Latest news with #R5-million
Daily Maverick
4 days ago
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Latest visit to Parliament paints grim picture of the finances of Danny Jordaan's Safa
There were two key takeaways from the South African Football Association's appearance before Parliament: its dire financial situation and its president, Danny Jordaan, hinting that he will run for a fourth term in 2026. The South African Football Association (Safa) is in financial trouble. That was one of the key takeaways from the federation's appearance before Parliament's sport, arts and culture oversight committee. During the routine visit to Parliament on Tuesday, 3 June Safa spoke about the financial struggles it is facing. The association's chief financial officer, Gronie Hluyo, said it is in debt, with its current liabilities exceeding its assets by R141-million. Over the past few months in particular Safa has battled to pay employees and service providers on time. Even senior national team players have sometimes had to wait it out for their match fees. In December 2024, the Department of Sport bailed out Safa from a financial quagmire by approving a R5-million advance from the association's annual government grant. However, in the long-term Safa still finds itself in a precarious financial position. Cashflow quagmire Hluyo said the reasons for this deficit included the adoption of gender parity policies for the senior teams, Bafana Bafana and Banyana Banyana. He said that despite this commitment from Safa, the limited sponsors approaching them were primarily interested in backing the men's team. The financial officer, who stands accused of fraud within Safa – alongside the federation's president Danny Jordaan and public relations company boss Trevor Neethling – told Parliament that Safa's cashflow struggles were primarily due to the organisation battling to attract sponsors. The latter situation, he submitted, is a direct result of the constantly negative publicity Safa receives in the media. According to Hluyo, one of the most important components in Safa balancing its books is the federation finishing the renovation of the Fun Valley Resort, which it bought in 2015. The vision was to transform the site into Safa's official national technical centre, thereby reducing costs significantly. 'We bought a place called Fun Valley, which we are developing into a national technical centre. We are in the process of constructing that national technical centre. Once that is complete it will result in a lot of cost saving for Safa, because our teams will be staying at the national technical centre and training there,' Hluyo said. 'Currently our biggest costs are flights, accommodation and player remuneration. So, if we can reduce the accommodation costs, that will help quite a lot. However, we need funders in order to complete the construction of the technical centre.' Safa paid R65-million for Fun Valley, which is in Johannesburg South. However, the purchase has been marred by controversy because of discrepancies in property valuations. It has always been said that Safa paid much more than what the property was worth. In 2023, Hluyo told the media that the association needed about R600-million to complete all the construction. But with its dire financial situation, as well as corporate companies shunning Safa due to the constant negative publicity, it's unclear where the money will come from. Negative publicity Hluyo also said Safa is also on the market for a public relations company to spruce up its image, owing to what Jordaan labelled a 'campaign' to derail the association, by both external and internal people. 'The campaign is intended to drive away the sponsors… It only happens to football. It won't happen to rugby and cricket. This is a political campaign and vicious campaign, but we will stand our ground. We will deliver the football that people want in this country. We are not afraid, we've seen worse,' Jordaan said. Indeed, Safa regularly pumps out statements disputing one thing or another – from allegations that Jordaan is running the association like a cartel, to him ousting all those who challenge his authority. It's a long list. Jordaan's former vice-president, Ria Ledwaba, once said of the Safa boss: 'As soon as you do not agree with the president, you are enemy number one.' Jordaan has consistently denied the allegations against him. Vehemently. The 73-year-old former Nelson Mandela Bay mayor has also argued that if he was as despicable as he is always portrayed in the public domain, then members of the association would not continuously entrust him to lead it. Another term? Jordaan is currently serving a third term as Safa boss. He was first elected in 2013 and his current four-year term began in 2022. Asked in Parliament whether he would ever consider voluntarily stepping down from his position, especially in light of the negative publicity in Safa which can be directly linked to him, Jordaan said no. 