In a 10 December statement<\/a> the Special Investigating Unit announced an investigation into allegations of maladministration in the affairs of state-owned diamond miner Alexkor. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n President Ramaphosa signed the proclamation authorising the investigation, which “will focus on maladministration in respect of marketing, valuation, sale and beneficiation of diamonds, pursuant to agreements concluded between Alexkor and service providers.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The proclamations authorise the SIU to use all its legislative powers to subpoena bank statements and cellphone records, search and seize evidence, and interrogate witnesses under oath in an effort to hold those responsible to account for their actions.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Classic state capture,” is how Gavin Craythorne described events at diamond miner Alexkor \u2014 events that made the state-owned company the subject of scrutiny at the state capture commission in January this year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Craythorne is a marine diamond miner \u2014 one of many who operate as small-scale contractors for Alexkor. He has been a thorn in the side of Alexkor executives for years now, describing himself as a whistle-blower calling attention to the rot and capture of the state diamond miner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Appearing before the commission, Craythorne detailed allegations of how Alexkor\u2019s plans to expand into coal mining were part of a ploy by the Gupta family to benefit their companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He also elaborated on longstanding allegations that the Guptas attempted to capture the Alexkor diamond marketing chain through a company called Scarlet Sky Investments (SSI).<\/p>\n\n\n\n But over time he paid a heavy price: shut out of mining concessions, slapped with a defamation suit by SSI and finally forced to sell his ocean diamond mining vessel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To his detractors, he is driven by ulterior motives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When it comes to Craythorne, SSI\u2019s director Daniel Nathan doesn\u2019t mince his words, claiming Craythorne \u201cis motivated only by his desire to profit from the marine mining activities in Alexander Bay and his desire to somehow acquire the marine mining rights or the proceeds thereof for himself\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [sidebarContentSingleImage target=modal url=https:\/\/amabhungane.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/2.png]A diamond boat floats in the Port Nolloth harbour, 03 September 2021, (Photo: Barry Christianson).[\/sidebarContentSingleImage]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nathan, through his lawyers, told amaBhungane that allegations that SSI was involved in state capture are \u201cuntrue\u201d and \u201cdefamatory\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet some parts of Nathan\u2019s own account of what happened appear questionable, as we shall see.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Alexkor matter appears to have fallen by the wayside at the commission, which has had to deal with evidence related to a dizzying range of state-capture cases and was beset by delays.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This has left questions about SSI\u2019s appointment and its links to Gupta associates hanging over the company and Alexkor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So too are there unanswered questions around the coal strategy (unrelated to SSI), and what appears to have been, in that case, an audacious plan to expand the Gupta state capture machine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is an important tale in all of this not only about the machinations of high-level state capture, but in what it means for ordinary people in an impoverished corner of the country, the remote, barren Richtersveld.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Though the coal plans were ultimately thwarted, the infighting and Machiavellian politics of the state capture years left Alexkor and its joint venture with the local Richtersveld community in disarray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Pooling and Sharing Joint Venture (PSJV), owned 51% by Alexkor and 49% by the community, is the effective custodian of the mineral wealth that belongs to the community and should have been its crown jewel, but ordinary people have seen little in the way of diamond wealth trickle down to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Craythorne is by no means the only victim in a saga that has left a community divided and a company in disarray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Diamonds in the rough<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Northern Cape diamond mining coast has the feel of a rough and tough frontier \u2014 arid and dusty, and dotted with small decrepit towns endlessly battered by the Atlantic winds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For nearly 100 years the state has been mining diamonds on this corner of the country. Though South Africa is no longer the leading global producer of diamonds that it once was, the industry remains important, especially for local employment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the late 1990s the community lodged a claim to the narrow strip of land along the West Coast known as the Richtersveld, which had been expropriated by the colonial state after the discovery of diamonds there in the 1920s. It was on this land that Alexkor had its mining operations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only in 2003, after a protracted legal battle against the state and Alexkor, did the Richtersveld community win its land back \u2014 and the mining rights that went along with it were later ceded to them. Alexkor was left with its marine mining rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2011, the PSJV was set up as a joint venture between Alexkor and the Richtersveld Mining Company, the community\u2019s mining vehicle. It combined the community\u2019s land rights and Alexkor\u2019s marine rights, and became the vehicle through which the diamonds were sold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Alexkor and the PSJV do no actual mining. Instead, it is outsourced to private contractors, mostly to small boat-based marine divers who dredge the seabed using hand-operated suction devices. The contractors deliver diamond-bearing gravel to processing plants and the diamonds are then sold by the PSJV with the help of a diamond marketer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In November 2014, Scarlet Sky Investments submitted a tender to the PSJV to be the sole agent to market and sell its diamonds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2018 AmaBhungane wrote about SSI<\/span><\/a> in the wake of the #GuptaLeaks<\/a>, detailing circumstantial evidence that it could have been a vehicle for the Guptas\u2019 planned capture of Alexkor. There were vehement denials of any link to state capture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since then, however, Craythorne\u2019s testimony at the Zondo commission, further information uncovered by Zondo investigators and amaBhungane\u2019s own efforts have raised further questions about the Guptas\u2019 designs on Alexkor and SSI\u2019s role.