We are very concerned that instead of seizing the assets of the people who are being investigated, government decides to use taxpayers money to cover up the fact that the thieves and wasters must return the money.
The extreme reluctance of the Interim Board Chair to do this, means that she too is wasting taxpayer money. Law dictates that all instances of alleged fraud must be investigated by SAPS and the assets forfeiture unit must safeguard those assets.
It may be time to mobilise - as it is the only proven way.
Please comment
Unconstitutional SABC rule
Kindly note that after extensive consultations with our legal teams, and in light of the recent ruling on "source protection" SABC vs Sunday Times, we declare SABC personnel regulation 2 unconstitunional, in where it is abused to prevent protected disclosures and disclosures to the shareholder and public.
Not Enough!
Robin Nicholson, Mvuso Mbebe, Anton Heunis and Mabela Satekge have been asked to supply reasons to the interim SABC board why they should not be suspended.
A senior insider sympathetic to the four said the allegations against the executives would not "stick" if placed under scrutiny of the Public Finance Management Act. It is understood that a particular source of frustration for some of those in the firing line is that the auditor general has selected certain allegations to pursue while ignoring others.
The executives claim they had to find ways to deal with new technology and be 100% compliant after the SABC threw out its old accounting system and replaced it in 2007 with SAP.
They are understood to be objecting that they were not given a chance to read the auditor general's report or defend themselves before it was released to the media. They now believe they are the victims of "a trial by media", in violation of their rights. Nonsense - their replies were in the report!
The SABC reported a financial loss of R839-million for the 2008/09 year and has asked the government for a R2-million bailout.
Nicholson has so far survived purges. But as the subject of five major investigations and 130 complaints during his term of office, he is known to be under heavy stress. He declined to comment on the latest controversy. "I will not comment on personal matters or my contract with the SABC," said Nicholson. "What I can say is that nobody has been suspended."
The auditor general found many instances of inadequate financial controls, including:
Nicholson signed an agreement with a consultant to provide services in connection with SABC's asset and liability risk management committee. The consultant was paid past the expiry of the contract and no evidence was found that quotations were invited during the procurement process, or of a competitive process.
The same consultant proposed its services as a debt originator and the SABC was invoiced for services rendered to the value of R100 000 in April and May 2009, without a signed contract. Nicholson accepted the proposal without following the correct processes, according to the auditor general.
The SABC entered two management consultancy agreements with a service provider at great cost. One was to develop and implement a "communication plan for the office of the chief financial officer" for a 12-month period. The contract for the period July 15 2008 to July 2009 was worth R1.15-million.
The same consultant invoiced the SABC for professional services rendered to the broadcaster's financial control division for "transition management" for the period January 2008 to September 2008. The cost was R1,2-million. No agreement could be submitted for the professional services rendered.
20 employees were directors or members of 20 companies or close corporations which had received payments from the SABC to the amount of approximately R3,4-million, which was a contravention of the SABC's group supply-chain management policy.
According to the auditor general, a legal firm appointed to conduct a forensic investigation of programming concluded in August 2009 that there were irregularities of some R111,7-million relating to double payments, overpayments, material paid for but not received, agreements that had to be renegotiated and programme titles acquired more than once from the same supplier during the same licence period.
The PFMA directs that those transgressions, and others, were to be reported to SAPS, both by Internal Audit, and the GCEO (Acting). That was not done, which is a transgression of law.
A senior insider sympathetic to the four said the allegations against the executives would not "stick" if placed under scrutiny of the Public Finance Management Act. It is understood that a particular source of frustration for some of those in the firing line is that the auditor general has selected certain allegations to pursue while ignoring others.
The executives claim they had to find ways to deal with new technology and be 100% compliant after the SABC threw out its old accounting system and replaced it in 2007 with SAP.
They are understood to be objecting that they were not given a chance to read the auditor general's report or defend themselves before it was released to the media. They now believe they are the victims of "a trial by media", in violation of their rights. Nonsense - their replies were in the report!
The SABC reported a financial loss of R839-million for the 2008/09 year and has asked the government for a R2-million bailout.
Nicholson has so far survived purges. But as the subject of five major investigations and 130 complaints during his term of office, he is known to be under heavy stress. He declined to comment on the latest controversy. "I will not comment on personal matters or my contract with the SABC," said Nicholson. "What I can say is that nobody has been suspended."
The auditor general found many instances of inadequate financial controls, including:
Nicholson signed an agreement with a consultant to provide services in connection with SABC's asset and liability risk management committee. The consultant was paid past the expiry of the contract and no evidence was found that quotations were invited during the procurement process, or of a competitive process.
The same consultant proposed its services as a debt originator and the SABC was invoiced for services rendered to the value of R100 000 in April and May 2009, without a signed contract. Nicholson accepted the proposal without following the correct processes, according to the auditor general.
The SABC entered two management consultancy agreements with a service provider at great cost. One was to develop and implement a "communication plan for the office of the chief financial officer" for a 12-month period. The contract for the period July 15 2008 to July 2009 was worth R1.15-million.
The same consultant invoiced the SABC for professional services rendered to the broadcaster's financial control division for "transition management" for the period January 2008 to September 2008. The cost was R1,2-million. No agreement could be submitted for the professional services rendered.
20 employees were directors or members of 20 companies or close corporations which had received payments from the SABC to the amount of approximately R3,4-million, which was a contravention of the SABC's group supply-chain management policy.
According to the auditor general, a legal firm appointed to conduct a forensic investigation of programming concluded in August 2009 that there were irregularities of some R111,7-million relating to double payments, overpayments, material paid for but not received, agreements that had to be renegotiated and programme titles acquired more than once from the same supplier during the same licence period.
The PFMA directs that those transgressions, and others, were to be reported to SAPS, both by Internal Audit, and the GCEO (Acting). That was not done, which is a transgression of law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
