Corruption-accused former ANC MP Vincent Smith spent much of his Monday disagreeing with the state capture inquiry line of questioning.
More specifically, he disagreed with any notion that there was a link between him allegedly receiving kickbacks from facilities management firm Bosasa and the portfolio committee of correctional services ignoring the company’s alleged corrupt dealings.
Smith was chair of the portfolio committee at the time, but on Monday he told the Zondo commission he “disagrees” that it was too much of a coincidence that the committee turned a blind eye to Bosasa’s dealings.
Smith was testifying on allegations that his committee, between 2009 and 2014, looked the other way while Bosasa was irregularly awarded tenders by the department of correctional services.
Commission evidence leader adv Alec Fraund put it to Smith that the portfolio committee had ignored graft by Bosasa because he was in the company’s payroll.
“I disagree with you, sir,” was all Smith could manage to dispute the statement.
Smith is out on bail after being charged with corruption related to Bosasa.
His arrest was a result of testimony that was presented before the commission by former Bosasa executive Angelo Agrizzi, who revealed the company bankrolled Smith among other ANC politicians.
The commission on Monday sought to understand why Smith and his committee, despite a scathing Special Investigative Unit (SIU) report on Bosasa in 2009, did nothing to stop correctional services from doing business with the company.
Even worse, the commission pondered, was that in Smith’s legacy report when he vacated the portfolio committee chair position in 2014 there was no mention of Bosasa shenanigans.
Smith insisted he never used his position to shield Bosasa from being held accountable for and stopped from its corrupt dealings with correctional services for the provision of security and catering services in prisons.
The reality is that when it comes to work done by the executive, ours as parliament is the power to persuade. We do not have the power to dictate ...
— Vincent Smith
As for the department having continued extending contracts to Bosasa without open tender processes, even after the SIU report, Smith insisted parliament’s hands were tied from whipping the department into line.
“The reality is that when it comes to work done by the executive, ours as parliament is the power to persuade. We do not have the power to dictate or the power to micromanage,” said Smith adding there was a difference between what was ideal and the reality.
Commission chairperson deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo pressed Smith on whether his committee had failed to do its oversight duties on Bosasa because he was a beneficiary.
Smith, who several times repeated the line “I disagree”, stuck to his guns.
He in fact showered his committee with praises for a job well done.
“I do not think that the committee was docile. I believe the committee, under my tenure at least, was very robust.
“We were not shy of pointing out our dissatisfactions. I would not think the committee fell short and my defence is that we must all understand portfolio committees are a subcommittee of the house. All committee reports go to the national assembly. If there was blatant not doing the work, the 400 members of the national assembly should have corrected us.”
Zondo was not convinced, arguing it did not make sense that Smith had ignored the SIU report that should have been the basis for his committee to mount pressure on the minister.
Smith said the SIU report was being pursued by law enforcement agencies and, to him and fellow committee members, law enforcement was best placed to deal with Bosasa, not them.
“I was confident that those bodies (law enforcement agencies) would take it to its logical conclusion. We are not lawyers and investigators as MPs; ours is to defer to bodies that are best placed to do it and hope they do it. We thought it was in capable hands.”
Smith concluded his testimony by offering unsolicited advice on what Zondo could recommend in his report on parliamentary oversight.
According to him, it was one thing to blame individual MPs and portfolio committees for oversight shortcomings, but the problem ran deep.
Until SA had dealt with “fundamental structural problems in terms of the funding of parliament and resourcing of individual members and committees”, any attempts at achieving effective oversight would remain nothing more than a pipe dream, he said.