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Back when it applied for the tender, SSI did not have a significant trading history \u2014 it was a shelf company bought for the purposes of the tender.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Online company records show that effective December 2014, Nathan was registered as a director alongside Kuben Moodley, with Moodley owning a 60% stake through his company Kimomode. The other 40% was owned by Nathan\u2019s company, Daniel Nathan Trading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moodley is widely known as a Gupta associate whose company, Albatime, has featured prominently in media reports about Gupta-linked state capture. He has been accused of being a \u201cfixer\u201d for the family and was arrested in connection with alleged money laundering in September this year on his way to Dubai.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The alleged money laundering relates to the proceeds from contracts that were improperly awarded by state-owned Transnet to Gupta-linked consulting companies Regiments and Trillian.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On affidavit Nathan told the commission, \u201cI have no relationship with Mr Moodley other than our previous association in SSI which ended in and during August of 2015. I have known Mr Moodley since approximately 2001 when we played golf together.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n He said that when he became aware of the Alexkor tender he contacted Moodley to come in as his BEE partner: \u201dI knew that he had the financial standing, business experience and acumen that would contribute to the business if the tender was successful.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Two months after Moodley and Nathan were registered as directors, SSI had the tender in the bag when the PSJV board signed off on it, completing a questionable bid adjudication process, as amaBhungane has previously reported.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That marked the start of a bitter dispute over the SSI contract, with Alexkor\u2019s partners in the PSJV and contractors like Craythorne crying foul.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part of the problem lay in the unusual way in which the PSJV was set up, with the non-executive chairperson of Alexkor occupying the same position in the joint venture, whereas no executive from Alexkor sat on the PSJV\u2019s board.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Percy Khoza, Alexkor\u2019s chief executive at the time, said that he arrived at Alexkor to find that that the company\u2019s memorandum of incorporation barred its executives from having direct oversight of the PSJV.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He said that the board\u2019s chair, Rafique Bagus, allowed him to sit on the PSJV board as an observer, but Khoza had no vote and no ultimate control over what was essentially his main operating company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Team Gupta on speed-dial? <\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bagus board had been appointed in 2012 by Gupta-linked Minister of Public Enterprises, Malusi Gigaba, though Gigaba has denied being captured by the Guptas and told the Zondo commission Bagus had been appointed on the basis of \u201ca very good record in the public service\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But Bagus was well known to the Guptas and was among a long list of politicians and public officials who made pilgrimage to the Guptas infamous Sun City wedding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before, during, and after his time at Alexkor, which he left in 2015, Bagus had many phone conversations with the Guptas and their associates, according to an affidavit by an investigator for the state capture commission, Peter Bishop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bishop alleges that there were about 26 calls between Bagus and Ajay Gupta between July 2015 and March 2016, and about seven between him and Rajesh Gupta between May 2015 and March 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There were approximately 60 calls between Bagus and Gupta associate Iqbal Sharma, currently facing charges of fraud and money laundering related to the failed Estina dairy scheme \u2014 one of the Guptas\u2019 most notorious state capture projects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The affidavit also mentions approximately eight calls between Bagus and another key Gupta associate \u2014 Ashu Chawla.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [sidebarContentSingleImage target=modal url=https:\/\/amabhungane.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/AmaB-Alexkor-Graphic-2.jpeg][\/sidebarContentSingleImage]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bagus, in response to questions, said he did not recall Chawla, but admitted his familiarity with the Guptas and Sharma. He said he knew Sharma from their time together at the department of trade and industry, adding, \u201cI have had several engagements with him over the years, mostly social.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAs a former civil-servant I am often called for advice. I have not discussed my work at Alexkor with any of these people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bishop\u2019s affidavit also alleges regular calls between Moodley and the chief executive of the PSJV, Mervyn Carstens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Between September 2015 and May 2017 Carstens was allegedly in contact with Moodley 97 times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For most of this period Moodley was not a director of SSI. He resigned in November 2015, but retained his shareholding through Kimomode until April 2017.