ATHOL WILLIAMS: Bain should come clean as its apology is an insult to SA

The insincerity of Bain’s expensive newspaper appeals is plain for every right-minded South African to see (“Besieged Bain SA apologises again amid new furore over state capture”, August 11). This was made all the more plain on August 19 when Bain’s new head in SA, Stephen York, took to the airwaves.  

York not only replaces his infamous former mentor, Vittorio Massone, who skipped the country after being issued with a summons by the Nugent commission, but is the latest person, following John Senior, to lead Bain’s effort to deflect from the truth of its collusion in state capture.

York would have been among the Bain staff to give Massone a roaring standing ovation as he prepared for his departure in 2018, but now leads the vilification of his former mentor. Massone would no doubt have been proud of his protégé for turning a blind eye when a colleague wrote on December 9 2014 that the Public Investment Corporation, a public entity, “would like to go with Bain, instead of issuing full RFP [request for proposal] and considering other providers”.

Only the most gullible will read Bain’s spin as an apology. There cannot be a meaningful apology while denying wrongdoing. Bain considers its countless wrongful acts as mere “mistakes”. Inserting a R5 coin rather than a R2 coin into a parking meter would be a mistake. Participating for many years in a sophisticated scheme to disable public institutions and undermine a country’s democracy can hardly be considered a mistake. That wide-scale and long-term devastation is considered a mere mistake shows the deep disrespect Bain has for SA.

The Zondo report detailed Bain’s collusion to circumvent public procurement rules. The fact that Bain had access to internal SA Revenue Service (Sars) information months before it was contracted with Sars violates the Tax Administration Act. That Bain earned R1bn from a Telkom contract, now the subject of a Special Investigating Unit investigation following a sham tender that Massone described to his boss in London as “designed for us”. These are the actions Bain describes as mere mistakes.

If Bain wanted dialogue it would have engaged more openly with the Nugent and Zondo commissions. In addition to its normal schedule, to get to the full truth the Nugent commission offered Bain something unprecedented — an entire day to bring whichever witnesses and documents it wanted. But Bain refused. At the Zondo commission Bain showed no interest in presenting witnesses, instead only submitting affidavits while applying to have half of my affidavit redacted. It wanted to hide 146 paragraphs and 96 annexures.

Bain wants us to believe Massone was the only person involved with former president Jacob Zuma when other partners such as Stephane Timpano produced documents presented at the Zuma meetings. We also know senior people in London and Boston knew of the strategy to cosy up to Zuma. Even as all Bain fingers point at Massone, he was not the one who led Bain’s day-to-day work at Sars — that was done by Fabrice Franzen, who was also the author of the draft Sars RFP. Bain claims that among its current staff in SA only two juniors were involved in Sars, but it fails to mention that Tiaan Moolman was included in the Sars proposals. All three of these partners are still at Bain.

Bain makes the astonishing claim that as consultant it bears no responsibility for decisions its clients make. This from the company that markets “results delivery” as a key offering. It takes credit for client results until things go wrong. What Bain hides is that its consultants were directly involved in personnel decisions at Sars.

It is mind-boggling that Bain points to internal process changes as evidence of remedial action. The changes to risk processes are for Bain’s own protection, not ours. It has simply made no amends for the harm caused to institutions and people. When news emerges of damage at other public institutions following the Zondo report’s recommendation that these contracts be investigated, the full extent of Bain’s debt to SA will be revealed.

After hiding in the shadows for four years, why the sudden PR? The answer has nothing to do with seeking to build “trust”, as York claims. It has everything to do with its three-year ban by the UK government for “grave professional misconduct”, and the prospect of other governments doing the same. These governments require a show of remorse and public engagement. Bain can now tick both those boxes and return to the shadows to siphon off billions from our country. If we let it.

Bain’s position relies entirely on its sham investigation conducted by Baker McKenzie, the same law firm, and lawyers, that offered Bain legal advice while conducting the supposed “independent” investigation. For example, Baker McKenzie identified documents Bain could use to “rebut preliminary conclusions made by the [Nugent] commission”.

Bain’s fake apology is an insult to the people of SA. If it wants to redeem itself it should start with the truth, making public the 3,000 “relevant” documents and interview notes with 80 staff collected during its investigation, and make available for questioning Timpano, Franzen, Moolman and others. Until then Bain simply has no legitimacy in SA and should be banned.

• Williams is a former Bain & Co partner who testified before the Zondo state capture commission. He is author of “Deep Collusion: Bain and the capture of SA”.