Below is a copy of a letter I've just sent to a friend (ex SA journalist, now financial advisor) in London.
It shouldn't be neccessary to go this sort of circuituous route in order to get the relevant story out in SA -- but it seems that it is.
If anyone knows of any SA journalists etc who have the necessary guts (+ time + independence) to get involved in this -- most haven't -- please either post here or let me and/or Debbie2 and/or MaD know.
Thanks,
Daniel Macqueen
Hello, Mungo.
RE: TELKOM SCANDAL
I was going to email you yesterday when I got home, but couldn't because of a problem with my email program. (I'll try to get the problem fixed today by a computer-boffin friend, but meanwhile I'm having to send this as an email attachment from an Internet café -- so don't respond just by clicking on your "Reply" button. My email address is [email protected]).
Anyway, thank-you for having taken the trouble to phone back yesterday, and if you have Donna Block's number in Washington then I will contact her as you've suggested.
Also, if you have any other ideas about whom it might be a good idea for me to speak to (either in South Africa or elsewhere) then please let me know.
Basically, the story is in the nature of a (potentially very major) corporate-finance scandal -- though it's not actually much of a scandal here yet because the press here (RSA) have given it hardly any publicity -- involving Telkom. I won't go into the details (unless you tell me that you're interested, in which case I will do so in a further email), but in my view the matter is certainly serious enough to warrant investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission and maybe even the de-listing of Telkom's shares from the NYSE. It also has potentially very serious (and seriously embarrassing) implications for SBC Communications in the US.
Since Telkom is some 40% owned by the SA Government (plus it's a "Black Empowerment" company which it's politically incorrect to throw mud at), and since the company is also a very big advertiser in the South African press, anybody trying to get decent exposure for the story in South Africa would in any case probably face an uphill battle. But there's a further problem, which makes it even more difficult.
The further problem is the rather extraordinary behaviour in this matter of certain High-Court judges in Pretoria, who seem to be going out of their way to ensure that relevant complaints are never given a court hearing on their merits. An urgent application for an interdict to prevent registration of a disputed Telkom "special resolution" (having the effect or purported effect of authorising the company to purchase shares in its own issued share capital) was recently thrown out of court in limine (i.e. without a hearing on the merits) on the ground that the founding affidavit in support of the application was in single-spaced rather than double-spaced typewriting! An earlier urgent application was pronounced (by a different judge of the same court) to be lacking in urgency because it was presented to the court on a Friday and the office of the Registrar of Companies (+ the stock markets in Johannesburg and New York) would be closed over the weekend. And in another application the judge (a different one again, but still the same court) threatened to consider awarding the entire costs of the litigation against a notary public who was not representing either party, had no personal interest whatsoever in the matter and was not even in court, on the ground that she (the notary) had supplied an affidavit as a witness!
There was even one judge who, when Adv. Alachouzos appeared before him last year in connection with a related complaint and attempted to plead a relevant point of constitutional law, endorsed (as the "popular view" of South African judges including -- as was clear from the context -- himself) the proposition that "If somebody relies on the Constitution it means he doesn't have a case"! (The relevant hearing has been transcribed, and the transcript makes for shocking reading). That judge, however, has been formally cautioned by the Judge President of the Transvaal Provincial Division (of the High Court) -- at the request of South Africa's Judicial Service Commission (acting upon a complaint from Alachouzos) -- that his conduct in this regard was "unacceptable".
The reason why all this (i.e. the behaviour of the judges) makes things more difficult is that South African journalists are, as I'm sure you're aware, by-and-large a rather lazy bunch who wait for stories to be served up to them on a plate. They are disinclined to report upon matters which are the subject of litigation until the litigation has culminated in a concrete and easily-reportable judgment. But this particular situation is something of a chicken-and-egg one, in that there may perhaps never be a satisfactory and concrete judgment to report unless the matter is given some press attention now (i.e. before any judgement).
