RAF ‘deliberately withholding' information from Scopa
The SIU tells us that one law firm has received an incredibly disproportionate portion of the work allocated by the RAF – Scopa chair.
What is the RAF hiding, and why does its R1.2m-a-year chair not think it 'important enough' to make sure Scopa is given the information it asked for? Picture: Moneyweb
The Road Accident Fund (RAF) has been accused of deliberately withholding information from Parliament's Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) about the top 10 law firms to receive briefs and payments from the fund.
Scopa chair Songeza Zibi said on Wednesday he has asked for this information twice, the first time on 6 November 2024. He now believes 'this information is being deliberately withheld from the committee for improper reasons'.
'In the intervening period, the SIU [Special Investigating Unit] came to brief the committee and one of the things that they told us is that one of the law firms has received an incredibly disproportionate portion of the work allocated by the RAF.
'We do not know who that law firm is but you can see why that information is pertinent.'
He said he cannot understand 'why it is easy to provide the plaintiff information but it seems impossible to provide the corporate legal services information' when the committee has asked for it in writing and in the sitting.
Zibi said one of the things he is concerned about is that there are names of law firms that appear on both the lists.
ALSO READ: RAF CEO placed on special leave with full pay, as MPs grill fund
What does the RAF chair say?
RAF chair Lorraine Francois apologised for the information not being provided and assured the committee it will be provided.
Zibi said his difficulty is that Francois was in the meeting and knew Scopa asked for this information, which has not been provided.
Zibi said it would not be unfair to hold Francois responsible for the failure to provide this information because the board is the accounting authority.
Francois said the RAF board secretary takes note of Scopa's requirements but they always assume that it is the responsibility of the RAF CEO and executive to put this information together.
Controversial RAF CEO Collins Letsoalo was placed on special leave with full pay and benefits by the board on Tuesday as a precautionary measure, but it was stated that this did not constitute disciplinary action.
ALSO READ: R25.5 billion deficit over five years — Can RAF afford to pay out claims?
Francois said most of the time, the information requested gets submitted directly to Scopa.
'We are a non-executive board so we don't review everything that comes here directly.
'That is the responsibility of the executive. Now I take full accountability and will ensure this happens. But to respect the request of this committee, I will now get to that level to make sure we will provide this information,' she said.
Scopa member Mark Burke of the DA took issue with her answer and asked her what her annual compensation is. Francois said it is about R1.2 million.
'You get paid R1.2 million, which is the equivalent of a parliamentary salary and in your mind it's too operational for you to respond to the [request] for information,' said Burke.
'That [it] is beyond the scope of your work. Does that seem reasonable to you?'
Zibi said he would answer this question.
'You [Francois] didn't think it was important enough because I have raised it twice and you simply didn't bother to check.
'We are not asking you to be operational. I am asking you to ensure that the needs of the committee are met by way of information,' he said.
ALSO READ: RAF national crisis demands urgent action – expert
'Terminate the board immediately'
Scopa member Alan Beesley of ActionSA followed up by stating that he found Francois's response dumbfounding.
'I saw the list that [Zibi] asked for. It's not an extensive list,' said Beesley.
He requested that Deputy Minister of Transport Mkhuleko Hlengwa write letters of termination immediately to the RAF board because it is acting with immunity at the moment and treating parliament with disrespect, which is totally unacceptable.
Acting RAF CEO Phathutshedzo Lukhwareni said a panel of 43 law firms was appointed by the RAF in December 2023, but only 19 were briefed and paid during the 2023 and 2024 financial years 'at the time of preparing the report'.
Lukhwareni said a total R6 million was paid to these law firms in 2023, and around R104 million in 2024.
He said it is a panel (of law firms) and obviously the selection takes place depending on the complexity of the matter.
ALSO READ: RAF at risk of imploding
No state security clearance
Scopa was also told that not a single member of the RAF's board or senior executive has a security clearance from the State Security Agency (SSA).
Lukhwareni said all the forms have been submitted to the SSA for the vetting process and interviews have been held with some of the executives but 'from here on it's beyond our control from a RAF perspective and SSA is responsible'.
Zibi said something does not match because on 16 October 2024 he had an exchange with Francois about the vetting of officials and one official, Letsoalo, was said to be vetted.
Zibi pointed out that Letsoalo said in March 2025 that he had been vetted – and the difference between what he said then and the state of affairs now 'means for the second time he lied to the committee'.
'I asked him about the treasurer at the RAF and he [also] lied about that.'
Scopa member Patrick Atkinson of the DA said Letsoalo – who was initially acting CEO of the RAF and has now been CEO for five years – has been without a security clearance for seven years.