'In any position, in a democracy, you cannot give yourself a position. You cannot decide when you stay and when you go. That is the responsibility of our 52 regions, they will take that decision. It's not for me to say I want to be a president [or not]. I never said that to them. So, they will decide what they want to do,' Jordaan said. This is in stark contrast to what he said after his re-election in a landslide victory three years ago, when he implied that he had not wanted to run for president again and had only done so to groom a successor after Safa members had implored him to do so. 'That's one of the reasons why [some of the] members said 'you can't just drop the ball and go, you must have a succession plan'. I heard them and we agreed. It is not as if I woke up one morning and said I want a third term. That is far from the truth. I had accepted that I'd made my contribution,' Jordaan said in 2022. Asked about those remarks in Parliament on Tuesday, Jordaan appeared perplexed. He said: 'When did I say this?… Members must nominate. We have to wait and see. I don't know whether they'll nominate me or not.' With a large number of Safa's national executive committee members said to be personally benefiting, one way or the other, from Jordaan's extended stay at the association, he is likely to be nominated again – even though his presence is clearly a setback, in a number of ways, for the association. DM
Daily Maverick
16-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Suspected crime boss Stanfield's wife, Nicole Johnson, spends R5m on Sea Point flat while in prison
Nicole Johnson, the wife of suspected organised crime boss Ralph Stanfield and herself accused of racketeering and helping run a violent criminal enterprise, bought an unbonded R5-million flat on the Atlantic Seaboard from a renowned Cape Town property developer. The transaction raises questions about the extent to which property deals remain vulnerable to money laundering, especially in a time of increased focus on estate agents and lawyers meeting anti-money laundering obligations. Investigations by amaBhungane have highlighted a legal loophole whereby developers who make direct sales without using estate agents as intermediaries seemingly do not have to be registered with the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) as accountable institutions. These developers, therefore, have no obligation to perform any due diligence on clients, although they do still need to report transactions they have reason to believe are suspicious. While the criminal reputation of Stanfield and Johnson precedes them, neither the conveyancers, Smith Tabata Buchanan Boyes (STBB), nor the property developer, Blok, which was directly involved in last year's sale, appear to have been put off by the couple's notoriety or the fact that Johnson purchased her Sea Point flat while in prison awaiting trial. Johnson and Stanfield, who have been charged under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, have been held in Cape Town's Pollsmoor and Brandvlei prisons respectively since their highly publicised arrest in September 2023. They were arrested at their multimillion-rand Constantia home in Cape Town on suspicion of running a criminal enterprise, which has allegedly ensnared several senior local government officials. Collectively they face more than 100 criminal charges, including racketeering, money laundering, corruption, fraud, theft, extortion, murder, attempted murder and the illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. Some of the charges relate to their alleged involvement in a R1-billion social housing development tender fraud scheme for the construction of homes in some of Cape Town's poorest communities. Johnson runs numerous companies, including Glomix House Brokers (GHB), which the couple allegedly used to secure contracts linked to the tender. In March 2024 the National Treasury blacklisted GHB from doing business with the government for 10 years. The blacklisting was loudly trumpeted by the City of Cape Town as a major success in its fightback campaign against the construction mafia, which for years has laid siege to its infrastructure development projects. AmaBhungane has learnt that six months later, on 2 September 2024, Johnson bought a two-bedroom apartment in Sea Point from Blok, one of Cape Town's most renowned urban renewal property developers. She was able to do this while sitting in Pollsmoor as a prisoner awaiting trial. While amaBhungane is not suggesting that STBB or Blok failed to comply with any Financial Intelligence Centre Act (Fica) money-laundering reporting obligations, or that the money Johnson used to buy her flat was from the proceeds of crime, the sale shines a light on estate agents' – and potentially property developers' – compliance levels with laws to combat money laundering and terrorism financing, as well as the current difficulties the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) faces in ensuring such compliance and the gaps in legislation specifically designed to combat these crimes. The source of the money, as well as whether it was paid directly by Johnson from her bank account or via a third party, is unknown. Her lawyer, Luzuko Guma, did not respond to amaBhungane's email and WhatsApp requests for comment. Blok and STBB would not discuss any details of the transaction, citing client confidentiality and FIC secrecy provisions while insisting that they had complied with their obligations. As we'll