Waterfront partners dismiss Circle connection

THE developers of the Swakopmund Waterfront, Basil Smith’s Desert Child and Festus Naholo of !Naras Investments, yesterday distanced themselves from Circle Investments (Pty).

At a press conference yesterday, Smith stressed that the Waterfront was effectively still on the drawing board, and that neither Global Vision Trust nor Lucky Masabane’s Circle Investments had any mandate from them to seek any funding for the estimated N$390-plus million project off Vineta Point, Swakopmund. So far, he had spent about N$30 million of his own money to start the first phase of the development, but the final product would look vastly different from what had originally been envisaged by the previous developer, Ettienne Weakley.Smith said that with all the negative reporting surrounding the upstart BEE company, the Waterfront development itself was being unfairly besmirched by individuals he had never heard of in his life.While newspapers had an obligation to root out corruption, the reports raised questions over the future of the project itself.This was especially of concern to those who had already invested in the early stages of the project, he said.The fact was that the plans for the project, including a harbour that had to be re-designed by experts from the University of Stellenbosch, were in the final stages and not complete yet.”We cannot even approach our (own) bank yet because we don’t yet have the final figures (for the project),” Smith said, flanked by the project’s architect, city planner, civil engineer and realty marketer, all well-known in Namibia.He said that about three months ago an empowerment group calling itself Aantu (Pty) Ltd had approached him and expressed an interest in investing in the Swakopmund Waterfront.But they failed to produce proof of their financial resources, and he had never heard from them again.As for Circle Investments, he had never heard of them before, he stressed.For his part, Festus Naholo, Chairman of Swapo-owned !Naras Investments, alleged Circle was “cooking up schemes” which were dragging !Naras’s good name through the mud.!Naras owns a 50 per cent stake in the project.”We do not want to be associated with those characters,” Naholo said, who insisted that he only got to know GIPF chair Maru’s Tjihumino’s face from the newspapers.He knew the GIPF well enough to approach them for funding himself if he had to do so, he said.Naholo conceded, however, that !Naras Investments had consulted Brett Jolly’s Global Vision Trust to raise international finance for them, but Jolly could not be employed in Namibia because “he failed to produce some school papers to the Immigration authorities”.Since they parted company about a year ago, there had been no contact between !Naras and Jolly’s Global Vision Trust, he said.Smith said he was also surprised to see that local entrepreneur Riaan Pot-gieter’s Seeff Properties was supposed to be involved in financing the project, and had received a call from Potgieter in which the latter made it clear that he wanted nothing to do with Circle Investments’ Vitura Kavari and Lucky Masabane.Masabane appears to control Circle Investments (Pty) Ltd, an off-the-shelf company, via another outfit called Digital Vision (Pty) Ltd, according to Shikongo Law Chambers.No change in ownership had yet been filed with the Registrar of companies in this regard yet, though, a technical offence under the Companies Act (Act 61 of 1973).No trace of Digital Vision could be found at the Receiver of Revenue, while Circle Investments was bought about a week or so after Masabane and Kavari approached Jolly over lunch at a local restaurant and allegedly offered to facilitate a loan from the Government Institutions Pension Fund in return for a 12,5 per cent stake in the Swakopmund Waterfront.Jolly yesterday said that Circle Investments had approached him within hours of his presentation to the GIPF Board of Trustees.It was also GIPF chairman Maru Tjihumino, and not Masabane, who later tried to borrow 500 pounds from him while visiting London, Jolly said.Jolly said he was invited for lunch at a Windhoek restaurant, but it took at least 30 minutes before Masabane and Kavari made their approach.”They (Masabane and Kavari) made it clear that they could make it (a loan from the GIPF) happen.They also made the inverse clear – that they could make it not happen,” Jolly claimed yesterday.Masabane, for his part, early yesterday decried a report stating that he had tried to borrow money from Jolly, but later declined to discuss anything else on the advice of his lawyers.”My wife is very, very unhappy with your reporting,” he said.Meanwhile, Tjihumino yesterday issued an open letter through his lawyers Metcalfe Legal Practitioners to the GIPF, saying there had been “some anomalies” in the media regarding an alleged GIPF investment in the Swakopmund Waterfront development.He said he would issue a fuller statement in due course, but assured the other Trustees that with the moratorium still in place on any unlisted ventures, no single individual could approve such a loan.* John Grobler is a freelance journalist; 081 2401587So far, he had spent about N$30 million of his own money to start the first phase of the development, but the final product would look vastly different from what had originally been envisaged by the previous developer, Ettienne Weakley.Smith said that with all the negative reporting surrounding the upstart BEE company, the Waterfront development itself was being unfairly besmirched by individuals he had never heard of in his life.While newspapers had an obligation to root out corruption, the reports raised questions over the future of the project itself.This was especially of concern to those who had already invested in the early stages of the project, he said.The fact was that the plans for the project, including a harbour that had to be re-designed by experts from the University of Stellenbosch, were in the final stages and not complete yet.”We cannot even approach our (own) bank yet because we don’t yet have the final figures (for the project),” Smith said, flanked by the project’s architect, city planner, civil engineer and realty marketer, all well-known in Namibia.He said that about three months ago an empowerment group calling itself Aantu (Pty) Ltd had approached him and expressed an interest in investing in the Swakopmund Waterfront.But they failed to produce proof of their financial resources, and he had never heard from them again.As for Circle Investments, he had never heard of them before, he stressed.For his part, Festus Naholo, Chairman of Swapo-owned !Naras Investments, alleged Circle was “cooking up schemes” which were dragging !Naras’s good name through the mud.!Naras owns a 50 per cent stake in the project.”We do not want to be associated with those characters,” Naholo said, who insisted that he only got to know GIPF chair Maru’s Tjihumino’s face from the newspapers.He knew the GIPF well enough to approach them for funding himself if he had to do so, he said.Naholo conceded, however, that !Naras Investments had consulted Brett Jolly’s Global Vision Trust to raise international finance for them, but Jolly could not be employed in Namibia because “he failed to produce some school papers to the Immigration authorities”.Since they parted company about a year ago, there had been no contact between !Naras and Jolly’s Global Vision Trust, he said.Smith said he was also surprised to see that local entrepreneur Riaan Pot-gieter’s Seeff Properties was supposed to be involved in financing the project, and had received a call from Potgieter in which the latter made it clear that he wanted nothing to do with Circle Investments’ Vitura Kavari and Lucky Masabane.Masabane appears to control Circle Investments (Pty) Ltd, an off-the-shelf company, via another outfit called Digital Vision (Pty) Ltd, according to Shikongo Law Chambers.No change in ownership had yet been filed with the Registrar of companies in this regard yet, though, a technical offence under the Companies Act (Act 61 of 1973).No trace of Digital Vision could be found at the Receiver of Revenue, while Circle Investments was bought about a week or so after Masabane and Kavari approached Jolly over lunch at a local restaurant and allegedly offered to facilitate a loan from the Government Institutions Pension Fund in return for a 12,5 per cent stake in the Swakopmund Waterfront.Jolly yesterday said that Circle Investments had approached him within hours of his presentation to the GIPF Board of Trustees.It was also GIPF chairman Maru Tjihumino, and not Masabane, who later tried to borrow 500 pounds from him while visiting London, Jolly said.Jolly said he was invited for lunch at a Windhoek restaurant, but it took at least 30 minutes before Masabane and Kavari made their approach.”They (Masabane and Kavari) made it clear that they could make it (a loan from the GIPF) happen.They also made the inverse clear – that they could make it not happen,” Jolly claimed yesterday.Masabane, for his part, early yesterday decried a report stating that he had tried to borrow money from Jolly, but later declined to discuss anything else on the advice of his lawyers.”My wife is very, very unhappy with your reporting,” he said.Meanwhile, Tjihumino yesterday issued an open letter through his lawyers Metcalfe Legal Practitioners to the GIPF, saying there had been “some anomalies” in the media regarding an alleged GIPF investment in the Swakopmund Waterfront development.He said he would issue a fuller statement in due course, but assured the other Trustees that with the moratorium still in place on any unlisted ventures, no single individual could approve such a loan.* John Grobler is a freelance journalist; 081 2401587