MARWICK, SON’S CONFLICT IN E12M LAND DEAL

MBABANE – Father and son. The son of prominent Member of Parliament Marwick Khumalo was engaged as attorney for the Members of Parliament and Designated Officers Pension Fund, whose chairman happens to be his father – the veteran legislator.

Khumalo’s law firm, Khumalo Attorneys, was instructed by the fund, which is most often referred to by the acronym MOPADO, to represent it in a court application that sought to evict occupants of a property it has bought.

As reported by this publication last week, MOPADO has spent E12 million in purchasing land that was owned by late business mogul Victor Gamedze. MP Khumalo and Gamedze were best of friends and the former even spoke on behalf of friends during the latter’s memorial service at the Prince of Wales Sports Ground.

1.3480 hectares

The land, which measures 1.3480 hectares, is situated in Ezulwini near Corner Plaza and Cash Build Hardware, and was sold to MOPADO by Gamedze’s widow Princess Lungile.

Mlungisi happens to be Princess Lungile’s lawyer and is the one who is representing her in the ongoing court battle with Nosipho Gamedze, whom the princess has challenged to undergo a DNA test to prove that she is Gamedze’s daughter.

This is because Nosipho wants to be included as a beneficiary of Gamedze’s estate because she alleges to be the late businessman’s daughter.
The involvement of Khumalo Attorneys in the E12 million land sale has ruffled some feathers among some members of Parliament who have questioned how the law firm was involved in the land deal.

One of the MPs said as legislators, they have to be seen to uphold issues of corporate governance and that includes avoiding issues of conflict of interest.
According to King IV principle on corporate governance, members of governing bodies have a common law duty to avoid any conflict of interest and to act in the best interest of the entity at all times.

This, the principle states, is in addition to the statutory duties of members of governing bodies relevant to specific entities such as companies and state -owned entities.
“Conflicts of interest may arise where an individual’s personal or family interests and/or loyalties conflict with those of the entity. As a general rule, no conflict between the personal interests of members of a governing body and the interests of the entity which they serve should be allowed,” it states.
However, Mlungisi sees nothing wrong with him being engaged by MOPADO as he said the MPs were the ones better placed to explain how they instructed him yet there was a supposed conflict of interest.
He claimed to have rendered his legal services to MOPADO for free hence be believed there was no conflict of interest. “I never solicited business or anything from them. Above everything else, I never charged them a dime for the services. I might not have seen the conflict because I don’t issue instructions, they (MPs) do. It is the MPs who should know about conflict of interest and which lawyer they can instruct,” Mlungisi said.
He went on to claim that MOPADO accounting records could prove that he was not paid any amount for the services he rendered but said he was personally not at liberty to divulge such information to anyone, especially the media. “My rendering services to MOPADO is more of a client-attorney thing, which I can’t disclose to you. But for you to appreciate the conflict, there was none in this case because I didn’t benefit financially,” Mlungisi said.
He continued: “In fact, MOPADO ended up castigating me saying I had failed them because the people occupying the property were refusing to vacate. They began demanding correspondence between me and the occupants.”
But Mlungisi could not respond to questions seeking answers on who had approached him for his legal services and whether he was the one who offered his services for free to MOPADO.
Later on during the interview, he claimed that his father MP Khumalo was not involved when the decision to engage him was taken.
“The decision was taken by the Board but it works through sub-committees. The sub-committee that deals with acquisition of land; my father does not sit in it. That committee was chaired by someone else. The chairman (MP Khumalo) does not even sit in the committee; he wasn’t even involved in engaging with the princess when the deal was made. The chairman was never there. The decision to instruct me was taken by that subcommittee.”
He insisted on having been engaged pro bono and claimed that he usually did work free of charge for a number of organisations.
“I’m not after money at the end of the day; that’s how my mother raised me,” Mlungisi added.
MOPADO Principal Officer Comfort Shabalala was called to give clarity on why the fund engaged the services of Khumalo Attorneys considering that his father was chairperson of the institution, but, just like he did last week, he avoided the questions.

terminated conversation
Shabalala first pretended to be willing to take questions as he invited this reporter to pose the questions.
He appeared to be listening carefully to the question and as soon as this reporter paused in anticipation of a response, Shabalala terminated the telephone conversation.
He thereafter did not answer his phone when called. This was on Thursday.
 He was then called again on Friday and he answered his phone, but went back to what he did the previous day by first inviting this reporter to pose questions and then terminated the telephone conversation as soon as he was expected to give response.
He then did not answer his phone when called except in one instance when he said he was driving and there was poor network where he was. Immediately thereafter, the conversation was terminated. Efforts to get comment from MP Khumalo were unsuccessful as he did not answer his phone each time he was called since Friday.
This was despite that the phone would at times indicate to be on the ‘busy mode’ yet when called immediately thereafter, it would not be answered.
A text message containing the questions that needed to be responded to was also sent to the MP, who is the country’s longest serving MP, on Friday mid-morning, but it had not been answered by the time this publication was put to bed.
He was last called yesterday, where several attempts were made to get hold of him through his mobile phone.
The MP Khumalo-led MOPADO board is currently in office courtesy of a three months extension period granted to them by Finance Minister Neal Rijkenberg after their term of office lapsed on December 15, 2018.
The extension invited anger from some MPs who felt that the minister did not have powers to grant this extension.
Section 71 (1) and (2) of the Retirement Funds Act of 2005 provides that “where any person is obliged in terms of any provision of this Act to perform an act within a specified period, the registrar, may, at the request of such person, extend that period from time to time” and “the Registrar may extend any such specified period after it has expired”.  Sandile Dlamini, the CEO of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority referred enquiries to Rijkenberg when contacted as he felt the minister was better placed to explain if he had such powers. Meanwhile, in the job he did for MOPADO, Mlungisi filed simple summons at the high court wherein he asserted that on January 2016 in Ezulwini, Mvelase Simelane and Turks Motors entered into an oral month to month agreement with Madlenya Trust for the piece of land in question.
The summons stated that in August 2018, Madlenya Trust cancelled the month to month lease agreement with these occupants after the property was sold to MOPADO and this was reportedly brought to the occupant’s attention.
“Lastly and more importantly, the property was transferred to the plaintiff and the defendants are rightly aware of that,” reads part of the simple summons.

DEMAND FROM MOPADO
The occupants were reported to have refused or failed to vacate the property despite demand from MOPADO.
 MOPADO said as a result of the refusal, it was suffering damages in the amount of E15 000 per month.
The fund prayed for orders confirming the cancellation of the agreement between Madlenya Trust and the defendants as well as ejecting the defendants from the property and payment of the E15 000 damages per month.
The occupants have since moved out of the premises and the court process was abandoned.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: