Publications
Partners
Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies has been accused of turning a blind eye to allegations of “illegal and corrupt activities” against the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission following a complaint of company hijacking.
Johannesburg businessman Wandile Zulu wanted Davies to initiate a forensic investigation, claiming that the commission had not thoroughly dealt with his “unlawful removal” in May 2016 as a director in gold and uranium ore mining company, Protea Mines (Pty) Limited.
In an email at the beginning of July, Zulu received feedback from Davies’ office stating that according to a “formal notification” sent to the minister from the commission a final response on the matter was issued to Zulu’s lawyers.
“We accordingly accept that you have been duly responded to and consider the matter as finalised,” said head of administration in Davies’ office, Marlene Ernest.
Zulu said in a follow-up email that Davies was “dismissive and evasive”. He said that he provided “concrete evidence” but instead Davies only responded in two sentences.
City Press tried for two weeks to get comment from Davies through his spokesperson Sidwell Medupe. The newspaper also sent through copies of the documents that Zulu had given the newspaper as far back as the beginning of July and there was no response.
In March the North Gauteng High Court ruled that the commission had a statutory obligation to maintain “accurate, up-to-date and relevant information concerning companies”.
Judge Annali Basson said that where a register reflected an error or a falsification, the commission was statutorily obliged to perform any functions reasonably necessary to carry out its assigned registry function, including correcting such error or falsification.
In the event that forged documents were used to effect changes to the company’s register, said Basson, such amendments should be regarded as a nullity.
Among the “evidence” Zulu outlined in his email to Davies was that the commission accepted an uncertified identity document and the document was only rectified more than 14 months after its submission, despite already requesting an investigation.
Only after the document was corrected – that the resignation of directors was registered – “thereby ratifying the change despite my objections and dispute that had been lodged with the commission,” he said, noting that he was suddenly not a director.
“I never received an SMS or an email from the commission when my resignation as a director was made, despite its notice that all directors will be notified via SMS and email when a change is effected on a company,” said Zulu.
Describing other inaccuracies, Zulu said that one of the ID documents was also certified by the document holder, the stamp on another ID document was undated, while an old copy of his ID – last certified in 2008 – was also accepted as proof that he had resigned.
Zulu was adamant that he did not sign the consent to resign but someone else did it on his behalf “despite the fact that I had not given him a mandate to do so, nor was I aware of it until then”.
“The commission effectively accepts whatever documents are submitted so long as the name of the document is correct – the content and substance, even if completely nonsensical and/or unlawful is of no concern to it.”
