Judge Ian Farlam “could not face any conflict of interest with regards to investments made” by the University of Cape Town (UCT)‚ a statement on Friday said.
This was prompted by allegations this week – “which are only intended to inflame” – that Farlam‚ who presided over the Marikana Commission‚ “had a conflict of interest with respect to Lonmin because as a UCT Council member‚ he would have been accountable for UCT’s investments in Lonmin”.
The statement applauded “UCT students and staff who‚ through marches‚ assemblies and protests on campus this week‚ are holding a mirror up to us to ensure we do not forget Marikana”.
“The killings at Marikana in 2012 remain a horrific event in our post-apartheid history‚ marking the failure of our society to address inequality‚ workers’ living conditions‚ corporate accountability‚ labour and union relations‚ lack of capacity in public order policing‚ and‚ worst of all‚ actions by police authorities which aggravated the violence of the situation‚” it read.
It said UCT students “are right to… force us to examine how all of us are linked to the Marikana tragedy – whether as shareholders in Lonmin and other mining companies‚ as voters who fail to hold government accountable for the actions of our police‚ or as citizens insufficiently engaged with addressing inequality in our daily lives and employment practices”.
However‚ Farlam‚ the statement said‚ “as a member of Council and of the audit committee‚ does not have any oversight or knowledge of any UCT-linked funds that are invested in Lonmin”.
To elaborate‚ it said there are “three types of investment funds related to UCT”:
- “The UCT Retirement Fund: This is “a separate legal entity from the university under the Pension Funds Act”‚ which is the responsibility of the trustees‚ of whom “Farlam is not one”‚ and they “are not accountable to the university Council”.
- The UCT Foundation Trust‚ which is involved in “investing‚ stewarding and distributing the university’s endowments…is not accountable to Council for this‚ as it is a separate trust”. There is no connection between Farlam and this trust.
- “UCT itself‚ as a legal entity‚ does manage its own investments for which the University Council is ultimately responsible”‚ but delegates these “portfolio investments to an investment management company”. The university’s equity portfolio contains no Lonmin shares.
“He therefore could not face any conflict of interest with regards to investments made by the university. Judge Farlam remains a valued and respected member of Council‚” the statement ended.
UCT answers ‘conflict of interest’ allegations levelled at Farlam
This was prompted by allegations this week – “which are only intended to inflame” – that Farlam‚ who presided over the Marikana Commission‚ “had a conflict of interest with respect to Lonmin because as a UCT Council member‚ he would have been accountable for UCT’s investments in Lonmin”.
The statement applauded “UCT students and staff who‚ through marches‚ assemblies and protests on campus this week‚ are holding a mirror up to us to ensure we do not forget Marikana”.
“The killings at Marikana in 2012 remain a horrific event in our post-apartheid history‚ marking the failure of our society to address inequality‚ workers’ living conditions‚ corporate accountability‚ labour and union relations‚ lack of capacity in public order policing‚ and‚ worst of all‚ actions by police authorities which aggravated the violence of the situation‚” it read.
It said UCT students “are right to… force us to examine how all of us are linked to the Marikana tragedy – whether as shareholders in Lonmin and other mining companies‚ as voters who fail to hold government accountable for the actions of our police‚ or as citizens insufficiently engaged with addressing inequality in our daily lives and employment practices”.
However‚ Farlam‚ the statement said‚ “as a member of Council and of the audit committee‚ does not have any oversight or knowledge of any UCT-linked funds that are invested in Lonmin”.
To elaborate‚ it said there are “three types of investment funds related to UCT”:
- “The UCT Retirement Fund: This is “a separate legal entity from the university under the Pension Funds Act”‚ which is the responsibility of the trustees‚ of whom “Farlam is not one”‚ and they “are not accountable to the university Council”.
- The UCT Foundation Trust‚ which is involved in “investing‚ stewarding and distributing the university’s endowments…is not accountable to Council for this‚ as it is a separate trust”. There is no connection between Farlam and this trust.
- “UCT itself‚ as a legal entity‚ does manage its own investments for which the University Council is ultimately responsible”‚ but delegates these “portfolio investments to an investment management company”. The university’s equity portfolio contains no Lonmin shares.
“He therefore could not face any conflict of interest with regards to investments made by the university. Judge Farlam remains a valued and respected member of Council‚” the statement ended.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos