- \n
- Ex-Gupta man shows his hand<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n
- ‘Kickback’ scandal engulfs Transnet<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Singh\u2019s alleged role when Neotel closed a R1.8?billion deal to provide Transnet with five years\u2019 telecom services may give pause for thought. Neotel, its auditors said in correspondence seen by amaBhungane, paid a 2% \u201csuccess fee\u201d to a letterbox company, Homix, to secure the deal \u2013 or R36?million.<\/p>\n
A further R25?million, apparently not yet paid, was promised to Homix to secure the related sale of Neotel assets to Transnet.<\/p>\n
The auditors questioned whether Homix had brought actual value to Neotel\u2019s negotiations with Transnet \u2013 code, perhaps, for a suspicion that the fees were kickbacks.<\/p>\n
Individuals close to the negotiations between Neotel and Transnet have claimed that Transnet became inexplicably intransigent last December, when a pre-Christmas deadline for the conclusion of the R1.8?billion contract loomed.<\/p>\n
During the stalled negotiations, they alleged, Singh met personally at least twice with Neotel representatives. After he had a one-on-one with Neotel chief executive Sunil Joshi, the latter allegedly asked his staff to make contact with Homix.<\/p>\n
Once the \u201csuccess fee\u201d had been agreed with Homix, Singh allegedly signalled Transnet\u2019s readiness to resume negotiations, which were swiftly concluded.<\/p>\n
The individuals also allege that, in late February this year, Transnet had not yet paid Neotel for its January and February services. Neotel was told that Singh had blocked the payment. By that time, Neotel had not yet paid Homix its R36?million fee.<\/p>\n
The issue was resolved when Transnet paid Neotel, which paid Homix.<\/p>\n
Transnet, replying to questions sent to it and Singh this week, denied Singh was \u201cparty to Neotel\u2019s actions relating to Homix\u201d or that there was any factual basis for the allegations against him.<\/p>\n
It said: \u201cThe issues you raise are normal operational decisions that [chief financial officers] deal with on a daily basis in the execution of their duties. In this case, however, we would like to point out that the delay you may have been referring to had nothing to do with Neotel\u2019s suppliers [Homix], but was as a result of our normal operational issues and processes.\u201d<\/p>\n
* Got a tip-off for us about this story? Email [email\u00a0protected]<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n
- ‘Kickback’ scandal engulfs Transnet<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
![](\"http:\/\/cdn.mg.co.za\/uploads\/2010\/07\/16\/amabhunganelogo2circlesmaller-708.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n