NICOLA MILTZ
Pamensky, a former non-executive director at the Gupta family’s Oakbay Resources and Energy, as well as former non-executive director at Eskom, told the SA Jewish Report that he was “furious” with OUTA.
“I’m flabbergasted, I’m in shock,” he said in response to the charges which were laid at the Brooklyn Police Station in Pretoria earlier this week.
Benjamin Theron, chief operating officer of (OUTA), says the charges relate to Pamensky’s “conduct” while he was a director of Eskom and “of at least one business linked to the Gupta’s business empire”.
“In his role as non-executive board member of various companies, Pamensky was the conduit for the flow of privileged information between the companies,” said Theron in his affidavit.
Theron alleges “Pamensky used his position and authority to influence decisions and manipulate the outcomes of the various committees that he sat on.”
However, Pamensky denies this. “My lawyers and I see it clearly as black and white – there is no truth to any of the allegations; they are false.”
He steadfastly maintains he recused himself from all board decisions when it became apparent that a conflict of interest may be perceived, and that all leaked Gupta e-mails have been taken out of context in OUTA’s affidavit and the media.
He said OUTA’s complaint is “spurious and without any foundation.
“It is clearly designed to defame me and an attempt to sensationalise my role as an independent non-executive director of Eskom. I was at all times well aware of the fiduciary duties that I owed to various companies and I have fully complied with all of those duties in accordance with all applicable laws and corporate governance requirements.
“I was never in a position where I had a conflict of interest and to the extent that there may have been a perceived conflict, I have, at all times, made the necessary declarations and recused myself from such discussions, and have documented proof of such.
“The information contained in the e-mails, does not, in any way, support the allegations levelled against me by OUTA, which have failed to properly consider the contextual content of the e-mails they purport to rely on, as well as other factual evidence at hand.
“I’ve gone on record on numerous occasions setting out how I could not possibly have had a conflict of interest or breached any of my fiduciary duties. In the present circumstances, I again deny any wrongdoing and believe that the complaint is malicious and defamatory.”
The Pamensky saga is far from over as there are far too many questions left unanswered. We will bring you more as it unfolds.
