Former PIC staffer testifies on first day of PIC’s case against AYO
Cape Town - The case in which JSE-listed AYO Technology Solutions (AYO) is defending itself against claims by the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) that a subscription agreement entered into by both parties in 2017, was illegal, opened with evidence from a former PIC staffer, Victor Seanie.
Seanie, who worked at the PIC as an assistant portfolio manager at the time, and who later had disciplinary proceedings brought against him by the PIC, was led in evidence based on a statement he gave at the Mpati Commission of inquiry.
Western Cape High Court judge, Ashley Binns-Ward heard that the PIC disciplinary enquiry against Seanie found him guilty on three allegations.
These were listed as: Deviation from prescribed procedures; dishonest information and breaching his employment contract. The chair of the PIC disciplinary committee upheld the allegations against Seanie and recommended his dismissal
In his statement to the Mpati Commission, Seanie said he was scapegoated by the PIC for expressing views that ran counter to those of some PIC executives and being suspected of whistle-blowing, which he denies.
In his evidence, which is set to continue on Wednesday, Seanie said he first came to hear of AYO’s approach to the PIC in mid-November 2017 when he was instructed by PIC executive head of listed investments, Fidelis Madavo, to attend a meeting with AYO at the PIC’s offices.
He attended the meeting with his direct line manager Sunil Varghese and colleague Desmond Sibuyi, while AYO was represented by Malick Salie, AEEI Corporate Finance, chief executive officer of AYO, Kevin Hardy, chief investment officer of AYO, Siphiwe Nodwele and two others whose names he could not recall.
Seanie said the purpose of the meeting was to give the AYO executives a chance to present their investment opportunity to the PIC, in a bid for support for and participation in its listing on the JSE. He said that such meetings were a regular occurrence.
He said the meeting included slides that were shown to demonstrate the overall size of the ICT market (at the time) and that AYO saw itself as competing with leading IT services such EOH and Dimension Data, and that he had been sceptical of the deal.
Seanie claimed that, in his view, the whole process was rushed, and he had been sure that after the PIC carried out due diligence on the deal it would not go ahead.
“I thought they didn’t stand a chance. I didn’t expect them to be taken seriously by the PIC,” said Seanie.
However, it was noted that the AYO executives, as prospects, had met with senior PIC executives some time ahead of being introduced to Seanie and the eventual listing, which Seanie said was nothing out of the ordinary.
Seanie is expected to be cross-examined by AYO’s counsel on Wednesday.
Earlier, during his opening statement, the PIC’s advocate Senior Counsel Vincent Maleka listed the witnesses, including Seanie, whose evidence the PIC would be relying on for their case in which they will try to show AYO misrepresented itself.
The witnesses they have lined up after Seanie include former British Telecom SA internal legal counsel (at the time) Bertrandt Delport, former AEEI Corporate Finance executive Malick Salie, and PIC listed equities general manager Lebogang Molebatsi, the latter two witnesses testified at the Mpati Commission.
Others include independent non-executive director Dudu Hlatshwayo, former PIC chief financial officer Matshepo More, PIC acting Company Secretary Wilna Louw and subpoenaed witness AYO's former finance chief Naahied Gamieldien.
Maleka told Judge Binns-Ward that the benefit of having some of these witnesses was that they had testified at the Mpati Commission and all they would be doing was to confirm the evidence they had given previously.
During the morning session of the case the judge heard an interlocutory application made by Senior Counsel Anton Katz on behalf of Sekunjalo Investment Holdings and 3 Laws Capital about a subpoena issued to them by the PIC, requesting all communications the two entities had with AYO.
Katz argued that the application should be set aside as it was too broad and thin on specificity, while Maleka defended the application.
After hearing both sides the judge reserved judgment on the matter and said he would have a ruling on Thursday.
The case continues.
mwangi.githahu@inl.co.za