South Africa - Pretoria - 16 July 2019 - Former PIC CEO Dan Matjila testifies at the PIC Commission of Inquiry. Picture: Oupa Mokoena/African News Agency (ANA)
JOHANNESBURG - Former Public Investment Corporation (PIC) chief executive Dan Matjila said yesterday that South African Home Loans (SAHL) was the first company to present the PIC with a housing finance proposal for Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) members.

But he said that the PIC had made it clear to the company that no deal would take place without the participation of a black economic empowerment (BEE) partner.

Matjila said that the PIC was working with the GEPF to create products for members that would benefit.

Matjila told the Lex Mpati Commission tasked with looking into the affairs of the asset manager that the only BEE partner that came forward was Kholofelo Maponya’s Matome Maponya Investments (MMI).

He, however, stressed that the PIC never introduced MMI to SAHL, but MMI approached the PIC for funding to exit JP Morgan. Maponya has taken legal action against the PIC and SAHL for failure to honour a R45million transaction fees agreement he had reached with the PIC.

Matjila said things took a turn for the worse when Maponya, on behalf of MMI, demanded payment of 0.5percent as an arranging and underwriting fee from the PIC.

“Mr Maponya became a serious thorn in the flesh of the PIC and me personally in his misinformed but aggressive attempts to get paid,” Matjila said.

“He would send threatening text messages and calls demanding payment. I told my colleagues that we were under no obligation to pay MMI any fees and that if there were any monies to be paid to MMI then that was a matter between MMI and SA Home Loans.”

Maponya has yet to give his side of the story.

In 2013, the PIC bought 50percent shares in SA Home Loans, 25percent which would be held by Maponya’s company MMI.

Matjila added that the PIC was not obligated to pay MMI as SAHL had agreed to settle fees from MMI.

Matjila’s testimony was also that SAHL had circulated a letter ceding the fee to MMI, provided that SAHL pay back the fee to the PIC.

However, he said despite SAHL’s willingness to pay MMI, it could not pay MMI outright as it would impact negatively on its equity and would unlikely be approved by shareholders.

He said various payment structures were explored, and the PIC would cede its right to payment of fees in terms of the Master Loan, on condition that the SAHL would pay back the PIC at a later point.

BUSINESS REPORT