The judges referred to in the above are all, by the way, Afrikaners -- and the one who threw the matter out of court because of the single spacing of the affidavit seems (per Ivor Wilkins and Hans Strydom, The Super-Afrikaners, Jonathan Ball Publishers 1978) to have joined the (now "disbanded") Broederbond in 1968. The matter which he effectively consigned to the rubbish bin in this way had earlier been described by a black judge (Judge Shongwe) as one of "considerable interest even to the public" whose merits ought (for that reason) to be "dealt with properly": The South African Minority Shareholders' Rights Association v The Registrar of Companies and Telkom SA Limited 2005-01-28 (TPD) (unreported).
Well, that's about it for the time being. If you want further details, I'll provide them -- but in the meantime I have thought it wrong to send you a very lengthy email when you haven't asked for one.
Regards (and thanks again),
Daniel (Macqueen)
[email protected]
PS: I'm copying this to (amongst others) a couple of SA journalists -- Alameen Templeton of The Star and Barry Sergeant of Moneyweb -- both of whom know something of the story already, and both of whom have expressed some interest in it (though there's no guarantee that either of them will actually cover it). Templeton has been saying for ages that he's going to write/publish something -- but he never does so (+ he's not a financial guy anyway and may not understand it all). And Sergeant, though interested in the corporate-finance angle concerning Telkom/SBC directly, is in no position to take up the quasi-political element of the matter which has now been generated by the behaviour of the judges (because Moneyweb is a purely financial publication and simply does not go in for that sort of stuff). In terms of litigation, the whole matter will be coming to a head (in the same court, unfortunately) quite soon -- and what is really needed is for the court to know that it is being watched by the press (so that there will be a satisfactory judicial outcome for Barry Sergeant and others to get their teeth into). Any suggestion/contacts from you which might help will be much appreciated.
Cc: Alameen Templeton (The Star); Barry Sergeant (Moneyweb); Deborah Love (President, The South African Minority Shareholders' Rights Association); Gregg Stirton (Hellkom.co.za); Michael Alachouzos (Adv.); Martin Welz (Noseweek). Text also posted on forum at MyADSL.co.za).
It shouldn't be neccessary to go this sort of circuituous route in order to get the relevant story out in SA -- but it seems that it is.
If anyone knows of any SA journalists etc who have the necessary guts (+ time + independence) to get involved in this -- most haven't -- please either post here or let me and/or Debbie2 and/or MaD know.
Thanks,
Daniel Macqueen
Hello, Mungo.
RE: TELKOM SCANDAL
I was going to email you yesterday when I got home, but couldn't because of a problem with my email program. (I'll try to get the problem fixed today by a computer-boffin friend, but meanwhile I'm having to send this as an email attachment from an Internet café -- so don't respond just by clicking on your "Reply" button. My email address is [email protected]).
Anyway, thank-you for having taken the trouble to phone back yesterday, and if you have Donna Block's number in Washington then I will contact her as you've suggested.
Also, if you have any other ideas about whom it might be a good idea for me to speak to (either in South Africa or elsewhere) then please let me know.
Basically, the story is in the nature of a (potentially very major) corporate-finance scandal -- though it's not actually much of a scandal here yet because the press here (RSA) have given it hardly any publicity -- involving Telkom. I won't go into the details (unless you tell me that you're interested, in which case I will do so in a further email), but in my view the matter is certainly serious enough to warrant investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission and maybe even the de-listing of Telkom's shares from the NYSE. It also has potentially very serious (and seriously embarrassing) implications for SBC Communications in the US.
Since Telkom is some 40% owned by the SA Government (plus it's a "Black Empowerment" company which it's politically incorrect to throw mud at), and since the company is also a very big advertiser in the South African press, anybody trying to get decent exposure for the story in South Africa would in any case probably face an uphill battle. But there's a further problem, which makes it even more difficult.