Atkinson said the problem with that is that (without clearance) Letsoalo has not been legally appointed to that position and the question then is how would he have the authority to take the legal action he has against the Auditor-General (AG).
ALSO READ: Expert accuses RAF of misrepresenting itself and its purpose
The RAF unsuccessfully applied to review and set aside the AG's disclaimer of the fund's 2020/2021 annual financial results and to declare the disclaimer invalid and unlawful.
The AG issued the disclaimer because the RAF used an accounting standard it was not permitted to use.
'I understand the court might give him six months to get his security clearance but not seven years,' Atkinson said.
'If he has been operating for seven years without a security clearance, it raises a massive legal issue about a whole variety [of issues] about the accounting principles, not paying out medical aids and foreigners and a whole variety of board minutes which are illegal.'
Zibi said he would have to take legal advice on that and would not hold the Department of Transport or RAF responsible for the tardiness of the SSA.
He said Scopa will take that up with the responsible minister, but the committee needs to work out if Scopa was misled when the CEO told the committee that he had been vetted.
This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
2 days ago
- The Citizen
SIU blocks R3.3 million pension payout of former Gauteng HOD
The SIU secured a court order stopping Gasela's pension payout as criminal investigations continue into corruption and fraud allegations. The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) has secured a court order stopping the pension payout of a former Gauteng head of department (HOD) as criminal investigations continue into corruption and fraud allegations. The unit obtained an interim order from the special tribunal to stop the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) from processing about R3.3 million in pension benefits for Matilda Matozi Gasela, the former HOD at the Gauteng department of agriculture, rural development and land reform. Additionally, until the legal proceedings are concluded, Gasela is prohibited from accessing or claiming these funds under the order which was given on May 15, 2025. Gasela allegedly played key role in mismanaging trash-collecting vehicles contract Gasela began her tenure as HOD in 2018 and allegedly played a key role in mismanaging a contract with Enviro Mobi (Pty) Ltd (later known as Groen Mintirho). SIU spokesperson Kaizer Kganyago said that Gasela authorised additional payments and approved a R6 499 712.64 settlement for 'storage costs' — an item not included in the original contract — even though the company failed to deliver the vehicles. ALSO READ: SIU to investigate Defence department's surgical mask tender from 2021 Senior counsel explicitly advised against this payment, which was later declared fruitless and wasteful expenditure. 'Her actions allegedly contravened the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and contributed to the depletion of public funds, as the SIU contends, in what it describes as a fraudulent scheme,' Kganyago said. After discovering evidence of criminal activity, the SIU referred the case to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). The SIU sent this evidence to the NPA to consider pursuing criminal charges against Gasela, including fraud, corruption and maladministration. October 2024 arrest In October 2024, authorities arrested Gasela and her six co-accused. Her co-accused include: Loyiso Mkwana, chief director: sustainable use of environment, who also served as the bid evaluation committee chair. Thandeka Mbassa, former HOD. She left in August 2018. Abdullah Mohamed Ismail, former chief financial officer and chair of the bid adjudication committee. Matlhekelo Elsie Mabe, director of Mvest Trading (Pty) Ltd. Tinyiko Mahuntsi, director of Enviro Mobi. Puleng Peter Mabe, former director of Enviro Mobi and a former member of parliament Infographic: Supplied ALSO READ: NPA lacking in lottery probe The accused appeared before the Palm Ridge Specialised Commercial Crimes Court inJohannesburg. They were linked to financial mismanagement and illegal procurement in connection with the R33 million contracts that the Ekurhuleni metropolitan municipality (EMM) and the department gave to Enviro Mobi. Kganyago confirmed that the SIU filed papers in the special tribunal to review and cancel the contract and recover R33 731 463.64 in financial losses suffered by the state. R33m financial losses 'Furthermore, as part of consequence management, the SIU has made disciplinary referrals to the department against implicated officials. An administrative referral was made against Enviro Mobi for blacklisting,' he said. According to Presidential Proclamation No. R.15 of 2021, the SIU was tasked with investigating claims of maladministration in the department and Ekurhuleni specifically concerning the contracting or purchase of 200 portable three-wheel motorised trash-collecting vehicles. ALSO READ: Thrrr…Phaaa: Musician Selaelo Selota's Mercedes frozen as SIU probes misuse of lottery funds During the 2023/24 financial year, the SIU finished its investigation into this issue and delivered the report to the president.
