Will UK-led private investigation on insider trading citing Old Mutual and the PIC bankrupt GEPF, and will Ramaphosa be cited in imminent Glencore litigation?

By: Clyde N.S Ramalaine 

On 5 June 2022, I published my reasons why President Ramaphosa is wholly unfit to lead the ANC and South Africa a day further. The primary reasons for such emanated from two in-the-moment and then unfolding events. One, the USA Justice Department’s scathing findings against Glencore, and two, the opening of a criminal case against Ramaphosa as instituted by former Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, Arthur Fraser. For most South Africans, the findings against Glencore as made by the US Justice Department appears so far removed and thus without any bearing on Ramaphosa or SA. Also, in the aftermath of the 55th ANC conference, which returned Ramaphosa to office, the criminal case, which includes money laundering as opened against Ramaphosa, remains caught up in choreographed obfuscation of nine investigations for which South Africans eight months later, still waiting.

Let us again momentarily reflect on the USA  findings on Glencore. On 24 May, about the Global Resources multinational Glencore corruption and subsequent guilty pleas, US Attorney Damian Williams said: “The scope of this criminal bribery scheme is staggering. Glencore paid bribes to secure oil contracts. Glencore paid bribes to avoid government audits. Glencore bribed judges to make lawsuits disappear. At the bottom, Glencore paid bribes to make money—hundreds of millions of dollars. And it did so with its top executives’ approval and even encouragement.” US Attorney Vanessa Roberts Avery said on the same score: “Glencore’s market price manipulation threatened financial harm and undermined participants’ faith in the commodities markets’ fair and efficient function that we all rely on. This guilty plea, and the substantial financial penalty incurred, is an appropriate consequence for Glencore’s criminal conduct, and we are pleased that Glencore has agreed to cooperate in any ongoing investigations and prosecutions relating to their misconduct…” These findings resulted in the historical corporate red flagging that saw Glencore agreeing to pay fines totalling $1.5bn.

You would recall at the time that Glencore, despite its admission of guilt in a proverbial mountain of corruption across the USA, UK, and at least seven African countries in its statement, wholly exonerated its South African operations and, specifically Cyril Ramaphosa for any involvement in such corruption. Jogging our collective memories, the Glencore statement at the time: “Mr. Ramaphosa had no direct involvement in the day-to-day operations of Optimum Coal Holdings (OCH) or Optimum Coal Mine (OCM.) Mr. Ramaphosa divested his entire interest in OCH on 22 May 2014, prior to him taking office as the Deputy President and prior to his involvement with the Eskom War Room. The suggestion that Glencore involved Mr. Ramaphosa in the acquisition of OCH with a view to, or with the expectation of, leveraging Mr. Ramaphosa’s influence to achieve amendments to the CSA is false and baseless.” I said at the time this sounds like a Ramaphosa spokesperson statement.

I then asked why South Africans would trust Glencore, a known corrupt and criminal entity. Furthermore, why would Glencore commit all these violations right across the world but not in its land of origin? Established by Ivan Glassenberg, Glencore originates from South Africa in first registration.

Following my earlier mentioned 5 June 2022 penned piece, I was approached by an activist Justin Lewis in the last two weeks. Lewis is a UK-based activist tasked to lead a private UK investigation into the largest listing fraud in the history of the London stock exchange financed by the PIC. He explains himself in availing his volunteering his emails starting from 23 December 2022 to Harris Nupen Molebatsi attorneys. HNM attorneys are also representing President Ramaphosa in his Phala Phala criminal case.

Lewis’ involvement began in 2017 with his work with the Overseas Anti-Bribery and Corruption Unit which saw to his engaging of the UK- Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in London to complete an investigation into South African banks misbehaving while operating under UK banking charters. This is a matter that relates to – insurance fraud committed against himself and Lloyds of London – being one of five cases under observation. Lewis further refers to what he calls ‘claims involving in the second case –  the practice of creating fake court applications to create fake international certificates of debt.’ As a result of that meeting, Lewis was asked to appear a week later as a Mackenzie friend of the Royal Court of Jersey to observe another example of concern to the UK institutions of National Crime Association (NCA) and the FCA – where the concerns were confirmed in 2019.

