept that its representatives knowingly participated in State Capture or an effort to damage Sars”, adding that it worked “in good faith with every intention of helping to make Sars an even better organisation”.

The Zondo Commission found, however, that records proved that former president Jacob Zuma held meetings with Bain’s top local executives roughly once every six weeks over a period of about two years. This was part of what the commission concluded was an orchestrated plan to achieve “the assumption of control over Sars for ulterior purposes”.

The Zondo Commission stopped short of proposing a complete ban on government working with Bain in future, but recommended that “all Bain’s contracts with state departments and organs of state be re-examined”.

The commission also urged law enforcement agencies to investigate “whether or not to initiate prosecutions in connection with the award of the Bain & Co contracts”.

The role played by the private sector in State Capture has been increasingly put under the microscope, with organisations like Open Secrets suggesting that the final Zondo Commission report spared banks, auditors and financial regulators from the criticism — and sanctions — they deserved.

Investigating Directorate head Andrea Johnson, speaking at an anti-corruption summit last week, also questioned why banks had not reported suspicious transactions as required by law.

Back in Bain’s world, the section of its website devoted to its work in Africa currently proclaims: 

“At the Johannesburg office, we are committed to contributing to the betterment of local society. Simply put, we believe that what is good for Africa is good for Bain. As a result, we work on issues that are critical to South Africa, particularly efforts that improve the social and economic conditions of those in need.” DM

Gallery

Comments - share your knowledge and experience

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or sign in if you are already an Insider.

Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the knowledge and the experience to contribute meaningfully to a discussion. That’s what we want from our members. Help us learn with your expertise and insights on articles that we publish. We encourage different, respectful viewpoints to further our understanding of the world. View our comments policy here.

All Comments 5

  • They should be banned for life. Their website proclamation is the final straw. Banks that did not report the suspicious transactions should be heavily fined.

  • When we as ordinary citizens wish to open a bank account, we are subjected to comprehensive scrutiny to establish our bona fides. We have to prove our residential address and our source of funds, not only when we open accounts, but every time we conduct transactions of any significant value (and significant in our world is insignificant in the realm of the Guptas and the Bains). If we earn funds from offshore, the banks will not credit our accounts until we prove the source of the funds to the satisfaction of the reserve bank.
    Why then are there so many instances of “suspicious activities” that go unreported by the very same banks that hold us to account?
    How can it be that the state captors were able to open and operate bank accounts with impunity, while we have to deal with their massive bureaucracies and uncommunicative call centres?
    For how long are we going to accept that there is no equality before the law, that institutions (and their managers, leaders and enablers), be they state or private, are not subject to the same regulations that everyone else is?

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted