A war of words has broken out between former Dimension Data (DiData) executives and their former empowerment partner, Identity Partners, over the sale of The Campus office park in Bryanston, Johannesburg.
Tensions escalated after former executives – Jeremy Ord, Grant Bodley, Saki Missaikos, Steven Nathan and Doc Watson – issued a statement yesterday condemning Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (NTT) for what they describe as false allegations of fraud made against them by the Japanese multinational, which acquired DiData nearly 15 years ago.
NTT, in a statement to ITWeb today, reaffirmed its position, saying it has full confidence in the merits of its legal case and the court’s findings.
“Despite the former executives’ attempt to once again publicly exonerate themselves from the outcome of the judicial findings, NTT remains committed to the highest standard of ethical behaviour and governance, and will continue to follow the necessary legal process.”
In October 2010, NTT, one of the world’s largest telecommunications providers, bought 100% of Dimension Data for £2.1 billion (approximately R24 billion at the time), making DiData a wholly-owned subsidiary of the NTT Group. The company has since rebranded as NTT Data.
In 2022, DiData revealed it had identified a potential conflict of interest involving senior executives during the 2019 sale of its upmarket office park, The Campus.
According to the company, an internal review found that some executives failed to disclose their personal financial interests in the transaction.
The Campus was sold to Identity Partners, a black women-owned investment firm led by Sonja De Bruyn, as part of a broad-based black economic empowerment (B-BBEE) transaction.
At the time, De Bruyn was a director at DiData, but recused herself from all discussions related to the sale and, according to the company, was not implicated in the review.
However, the company alleged the non-disclosure of personal interests by certain executives impacted the validity of the transaction.
In late 2023, the Johannesburg High Court ruled the sale of The Campus amounted to an “illegal scheme”. The former executives are appealing this judgement at the Supreme Court of Appeal.
In their statement issued yesterday, the former executives rejected the fraud allegations, describing them as “false and defamatory allegations accusing us of BEE fronting and improper conduct”.
Disputed funds
According to the former executives, the allegations form part of a broader effort by NTT to deflect blame for its poor performance in Africa, cover up a BEE fronting scheme and frame them as scapegoats.
They further allege that Identity Partners still holds around R5 million that was misappropriated from the fund in 2022. This, they claim, happened when De Bruyn operated a fund bank account despite having acknowledged she had no authority to represent it.
“Sonja's statements in the media, including that she was ‘misled and taken advantage of’, are false. Her loaded statement that ‘white privileged or powerful men’ abused the BEE structure for our own benefit, is not only false, but also defamatory and designed to distract from Sonja's role in proposing and then implementing an NTT BEE front despite certain of the executives' best efforts to prevent that outcome.”
De Bruyn has firmly rejected these accusations. In response, she said Identity Fund Managers is alarmed by the former executives’ media statement referencing the company and making what she terms baseless and serious allegations.
“We are particularly disappointed that some media published articles without offering us an opportunity to respond, which we view as a departure from standard media ethics.”
She refuted the claim that R5 million had been misappropriated, stating it refers to fees “contractually and lawfully due” to Identity Partners for fund management services.
“These fees are consistent with industry norms and were payable to us at the time we ceased managing the fund in 2022. We instituted arbitration proceedings in relation to the payment of this fee.
“When we ceased acting as fund manager, knowing that there were legal matters pertaining to this transaction, we felt that it was responsible to put the funds in escrow for safeguarding until all of the legal matters are settled and this was the mandate of the escrow account with lawyers.”
She added that, following complaints in 2023 from the executives’ legal representatives, Identity Partners moved the money from the escrow account back into the fund management account, which had been dormant and should have been overseen by a new fund manager.
“We sent the executives several legal letters regarding these arrangements, and neither they nor their lawyers ever responded to these points. We have over the period sent full bank statements to lawyers of the executives regarding the status of this account throughout, establishing that the funds have never been utilised since we resigned, and that they are available for inspection at any time to demonstrate they have been responsibly held.”
She further claimed the executives’ legal representatives never acknowledged the bank statements or replied to their correspondence.
“Throughout this challenging period, the executives consistently tried to draw Identity Fund Managers into a matter where it was clear from the start that we had no knowledge of their arrangements and that there was no wrongdoing on our part.”
She also denied any collusion with NTT to gain B-BBEE credits.
“The executives’ narrative lacks coherence and does not align with the known facts. It is patently false that the vendor loan of this nature has been secret when it was made in full view of all parties involved in the deal and with all properly executed documentation.”
Following Identity Partners’ rebuttal, the former DiData executives issued another statement: “We maintain our allegation regarding the misappropriation of funds by Identity Partners. Identity Partners paid itself disputed fees out of a bank account in the name of the fund after it had voluntarily renounced its mandate to represent the fund.”
They claim there is no invoice on record for the payment, and that it was not approved by the fund.
“The 2021 transfer was not notified to the new general partner and was only discovered in 2023. At that stage, Identity Partners claimed that the funds were being held in escrow, but could not produce an escrow agreement and the attorney in question confirmed.”
Today, De Bruyn responded with another statement to ITWeb. “We do not intend to respond individually to every claim or allegation made by this group of discredited individuals who we believe are trying to harass us through the media once again.”
She defended the use of an escrow account as a legitimate tool for safeguarding disputed funds. “So, for the executives to dress this up as misappropriation is opportunistic and intended to harm our reputation.”
Share