Former senior ANC MP Vincent Smith fumbled awkwardly for a response at the state capture inquiry on Monday. This happened when Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo asked why, under his leadership, parliament’s portfolio committee on correctional services did not warn the department against further dealings with Bosasa despite knowing that prima facie evidence was found of corruption in contracts.
“Chair, I want to be careful,” Smith said. “I am not sure that we might have said it out rightly, but I do believe that the entire committee, including all the members, would have relayed that sentiment both to the department and to the minister. But I do not recall us saying upfront to the department, ‘what are you doing with that particular service provider?’” In hindsight, the committee should perhaps have fired off a blunt warning, he said.
Zondo said it was beyond his comprehension that Smith remained silent after the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) had presented the committee with “horrific stories of corruption” relating to the department’s existing deals with the company in November 2009. The report flagged bid-rigging and improper relationships between departmental officials and the company and handed it to the National Prosecuting Authority to institute criminal charges.
Despite being privy to this information, Smith did not intervene when the department extended contracts with the company for prison nutrition. In the end, “before, during and after your time”, Bosasa benefited from contracts worth R7-billion. Even in its legacy report in 2014, Smith’s committee did not sound the alarm or react to the real evidence it had heard years earlier.
“It is one of those things that are difficult for me to understand,” Zondo said. “I think from what I have heard, Bosasa would have begun to do business with the correctional services not later than 2007 … and if I recall correctly, they only stopped after this commission had started and Mr Agrizzi had spilt the beans. Only then did the government start doing something to stop this business. How is it possible?”
Smith demurred that parliament and its members had, at best, the power to persuade the executive and was not able to prescribe to ministers or directors-general to terminate contracts or the tenure of officials suspected of wrongdoing. Zondo suggested that the legislature had a duty if a minister were “unwilling or unable” to respond to persistent reports of corruption, including in the press at the time, to ask the president to reconsider their position in the cabinet. With hindsight, Smith said, the legislature might have taken a more assertive stance given the report it received from Willie Hofmeyr on behalf of the SIU. But he added that he believed it was also not the committee’s place to interfere in an ongoing probe.
Evidence leader Alec Freund put it to Smith that his inaction was “culpable” and recalled that according to Agrizzi, it was no accident but the result of bribes paid to him by Bosasa. Smith, who faces fraud and corruption charges alongside Agrizzi allegedly taking R870 000 from the company, vehemently denied this contention.
Zondo patiently asked if Smith could explain what his committee had done to act on the information at its disposal. Smith responded, “I am not sure that there was anything physically or consciously we did other than raise it in the debates or interaction with the minister.” Smith served as an ANC MP for 20 years and is the second MP to face criminal charges relating to state capture.

Questions

Evaluate the concepts ‘conflict of interest’ and ‘corruption’ and assess whether Smith’s evidence paints a picture of someone who is conflicted and corrupt. 

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

From the evidence given by Vincent Smith it appears that he may have been conflicted in his role a... View the full answer