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After resigning from SSI, Moodley went to work as an advisor for then minister of mineral resources, Mosebenzi Zwane, who has been implicated in the Guptas\u2019 state capture project and was the Free State MEC of Agriculture at the time of the Estina scandal. As MEC, Zwane\u2019s department had oversight of the project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Alexkor\u2019s chief legal officer, Zarina Kellerman, later joined Moodley as an advisor to Zwane.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bishop\u2019s affidavit also claims that Carstens was in phone contact with Gupta associate Stanley Shane about 10 times between February and July 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Responding to questions about the calls, Carstens said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAs for me calling Mr Moodley about 97 times, first and foremost I did not call him 97 times. He called me. If I missed his call, I called him back. I have no recollection of what was discussed on any of the calls with Mr Moodley\u2026 I had no reason to need to speak to him.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAt one stage Mr Moodley was interested in becoming an actual mid-water mining contractor or purchasing an outfit and called me to enquire as to some of the background. I recall there were several conversations about this however eventually he did not put in any proposal and certainly made no purchases in this regard. It appeared to me that he had lost interest.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Carstens said he did recall speaking with Moodley about golf, and that after the #GuptaLeaks and Moodley\u2019s connection to the Guptas became \u201cevident\u201d, \u201cI blocked his number and did not take his call or reply to any of his efforts to reach me\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cCalling Mr Stanley Shane is also one of those things which I simply have no recollection of, however any conversations with him would have been around mining. As the CEO of the PSJV I got a lot of these calls on a daily basis.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Shane was a director, together with Mark Chipkin and Mark Angel (who resigned in 2019), of a company that has been linked to state capture \u2014 Integrated Capital Management (ICM).<\/p>\n\n\n\n This company, Bishop\u2019s affidavit reads, was \u201cintimately involved with [Gupta associate Salim] Essa and the establishment of the Trillian Group of Companies, which was used to capture consulting work from Transnet and Eskom from the end of 2015\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Innocent <\/b>\u2014<\/strong> or integrated?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n Alongside Chipkin, Angel and Shane at ICM was Selwyn Nathan \u2014 Daniel Nathan\u2019s father \u2014 whose role in the company is more obscure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Daniel says in his own affidavit, \u201cMy father was the honorary chairman of ICM… [he] resigned from that position on 2 November 2015.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, a share register and declaration for December 2017 showed that a company of which Nathan senior was the beneficial owner still held a 21.97% share in ICM at that time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was Selwyn Nathan who arranged for a R50-million letter of comfort that Scarlet Sky relied on for its bid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When ICM\u2019s role in supporting Trillian was first exposed by former Trillian Management Consulting chief executive Bianca Goodson, the then attorney for the ICM grouping, Billy Gundelfinger, objected strongly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a 2017 complaint to the Press Ombud he said ICM was merely an \u201carms-length service provider\u201d and emphatically denied that the company took part in any state capture actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since then the linkages between people associated with the Guptas and people associated with ICM have become slightly clearer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As early as July 2018 amaBhungane revealed<\/span><\/a> ICM\u2019s role in helping a shelf company linked to Essa extract R647-million from Transnet for changing the venue for local locomotive manufacture from Pretoria to Durban.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Goodson has also since given damning and seemingly unchallenged testimony at the Zondo commission in relation to ICM, alleging that Angel, in particular, was aware of the way in which Essa\u2019s extraordinarily ambitious business model was based on exerting influence over decision makers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This included Angel\u2019s knowledge of a November 2015 email which set out Trillian\u2019s plan to capture R10-billion in consulting income from Eskom over just three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Shane did not respond to calls and WhatsApp messages. Gundelfinger, on behalf of Angel and Chipkin, told us his clients had instructed him that they did not wish to engage with us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Daniel Nathan, in his own affidavit to the state capture commission, has attempted to put distance between SSI and ICM.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According Nathan, ICM was brought in by SSI to \u201cassist it in preparing and submitting its tender submission document to the PSJV\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nathan insisted, \u201cSSl’s engagement of ICM was on an entirely arms-length and professional basis for the purposes as aforesaid.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n But was that true?<\/p>\n\n\n\n As we\u2019ll see, Nathan\u2019s attempt to rubbish Bishop\u2019s state capture commission affidavit led him to proffer a bank document that he must have known contained misleading information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That, unfortunately, may cast some doubt on his other assurances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Selwyn Nathan, ICM, Investec and SSI <\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n The process by which SSI was selected as preferred bidder was problematic, an issue to which we\u2019ll return, but it was approved subject to a due diligence check.