Marrian, Abedian and McKaiser explored many questions including: Was Bain an unwitting victim of state capture or was the company an active participant? Can Bain reasonably claim that a distinction be drawn between a “rogue” former partner and the company, or is that a PR stunt that makes little legal or factual sense? Is a 10-year ban excessive, or might it be too lenient?
Other questions raised included: What was the true total economic cost of Bain’s alleged involvement in the hollowing out and capture of Sars? And what is the best way to achieve reparative justice for South Africans?
Strong views emerged, and it is up to listeners to assess these and engage in this important public debate.
To listen to previous episodes, go here.
Subscribe for free future episodes: iono.fm, Spotify, Google Play, Apple Podcasts, Player.fm, Pocket Cast
Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.
Eusebius on TimesLIVE
PODCAST | Heard the joke about Bain & Company South Africa being a victim of state capture?
Join the discussion:
Bain & Company South Africa released a statement in which it asked the government to repeal a decision to ban the company from doing business with the state for 10 years. The decision was made because Bain has been implicated in state capture, but the company insists it is innocent.
In a recent press statement, Bain argued “the South African Revenue Service (Sars) was — and remains — a critical institution and a source of pride for us as South Africans. We are embarrassed that this — procurement mistakes — could have occurred in the first place and are angry that our work was used by others to damage a critical institution and South Africa”.
It also claimed: “There is no evidence Bain colluded with Sars or engaged in any corrupt and fraudulent practices.”
Eusebius McKaiser invited Financial Mail deputy editor Natasha Marrian and Iraj Abedian, chief economist at Pan-African Investment & Research Services, to join him to discuss the company’s claims. Bain refused to participate in the discussion.
Marrian, Abedian and McKaiser explored many questions including: Was Bain an unwitting victim of state capture or was the company an active participant? Can Bain reasonably claim that a distinction be drawn between a “rogue” former partner and the company, or is that a PR stunt that makes little legal or factual sense? Is a 10-year ban excessive, or might it be too lenient?
Other questions raised included: What was the true total economic cost of Bain’s alleged involvement in the hollowing out and capture of Sars? And what is the best way to achieve reparative justice for South Africans?
Strong views emerged, and it is up to listeners to assess these and engage in this important public debate.
To listen to previous episodes, go here.
Subscribe for free future episodes: iono.fm, Spotify, Google Play, Apple Podcasts, Player.fm, Pocket Cast
Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.
MORE: