For the record

The comments being made by parliamentarians as reported in the media do not distinguish between the role of a non-executive chairman and a non-executive board and the role of a chief executive officer.

This, I particularly point out in relation to opinions being formed by the people on the ADT case of suspended and eventually fired driving licence examiners.

At no point was the board or chairman of the opinion that these people should be retained in ADT's employment following the judgment by the court that found them guilty. Nor did they ever, even temporarily, reverse this decision.

It is definitely the policy of this board that any employee found guilty of corruption is to face the same consequences, namely termination of employment, as long as the law allows that.

It is also important to point out that the chairman and board of ADT were never told or influenced in what to do about such a case by anyone and I have enough confidence in the board members to be sure that they will not be influenced by anyone in such matters.

It would also be nice if politicians kept non-political management professionals like me out of the political game.

Somebody recently said it is very difficult to find somebody who would accept to be chairman of ADT. I am sure he is right.