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A due diligence and verification report on SSI\u2019s and its bid was conducted by the CEO, Carstens, and Zarina Kellerman, the chief legal officer of the PSJV, and submitted to the board in late January.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the due diligence exercise does not appear to have scrutinised the R50-million issue noting only that \u201cScarlet Sky has a bank guarantee of R50 million with Investec\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Had it done so, it might have picked up some anomalies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bishop\u2019s affidavit notes that \u201cthe Commission has subsequently established that lnvestec has no record of any guarantee that was applied for and provided\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Daniel Nathan hit back at Bishop\u2019s claim in his own affidavit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to him, \u201cmy father advised [Bishop] that Investec Bank had provided a letter confirming that SSI was an Investec Bank client and that SSI had funds available to it of R50 million (fifty million Rand)\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As proof of this, Nathan attached a January 2015 letter from Investec stating that it \u201cconfirms that Scarlet Sky Investments\u2026 is a client of Investec and holds various Investec accounts in their name\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe further confirm that as at the date of this letter, Scarlet Sky has an amount of R50,000,000.00 available in their accounts, for use at their own discretion.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The problem for Nathan, however, is that the information appears to be false. SSI was not a client of Investec and held no accounts with the bank \u2014 something he must have known.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Investec told us, \u201cInvestec categorically denies any association with Scarlet Sky Investments 60 (Pty) Ltd (\u201cScarlet Sky\u201d). Investec further confirms that Scarlet Sky was never a client of the bank and that it (Scarlet Sky) at no stage held any accounts with the bank.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [sidebarContentSingleImage target=modal url=https:\/\/amabhungane.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/alexbay_bc-11760-scaled.jpeg]The Alexkor diamond factory on the Alexander Bay coast. In the background excavators load rocks that were used to build a coffer dam onto trucks, 24 August 2021, (Photo: Barry Christianson.)[\/sidebarContentSingleImage]<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA 2015 letter, intended to convey confirmation of the availability of funds on behalf of two long-standing clients, erroneously recorded that Scarlet Sky was a client of Investec. This was incorrect. Furthermore, the letter clearly stated that it was not a letter of guarantee. No payment was facilitated by Investec for or on behalf of Scarlet Sky.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cInvestec has deposed an affidavit to the Zondo Commission of Inquiry detailing the misstatement of fact in the 2015 letter.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Investec and the Nathans also part ways on the exact circumstances under which this \u201cmisstatement\u201d came about but they both try to characterise it as not being material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n AmaBhungane sent questions to the Nathans regarding Daniel Nathan\u2019s reliance on the Investec letter and the impression that there may have been an attempt to mislead the commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In response, their lawyers labelled our questions \u201cconsistent with (and are a further perpetuation of) your previous discourteous, accusatory, reckless and defamatory engagements with our client\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding the Investec Bank letter, the Nathans\u2019 lawyers said it contained \u201cimmaterial inaccuracies (by Investec Bank and not our clients)\u201d \u2014 and that there had always been sufficient funds available to SSI, inter alia through Selwyn Nathan\u2019s relationship with Investec.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Round two <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n SSI\u2019s tender was initially intended to be a short-term gig, so in 2016 the tender process was renewed. Again, SSI was appointed, this time for 5 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By now, a new board was in charge. Bagus had resigned and been replaced by Hantsi Matseke, the Free State Development Corporations (FDC\u2019s) chair.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are traces of evidence in the appointment of SSI for a second term that suggest Gupta-linked Trillian had something to do with tender number two.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Two pieces of information suggest Trillian involvement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first is an email sent on 28 March 2016, two days before bids for the second tender closed, from a Trillian employee. SSI\u2019s proposal for bid number 02\/2016 \u2014 the second diamond marketing contract \u2014 was attached to the email and included Daniel Nathan\u2019s CV.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The employee wrote in her email \u201cI\u2019ve done a grammar check and added the health and safety statement to the proposal. Please find attached all the information required\u2026 Please add pictures under the relevant sections and potentially use graphics to enhance layout.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second exhibit that points to Trillian involvement is slightly more feint \u2014 two emailed meeting notifications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first notification, with the subject \u201cDiamond Tender discussion\u201d, was scheduled for 16 March at 10:15 AM at ICM\u2019s Melrose offices. It was sent by ICM\u2019s Chipkin to Daniel Nathan, and two Trillian employees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second notification for a meeting on 22 March was sent to the same group of people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Nathans, through their lawyer, flatly denied that they knew the Trillian employees, or that ICM was in any way involved in the second tender.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMr Daniel Nathan has no links whatsoever to the Guptas or their associates,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the Trillian employees, who asked not to be named, told us: \u201cClive Angel, whom I met due to the move to Trillian, asked\u2026 if my colleague\u2026 and I could assist with collating a proposal for Scarlett Sky.