It’s very commendable for Cosatu to have gone to such great lengths to fight for workers’ rights in the Vodacom-Vodafone deal. Cosatu filed court papers opposing the transaction in which Vodafone would acquire a 15% stake in Vodacom from Telkom for a cash consideration of R22.5 billion.
The transaction increases Vodafone’s shareholding in Vodacom from 50% to 65%. The remaining 35% will be demerged by Telkom to its shareholders. Cosatu is of the opinion that there will be massive job losses as a result.
Effectively Cosatu is protesting against the ANC-led government’s decision to support the transaction, which will result in government effectively owning 10% in Vodacom for a period of 12 months after the JSE listing. Cosatu is of the opinion that only a handful of shareholders will benefit from the transaction. But isn’t it the nature of business transactions that shareholders will benefit and that there will be indirect spin-offs for the economy?
The question that arises from Cosatu’s action is whether it was based on legitimate concern for workers or whether it was inspired by political considerations. When Barclays acquired a 60% stake in Absa for R33 billion in 2005, Cosatu rightfully raised concerns about possible capital outflows in future as a result of surrendering control of a South African entity to foreigners. However, the absence of determined legal challenges and boycott threats if the transaction went ahead were conspicuous by their absence. Perhaps it is important to highlight that the Batho Bonke consortium, led by Tokyo Sexwale, held a 10% share in Absa and benefited handsomely from the Barclays/Absa transaction. At the time there were no concerns that the “parasitic bourgeoisie” were benefiting from the transaction because these bourgeoisie were “loyal and disciplined cadres” of the ANC.
The political storm around this transaction can only be attributed to the fact that some of the Elephant Consortium members who stand to benefit from this transaction are members of Congress of the People (Cope). In December last year SACP secretary-general Blade Nzimande made ridiculous claims that Cope was funded through the proceeds of the transaction.
He said: “We also call on the government to reverse the scandalous Telkom Christmas gift of Vodacom shares to private shareholders at a cut-price rate, and the selling of these to Vodafone. In particular, the role of the director-general in the department of communications, and of the former ANC presidency spokesperson Smuts Ngonyama and his Elephant Consortium, in this ripping off of what was once a national asset, requires close scrutiny. We believe that some of the proceeds of this hurried fire sale are finding their way into the war chest of the Shikota gang of three.”
It is rather alarming that Cosatu has decided to disregard the North Gauteng High Court’s decision, which dismissed its application to halt the transaction from going ahead. Cosatu said it will continue to oppose the listing by all means including launching a boycott of Vodacom. The vigour with which Cosatu is opposing this transaction should be directed at ensuring the job losses caused by the slowdown in the economy are minimised. Cosatu and the SACP should be working with the government and business to find lasting solutions to the challenges confronting the faltering economy instead of embarking on cheap politicking that could prove disastrous to the country’s image as an investment destination.
The current ANC leaders and their alliance partners made “political interference” their rallying cry before the elections, giving hope to many that there would be changes in the way the administration relates with other institutions and stakeholders in the economy. Icasa’s decision to rescind the Vodacom/Vodafone transaction immediately after the new administration had come into office and after Cosatu had filed court papers raises serious questions about their independence and this could impact investor confidence.
The unbridled interference and deliberate attempt to influence the Vodacom/Vodafone transaction for political reasons is shocking. There appears to be a nauseating repetition by the ANC alliance partners of what the previous ANC government had been accused of.
The ANC and its alliance partners must take the nation and local and foreign investors in their confidence and demonstrate their respect for the independence of regulatory bodies such as Icasa, not only in words but in deeds. The negative consequences of such developments on the country’s reputation as an investment destination are too grave to contemplate, especially when South Africa, together with the rest of the developing world, compete for capital inflows.
Independent regulatory bodies must be allowed to discharge their mandate without any undue political pressure and without fear and favour. The ANC government should equally be putting measures in place to stabilise the economy, respond to the effects of the global economic downturn and curb job losses while building a firm base for sustained growth and competitiveness.
It’s time the ANC and its alliance partners demonstrate that indeed together we can do more in order to build a unified and prosperous South Africa. Divisive and toxic politicking should be a thing of the past, we must all focus on collectively confronting our common challenges with unwavering determination.
Cosatu against Vodaphone and Helen Zille’s cabinet (which is the same as Rasool’s cabinet – one woman), ANCYL against Unisa; taxi drivers associations against BRT etc etc.
It is all the same – WE own Zuma
/SA now!
Payback time!
And Patrick Craven and Vavi are BOTH still answering their own Vodacom phones!
“i didn’t join politics to be poor”
Once again you jump to defend your fellow COPE comrades. The issue here is not about the vodacom vodafone relations but telkom. we need to get to the bottom of every BEE deal ever made in South Africa, especially the telkom deal.
If I may ask did you find the Elephant Consortium acquisition of those shares to have been legitimate?
Did you find it in your conscience to really accept the deal to have not beeen politically motivated?
