Please find attached English and Afrikaans soundbites by Dr Igor Scheurkogel MP.
I have formally reported the Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa to the Public Protector following its continued failure to respond to requests for information concerning its liquidation and debt-recovery processes.
For months, I have attempted to obtain answers from Land Bank through parliamentary oversight, direct correspondence with its leadership and Board, and ultimately through a formal Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) application.
Land Bank has chosen silence.
The PAIA application specifically sought records that could establish how much money has actually returned to Land Bank from liquidation proceedings and the sale of farmers’ assets from 2012 to date.
This is no longer simply about a failure to answer correspondence. It raises a much bigger question: If Land Bank is satisfied that these liquidation processes were properly authorised, lawfully administered and financially accounted for, why will it not produce the records?
The complaint to the Public Protector will request an investigation into systemic maladministration, irregular procurement, failures of financial control, abuse of public power and improper prejudice within Land Bank’s debt-recovery and liquidation processes.
The Public Protector has constitutional authority to investigate conduct in state affairs and public administration alleged or suspected to be improper or to result in impropriety or prejudice.
Land Bank is a public institution. It cannot expect Parliament, affected farmers and the South African public simply to accept that everything was properly handled while refusing to produce the records that would prove it.
We have asked. We have written. We have used PAIA. We have approached the Board. And still Land Bank remains silent.
The matter must now move to an independent constitutional institution with the power to compel answers and documents.
The question is no longer whether Land Bank wants to answer. The question is whether it can account for what happened to the farmers, their assets and the money recovered in its name.