The further problem is the rather extraordinary behaviour in this matter of certain High-Court judges in Pretoria, who seem to be going out of their way to ensure that relevant complaints are never given a court hearing on their merits. An urgent application for an interdict to prevent registration of a disputed Telkom "special resolution" (having the effect or purported effect of authorising the company to purchase shares in its own issued share capital) was recently thrown out of court in limine (i.e. without a hearing on the merits) on the ground that the founding affidavit in support of the application was in single-spaced rather than double-spaced typewriting! An earlier urgent application was pronounced (by a different judge of the same court) to be lacking in urgency because it was presented to the court on a Friday and the office of the Registrar of Companies (+ the stock markets in Johannesburg and New York) would be closed over the weekend. And in another application the judge (a different one again, but still the same court) threatened to consider awarding the entire costs of the litigation against a notary public who was not representing either party, had no personal interest whatsoever in the matter and was not even in court, on the ground that she (the notary) had supplied an affidavit as a witness!
There was even one judge who, when Adv. Alachouzos appeared before him last year in connection with a related complaint and attempted to plead a relevant point of constitutional law, endorsed (as the "popular view" of South African judges including -- as was clear from the context -- himself) the proposition that "If somebody relies on the Constitution it means he doesn't have a case"! (The relevant hearing has been transcribed, and the transcript makes for shocking reading). That judge, however, has been formally cautioned by the Judge President of the Transvaal Provincial Division (of the High Court) -- at the request of South Africa's Judicial Service Commission (acting upon a complaint from Alachouzos) -- that his conduct in this regard was "unacceptable".
The reason why all this (i.e. the behaviour of the judges) makes things more difficult is that South African journalists are, as I'm sure you're aware, by-and-large a rather lazy bunch who wait for stories to be served up to them on a plate. They are disinclined to report upon matters which are the subject of litigation until the litigation has culminated in a concrete and easily-reportable judgment. But this particular situation is something of a chicken-and-egg one, in that there may perhaps never be a satisfactory and concrete judgment to report unless the matter is given some press attention now (i.e. before any judgement).
The judges referred to in the above are all, by the way, Afrikaners -- and the one who threw the matter out of court because of the single spacing of the affidavit seems (per Ivor Wilkins and Hans Strydom, The Super-Afrikaners, Jonathan Ball Publishers 1978) to have joined the (now "disbanded") Broederbond in 1968. The matter which he effectively consigned to the rubbish bin in this way had earlier been described by a black judge (Judge Shongwe) as one of "considerable interest even to the public" whose merits ought (for that reason) to be "dealt with properly": The South African Minority Shareholders' Rights Association v The Registrar of Companies and Telkom SA Limited 2005-01-28 (TPD) (unreported).
Well, that's about it for the time being. If you want further details, I'll provide them -- but in the meantime I have thought it wrong to send you a very lengthy email when you haven't asked for one.
Regards (and thanks again),
Daniel (Macqueen)
[email protected]
PS: I'm copying this to (amongst others) a couple of SA journalists -- Alameen Templeton of The Star and Barry Sergeant of Moneyweb -- both of whom know something of the story already, and both of whom have expressed some interest in it (though there's no guarantee that either of them will actually cover it). Templeton has been saying for ages that he's going to write/publish something -- but he never does so (+ he's not a financial guy anyway and may not understand it all). And Sergeant, though interested in the corporate-finance angle concerning Telkom/SBC directly, is in no position to take up the quasi-political element of the matter which has now been generated by the behaviour of the judges (because Moneyweb is a purely financial publication and simply does not go in for that sort of stuff). In terms of litigation, the whole matter will be coming to a head (in the same court, unfortunately) quite soon -- and what is really needed is for the court to know that it is being watched by the press (so that there will be a satisfactory judicial outcome for Barry Sergeant and others to get their teeth into). Any suggestion/contacts from you which might help will be much appreciated.
Cc: Alameen Templeton (The Star); Barry Sergeant (Moneyweb); Deborah Love (President, The South African Minority Shareholders' Rights Association); Gregg Stirton (Hellkom.co.za); Michael Alachouzos (Adv.); Martin Welz (Noseweek). Text also posted on forum at MyADSL.co.za).
Last edited:
I believe we might be able to tell you more on wednesday night... however, will check this with all parties first