TimesLIVE
2 days ago
- TimesLIVE
Special Tribunal stops pension to former Gauteng agriculture head Matilda Gasela
The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) has obtained an interim order preventing the processing of a R3.3m pension payout to Matilda Matozi Gasela, former Gauteng agriculture, rural development and land reform department head. The order, granted by the Special Tribunal on May 15, also restrained Gasela from accessing or claiming these funds pending finalisation of legal proceedings against her. Gasela assumed office as head of department in December 2018 and is alleged to have played a pivotal role in the mismanagement of a contract involving Enviro Mobi (later known as Groen Mintirho). 'Despite the company's failure to deliver the required vehicles, she authorised further payments and approved a settlement of R6.5m for purported 'storage costs' — an expense not stipulated in the original contract. 'Senior counsel had explicitly advised against this payment, which was later declared to be fruitless and wasteful expenditure,' the SIU said on Friday. Her actions allegedly contravened the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and contributed to the depletion of public funds in what the SIU described as a fraudulent scheme.
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Fact-checking the inaccuracies, half-truths and duplicity in the latest presidential newsletter
President Cyril Ramaphosa's latest newsletter is probably too long for most fellow citizens to make time to read, but it contains so many inaccurate, misleading and downright false statements that unpacking some of them is a worthwhile exercise. In the newsletter, the President refers to a statement made by the US State Department last year, in the context of a climate summit, and quotes the glowing terms from it: 'Last year's country Investment Climate Summit published by the US State Department highlights South Africa being an attractive investment hub, citing key factors such as deep and well-regulated capital markets, strengths in manufacturing stable institutions, an independent judiciary and robust legal sector, respect for the rule of law, a mature financial and services sector, and experienced local partners.' The President does not mention that these words are the work of the Biden administration, since replaced, in January 2025, by the Trump administration. Worse still, he leaves out the following portion of the State Department report for obvious reasons not unrelated to its gloomy and critical content: 'However, South Africa continues to suffer the effects from a 'lost decade' in which economic growth stagnated, hovering at zero percent pre-Covid, largely due to corruption and economic mismanagement, and a slow economic rebound post-Covid amid endemic logistics and energy crises. One of the biggest challenges to investment is persistent 'load shedding', South Africa's term for nationwide scheduled rolling blackouts. 'Other challenges include policy uncertainty, lack of regulatory oversight and enforcement, state-owned enterprise (SOE) drain on the fiscus, corruption, violent crime, labor unrest, lack of basic infrastructure and government service delivery, and lack of skilled labor. 'Moody's, Fitch, and S&P have affirmed South Africa's credit rating as stable but rate South Africa's sovereign debt as sub-investment grade. In February 2023, the Financial Action Task Force listed South Africa as a jurisdiction under increased monitoring, known as the 'grey list', to address deficiencies in its regime to counter money laundering and terrorist financing (AML/CFT). South Africa will remain under increased monitoring until it completes its action plan to strengthen its AML/CFT regime.' SA remains on that grey list and will likely languish there until necessary reforms to the criminal justice administration, needed to capacitate it to counter money laundering and terrorist financing, are effected. The Ramaphosa administration shows no urgency in this regard, despite the fact that while SA is on the grey list, borrowing (currently at an all-time high) will remain prohibitively expensive. SA services its debt at present at a cost of R1.2-billion a week, an amount the taxpayers can ill afford. Rule of law Ramaphosa suggests that his government shows fealty to the rule of law. He does not mention the recent trenchant criticism by Bonang Mohale, chancellor of the University of the Free State: 'The great problem for South Africa is rampant greed. [It] is essentially a problem for the once glorious African National Congress that has morphed into an organised crime syndicate, primarily because for a solid 30 years of our democracy, they held the absolute majority power in everything that matters.' 'Organised crime syndicates' by definition show no discernible regard for the rule of law. Fealty to the rule of law implies respect for property rights; indeed, that respect is built into the definition of the rule of law favoured by the World Justice Project. At the most basic level, it entails that: ' The rule of law ensures property rights by providing a framework of laws, institutions, and community commitment that protects those rights. It guarantees that everyone has the right to own property, both individually and collectively, and that no one can be arbitrarily deprived of their property. This framework also ensures that if property is taken, it is done in accordance with the law and with just compensation.' The abomination that is the new Expropriation Act envisages expropriation with nil compensation. The Constitution envisages 'just and equitable compensation' upon expropriation in section 25 of the Bill of Rights. The nil compensation does not have to be just and equitable on any reasonable interpretation of the new law. This renders it unconstitutional. It also exposes the government's lack of appreciation of the