Why Shabangu did not answer questions: iLIVE

Editor: In "Dodgy deal: probe exposes Shabangu" (February 13), Mzilikazi wa Afrika and Stephan Hofstatter reported that I refused to reply to their "detailed questions". However, they failed to tell readers why I am no longer prepared to answer their questions.

It is inconceivable that, as a businessman concerned about my reputation, the goodwill of my companies and the welfare of my employees, I would turn down an opportunity to state my side of the story, especially amid a clear disinformation campaign aimed at discrediting me as an entrepreneur.

What Wa Afrika and Hofstatter skilfully avoided was to tell readers that they quoted my responses selectively, as these usually contained facts which stood in the way of their juicy, sexy stories.

I do not expect the media to report stories of alleged maladministration and corruption in the public service as if they were indifferent to these ills. These ills rob the poor of much-needed services, and the media ought to be on the side of the downtrodden.

However, a thin line between good and evil is crossed when journalists become tools of those with vendettas against others.

I have come to the conclusion that Wa Afrika and Hofstatter could well be victims of manipulation by someone within the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) which is determined to discredit me for reasons unknown to me.

The two reporters have in the past few weeks been sending me questions which have been mirror copies of questions posed to me by the SIU - questions I would have answered exhaustively to the SIU and the office of the public protector.

I have, on numerous occasions, explained to the reporters that the process leading to the acquisition of the Middestad building and the subsequent lease agreement entered into between my company and the Department of Public Works were above board and in accordance with the law. However, I refuse to subject myself to a parallel investigation conducted by the two when I'm already taking time off from my busy schedule to co-operate fully with the official investigation.

Wa Afrika and Hofstatter quote as gospel truth the flawed report of the legal firm Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, which was commissioned illegally and was rubbished by the finding of the office of the state attorney, which declared the lease to be "binding, valid and enforceable".

The reporters question whether the building was transferred into our name after the lease agreement was signed. They fail to inform readers that such is usual practice, as banks are reluctant to finance unleased buildings.

Very few, if any, previously disadvantaged individuals would be able to enter the commercial property market otherwise, and this sector would remain in the hands of the minority, who still dominate it.

The consequence of this lynching of an enterprising spirit is that it will discourage other young black entrepreneurs from playing in the big league of commercial property, hoping to avoid a fate similar to mine. - Roux Shabangu, by e-mail

If the questions asked by our reporters resembled those of the SIU investigators, it is because those were the obvious questions to ask based on the facts. Shabangu claims our reporters quoted selectively from his responses when, in fact, he has failed to answer any questions they have put to him. We stand by our reporters and by the stories, which have been the result of original investigations.