Dont you think that the rot we have in state institutions did not set after 22 April it started way back since we adopted the “Westminster System” of governance.
Excellent!
That was a mouthful Cde.
See these not-in-the-interest-of-workers bull by COSATU must be subjected to some firery testing ground to prove its legitimacy.
Clearly, the courts found that COSATU had no cleverer basis in opposing the relinguishing of the Telkoms 15% stake in Vodacom to the more attractive and capable hands of the foreigners.
The nice part is that the courts dismissed with costs they envy-empowered moves to take food out of Smuts’s mouth. “We have no loyalty to Vodacom” said Vavi. ihi! (I Giggled) Is this man clever or not?
They failed to convice the courts and they might bankrupt COSATU if they continue with this nonsense. Obviously this deal was an “all things considered” deal my friend.
Mr Craven ought to check the meaning of his surname, which grows daily more appropriate to the actions he takes. I believe that he and his colleagues have taken leave of their senses and are now in self destruct mode.
Very well written, indeed. I’m not shocked by these findings. I didn’t expect any less from the hypoctritic ANC.
Funny the shortsightedness of COSATU! Boycotting Vodacom will lead to less revenue and ultimately and a lower bottom line. This will have a direct impact on the ability of the company to pay its workers, and may lead to retrenchments!
SIPHELELE, while you’re getting at the bottom of BEE deals, start with those closer to home – Gumede,Zungu, Tokyo, Phosa and Ramaphosa!
I’m not sure what you’re on, but you must get in contact with your supplier! What was “illegitimate” about the acquisition of shares in Telkom?
What on earth is a “politically motivated” business transaction?
I wonder why Vodacom never bought other companies so as to create a much larger organization based in the Southern Hemisphere. Oh wait they tried that but it was dissalowed wasn’t it? Pity that everything built up here has to be sold to those over there to raise more dollars and balance our pathetic balance of payments scenario. Oh well now that we are a nett importer of food and our food production is down 30% and our clothing factories are all but gone I suppose we really have no choice if we are to make those who have no ability to produce, fat cats! Thanks Thabo
Im sorry but where were the threats of boycotts,legal action and hell on earth from Cosatu when another parastatal,Transnet,disposed off their lucrative stake in MTN to various entities in 2006?One of the lucky entities,Newshelf 664 with links to MTN,bought part of Transnet’ stake and distributed it to its senior management as part of staff empowerment where-horror of horrors-the likes of their well-remunerated,non-executive director Irene Charneley(former unionist and disciplined loyal cadre)flew straight into the list of TOP 100 RICHEST PEOPLE in SA within 2years.Whats with the selective principles and morality Comrade Vavi?Still not over that credit card nightmare?
http://www.thetimes.co.za/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=1001405
It’s quite simple
One or two of my journalist friends in the know inform me that COSATU is deeply opposed to ppl like Smuts getting money from the deal, because it will be used to pay off COPE’s election costs. No deal, no payment, and COPE would face enormous pressure to balance the books.
That’s all there is. No real issues with jobs (which Telkom has shed by the dozen over the last decade with much less opposition from COSATU). Craven himself admitted that there were political motives for opposing the deal.
It is hardly rocket science. The sound and fury was generated in order to make it as hard as possible for COPE to pay its bills, with the hope of crippling (or at least seriously derailing) its activities over the medium term.
It seems that the ‘useful idiots’ here are COSATU, being used to further the goals of the Alliance.
Sentletse, Cosatu is a private lobby interest group. It is no secret that they’ll always fight what they consider to be a threat to their membership’s interest. Whether you agree with them or not is immaterial. I suppose Madisha’s federation of non-existent unions would fight anything that they perceive to threaten their members interest.
Could you Sentletse enlighten us how much did Smuts pay for those Telkom shares. Does he owe any financial institution for those shares, I guess not. Can’t you move from your old mantra of “my corrupt leader is less corrupt than yours”
SIPHELELE, it was Thintana’s prerogative to choose who they wanted to sell to. How the got to know of Elephant Consortium is irrelevant as they could have opted to sell to someone else. They made a business decision. Who’s Cosatu to complain about who share should have been sold to? I don’t think they’d be making this sort of noise if it were Zuma sympathisers who had acquired those shares.
@Lyndall Beddy
Your shaky relationship with facts and truth is truly becoming legendary. Here are the names of the female members of Rasool’s Cabinet:
Lynne Brown (finance and tourism);
Kholeka Mqulwana(social services &poverty alleviation);
Tasneem Essop(environment,planning & economic development).
Jean
Lynne Browne was moved in as a stopgap after Rasool had to be removed. I don’t know if she reshuffled posts or not.
I asked about Rasool’s cabinet not hers.
Lyndall
You asked about Rasool’s Cabinet? And what do you think I gave you? I suppose old age does that!
Jean
Then I was wrong, and the article I got it from was wrong. A pity I did not keep it – to write to the journalist!