meaning of the rule of law. The Constitution itself regards the rule of law as supreme. Any attempt to dilute the rule of law has to have a 75% majority vote in Parliament, not the simple majority that passed the Expropriation Act. Independent judiciary Ramaphosa claims that there is an independent judiciary in SA. Has he forgotten the evidence he gave before the Zondo Commission of Inquiry into State Capture? There he revealed that the Bench in SA is regarded by the ANC as a site of cadre deployment. There is no better way to capture a judiciary than to deploy loyal cadres to serve on it. That is the death knell of independence. This ambiguous passage appears in the newsletter: 'President Trump agreed that the US should continue playing a key role in the G20, including attending the G20 Leaders' Summit in Johannesburg later this year, where South Africa will hand over the presidency of the G20 to the US.' Does Ramaphosa mean that Donald Trump is coming to the wreckage of Johannesburg later this year, or merely that the US will continue playing its key role in the G20 by sending a representative to Johannesburg? The answer is anyone's guess. Time will tell. There is more Orwellian doublespeak in this presidential observation: 'We were able to update US officials on the ongoing structural reform process underway to improve the ease of doing business and facilitate a favourable investment climate.' Every cautious would-be investor is acutely aware of the high violent crime levels in SA and also regards the rampant corruption, about which Bonang Mohale waxes so eloquent, as reasons to avoid making new investments in SA. Crime and corruption remain at unacceptably high levels and not enough is being done to address these barriers to new investment from which new jobs will flow. As long ago as 2011 the Constitutional Court ordered that a single body outside of the control of the executive (which Ramaphosa now heads) should be established to deal with corruption. No such body has been set up 14 years later. The binding nature of the court findings and the legal need to implement the criteria it set are ignored by a government that is content to allow State Capture, tenderpreneurism and the cosy type of comprador-capitalism that BEE laws and regulations have created (this despite recent polling that indicates that more than four in five of the SA population favour merit appointments over race quotas.) There is simply no political will to implement the 2011 judgment properly. This attitude is not indicative of fealty to the rule of law, nor of any real desire to create an investor friendly climate in SA. A great deal of new investment is necessary to attain secure peace, sustainable development on the embattled economic front and shared prosperity in which those genuinely previously disadvantaged enjoy the fruits of their currently hollow liberation. Progress bedevilled Before the formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU), the ANC and its tripartite alliance partners, the SACP and Cosatu, ruled the roost and created the BEE architecture that has so bedevilled progress in SA. The laws and policies in place have been trenchantly criticised by Professor William Gumede, but they are persisted in by the ANC element of the GNU. By now it ought to be screamingly apparent to any sentient observer that the BEE system has not served the constitutional purpose for which it was intended. The provisions of section 9 of the Bill of Rights contemplate redress via legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons or categories of persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination. All that BEE has in fact achieved is the enrichment of ANC cadres and their friends in business. Those genuinely disadvantaged continue to languish in poverty. This fact is illustrated by the increase in the Gini Index, which is now the highest in the world among the 130 countries that produce a Gini Index and considerably higher than it was in SA when democracy dawned. The BEE system does not properly serve the purpose for which it was created. It should be scrapped in favour of the economic empowerment for the disadvantaged — the EED system proposed by the SA Institute of Race Relations. Whether the GNU will be able to break the shackles on progress that is in place due to the ANC fealty to its National Democratic Revolution (NDR) remains to be seen. The NDR is deeply and darkly inconsistent with constitutional principles, but the abandonment of the NDR would not suit that 'organised crime syndicate' to which Mohale refers. The private member's Bills introduced by the co-chair of the Justice Portfolio Committee, Glynnis Breytenbach, envisaging a new Chapter Nine Anti-Corruption Commission that will be set up in a constitutionally compliant way to deal with corruption, are currently undergoing processing in the parliamentary back office. Before the GNU dawned, Breytenbach was the DA's shadow minister of justice. Before that, she was a senior prosecutor, and she knows the National Prosecuting Authority inside out. Her suggested reforms deserve accelerated parliamentary debate and consideration. The DA and AfriForum have separately challenged the constitutionality of the Expropriation Act in litigation currently pending. New BEE regulations are similarly being challenged for want of constitutionality, also by the DA. There is furthermore a plethora of constitutional litigation around the National Health Insurance legislation. If the government that Ramaphosa leads was true to the clear intentions of the Constitution and showed greater fealty to the rule of law, these litigious efforts would be unnecessary, the criticisms would be taken to heart, the State Department's reservations recorded above, but omitted from his latest newsletter, would be taken more seriously and would be acted upon rather than omitted from the newsletter. DM
