LETTER: York’s attempt to whitewash Bain ring hollow
State capture was multipronged, multifaceted, and Bain had its A-team on it
29 September 2022 - 16:38
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
I was bemused by the advertisement Bain & Co published in Business Day six weeks ago in which it apologised and attempted to explain its role in what is now widely known as state capture ( “Besieged Bain SA apologises again amid new furore over state capture”, August 11).
However, I was encouraged by readers’ reaction, every one of which I believe was justified and well-reasoned. Then, in an astonishing attempt to respond to these letters to the editor, Bain SA managing partner Stephen York penned another article that was published in Business Day ( “Bain SA won’t have a repeat of the past”, September 26).
This achieved nothing but adding insult to injury. He brushed off the criticism of his first article as nothing but “inflammatory commentary by armchair commentators” and stuck to the trite Bain fallback position by referring to the Baker McKenzie report Bain has often used to claim innocence.
Having seen the inner workings of the state capture monster first hand in my professional capacity at Bosasa, Trillian and others, I can attest to the fact that state capture was a far more complex and multilayered enterprise than what the casual outside observer would think.
State capture was perpetrated throughout the state in myriad departments, and most — if not all — of the state-owed enterprises (SOEs), as well as institutions such as the SA Revenue Service (Sars), National Prosecuting Authority and other chapter 9 institutions.
It was a multipronged attack on these entities to pilfer and steal state resources first, but just as importantly, to evade prosecution after the event. One cannot view what happened at Eskom, Sars, Denel, Transnet or the Estina dairy farm in isolation. All of these events are linked on various levels.
York’s attempt to put distance between Bain and the Guptas rings hollow. Firms like Bain and others were the very architects of the state capture project. They developed and laid down the carefully crafted plans and pathways for the state capturers to enter these institutions to wreck institutional knowledge and investigative capacity, as was the case with Bain’s involvement with Sars.
After Tom Moyane and his band of thugs implemented the Bain “restructuring plan” Sars was left a gutted, demotivated and destroyed institution. York tries to solicit sympathy from your readers by referring to Bain’s 80 employees in SA and claiming they are “proud South Africans”.
Eighty employees is nothing compared with the hundreds, if not thousands, of hard-working and committed officials of Sars who were badgered, intimidated and forced to resign by Moyane and others, while they were implementing the Bain plan.
The effect on these former Sars employees and their families was heartbreaking.
These Bain employees were not just casual employees. I saw this first hand. They were all well-educated and highly qualified people who knew exactly what they were doing. They were not innocent bystanders on any construction.
York keeps referring to the fact the Bain repaid the fees it earned in the Sars engagement. This should be seen in context. The fees it earned and repaid are but a drop in the bucket compared with the billions of rand in damage Sars and SA Inc suffered due to the Bain plan.
The Bain plan in effect stripped Sars of its world class-investigative capacity and structures, resulting in a huge decline in tax collection. That has had an enormous impact on the fiscus and SA as a whole.
If Bain was so committed to righting the wrongs of the past, as York tries to convey in his articles, then it should bring back Vittorio Massone to explain what he did. Let him take the stand and testify, at whatever forum. That would be an appropriate first step.
Now that Bain has been banned from bidding for public sector contracts in SA for a decade it should follow the same road as Bell Pottinger and just disappear. My advice to York would be: when in a hole, stop digging!
Cloete Murray, Monument Park
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businesslive.co.za. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
LETTER: York’s attempt to whitewash Bain ring hollow
State capture was multipronged, multifaceted, and Bain had its A-team on it
I was bemused by the advertisement Bain & Co published in Business Day six weeks ago in which it apologised and attempted to explain its role in what is now widely known as state capture ( “Besieged Bain SA apologises again amid new furore over state capture”, August 11).
However, I was encouraged by readers’ reaction, every one of which I believe was justified and well-reasoned. Then, in an astonishing attempt to respond to these letters to the editor, Bain SA managing partner Stephen York penned another article that was published in Business Day ( “Bain SA won’t have a repeat of the past”, September 26).
This achieved nothing but adding insult to injury. He brushed off the criticism of his first article as nothing but “inflammatory commentary by armchair commentators” and stuck to the trite Bain fallback position by referring to the Baker McKenzie report Bain has often used to claim innocence.
Having seen the inner workings of the state capture monster first hand in my professional capacity at Bosasa, Trillian and others, I can attest to the fact that state capture was a far more complex and multilayered enterprise than what the casual outside observer would think.
State capture was perpetrated throughout the state in myriad departments, and most — if not all — of the state-owed enterprises (SOEs), as well as institutions such as the SA Revenue Service (Sars), National Prosecuting Authority and other chapter 9 institutions.
It was a multipronged attack on these entities to pilfer and steal state resources first, but just as importantly, to evade prosecution after the event. One cannot view what happened at Eskom, Sars, Denel, Transnet or the Estina dairy farm in isolation. All of these events are linked on various levels.
York’s attempt to put distance between Bain and the Guptas rings hollow. Firms like Bain and others were the very architects of the state capture project. They developed and laid down the carefully crafted plans and pathways for the state capturers to enter these institutions to wreck institutional knowledge and investigative capacity, as was the case with Bain’s involvement with Sars.
After Tom Moyane and his band of thugs implemented the Bain “restructuring plan” Sars was left a gutted, demotivated and destroyed institution. York tries to solicit sympathy from your readers by referring to Bain’s 80 employees in SA and claiming they are “proud South Africans”.
Eighty employees is nothing compared with the hundreds, if not thousands, of hard-working and committed officials of Sars who were badgered, intimidated and forced to resign by Moyane and others, while they were implementing the Bain plan.
The effect on these former Sars employees and their families was heartbreaking.
These Bain employees were not just casual employees. I saw this first hand. They were all well-educated and highly qualified people who knew exactly what they were doing. They were not innocent bystanders on any construction.
York keeps referring to the fact the Bain repaid the fees it earned in the Sars engagement. This should be seen in context. The fees it earned and repaid are but a drop in the bucket compared with the billions of rand in damage Sars and SA Inc suffered due to the Bain plan.
The Bain plan in effect stripped Sars of its world class-investigative capacity and structures, resulting in a huge decline in tax collection. That has had an enormous impact on the fiscus and SA as a whole.
If Bain was so committed to righting the wrongs of the past, as York tries to convey in his articles, then it should bring back Vittorio Massone to explain what he did. Let him take the stand and testify, at whatever forum. That would be an appropriate first step.
Now that Bain has been banned from bidding for public sector contracts in SA for a decade it should follow the same road as Bell Pottinger and just disappear. My advice to York would be: when in a hole, stop digging!
Cloete Murray, Monument Park
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businesslive.co.za. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Besieged Bain SA apologises again amid new furore over state capture
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Most Read
Published by Arena Holdings and distributed with the Financial Mail on the last Thursday of every month except December and January.