1 / 19

Presentation to Parliamentary Public Works Portfolio Committee

Presentation to Parliamentary Public Works Portfolio Committee. Allegation of mismanagement of government funding.

gerik
Download Presentation

Presentation to Parliamentary Public Works Portfolio Committee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presentation to Parliamentary Public Works Portfolio Committee Allegation of mismanagement of government funding

  2. The Manenberg Development Coordinating Structure (MDCS) wish to thank the Public Works Portfolio Committee for affording us the opportunity to present the concerns and issues here today. We have chosen this route as the last option. We do this as per section 56 of the Constitution and in support of government’s anti-corruption policy. We also wish to be assured that the Manenberg community at large should not be penalized for the actions of the leadership of the two organizations.

  3. The issues of concern to be presented to the committee • Abuse of IDT funding by Proudly Manenberg • Abuse of IDT funding Zion Pulse. • Abuse of Teba funding by Proudly Manenberg. • Abuse of the project beneficiaries. • The use of government funding (Teba Funding) for the independent candidate Mario Wanza

  4. Case 1: Manenberg Abuse of IDT funding by Proudly • March 2010 concerns was raised to the Proudly Manenberg executive on the mismanagement of funds and “ghost workers” • Engagement started with IDT from April 2010. • In May 201 IDT told community about the discrepancies of the R97, 000.00 and that a forensic audit will be done as requested by the community. • The community was told that a forensic audit will be done by Price Waterhouse Cooper. • IDT refuse to avail forensic audit to community. • Community appointed an attorney to engage with IDT. • Community was told to instruct the attorney to request the forensic audit and to date no audit was received.

  5. The signed MOU section 7.1 “The Service Provider shall be paid R50.00 (Fifty Rand) per day per work opportunity created. A total of 500 work opportunities will be created at a total cost of R2, 000,000.00 and in accordance with the Deliverables and Reporting Frameworks” This would equate to R1, 000.00 per beneficiary and a total of 500 beneficiaries per month.

  6. Allegations are as follows: • Discrepancy in the funding received and the monies paid to community beneficiaries. Copies of time sheets and ghost workers were given to IDT. • Proudly Manenberg Chairperson Mario Wanza was paid R15, 000.00 per month (Annexure 1A affidavit Eugene Campson) but claiming publicly that he is only receiving R1, 000.00. Other executive members also received more than the MOU stipulated amount. • On monthly bases 500 job opportunities was claimed for but at no point was 500 community members employed. See Annexure 2A • No surplus was declared to IDT as required as per IDT at the community meeting. • Monies were drawn for beneficiaries who had already left the project.

  7. Signatures were fraudulently put on time sheets. • Very little training was given to the beneficiaries. • The gender sector was given training in 2009 and the participants were not paid in that month and it was assumed by them that their money went toward the training. • Beneficiaries volunteered for seven months and received their first payment in October and were told that bridging finance was used. • As per section 7.2 of the MOU advance funding equivalent to two months salary was given within 7 days of signing the agreement. See Annexure 2A • The reality on the ground was that beneficiaries were never paid on time and every month they were short paid. On the 7th May 2010 beneficiaries was only paid R150.00.People’s dignity were violated. The next week they were given R50.00 • Schedules of payments were signed on. • Mario Wanza was questioned on why he has to receive so much money and he responded that he has a high standard of living unlike the people of Manenberg.

  8. Questions to IDT • Why was the outcome of the forensic audit withheld? • Was fraud detected in the forensic audit? If yes why was no criminal charges laid as per the PFMA? • Why was no public report meeting held as promised? • What is the relationship between IDT and Teba?

  9. Case 2: Abuse of IDT funding Zion Pulse • After the Proudly Manenberg Funding was stopped IDT funded an organization Zion Pulse Community Project. As per the annexure this organization was only registered as an NPO on 19th April 2010 Annexure 1. • The Church Zion Life Ministries confirmed through documentation that there is no connection between the church and Zion Pulse Community Project even though Albert Brown and Franck Le Roux claimed a connection to the funders.