According to Lewis, the South African cited bank [Old Mutual] in ownership was unbundled on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) in 2018 – with a disbursement of 158,726,732 sale of shares being transferred by its parent LSE listed company, allowing it to launder the money and transfer the risk onto unsuspecting investors on the LSE JSE NYSE and four African exchanges. Old Mutual, in the delisted state, gave up its majority 54% stake and settled for a mere 7% this act passed the risk to the investors.

Lewis details how in 2020, he travelled to South Africa to, among others, meet with Christo Wiese, to assist the latter’s £200m  issue that the UK – FCA had also shown an interest in. He also, during that time, met with Judge Dennis Davies on the subject of laundering legalisation by the SA Banks, bringing fake court applications to legalise international certificates of debt, which allows court-sanctioned money laundering worldwide.

Perhaps of more interest is his meeting with the then PIC chairperson, Dr. Ruel Khoza, where he communicated the FCA’s grave concerns that during the unbundling of Old Mutual from the LSE stock exchange, the Public Investment Company [PIC] doubled its shareholding in the parent London Stock Exchange [LSE] listed company. Lewis claims that his USA-based legal advisors shared this information that Lewis claimed attests insider trading links.

On 4 October 2018, the President of the Republic of South Africa, President Cyril Ramaphosa (the President), acting in terms of section 84(2)(f) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, appointed a Commission of Inquiry (the Commission) into allegations of impropriety regarding the Public Investment Corporation (the PIC/the Corporation). Noticeably this period saw the PICs recovering from the Steinhoff scandal and the subsequent instituted Justice Lex Mpati Commission. The PIC is an asset management company that manages assets for clients for a fee. As a company, it is subject to the provisions of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (Companies Act), and it, being a state–owned company, is also subject to the requirements of the Public Finance Management Act, No 1 of 1999 (PFMA). The assets managed by the PIC on behalf of its clients amounted to R2.08 trillion as of March 2018. Its mandate is to generate returns and contribute to the developmental goals of South Africa.

The March 2020 report of the Judicial Commission of inquiry into allegations of impropriety at the Public Investment Corporation [PIC], in its recommendations and caution against future exposure of the PIC, proposed the identification of the said risk by an independent investigator so as to mitigate or avoid any possible violations. This recommendation, in rational reasoning, advances the future proactive engagement of risk factors for the PIC, particularly for its role as custodian of, among others, the GEPF and various assets. It is a given that in the aftermath of the Steinhoff corruption, this recommendation made by the Mpati Commission now details legislation.

In this regard, Lewis concedes he proposed to then PIC Chair Ruel Khoza, appointed as interim Chairperson in 2019, the name of Senior Counsel Advocate Sholto Douglas as the one to head the independent investigation on the PIC role. Lewis’ motivation for Sholto hinges on two primary reasons, Sholto’s status as former Chairperson of the Cape Bar and two his recently upheld SCA successful arbitration ruling between the University of Stellenbosch and South African Rugby. Lewis, however, contends that before Khoza could implement the recommendation of an independent investigation, he was removed as Chairperson and replaced by Dr. David Masondo. The latter, he asserts, hitherto has refused to contemplate any such investigation.

In the meantime, Lewis would find that two events accelerated the investigation upon his return to the UK, namely legislation identifying the SA bank’s conduct in its sale of money laundering business structures to launder money into the UK financial system. And the use of fake UK court applications by the same as acts of terrorism against HMG. It would lead that this was precipitated by the conclusion that the Russian oligarch sanctions where organised crime syndicates were fingered as using the same modus operandi – now a detailed risk to national security. Meaning it assumes the description of a form of terrorism.

The FCA and chairman of the LSEG as well as other regulatory bodies such as the director of the SFO UK Lisa Osofsky – all want an independent legal opinion on the SA bank conduct and the role the PIC played in financing the laundering of the bank’s money  of laundering risk on the London Stock exchange. While this was unfolding, the first-ever corporate conviction in the UK of £ One billion against Glencore was completed by the SFO.

In Lewis’ prism, had South Africa and, in particular, the Chairperson of the PIC, Dr. Masondo, complied with the Mpati recommendation and the FCA’s insistence on an independent investigation, the PIC would have had the opportunity to avoid the risk of being seen to be financing the LSE/A listing fraud. It follows that since the PIC, under Dr. Masondo, rejected the idea of an independent investigator, it opened up the opportunity for the misselling investigation to exercise its right not to appoint an independent investigator as recommended by Mpati’s Commission and as is required by the FCA.

