|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
Make use of paradise syndrome to keep to... |
The Kerzner and Matanzima case: bribery or extortion?SOL KERZNER is a life-long friend of mine, and I am happy to have him as such. I am weary of the speculation on how Kerzner allegedly bribed the late and egregious Kaizer Matanzima in order to secure a gambling licence in Matanzima's tinpot republic of Transkei.
There is no question that Matanzima was paid R2-million. But who paid this money and who authorised its payment? Kerzner was an officer of a large company with a board of directors. Presumably his fellow directors were aware that the money was to be paid and it has never been suggested, to my knowledge, that the board participated in or condoned bribery. I have never discussed this matter with Kerzner. I raised it once with him and he declined to make any comment. What I say here is purely my own speculation. Bribery is a pretty clear-cut matter. In dictionary terms it is to "promise, offer or give something especially money, to a (person) to procure services or gain influence". What needs to be asked is this: did Kerzner at any time "offer" or "promise" Matanzima anything in exchange for granting the licence? Let us hypothesise that Kerzner arrives in Matanzima's office to receive the licence after a long period of negotiations had finally, in Kerzner's perception, been successfully concluded. But then he is told that a final amount of R2-million had to be paid personally to Matanzima or the licence would not be issued. What does Kerzner do? His company has spent large amounts on the bid and committed vast sums to the project. Does he there and then write out a personal cheque and hand it over to Matanzima? Hardly. Surely this weighty matter was discussed with others and the view taken that, however distasteful it might be, there was no alternative, given Matanzima's absolute power, but to pay up and get on with a project that subsequently served shareholders' interests handsomely and gave a boost to Transkei's struggling economy. I don't know what Kerzner did and he won't say. It can be said that he and his colleagues were guilty of greed and poor judgment in succumbing to the demands of Matanzima, a cunning and manipulative man. I suspect strongly that what Matanzima did was to wait for the critical moment when he had the company at his mercy. The dictionary description of extortion is "to secure (money, favours, etc) by intimidation, violence or the misuse of influence or authority". It can be argued that Kerzner and his colleagues were the victims of extortion. It can also be argued that they were party to corruption in that they acceded to the corrupt demands of an extortionist. Kerzner has good company here. Any number of powerful multinationals have had money extorted from them by corrupt politicians and civil servants, and not only in the Third World. This is not to condone it, but to recognise reality. Kerzner did not bribe Matanzima. He and his colleagues succumbed to Matanzima's extortion. One does not have to be a lawyer to know that there is a vast difference between the two. This is perhaps what exercised the minds of the careful and experienced commissioners from the state of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas when they considered and granted Kerzner's application for gaming licences in their jurisdictions. Now the State of New Jersey is going through the same process, sending their experts to South Africa to investigate first-hand what happened in the Transkei and, no doubt, to probe Kerzner's other widespread activities in this part of the world. We shall learn in due course the outcome. In the meantime, in the interests of accuracy, perhaps the word "bribery" should not be so loosely employed in the Kerzner matter. Now I'm off to Sun City for a free weekend.
|