What Moeketsi Mosola didn’t want you to know about GladAfrica tender

Share this article: Share Tweet Share Share Share Email Share

Pretoria - The Pretoria News can today reveal the contents of the draft interim report on the GladAfrica tender scandal, which Tshwane City Manager Dr Moeketsi Mosola did not want the public to know. The report was due to be tabled in council, but Mosola successfully obtained an interdict against Executive Mayor Solly Msimanga, speaker Katlego Mathebe and the City of Tshwane in the Labour Court. The matter will be heard on November 9. But Mosola claimed yesterday he had not seen the report, raising questions on why he would interdict a report he had not read. In terms of the interim report, the procurement of GladAfrica by the City of Tshwane did not comply with the requirements of the South African Constitution and the Municipal Finance Management Act. Bowmans, the independent investigator mandated by council to investigate the deal, was tasked with probing the application of Regulation 32 of the Municipal Finance Management Act and Municipal Supply Chain Management Regulations with regards to the procurement of goods and services from GladAfrica.

In terms of Regulation 32, a supply chain management policy may allow the accounting officer to procure goods and services for the municipality or municipal entity under a contract secured by another organ of state, subject to conditions.

The goods and services procured by the second organ of state must be the same as that required by the first organ of state. The contract price must also be the same.

After the court ruling, Mosola labelled the report bogus and accused Msimanga and the DA of a witch-hunt. “I voluntarily subjected myself to a legal process of council, believing that it will be fair and independent however, in the fullness of time, sadly that has not been the case,” he told journalists that afternoon.

He claimed the Financial Disciplinary Board was the only mechanism that could investigate financial misconduct of an accounting officer. He also disputed that the COO, James Murphy, was tasked with appointing the investigator and controlling the investigation; he said, involved in the appointment of GladAfrica; and responsible for signing the majority of task orders for the implementation of the contract. Mosola also indicated he had not been interviewed as part of the investigation.

In the interim report, Bowmans stated that the procurement process adopted by the City of Tshwane was not sufficient to ensure fairness, transparency, competitiveness or cost-effective.

The preliminary investigation found that while Mosola wrote to the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) requesting access and use of its panel to appoint a company to assist in rolling out the infrastructure delivery programme, no formal agreement was entered into between the two entities.

In the communication with Mosola, the DBSA had said it constituted a panel of professional service providers for the built environment sector.

Regulation 32 also does not permit direct negotiation between a second organ of state to the service provider that is already providing a service to a first organ of state Tshwane also contravened this requirement.

While the exchange of correspondence between Tshwane and DBSA may constitute an agreement, the preliminary investigation found that the agreement was not for the provision of goods and services.

“We conclude that the DBSA did not consent to the procurement as required by Regulation 32,” Bowmans wrote in the draft preliminary report.

“No specific goods and services relevant to the City had been secured by the DBSA under a contract at the time Regulation 32 was invoked.

“In our view, the City of Tshwane ought to have suspected that the contract between DBSA and GladAfrica was not validly procured or not procured at all.”

Bowmans made it clear the investigation was not complete and recommended that the City mandated its urgent completion by November 30. The investigator said it did not recommend legal, civil or disciplinary proceedings at this stage.

The company said the investigation had not yet had the opportunity to interview individuals with relevant information, and that it reserved the right to supplement and amend the report based on further investigation.

Mosola, who had in the last few days taken to Facebook to blast Msimanga and the DA regarding the investigation, yesterday yet again blamed them for tarnishing “his good name and reputation” by leaking the interim report.

He also claimed that as the subject of the report, he had not received or seen it and said only the DA government and the office of the executive mayor had received it. “The little I have seen of the report are notes from inquiries by newspapers in what they claimed to be findings of the report, thus rendering it bogus.”

Pretoria News