see, however, what these were in the case of Blok may be somewhat unclear. The sale Since its founding in 2014 by father and son Marco and Jacques van Embden, Blok has become known for its award-winning projects, with the company specialising in high-end compact apartment developments in Cape Town's City Bowl and Sea Point. Of the company's 20 developments, it was its Eighty2 on M apartment building that caught Johnson's eye. According to the company's website, the block on Sea Point's Main Road is an 'apartment hotel… where luxury meets sustainability' and offers 'bold architectural design, energy-efficient living spaces and community-oriented features'. The majority of the apartments in the building are rented out as short-term stays. While the exact details of the transaction through which Johnson purchased her eighth-floor unit facing Lion's Head and Signal Hill are unknown, what amaBhungane has gleaned is that she paid R5,016,000 for the 77m² flat, that the purchase was unbonded and made through a cash transfer, and that the unit was registered in her name on 20 November 2024. Property records show that Johnson bought the unit from Blok's Urban Living 4, which is registered as a separate business entity and which developed the Eighty2 on M apartment building. When developing apartments, Blok appears to register separate business entities. The company's registered estate agency business, Blok Urban Apartment Living (UAL), is responsible for marketing and facilitating the sale of units in the group's different developments. In trying to unpack the transaction and determine whether the financial reporting legislation was complied with, amaBhungane looked at whether Blok is registered with the FIC as an accountable institution. Accountable? Fica compels accountable institutions to carry out in-depth know-your-client analyses, understand the nature of their clients' different business relationships, alert the FIC to any suspicious transactions and, importantly, assess, mitigate and report potential money laundering or terror financing risks their businesses may face from transactions. Compliance is crucial in the government's effort to remove SA from the global Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list. The FATF grey list identifies countries that have deficiencies in their legislative systems that hamper the combating of money laundering and terror financing. SA was placed on the grey list in February 2023 and in February of this year, the National Treasury announced that it aimed to have SA removed from the list by October. One of the biggest stumbling blocks in removing SA from the list is the lack of successful prosecutions of money laundering cases, as well as poor Fica compliance by certain accountable institutions. In April, the FIC complained in a press release that it was struggling to get estate agents and lawyers to comply with all important Fica risk and compliance reporting obligations. The problem is compounded by a gap in the legislation. Under Fica, estate agencies are 'accountable institutions' but property developers who sell units directly to buyers without using estate agents as intermediaries fall outside the current definitions. That gap was partially closed with the repeal of the former Estate Agency Affairs Act and its replacement in February 2022 with the Property Practitioners Act, which includes property developers that perform estate agency activities by selling their developments directly to buyers. Fica, however, still needs to be amended to include the wider definition of 'property practitioners'. Back to Blok This legal blurriness was evident in our attempts to get clarity from Blok as to what extent it had considered – or even recognised – the potential red flags of a cash sale to Johnson, a prisoner awaiting trial. STBB and Blok sidestepped detailed questions, citing Fica non-disclosure provisions and the Protection of Personal Information Act. STBB director Steven Borwick, responding on behalf of Blok, said that 'in the event that our client had incurred an obligation to report an activity associated with Ms Johnson to the FIC, it will [in] any event, be precluded … by the FIC Act from disclosing such a fact to anyone. To do so constitutes a criminal offence …' Questioned on whether Blok had any Fica responsibilities, Borwick said the specific development company, Blok Urban Living 4, was 'not an accountable institution in terms of the FIC Act'. He said STBB is registered with the FIC as an accountable institution and that the company takes its responsibilities seriously. Borwick said Blok's marketing arm, UAL, provided the company with its estate agency services, but it is not clear whether UAL was involved in the Johnson transaction and, initially at least, amaBhungane was not able to get Blok to confirm that UAL was registered with the FIC. A search of the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority website shows that UAL is a registered estate agency. As such, Fica requires, if not Blok as a whole, then at least UAL to be registered as an accountable institution. Eventually Borwick confirmed this, noting: 'I am instructed the entity is registered with FIC, registration took place in approximately 2018. Blok will not comment on business strategy and we cannot disclose details of a specific transaction without all parties' consent. No further emails or calls will be responded to.' When amaBhungane approached the FIC with the same question, the entity threw up a bureaucratic wall, saying that its register of accountable institutions was 'not a public registry'. 