The FCA then asked Lewis to organise an independent legal opinion for sale to misselling agents in the UK. It is important to appreciate the definition of misselling to aid us in appreciating the extent of what is at play here. It is the mis-selling (something) to a customer based on misleading advice. Investopedia explains the construct, “Misselling is a sales practice in which a product or service is deliberately misrepresented, or a customer is misled about its suitability.”

The London-based misselling agents who constitute a thriving legal group then advised Lewis that claims in this instance could be achieved for the unsuspecting investors in the PIC financed listing fraud – of between £1000 – £9000 per share of the 158 million shares laundered. This is the conundrum since being allowed to proceed; it holds ramifications that would bankrupt the PIC and, by extension, the GEPF. Lewis asserts that a meeting for investors was arranged as scheduled for 15 December in Dublin. The investors to finance the completion of the independent investigation Dr. Masondo refused to do – in exchange for receiving the first £100 million of the anticipated misselling claim. Lewis also submits that his agreed fee to oversee the sale of the private investigation to London-based misselling legal agents is £50 million.

In his reply to Lewis on 23 December 2022, communique Peter Harris from HNM on 10 January responded with a thank you for the email, the information contained, and an apology for the late response. He then dovetails with, “We will work through it and give it consideration.” In my assessment, South Africans ought to be curious to know if the subject of the State Attorney, who at all times acts on behalf of a sitting president, was known in this or if the brief to HNM automatically extends beyond the Phala Phala case.

In an 18 January, 20h22, email Lewis, with an interesting subject titled ‘Rescuing the President,’ replies in reminding Harris of his earlier response to the subsequently published response of the PIC, which is contained in this attached link, https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/companies-and-deals/pic-rebuts-government-pension-fund-insolvency-claims/.

Lewis, in his closeout, enquired if his recommendation[s] as per his brief were accepted since he is under a 19 January, 12-noon deadline. So what, then, was Lewis’ recommendation? Permit me to cite him verbatim: “It remains my recommendation if you have the ear of the President [.] To instruct Dr. Masondo to initiate the recommendations of appointing adv [s]holto Douglas SC to investigate- and to offer Mr. Lewis as a consultant in this matter all necessary assistance to helping identify any Risk[.] So that it may be mitigated an[d] or avoided for the SA government’s pension fund’s sake. For by doing so, he immediately removes any claim of money laundering association by conduct[.] And thereby, any further developments pertaining to himself in this matter. Please forgive my ramblings –  but as a dual national, I felt I had a duty to the President – if you share my concern and agree that it has merit. And that for reasons that the ramblings are meant to confirm – if left unattended, have a tendency to escalate to the state we now find ourselves[.] I will send you a more comprehensive brief next Tuesday subject to the UK tipping-off regulations approval[.]” [sic]

We are compelled to engage Lewis to understand his primary motivation for the reach out. From the abovementioned, we know his overarching concern constitutes what he terms the ‘Rescue of the President.’ That rescuing of the President for Lewis entails a particular action of an instruction to the PIC chairperson David Masondo to have the independent investigation led by SC Sholto Douglas with Lewis as consultant realised. If executed by the President, this would exonerate the PIC associated by conduct FCA- led allegation of money laundering. However, Lewis’ recommendation has a sweetener to it. Not only does this act of the President absolve the PIC, but there is a personal benefit for the President. As a double benefit, Lewis also suggests that the President, in giving such instruction, would exonerate himself of any money laundering claims that may extend to himself in this matter.