  10. Process followed • Concerned members raised issues of financial mismanagement, nepotism and seemingly self enrichment internally in the organization. • Their concerns were taken to IDT Cape Town • IDT Cape Town was shown the documents of financial mismanagement, nepotism and that the organisation was not paying the participants that were due to them. • The IDT staff did not take these complaints seriously • The matter was then taken to the Zion Life Ministries church council. • Pastor David David’s, the parish priest lead an in depth investigation on behalf of the church (whose premises was used) • When sufficient evidence was compiled Pastor David’s laid criminal charges at Manenberg SAPS. A docket was opened case 383/04/2010 and is now under investigation. (Annexure 7)

  11. Issues of concerns to be presented to the committee • Beneficiaries were not paid what was due to them. Annexure 1 • A letter was given to each beneficiary confirming R1000,00 monthly income from the 22nd July 2010 till the 30th March 2011. Annexure 3 • An invoice was submitted for June and July Totalling R390,000.00 but no work was done. Annexure 1 • In the last week of July the first payment was received by the beneficiaries of R250.00 for attending a 5 day induction workshop. What happened to the rest of the funding? (Annexure 1)

  12. Beneficiaries where paid in part via the bank and the other part in cash. R100.00 was deducted from each beneficiary for the cash payments which was justified by the organization to be bank charges. (Annexure 1) • August 2010 Dominic Eden testified in church that he was bought a R5000.00 Wendy house by Frank Le Roux and Albert Brown. (Annexure 1) • Albert Brown and Frank Le Roux who has been unemployed for many years prior to receiving the funding suddenly acquired assets such as a car , new furnisher and plasma TVs. (Annexure 1) • Albert acquired a car within the first two months of the project and Frank in November 2010. (Annexure 1) • Albert Browns wife Sophia Brown is listed as a beneficiary but is not involved in the project. (Annexure 1)

  13. Albert Brown’s son Bevan Brown and his friend Ikraam Davis are both fulltime student but is reflected as beneficiaries on the time sheets but has not participated in the project.(Annexure 1) • Beneficiaries were given blank sheets to sign for monies received. (Annexure 1) • Participants are fired for no reason. There is a suspicion that these people are still on the books despite not being there. • 17th December 2010 R45, 000.00 cash was withdrawn from the ATM at Standard Bank by Albert Brown. This was confirmed by the camera at Standard Bank. (Annexure 2 ) • The bank statement reflects a pattern of withdrawal needs to be investigated. Annexure 6 • The Board of Zion Pulse is constituted from ghost members and Frank Le Roux’s wife. Annexure 4 • Two supposed board members confirmed that they were not aware that they were board members. Annexure 5 • Any of the beneficiaries who questioned either Frank Le Roux or Albert Brown was summarily

  14. Questions to IDT • What was done when concerns was raised by Trevor Henry? • Given the concerns raised was the documents submitted by Zion Pulse investigated? • If discrepancies are found will criminal charges be laid?

  15. Case 3: Mismanagement of Teba Funding • In March 2010 Teba Development funded Proudly Manenberg. See Annexure 5a . • These funds originated from the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs. • The same modus operandi as in the case of the IDT funding happened. The Proudly Manenberg executive members was paid fat salaries whilst the community beneficiaries was paid R400.00 per month in 2010 from February to September contract. • In March 2010 , R750.00 (for two months salaries) instead of R800.00 was paid. SeveroCottle told the community that the fifty rand short paid was for the people whose funding did not come through.

  16. In April 2010 no money was received. • On the 7th May participants received R150.00. Participants were told to vote between the two groups before they could get the balance of the money. Not every on was paid the balance. • In March 2011 Teba paid R101,000.00 into the Proudly Manenberg banking account. Of this amount • R50,000.00 was drawn for the beneficiaries whilst four staff members was collectively paid R46,700.00 (Annexure 3A) • Beneficiaries was paid R120.00 on the 22nd April 2011 (over the Easter weekend) and the balance of R360.00 was paid on the 10th May 2011. (Annexure 4B)

  17. Case 4: Abuse of the project beneficiaries • Throughout 2010 and 2011 the participants was used to do activities which was outside of their role and function. They were used to do door to door in order to collect petitions for anti-evictions campaigns, marches and attending meetings which had nothing to do with the conditions of funding. Beneficiaries had to sign time sheets for these activities. • Government funding was therefore used to fund these activities. • Beneficiaries were threatened that if they do not participate in these non-project activities they will not be paid and fired. • Beneficiaries applied to be part of the extended public works project in order to get an income.

  18. There seem to be no fixed time of payment to beneficiaries. In some months only part payment was received. Beneficiaries were used to do the door to door campaigning for Mario Wanza and were paid with Teba funding. • Beneficiaries were told that they must vote for Mario Wanza. Because Mario Wanza only received 411 votes in the elections the beneficiaries were again threatened that they will be fired. • Beneficiaries are forced to participate in marches. • Beneficiaries are now told to raise funds in order to cover the cost of the campaign. • No capacity building and skilling has happened since the project has been implemented.

  19. Case 5: The use of government funding for the independent candidate Mario Wanza • The IEC Webb site shows Mario Wanza as an independent candidate. Media clippings dated 31 May 2010 claims that Proudly Manenberg funding was used to fund the campaign. • Annexure 3A shows the withdrawal of funding.

More Related