Possible perjury by PIC witness, Victor Seanie?

Published Mar 9, 2023


Cross examination of Victor Seanie, former junior portfolio manager at the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) continued on Thursday in the case of ‘buyer’s remorse’ the PIC has brought against AYO, that has to date highlighted multiple inaccuracies, contradictions and condemning accusations of corruption of the PIC Board and its external attorneys involved in Seanie’s disciplinary hearing.

On Wednesday, Counsel for AYO, Nazeer Cassim, put it to Seanie, who is the PIC’s first witness in the AYO matter, that he is dishonest.

Seanie, taken aback by the abrupt opening salvo appeared rattled as Cassim’s line of questioning explored Seanie’s dismissal from the PIC following a disciplinary hearing that found him dishonest in 2019. This, after his involvement in the AYO investment deal in 2017.

Cassim said that the PIC in their disciplinary, chaired by Senior Advocates Myburgh: “found that you are dishonest,” something Seanie denied, to which Cassim asked: “why did you not appeal the ruling where they found you to be dishonest?” Seanie on Thursday said that he had not had the time (to date) to do this.

Independent Media spoke to several people present at the hearing yesterday who remarked that comparing Seanie’s statement at the Mpati Commission to his response yesterday (and on Thursday), Seanie could well have perjured himself, which if true, would mean he could face court charges.

Seanie’s credentials as an analyst also come into question throughout the cross-examination as Cassim revealed several contradictions in Seanie’s sworn testimony – both at the Mpati Commission and in his testament this week.

One of these was the startling admission by Seanie that he had not read AYO’s final pre-listing-statement (PLS), nor, it would appear, much of the draft PLS since again, in court on Thursday, Seanie shared how the BT arrangement with AYO in the draft version would be “lucrative” and would give rise to a higher EBIT.

Yet, previously, he informed the court that he did not believe that AYO’s forecast was reasonable based as it was on the BT Alliance agreement.

BTSA and AYO had looked to enter an agreement that would see both companies significantly benefit from the arrangement give the newly minted ICT Charter at the time that required higher BEE credentials.

More shocking testimony emerged from Seanie before lunch today (Thursday), with Seanie inferring to the court that the entire PIC board in 2017 was “corrupt” as well as the disciplinary hearing, this, according to Seanie, also included Advocate Myburgh SC and the attorneys in this sweeping statement.

What is becoming clear, however, is that the AYO transaction that became a core focus of the Mpati Commission of Inquiry into Impropriety at the PIC, relates to the incompetence of the PIC executives and not to AYO itself.

The case continues.