Again we must pause and think this through more carefully. Based on its current investigations into banks’ actions in the UK, the FCA requires an independent investigation to ensure the PIC is not automatically associated with money laundering for its part in the unbundling of the Old Mutual bank as LSE listed company. The FCA extended this privilege to South Africa [which has legislation due to the Mpati Commission recommendation]. At the same time, the FCA withholds the right to institute its own in the UK. It only makes sense since it is a matter of record that the PIC acquired most of the Old Mutual shares in a dubious transaction. It then translates that the PIC has some explaining to do. For all practical intentions, the FCA is investigating Old Mutual as one of the banks on its radar for its 2018/2019 actions of unbundling which may have violated regulations and laws besides the possible negative impact on investors. Therefore, the idea of an independent investigation, as Mpati’s Commission proposed, fulfills two roles. Firstly it extends an opportunity to hear the PIC’s role as a South African-initiated response. Secondly, it presents the President’s opportunity in a sense of proactive leadership to exact an action since he would be initiating risk mitigation for the PIC as a progressive act. For this act on the part of Lewis, Ramaphosa would escape scrutiny. What Lewis does not help us with is to appreciate why Ramaphosa would be in the line of fire facing allegations of money laundering. I thought South Africans warrant knowing if its President, Ramaphosa, is cited anywhere.

In what details a third email dated 13 February headlined, GLENCORE CORRUPTION SCANDAL- SOUTH AFRICAN PRESIDENT RAMAPHOSA TO BE CITED AS RESPONDENT IN THE LONDON HIGH COURT – MIS-SELLING CLAIMS – AND SHANDUKA INVESTMENTS – GLASSENBERG – DISCOVERY addressed to Harris, Lewis again as recorded verbatim leads with, “I refer to my correspondence regarding saving the president from a Risk identified – address to as the president of the SA legal advisor in the Farmgate money laundering scandal.” He asserts: “The Risk of the abovementioned action increased dramatically last week[.] As a result of the President’s refusal to instruct the Treasury to appoint a independent investigation into the related risk of bankruptcy of the GEPF as reported to the SA parliament – [.] In the form of a Misselling claim arising from those Risks- estimated to be in excess of  £158 billion by investors of 157 267 000 Nedbank shares being Missold on the London Stock exchange -Financed by the PIC – as alleged. The cause of the initial risk being the sale of a business model by the bank operating under UK banking charters from the tax haven of Jersey – designed to legalise international money laundering – as a threat to the national security of HMG[.] [sic]

Lewis then shares his disgust with the response from the PIC, which he, in his communique, sees as the President’s action in response to his reaching out or the pressure that mounts. He contends, “The PIC published response[,] https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/companies-and-deals/pic-rebuts-government-pension-fund-insolvency-claims/[,] Is as per your involvement in the recommendations legislated after the Mpati Commission as a result of the Steinhoff scandal –[.] That legislated requirements for the  appointment of an independent investigation to identify Risks to the SA government’s pension fund – which the PIC has failed to do[.] Is not an acceptable response by law or fact – neither does it address the risk, real or imagined, as the PIC suggests[.]” He rightly contends: “The PIC response is the equivalent of asking Mr. Markus Jooste if Steinhoff faced any Risks prior to the crash[.] As anything I say or Old Mutual through the PIC says, is irrelevant in the reporting of the Risk – As only an independent investigation report as required by law – can Identify, Mitigate, or Avoid the Risk.” [sic]

 Lewis continues to engage the subject of misselling. Its relevance in this instance of the LSE delisted Old Mutual and the PIC when he asserts, “As a result – The misselling claim ultimately against the GEPF, arising from this unattended risk, is currently being marketed in the UK to misselling specialist legal firms, as per my mandate[.] As a direct result of the SA government’s refusal to address the risk, now includes the Glencore corruption scandal for the following reasons. As the Phoenix Group/Standard life /Hsbc bank /Norges bank /Abron /Kuwait investment office /Aabar investment /Reassure /Mubadala investment/ Sheik Mansour and others[.] Are preparing and filing misselling claims in the London High Court against Glencore, after its admitted corruption in Africa confirmed by the  £1.5 billion fines by the US DOJ and the SFO UK. Lewis goes on to share his discovery of misselling as a London reality with the following words, “I discovered the London high street to be a hive of misselling activity last week, as; Leading UK legal firms Quinn Emanuel Urquhart /Sullivans / Pallas Law / Stewarts and others are responsible for filing those claims were particularly interested in our misselling claim that I have a now been required to market[.].” [sic]