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMr Angel introduced us to Scarlett Sky management, whose persons were previously unknown to me, at the ICM offices in Melrose Arch. Our role was to collate the proposal using information primarily provided to us by Mr Nathan, at the ICM offices. Once we were done, there was no further involvement from my side.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n More Gupta fingerprints<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n In amaBhungane\u2019s initial story, we reported that only three people sat on the panel to decide on the final selection in the first tender \u2014 they were Bagus, longtime Alexkor director Roger Paul, and Duncan Korabie, one of the independent directors representing the community on the joint venture\u2019s board.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Korabie gave SSI a full 100 percent score which, as our initial article noted, \u201cis normally regarded as an attempt to skew a panel score in favour of one bidder\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The issue of SSI\u2019s scoring became even more charged when Korabie fell out with Alexkor. He later submitted a complaint to the Public Protector alleging various irregularities in the tender, despite his own 100 percent score.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Representatives of the community in the Richtersveld Mining Company, Alexkor\u2019s partner in the PSJV, were also concerned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After a complaint by the RMC in late 2015, Lynne Brown, who had replaced Gigaba as minister, tasked Alexkor\u2019s audit and risk committee with investigating the tender.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The committee concluded its investigation and came back to the board in February to say that all was well. There were no major problems with the tender.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But based on what we now know, the committee either did not look hard enough, or was wilfully blind to the problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the three committee members was Trevern Haasbroek, whose appointment as a board member of Alexkor in August 2015 bore the Guptas\u2019 fingerprints again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a now familiar pattern in the Guptas\u2019 state capture enterprise, the month before Haasbroek\u2019s appointment, minister Brown\u2019s personal assistant sent an email to infoportal1@zoho.com. The address was prominent in the #GuptaLeaks and is now known to have almost certainly belonged to Essa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The email, titled \u201cTrevern\u2019s CV\u201d, is addressed to \u201cSaleem\u201d \u2014 clearly a misspelling of Essa\u2019s first name. In it, the PA writes: \u201cHerewith cv for Alexkor board as discussed”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Haasbroek did not respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the Zondo commission Brown denied influencing board appointments in favour of the Guptas and said she was unaware of her PA sending emails to the infoportal1 (Essa) address.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A festering sore<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n The SSI tender became a festering sore on the Richtersveld diamond mines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Craythorne and some other marine diving contractors claimed that the company was ill-suited to the task of valuing, marketing and selling the joint venture\u2019s diamonds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They claimed SSI\u2019s appointment was not transparent, that the company did not have the requisite experience, and that diamonds were being undervalued and miners short-changed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Claims about the undervaluing of diamonds and anomalies in the diamond sales process have been laid out in detail at the state capture commission, and have been met with vehement and at times compelling refutations by both Nathan and the joint venture chief executive, Carstens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Both have also pointed to detailed separate reports on the SSI operation issued by two diamond industry experts and another Alexkor mining contractor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sign-up to receive our free newsletter<\/a> to make sure you can easily and instantly f<\/em>ollow this investigation and others like it.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n All three said that SSI appeared to run an effective marketing and selling operation that extracted good value for Alexkor \u2013 in contradiction to the claims by Bishop and Craythorne.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nathan alleged the commission investigators had made grievous errors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c[They] made statements of fact and have arrived at conclusions in their affidavits concerning me, SSI and DNT which are untrue, inaccurate and unsubstantiated, defamatory and reckless,\u201d he said in his own affidavit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n His lawyers told us: \u201cIf, as you record, amaBhungane really wants to understand \u2018what happened at Alexkor\u2019 then perhaps you should be reporting on the fact that during SSI’s tenure as the entity to market, sell and beneficiate the PSJV’s diamonds, the PSJV’s diamond revenue from sales convened by SSI increased from R276 million in 2014 (the year prior to SSI’s appointment) to R414 million in year 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAmaBhungane should perhaps be considering what became of this diamond revenue (which SSI actually generated in terms of its agreements with the PSJV) as opposed to unjustly interrogating our clients.