In November 2018, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) overturned a contract between Prasa and Swifambo Rail Leasing, labelling it fraudulent and identifying Swifambo as a front for the Spanish locomotive company Vossloh.
“The continued performance of the contract would serve no useful purpose. It might benefit Vossloh and Swifambo, but it would be to the detriment of the public and to the detriment of Prasa,” the SCA judgment read.
In a separate judgment in November 2022, the SCA dismissed an appeal linked to Montana against a high court ruling that contracts between Prasa and Siyangena Technologies were corrupt and unlawful. The SCA found that “Montana simply ignored procedures, bypassed committees and manipulated documents to advantage Siyangena Technologies.”
The state capture report found Montana had a conflict of interest when dealing with Prasa tenders which were found to be irregular.
“The details set out above about how the agreements to purchase the Waterkloof, Sandhurst and Hurlingham properties came into being make the offer clear. It was Montana who was a key figure in the purchases. It is correct that two of the properties were transferred to Precise Trade, but Montana was a significant role player in all three purchases,” said the report.
“These payments were made at a time when Prasa was concluding contracts with Siyangena. Montana placed himself in a conflict of interest. While on the one hand Prasa was concluding business contracts with Siyangena, he should not in his personal capacity have been involved in any business transaction with Siyangena or entities or individuals connected with Siyangena.
“Siyangena or those entities or individuals connected with Siyangena could do favours for him so that in turn he could influence Prasa to do favours for them or he, acting in his official capacity as CEO of Prasa, could remember that Siyangena or people or entities connected with Siyangena had done favours for him in his personal capacity and reciprocate through Prasa,” said the report.
MK Party defends embracing Lucky Montana
The MK Party has defended embracing controversial former Prasa boss Lucky Montana.
Montana, who was in the spotlight during the state capture inquiry into looting of the state-owned entity, trended on social media this week after he spoke about being part of former president Jacob Zuma's party.
“The MK Party said to me 'you are knowledgeable on state enterprises and transport. We want to use your knowledge.' I come into a party that is so dynamic,” he said.
His return to the spotlight comes months after President Cyril Ramaphosa authorised the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) to probe allegations of maladministration at Prasa, some which happened during his tenure. The scope of the investigation includes irregular contracts covered in chief justice Raymond Zondo's state capture report.
The SIU probe will include the awarding of security contracts worth R5.5bn to Siyangena Technologies, a R3.5bn locomotive tender awarded to Swifambo Rail Leasing, which courts found irregular.
Some people in the political arena criticised the MK Party's decision to endorse Montana making the party his political home, but party spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela said Montana was being politically targeted.
“He is a competent leader who is politically targeted. He has demonstrated that his capabilities are that of a person that can grow an organisation in the same way he did with Prasa. He did a good job in Prasa,” Ndhlela said.
“We have demonstrative evidence of good performance of him being able to transform an organisation. That’s the evidence we have. Any other evidence is just a sham, it’s a political ploy,” said Ndhlela.
Ndhlela urged people who have evidence of corruption against Montana to present it.
“If people have evidence of corruption they should come forward with it. We know that they didn’t like him so they wouldn’t even waste a breath to move quickly and implicate him with whatever evidence they have. So why have they not brought the evidence but they still want to label him corrupt? How do you label someone as corrupt when you don’t even have the evidence that they are corrupt.
“They have not been able to prove it. He has submitted an affidavit and till today no one has responded to the affidavit he has submitted. No one could bring forth the evidence. No one. It has been over 18 months now. That is very telling,” said Ndhlela.
In November 2018, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) overturned a contract between Prasa and Swifambo Rail Leasing, labelling it fraudulent and identifying Swifambo as a front for the Spanish locomotive company Vossloh.
“The continued performance of the contract would serve no useful purpose. It might benefit Vossloh and Swifambo, but it would be to the detriment of the public and to the detriment of Prasa,” the SCA judgment read.
In a separate judgment in November 2022, the SCA dismissed an appeal linked to Montana against a high court ruling that contracts between Prasa and Siyangena Technologies were corrupt and unlawful. The SCA found that “Montana simply ignored procedures, bypassed committees and manipulated documents to advantage Siyangena Technologies.”
The state capture report found Montana had a conflict of interest when dealing with Prasa tenders which were found to be irregular.
“The details set out above about how the agreements to purchase the Waterkloof, Sandhurst and Hurlingham properties came into being make the offer clear. It was Montana who was a key figure in the purchases. It is correct that two of the properties were transferred to Precise Trade, but Montana was a significant role player in all three purchases,” said the report.
“These payments were made at a time when Prasa was concluding contracts with Siyangena. Montana placed himself in a conflict of interest. While on the one hand Prasa was concluding business contracts with Siyangena, he should not in his personal capacity have been involved in any business transaction with Siyangena or entities or individuals connected with Siyangena.
“Siyangena or those entities or individuals connected with Siyangena could do favours for him so that in turn he could influence Prasa to do favours for them or he, acting in his official capacity as CEO of Prasa, could remember that Siyangena or people or entities connected with Siyangena had done favours for him in his personal capacity and reciprocate through Prasa,” said the report.
Montana over the years has dismissed corruption allegation against him.
“I dealt with all, each and every allegation levelled against me. I proved to justice Zondo that all of these are not only false but I presented actual evidence. For example, people said Montana bought a lot of properties. I presented with evidence that showed how I bought each property, which bank and I gave him the evidence.
“I think the first accusation that I had was in 2015. Almost 10 years down the line, I haven't even been interviewed other than the time that is on the commission, I've never been even interviewed at once and say, 'hey, we think R10 has been taken from there and moved by you' because these things are false.”
TimesLIVE
READ MORE