He then returns to Glencore through the history of business relations between Ramaphosa and Glassenberg, “Given President Ramaphosa’s past relationship with Glencore, and especially Ivan Glassenberg[.] Historical evidence is central to all the institutions filing claims against Glencore[.] The President and Glencore relationship regarding Shanduka Coal/Shanduka Investment and Optimum Coal has significant relevance, as explained to me by these leading UK legal firms[.] As our Misselling claim will be a boon to their investigations, for by citing the President as a respondent in their Glencore misselling claims allows them access via discovery to all of Shanduka/Glassenberg correspondence and dealings.” [sic]

Lewis cites a legal precedent in the previous Macquarie vs. Glencore. “Some years ago, a legal precedent was set in Macquarie vs. Glencore when it was ruled that the reliance on the prospectus of a company being purchased, could not guarantee undisclosed liabilities in the event of post-purchase, of these liabilities being discovered, if the selling company was not aware of them at the time[.]”

 He then tells Harris about the implications of the Glencore admissions. “The Glencore corruption admittances now change all of that, as now all the institutions as investors have to prove in their misselling claims – is to match the date of investment to the date of admitted corruption from the US DOJ and from what may now be discovered. In which case, historical evidence becomes central to their claims – [.] And therefore, our misselling claim has profound significance as it allows them to cite the President as respondent for discovery access to Shanduka[.] As that evidence will not only greatly enhance the value of our Misselling claim given the President’s refusal to abide by SA law in the appointment of an independent investigation[.] But will allow these institutions unlimited access to Glencore corruption relevant to the dates of their investment in Glencore[.] As the admitted corruption by Glencore under UK law does not require investors reading of a prospectus before investing[.] To be eligible to submit their multi-billion dollar claims against Glencore – as a result of Glencore corruption admittances[.] With the advantages of drawing further attention of the US DOJ and the SFO UK.”

He concludes his most recent communique with Harris with the following words, “Six weeks ago, I brought my concerns of the failure to address a limited Risk as a result of the alleged conduct of a SA bank – compounding further Risks to the SA governments pension fund. That, for reasons explained above, are, in my view, proving to be true. And for reasons amplified above, includes the President, given the current mood by institutional investors in the Glencore scandal in the London high street, as per my experience last week. As once the President is cited as a respondent in the Glencore claims. He Risks the attention of the US DOJ and the Glencore claimants into every detail of his relationship with Glassenberg and the origin of his wealth.] Which will include issues identified in the Farmgate scandal – [sic]

To appoint, in accordance with SA law, an independent investigation into the underlying risk of the SA bank’s conduct. The initial intention of my approaching your office was to save the President and the GEPF from these Risks. By considering my recommendation as the independent consultant in this investigation, and as US SEC DOJ whistleblower, and SFO UK. Lewis further asserts, “I am advised that these attentions may well bankrupt your client – with profound implications for the presidency, And as advised, a significance for a Mr. Fraser who apparently opened a criminal complaint against your client that gave rise to the Farmgate scandal -and your appointment as legal advisors. And thereby remove any Risks arising from the failure to do so, such as those explained above. My recommendation and offers of assistance remain. And whilst I am advised that as a result of concerted efforts by the PIC and others to follow the time-old tradition of shooting the messenger. Recent events such as the Zondo commission, the Steinhoff scandal, the Farmgate scandal, the Glencore scandal, and the potential GEPF scandal. One would have expected from this apparent pattern of scandals that the need for independent investigations due to the failure of oversight would have been clear. I remain your servant in this matter[.]” [sic] Again, we hear Lewis in his concern for Ramaphosa when he writes to Harris, “As I did not want the president to be ambushed as being portrayed as pro money laundering to the extent that he was willing to risk the entire SA governments pension fund – as a result of Dr. Masondo conduct[.]”[sic]

We must deduce that given the many instances of Lewis’ obsession with rescuing President Ramaphosa, the inaction of the President and his legal team does not make sense. I wanted to know from Lewis why the President, despite Harris calling Lewis on 15 January, practically ignores him. Why would Ramaphosa or his legal advisors be so reluctant to take Lewis seriously or to see him as a genuine major issue that holds ramifications for the country and President?

Lewis responded to me in the following way, “I don’t think he is ignoring me; he is being instructed to do so by [Maria] Ramos/ [Trevor] Manuel and others with Glencore links as they are terrified of an independent investigation for good reason. He then asserts – “the revealing of secrets about Glassenberg and Shanduka not being the least of them.”

