Staff Reporter
Public Protector Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane has dismissed claims made by a whistleblower of fraud, corruption and mismanagement of drought relief funds by the Free State office of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, saying there is no sufficient evidence.
The complaint was lodged anonymously with the Office of the Public Protector on August 20, 2018.
In a report released Monday, Mkhwebane said the allegations could not be substantiated and she was satisfied with the evidence presented by state officials.
“I . . . could not find any improper conduct or maladministration on the part of the department in relation to the complaint,” Mkhwebane said in her 26-page report.
The complainant alleged that drought relief amounting to R11 million was approved by the director general of the National Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, Mdu Shabane, on January 13, 2016 for a feed mill and the lucerne processing plant to be constructed in the Virginia/Welkom area.
However, according to the whistleblower, the funds were not used for this purpose.
The complainant further alleged that the chief director of the national department, Pule Sekawana, had requested another R1 million after he appointed a service provider to construct the feed mill in the Wepener area instead.
It was also alleged that only one quotation was submitted for approval by Sekawana.
Also according to the whistleblower, the successful company was owned by the brother of the chief director of the department.
It was further claimed no transparent procurement processes were followed in the appointment of the service provider and that other service providers were excluded from the process.
The public protector set out to investigate the possibility of maladministration, irregular procurement and nepotism in the implementation of drought relief interventions by the department.
“The department did not dispute that no tender process was followed,” Mkhwebane said.
“However, the department contented that deviation from normal procurement processes were approved by the director general of the National Department of Rural Development and Land Reform.”
She said her inquiry essentially sought to establish whether or not the department acted improperly in the management of the drought relief intervention and specifically in respect of the construction of the feed mill in the Wepener area.
Initially, the plan was to expand a feed mill in the Virginia/Welkom area at a cost of about R5 million.
Upon further considerations, the idea was set aside due to the poor performance of that feed mill.
It was found the feed mill operator had difficulties meeting the requirements of the provincial department around 2014.
It was further submitted that the construction of a lucerne processing plant would cost R6 million.
However, on January 23, 2017, Vuna Afrika Agriculture, the only service provider approved, submitted an invoice of R12 032 174.46 for the construction of a five-tonne-per-hour animal feed plant on Wilgedraai Farm owned by the department in Wepener.
It would have a storage facility measuring 30m x 60m x 9m.
The quotation was more than the R11 million initially approved by the director general of the department but officials are said to have accepted it as it did not exceed the total budget approved for drought intervention in the Free State which was R70.16 million.
“The department was of the view . . . that it was the total amount of R70.16 million that should not be exceeded,” the public protector heard.
On February 16, 2017, Vuna Afrika Agriculture was paid R11 million by the national department.
An additional payment of R1 032 174.46 was approved on April 24, 2017.
When officials from the public protector’s Free State office visited Wilgedraai Farm to inspect the project, they found a pelletising machine on site but it was not erected or operational.
The shed was constructed but the feed mill was not erected either.
The department is said to have indicated they were still awaiting an environmental approval before work could proceed.
The public protector concluded that the deviation from the normal procurement processes was followed in terms of the Public Finance Management Act.
“The department submitted proof that they consulted with service providers on their procurement database and requested quotations from them for the different services in terms of the deviation approved by the DG of the national department,” Mkhwebane pointed out.
“The national department explained and submitted evidence as to the reason why the erection of the feed mill was moved from the original area envisaged to the Wepener area.”
On whether the chief director of the department irregularly appointed his brother’s company to construct the feed mill, Mkhwebane said Sekawana indicated he did not know the owners of the company.
“Mr Sekawana responded on 15 June 2019 that he is not familiar with the owners of the service provider,” the public protector said.
“He submitted that they occupied a state farm before they were employed at the department.
“He submitted that none of the members in the cooperative are related to him directly as siblings or indirectly as his cousin brothers.”
Mkhwebane said given that the complainant chose to remain anonymous, she could not present the evidence given by the department and its officials to the whistleblower to test its veracity.
“Although the feed mill was not constructed yet, awaiting environmental impact assessment approval, it is on the farm of the department and therefore an asset . . .” she said.
“The allegation that the chief director Mr Sekawana appointed his brother’s company to construct the feed mill is not substantiated by any evidence.
“I accordingly could not find any improper conduct or nepositism on the part of Mr Sekawana.”