'The purpose of the registry … is to facilitate [the] regulation of accountable institution compliance with the FIC Act, including with their reporting obligations, in line with the FIC's mandate. 'As such, the FIC is obliged to maintain [the] confidentiality of the regulatory information that is provided to it. Furthermore, the FIC Act provides for the protection of the confidential information which the FIC holds.' This legally questionable stance, which precludes the public from knowing whether companies are complying with their mandatory responsibility to register, helps no -one – except perhaps people like Johnson. DM
The Citizen
14-05-2025
- Automotive
- The Citizen
Nissan's woes deepen as more job cuts loom
Along with a year-on-year loss, the automaker will reduce its workforce by an additional 15%. Nissan has posted its biggest operational loss in almost 25 years. Photo by Kazuhiro NOGI / AFP Nissan plans to cut 10 000 more jobs worldwide, Japanese media reported on Monday, a day before the struggling carmaker was expected to report a record annual loss of around R5-million or R91-billion. Public broadcaster NHK said the decision, in addition to a November announcement that it would slash 9 000 positions, means Nissan is now aiming to reduce its total workforce by approximately 15%. Nissan, whose mooted merger with Honda collapsed earlier this year, declined to comment on the reports which also appeared in the Nikkei business daily. Timeline of tough Like many peers, Nissan is finding it difficult to compete against home grown electric vehicle brands in China, while its profits are now under further threat from US trade tariffs. The possible merger with Japanese rival Honda had been seen as a potential lifeline. But talks crashed in February after Honda proposed making Nissan a subsidiary instead of integrating under a holding firm. Then last month, Nissan issued a stark profit warning, saying it expects an annual net loss $5.1-billion or R93-billion for the 2024-25 financial year. ALSO READ: Nissan CEO Makoto Uchida officially steps down Its previous worst full-year net loss was 684 billion yen (R85-billion) in 1999-2000, during a financial crisis that birthed its rocky partnership with Renault. Nissan has since faced more speed bumps, including the 2018 arrest of former boss Carlos Ghosn. The automaker, whose shares have tanked nearly 40% over the past year, appointed a new CEO in March. Ratings agencies have downgraded the firm to junk, with Moody's citing its 'weak profitability' and 'ageing model portfolio'. Tariffs threat An additional headwind is the 25% tariff imposed by President Donald Trump on all imported vehicles into the United States. Of all Japan's major automakers, Nissan is likely to be the most severely impacted, Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Tatsuo Yoshida told AFP. Its clientele has historically been more price-sensitive than that of its rivals, he said. Recently appointed Nissan CEO, Ivan Espinosa. Photo by Richard A. Brooks / AFP So the company 'can't pass the costs on consumers to the same extent as Toyota or Honda without suffering a significant loss in sales units', he added. One potential solution for Nissan could be Taiwanese electronics behemoth Hon Hai, better known as Foxconn, which assembles iPhones and is expanding into cars. Foxconn said in February it was open to buying Renault's stake in Nissan, and this month it agreed in principle to develop and supply an EV model to Mitsubishi Motors, an alliance partner of Renault and Nissan. External help, Yoshida said, is 'very much needed' for Nissan, which can no longer differentiate itself from its rivals by making internal efforts to save costs alone. NOW READ: Nissan announces drastic job cuts and reduction in sales figures
Daily Maverick
11-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Nonprofits face crisis as Gauteng Department of Social Development delays funding for third consecutive year
Gauteng's nonprofit sector is grappling with significant financial strain as funding from the Gauteng Department of Social Development has been delayed for the third consecutive year. With no payments since Tuesday, 1 April, many organisations are relying on community donations and depleting reserves to continue services for vulnerable populations. Without timely funding, many fear an imminent collapse of critical services in the provinces that are most vulnerable. Hundreds of Gauteng nonprofit organisations (NPOs) are grappling with severe financial strain as the provincial Department of Social Development fails for the third consecutive year to deliver funding on time. Since Tuesday, 1 April 2025, many NPOs have been operating without subsidies, leaving them unable to pay staff, plan services, or meet the basic needs of vulnerable beneficiaries. The Gauteng Care Crisis Committee, a coalition of affected NPOs, has