Private operators accused of bribery in Deneysville
His statement, which was shared with the council and then published by Speaker, councillor Lucas Fisher, followed the municipality's release of a new tariff list for the removal of sewerage from greater Deneysville households and businesses, and the depositing of the same into the recently revamped sewerage plant in neighbouring Refengkgotso.
The area does not have piped sewerage and is, therefore, reliant upon the municipality or private companies to suck their septic tanks and remove the effluent.
(Over the past decade, the municipality has come under criticism by residents for an unreliable service with trucks unavailable due to breakdowns over extended periods.)
However, the release of the new tariffs was accompanied by a moratorium on private dumping until July 1.
The aim of this, according to Ramabitsa, was for the municipality to reestablish its client base and recoup monies spent on upgrading the Refengkgotso sewer plant.
This effectively cut out private vendors from servicing households for at least the month of June, with no apparent undertaking by the municipality of future business.
Ramabitsa was adamant that no informal, private contracts would be considered until July 1. He said that, thereafter, the council would look at negotiating new contracts with licensed vendors.
The statement followed an incident at the purification plant when the new guidelines were enforced, and some private vendors who were outraged insisted that they could continue to release their effluent as was previously the case.
One vendor allegedly tried to bribe a municipal worker at the plant, offering him R16 000, according to Ramabitsa.
After threatening to complain to the authorities about the recent spillage at the station, the vendor approached Ramabitsa directly and offered him R20 000 to allow the continued release of effluent at the plant.
Ramabitsa reported the matter to the council.
At the time of going to press, the municipality was conducting meetings to determine how to handle the alleged bribe.
At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Investec Witness Admits Contradictions in Rushil Singh Fraud Trial
During the ongoing fraud trial of Rushil Singh, a key Investec employee testifying for the State admitted under cross-examination that Singh was not directly involved in the alleged fraud. This acknowledgment challenges a central aspect of the prosecution's case, which is based on Singh's position as CEO of BIG and assumptions about his knowledge of the loan witness initially testified that the financial guarantee involved in the case was 'cash backed.' However, under questioning by the defense, he conceded that this was incorrect. 'The guarantee was not, in fact, cash backed,' the witness said. He further explained that no contractual agreement explicitly required the guarantee to be backed by cash. 'There was an assumption that the guarantee was cash backed, but there is no documentary proof to support this,' he added. This admission weakens the prosecution's argument that Singh knowingly engaged in fraudulent activity related to the guarantee. The witness also contradicted himself multiple times during cross-examination. When reminded that he was under oath, he responded, 'No man is infallible.' The defence highlighted these inconsistencies to question his credibility. Compounding these issues, the court heard that the original R20 million guarantee issued by Stanbic Bank was initially cash backed and included a conditional clause confirming this security. However, it was Investec that requested the removal of this clause, transforming the guarantee from a secured instrument to an unsecured one. 'The original Stanbic guarantee was secured, but Investec itself asked for the security to be removed,' the defence argued, raising concerns about Investec's internal oversight and defense further emphasized that Singh's involvement is based on presumption rather than evidence. 'The State's own witness conceded Rushil Singh was not directly involved,' the defence said. 'Singh's implication rests solely on the assumption that he must have known about a cash backing requirement, a notion without contractual or factual basis.'Adding to the scrutiny of Investec's role are allegations that several Investec employees received personal benefits from Nishani Singh, related to the loans. The Star has learnt of a new man on the story, referred to as Mr X reportedly received monthly payments of R19,000 through a shell company registered in his name from December 2020 to October 2021 — the period during which the loan agreements were being structured and finalized. Mr X. also received a lump sum payment of R70,000 in August 2020 and may have received a R2 million contribution towards his Pretoria home's construction. After resigning from Investec in June 2021, he joined BIG as a director with a reported monthly salary of R300, other bank employees were linked to questionable benefits. Mr X.2 received two Sandton City gift vouchers worth R10,000 each, given during active loan negotiations. Mr X.2 was given a fully paid Sun City trip in December 2016. The defence suggests these benefits breached banking ethics and could constitute inducements.
IOL News
5 hours ago
- IOL News
Investec Witness Admits Contradictions in Rushil Singh Fraud Trial
During the ongoing fraud trial of Rushil Singh, a key Investec employee testifying for the State admitted under cross-examination that Singh was not directly involved in the alleged fraud. This acknowledgment challenges a central aspect of the prosecution's case, which is based on Singh's position as CEO of BIG and assumptions about his knowledge of the loan witness initially testified that the financial guarantee involved in the case was 'cash backed.' However, under questioning by the defense, he conceded that this was incorrect. 'The guarantee was not, in fact, cash backed,' the witness said. He further explained that no contractual agreement explicitly required the guarantee to be backed by cash. 'There was an assumption that the guarantee was cash backed, but there is no documentary proof to support this,' he added. This admission weakens the prosecution's argument that Singh knowingly engaged in fraudulent activity related to the guarantee. The witness also contradicted himself multiple times during cross-examination. When reminded that he was under oath, he responded, 'No man is infallible.' The defence highlighted these inconsistencies to question his credibility. Compounding these issues, the court heard that the original R20 million guarantee issued by Stanbic Bank was initially cash backed and included a conditional clause confirming this security. However, it was Investec that requested the removal of this clause, transforming the guarantee from a secured instrument to an unsecured one. 'The original Stanbic guarantee was secured, but Investec itself asked for the security to be removed,' the defence argued, raising concerns about Investec's internal oversight and defense further emphasized that Singh's involvement is based on presumption rather than evidence. 'The State's own witness conceded Rushil Singh was not directly involved,' the defence said. 'Singh's implication rests solely on the assumption that he must have known about a cash backing requirement, a notion without contractual or factual basis.'Adding to the scrutiny of Investec's role are allegations that several Investec employees received personal benefits from Nishani Singh, related to the loans. The Star has learnt of a new man on the story, referred to as Mr X reportedly received monthly payments of R19,000 through a shell company registered in his name from December 2020 to October 2021 — the period during which the loan agreements were being structured and finalized. Mr X. also received a lump sum payment of R70,000 in August 2020 and may have received a R2 million contribution towards his Pretoria home's construction. After resigning from Investec in June 2021, he joined BIG as a director with a reported monthly salary of R300, other bank employees were linked to questionable benefits. Mr X.2 received two Sandton City gift vouchers worth R10,000 each, given during active loan negotiations. Mr X.2 was given a fully paid Sun City trip in December 2016. The defence suggests these benefits breached banking ethics and could constitute inducements.
eNCA
7 hours ago
- eNCA
ELRC investigating teaching jobs-for-cash reports
JOHANNESBURG - The Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) has launched a probe into the alleged sale of teaching posts. It will also audit teachers and pupils to find ghost teachers. The council says teachers have come forward with allegations that posts are allegedly being sold for over R20,000 per post. The ELRC hopes to complete the audit by October. The forensic investigation is expected to be completed by June 2026. ELRC spokesperson Bernice Loxton said the timelines are realistic and won't disrupt schooling.
