By Rob Rose and Carol Paton

ANC candidate’s financial backers are determined to stay under cover

Does Jacob Zuma have his own banknote printing press? That seems to be the only way the would-be ANC and SA president can be paying for his international jaunts. For despite a series of high-cost trips, no-one admits funding the cash-strapped politician.

Just in the run-up to the ANC conference in Polokwane, Zuma and his retinue have been to India, the UK and the US. The best explanation his associates can suggest is that his flights and accommodation are paid for by R50 donations from grassroots supporters.

After India, Zuma visited London for two days last week, meeting “informally” with investors. These meetings were arranged through personal contacts – there was no official invitation from financial institutions – and few people knew the details.

The main event was a dinner at a private house at which several investment executives were present. Among them were Lloyd Pengilly, a senior executive with JP Morgan, executives from Citigroup and Deutsche Bank and several mining investors. Cell C empowerment shareholder Zwelakhe Mankazana and his new business partner and the daughter of Nelson Mandela, Zenani Dlamini, also attended.

After that, it was off to the US for five days, where his choice of hosts and venues was intriguing. In Texas, he was hosted by intelligence agency Strategic Forecasting (Stratfor), an outfit once described as “the shadow CIA”.

But the sponsors of this largesse aren’t evident, and the Zuma camp isn’t giving anything away. Spokesperson Ranjeni Munusamy forwarded all queries to Zuma’s private secretary, Nontokozo Luthuli, who says: “I can’t comment.”

Of course, the funding for Thabo Mbeki’s campaign is just as opaque, but Zuma has a reputation – deserved or not – for financial associations with the wrong people.

So who funds him? The names of Don Mkhwanazi, Vivian Reddy and Tokyo Sexwale keep cropping up, but all deny giving Zuma a cent. An insider in the camp of former Gauteng premier and now businessman Sexwale, who appears to have thrown in his lot with Zuma, says: “Tokyo hasn’t provided a cent to Zuma but we believe he will become president, and South Africans had better start accepting that.”

Mkhwanazi, former chairman of the Central Energy Fund and ANC economic adviser, is a keen Zuma advocate. This week, in an amusing sideshow, he was quoted taking Zuma confidant Mo Shaik to task for patronising finance minister Trevor Manuel.

Mkhwanazi chairs the Friends of Jacob Zuma Trust, but asserts he hasn’t paid a cent from his own pocket. “However, I have raised money for the trust,” he says.

The trust, though, isn’t underwriting Zuma’s travel expenses. “The trust is ready for the lawsuits only, and is ready for any contingency that could arise on that front,” he says.

Reddy – the founder of Edison Power and one of the supporting actors in the Schabir Shaik trial – is also a denialist. “I’m not providing any financial assistance.” Nevertheless, Reddy is an ardent Zuma supporter. During the Shaik fraud trial, it emerged the Development Africa Trust paid for at least part of the R2,4m Nkandla Development Village in Zuma’s village in northern KwaZulu Natal.

Trial judge Hilary Squires said the trust, which had provided funds to Zuma, was “nothing less than the alter ego” of Reddy.

Reddy says: “The fact of the matter is that I lent Jacob Zuma money, and he paid it back.” He explains his support: “I’m an ANC member, my branch supported Jacob Zuma, and I support my branch.”

Another man linked to Zuma’s purse is London-based Paul Ekon, a man with a chequered history involving allegations of gold smuggling. But when contacted by the FM, he described himself as a “friend” and not a financial benefactor of Zuma. (See FM Fox.)

So if no previous benefactors are now bankrolling Zuma, who is? Reddy sniffs: “Zuma doesn’t need money, he is supported by his grassroots.” Reddy claims many “ordinary people” are willing to support Zuma with what they can – R50 here, R100 there. It takes a lot of pink notes, however, to muscle up the hundreds of thousands of rand that the recent overseas jaunt would have cost.

“That’s what many South Africans can’t understand: when people love a leader, they are willing to support him out of their own pocket,” says Reddy.

As an “investment facilitator” for Zuma, Mkhwanazi should know where Zuma is getting his funds. “People come to me from many different constituencies and ask: who is this man, and how can we find out what he stands for? I facilitate these meetings,” he says.

Mkhwanazi says groups – including top businessmen from around the world – invite Zuma to address them and discuss his policies, which could affect their investments. “When people invite you somewhere, they pay,” he says.

In recent months, many global investors have met Zuma. Besides the likes of Merrill Lynch, Citigroup hosted Zuma in September. Zuma told this group SA’s fiscal and monetary policies were the right ones. He denied that, if elected, there would be any “payback” to the Congress of SA Trade Unions and SA Communist Party. He also denied there would be any change in his policies, only a shift in style.

Though Mkhwanazi says most Zuma invitations come from investment houses, he points to the church as another pocket of financial support. “A friend in London, a very influential priest, told me he would like Mr Zuma to come and address him. Now, as we all know, churches are some of the richest groups in the world. Maybe we will look to organise such a visit after Polokwane,” he says.

Despite Mkhwanazi’s assertion that there is money to be made from foreign invitations, one of the US groups that hosted Zuma last week insists it was not paid. Though Texas-based Stratfor welcomed Zuma in Austin, CEO George Friedman tells the FM: “We didn’t pay for him. We don’t get involved in financing people.”

Friedman won’t name the US parties who attended because of “non disclosure agreements”. But he says those who attended fell into three main groups: investors, giant US corporations “whose revenues exceed the GDP of some countries” and educators looking for a link with SA universities.

However, the FM has learnt that one of those who attended was hedge fund manager and investment analyst John Mauldin, a Dallas businessman with interests in SA. He is a business partner of Prieur du Plessis, MD of Plexus Asset Management.

Also invited to Austin was Steve Hayes, president of the Corporate Council on Africa, an association for private-sector companies seeking business opportunities in Africa. While on the US West Coast, Zuma also spoke at the American Jewish University and at the Agape International Spiritual Centre.

What did the investors think? Says Friedman: “They think SA is an important place to be. When it comes to the question of Zuma, I think many of them came away quite comforted.”

And Friedman himself? “I found him to be a serious person, but I don’t know the issues. I can’t say that if I were South African, I would vote for him or not.” The closest he comes to endorsing Zuma is describing him as “presidential, a man who did not carelessly discuss things”.

But the question remains: if Stratfor didn’t fund the US trip, and if all the obvious sources of finance deny funding the Indian, US or UK trips, who did, and why will no-one admit to it?

It’s the same with the Polokwane conference. According to one report, it will cost R25m to stage. Some stalwarts like Reddy admit contributing to the costs, but the party is protecting the identity of most others. “It’s a private matter. We can’t expose that,” says ANC spokesman Tiyani Rikhotso.

All of this illustrates that while the pipers are playing their lungs out in the ANC, the identities of those who pay them (and, as the idiom goes, get to call the tune) remain carefully obscured.