I retorted, South Africans need to know who controls their sitting President if the subject of State Capture is still part of its lexicon. Not comfortable with Lewis’ answer on those who instructed Ramaphosa, I asked him by what powers Ramos and Manuel instruct the President. He responded: “By the powers of Johan Rupert, who has influence over Glencore to the extent that he appeared to be advising them / Glassenberg what shares he could or could not buy.” Lewis then sent me Annexure 4, marked page 36 of 64 and detailing aspects of the minutes of the special meeting held at Ten Bompas on 12  March 2015.

The meeting, which in status was categorised as a pre-meeting before the forum, had present Cyril Ramaphosa, Ivan Glassenberg, Jannie Moolman, Johan Rupert, Dave Bruce, and Trevor Manuel. The meeting is marked in Classification: Highly Confidential. As per the document, the purpose of the meeting was to focus on dynamics around Eskom and the Deputy President [Ramaphosa] role in the Glencore saga. Johan Rupert referred to the previous engagement with Cyril Ramaphosa and Ivan Glassenberg. The Panel discussed the sensitivity of the Sunday Times report on Eskom and Glencore coal saga on Optimum Coal. Permit me to quote verbatim from the note: “Johan Rupert stated the long support they gave to Cyril Ramaphosa when he started Shanduka  Investments. `the Rupert were the initial funders of Shanduka and have always wanted to respect their father’s wish on supporting Cyril Ramaphosa. It was an unfortunate situation when the Rupert family was not given the option to increase its stake on shanduka; instead, Ivan Glasenberg was given more options to increase his stake. Johan Rupert stated a number of mistakes that have been committed by Cyril Ramaphosa and Ivan Glassenberg. Amongst some of this mistakes, it was the way that Shanduka structured its acquisition of Optimum Coal. “[sic]

Suppose it is true that such a meeting, as detailed by its cited content, took place. In that case, the critical point is Ramaphosa as Deputy President and the conflicted status of the Chairperson of the then Eskom war-room in attendance in such a meeting. Ramaphosa, then deputy president of South Africa, was appointed by President Zuma in December 2014 to oversee the Eskom war room. We also know that Ramaphosa, deputy president of South Africa, informed South Africa earlier that year that he had divested his financial interest in the Shanduka Group following his assumption of office. However, contrary to this 2014 claim of divestment, South Africa knows that President Ramaphosa, by admission to several ANC and media platforms from June 2022, willingly admitted to selling livestock as his explanation for the foreign currency stolen from the couches and mattresses of his Phala Phala farm on and around 9 February 2020.

Another issue is the emboldened connectedness that ties Ramaphosa, to the Rupert, and Glassenberg business interests conjoined and respectively. Particularly so on the subject of Shanduka in its history of emergence and the roles played by the Rupert family and Glassenberg respectively. Suppose the content is authentic – it becomes the undeniable record of evidence of how Ramaphosa was made and who the real powers behind the business owner [Ramaphosa] are. On another level, since Glencore’s dealings are again subjected to further legal scrutiny, the extent of its earliest links in deals, among others like Ramaphosa, could be unveiled.

You will recall that at the time of the USA Department of Justice, findings on Glencore South Africa were not explicitly mentioned. At the same time, reference was made to seven African countries implicated. The question that South Africans warrant knowing is whether there was diplomatic fancy footwork and consideration on the part of the US not to go full throttle to cite SA since they needed SA under a Ramaphosa leadership support on the Ukraine and Russia impasse. Beyond the Ukraine and Russia war,  South Africans ask what the role of the green economy defined as the leading interest for the USA in this means.

On another level South Africa has yet to know the true source and actual amount of foreign currency found by thieves as stashed in Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala couches. How much longer can the NPA play this game of indecision on charging Ramaphosa? At some stage, it will come under pressure to make known its choice not to prosecute, which will pave the way for a private prosecution. Will this happen in the next 90 days?