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n That the Alexkor issue appears to have been left in limbo by the commission has not helped in getting to the bottom of a very complicated matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A more clear-cut problem, as far as the contractors are concerned, seems to be in the lack of transparency of the diamond sales made through SSI, which has only fuelled the contractors\u2019 suspicions that they are being short-changed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A report by forensic accounting firm Gobodo, which was submitted to the department of public enterprises in late 2019, underscores these concerns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Though the report was criticised by Zondo for its sloppiness, it did raise some noteworthy points around the lack of transparency in the marketing and selling of the diamonds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Gobodo report claims that SSI kept important information about this classified, even from the PSJV, on whose behalf it was selling the diamonds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the rush to complete their report, Gobodo\u2019s team appears to have made a number of errors and ignored some evidence that contradicted their findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One thing that stands out, however, is their findings concerning the assessments of the bids and how bidding companies were scored in the original tender process that selected SSI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The report notes that the weighting of various categories of scores was changed after three bidders, including SSI, were shortlisted. Notably, the weighting of scores for local economic development, job and ownership commitments was reduced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The report states that \u201cthe changing of the points and evaluation criteria is irregular and constitutes and unfair and uncompetitive practice\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Between mid-2015 and mid-2019, the year before SSI\u2019s contract was eventually cancelled, Gobodo calculated that over R1.5-billion worth of PSJV diamonds passed through Nathan\u2019s company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Given the huge turnover, the original 2014 procurement process that led to SSI\u2019s appointment appears to have been, at best, extraordinarily amateurish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Infighting<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n The relations between the small-scale contractors and the joint venture\u2019s board and management became so strained that several contractors, including Craythorne, did not have their contracts renewed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In January 2018, a team from the department of public enterprises (DPE) stepped in to attempt to resolve what had become an intractable conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the issues that the contractors \u201craised vigorously\u201d was the SSI contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The contractors also questioned the prices that the diamonds were fetching and the lack of transparency in the marketing and sales of the stones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The DPE team compiled a briefing report of their engagements with the parties, which left no doubt as to who the team felt was more to blame for the falling out \u2014 it was scathing of the board and management team.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere seemed to be a determination to manage by fear in order to drive home the message to contractors that no dissent shall be tolerated.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The team found that the board had been \u201ceconomical with the truth\u201d when it claimed that its decision not to renew some mining contracts was based on a legal opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They also drew attention to what was at stake for diamond contractors like Craythorne, who says he has now lost everything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe contractors have a substantial skin in the game. The contractor literally mortgages all they have to be on the sea during the sea days with an expectation that they will have a good mining day and be able to cover their costs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The problems that the department\u2019s team had seen up close, only worsened. In September of the following year, Alexkor was under administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When, in 2020, the administrator reported to parliament on the state of Alexkor, he said many of Alexkor\u2019s problems were traced to weak governance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The administrator noted: \u201cBecause the PSJV is an Unincorporated Joint Venture, it has significant governance challenges, as it does not have to comply with the Companies Act and\/or the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), neither has it adopted any of the best practices contained with either of the Acts mentioned above.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Carstens, the PSJV CEO, relied on precisely this argument \u2014 that the joint venture was not beholden to the PFMA \u2013 to explain the decisions taken in appointing SSI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe allegations of apparent irregularities in the tender process stems from a mistaken view that the PSJV is somehow obligated to comply with the PFMA\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe PSJV most certainly had a procurement process which was adopted by the Board of the PSJV [which] allowed for the Board to be flexible in its approach.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Others, including departmental officials, were uneasy with this freestyling approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The departmental team had said that the PSJV, \u201cby virtue of the fact that it is an unregistered entity which utilizes Alexkor SOC Limited legal status to trade and conduct its business\u2026 is bound by the same standards of conduct expected of a state-owned business\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMoreso, as the resource that is being exploited by the affected miners is the marine diamond deposit whose mining right belongs to Alexkor SOC Limited and by extension the State.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n But to the state capture crowd, the loopholes created by the PSJV structure seemingly represented just another opportunity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Years later Alexkor and its issues continue to drive a wedge through what was an already divided community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On 19 May this year the parliamentary committee on public enterprises reported on their oversight visit to Alexkor, noting a concern about government\u2019s failure to facilitate the election of legitimate community structures and a perception that they were still subject to divide and rule tactics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n