Lewis is at pains to state that he, as a patriot South African as can be seen from his acknowledged dual citizenship, is sacrificing his agreed fee of £50 million. Lewis purports to be solely interested in the risk exposure to the PIC and, by extension, the financial implications for the  GEPF should the private inquiry in which the FCA and London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG) have expressed interest without an SA-led independent investigation proceeds to result in claims of misselling ultimately. Given their roles, it should be evident that the FCA and LSEG would have an interest in such an inquiry.The major challenge confronting South Africa, particularly the PIC and GEPF are at risk if the misselling independent investigation continues. The issue at stake is the potential role the PIC played in financing the laundering of the bank’s money at risk on the London Stock Exchange. If the PIC is found to have been complicit, it is exposed to the risk of being insolvent.

Lewis purports to be solely interested in the exposure to the PIC and, by extension, the financial implications for the GEPF should the  FCA inquiry without an SA-led independent investigation proceed to result in claims of misselling ultimately £50 billion windfall for Old Mutual and its largest investor, the PIC, who doubled its shareholding at that time.

South Africans know that President Ramaphosa acted without the ANC mandate when he accepted the ‘green deal,’ a package of significant loans and debt our children would have to pay into four generations. This deal initiated by US President Joe Biden sees Ramaphosa become the chief marketeer for this type of green economy that the USA stands for. We remember that President Ramaphosa’s visit to Biden had even DIRCO bewitched since this meeting was ultra-exclusive and classified as secret. The question is, was Ramaphosa, who went to the USA with the wet diapers of Glencore corruption allegations, Phala Phala, crimes and gross violation of USA regulations on possession of USA currency, extended a reprieve? If so at what price? A price that sees fossilized coal as a reality that defines our economy given its 40 year expected lifespan, as now obsolete when all over Europe coal mines are reopened. This when Europe orders SA coal by the tonnage as we speak.

According to Lewis, central to this insider trading claim is the duo of  Maria Ramos [chairing the PIC at the time] and Trevor Manuel [at the head of Old Mutual]. The claims against Old Mutual extend to and involve the PIC, which places the GEPF at significant risk of being insolvent should the misselling attorneys and agents be allowed to get into it.

Also, since the Glencore admissions, the implications of the UK investigation into the unfolding market interest must be addressed, particularly when UK-based legal entities are readying to bring serious litigations against Glencore. What, then, does this mean for Ramaphosa?

On 17 February, Mining.Com carried an article titled, ‘Glencore hit by fresh bribery – related lawsuit in the UK,’ accredited to Cecilia Jamasmie as the author. The article leads, “Legal & General Group to file claims against Glencore on 10 January in London’s High Court, adding to several lawsuits brought by investors since the company paid $1,5bn to settle long dragged-out probes in the USA, Brazil, and the UK. Several leading UK legal teams are representing institutions filing cases against Glencore due to the latter’s admittance to corruption.” https://www.mining.com/glencore-hit-by-fresh-bribery-related-suit-in-the-uk/

So what are the implications of the pending citation of Ramaphosa in the UK on the Glencore corruption? What does it mean if Ramaphosa, for whatever reason, is cited when the UK legal processes inadvertently are traced back to the earliest agreements between Glassenberg and Ramaphosa? Will Ramaphosa be the first African president to be exposed as a Risk in the Glencore corruption scandal?

The unavoidable common theme of money laundering runs deep from the London High Tower life of Old Mutual/PIC on LSE deals to the farm estate of Phala Phala. Equally, the objectionable and corrosive practice of paying bribes, a Glencore mastered practice, finds resonance in the deliberately obfuscated Phala Phala case. Misselling the misrepresentation of a product defines the canvas of the UK private-led  investigations. Yet, South Africa, its people and the ANC, in everyday life and fabric, must contend with the act of misselling measurable in misrepresentation and deception of whom it entrusted to lead in Ramaphosa. This misrepresentation sees demons embraced as angels.

In any normal society, the idea that a bank like Old Mutual and its PIC could stand accused by a foreign investigation for gross financial irregularities and brazen corruption immanent in insider trading would have made it to all major news platforms. Any normal society whose GEPF may run the risk of insolvency due to callous greed would be up in arms demanding that the accused be held accountable. Not in South Africa. In our perverted society, the accused and the corrupt are the heroes. They are uncritically attributed claims of fixing the country, as the mis-sold long-play song goes. How is it that all of what Lewis cites is not anywhere captured in any mainstream media? Kindly ask the ones you read every day and defend as the angels of a South African society.