condemned the department's continued non-compliance with its own funding policies. The committee warns that unless urgent action is taken, the province's most essential social services — including care for persons with disabilities, survivors of gender-based violence, children, and the elderly — could grind to a halt. Under the national Sector Funding Policy, renewal contracts should be signed two months before the previous financial year ends on 31 March. However, most organisations only received award letters on 31 March, many without specified funding amounts, and some are still waiting for contracts. A Gauteng Care Crisis Committee survey of 105 member organisations revealed that: 51 received contracts for all services but have not been paid 29 received only partial contracts 25 have received no decision at all on their applications Since organisations often run multiple programmes, the real number of affected services is significantly higher. Adding to the uncertainty, contracts worth more than R5-million have been stalled, awaiting approval from the department's head of department. Lisa Vetten, the chairperson of the Gauteng Care Crisis Committee, pointed to recurring systemic issues over three years, particularly broken promises from the department regarding funding delays and Service Level Agreement compliance. 'There's clearly issues about senior leadership here. There are questions here about senior leadership, it has clearly not stabilised. The former MEC, she's been removed, but obviously the problem runs deeper than that, and we also see non-compliance with policy from the department,' she said. Running on donations Aileen Langley from Epilepsy SA Gauteng, the only national non-profit organisation in South Africa dedicated exclusively to providing specialised and comprehensive support to individuals with epilepsy and other disabilities, explained the significant financial strain they were under. 'The biggest impact is on our residential care and our protective workshops. We feed 300 people daily and we are currently relying on donations from the community of Springs, who have been absolutely great,' she said. Langley added that the reality was that this scale of support was hard to sustain without consistent funding, and that at the end of April the organisation could only afford to pay staff half of their salaries. She pointed to administrative delays, explaining that their regional office didn't have any information and that they'd done their part in ensuring service level agreements were prepared. 'I think the problem with payment lies with the provincial office. For our residential programmes we haven't even received the service level agreement because it must be signed by the HOD due to the budget amount,' she said. This bureaucratic bottleneck leaves them with no clarity on when they might receive funds, and the organisation has already received a notice warning that their electricity could be cut. Langley expressed fear of a repeat of last year, when the organisation was only paid in the last month of the first quarter. While she praised her committed team, she noted that this was not an ideal situation for any of the 46 staff members. 'People tend to think that it's a hobby for them, but they're all breadwinners, some are single parents with several children. This is actually a government responsibility to look after vulnerable people. NPOs have been doing this work since before government services even existed during the previous regime and into the current one, because they saw a need in communities,' she said. Momentum killed by delays Nhlanhla Zwane, from the African Youth Development Forum, an organisation that supports young people through development programmes and substance abuse prevention initiatives, expressed deep concern over the ongoing delays in funding. 'The biggest concern for us is the uncertainty. We are now in the second month of the financial year. The MEC handed out letters in March saying payment would be made on Tuesday, 15 April, but we didn't receive any funding then. Another date was given after that, and it was also delayed,' said Zwane. While they had received a letter confirming they would be funded, there was still no official service level agreement in place. 'Given the turbulence of the last couple of years, we don't even know if we're getting the same amount of funding, and now there's uncertainty for our 60 staff members because we renew contracts yearly. If we keep the full team and funding is cut, we'll have to let some people go, and we need to give them fair notice,' he said. In addition to staffing, the organisation also faces fixed costs like rent and overheads, and has already spent its reserves in April to stay afloat. Zwane also raised serious concerns about the disruption in programme implementation caused by the funding delays. 'When you implement these programmes, it's about momentum. When we start in January, by now we've built momentum, but stopping in March because of lack of funding kills that momentum,' he said. Not charity, but a constitutional duty Vetten raised serious concerns about the structural power imbalance between the Department of Social Development and NPOs, explaining that the financial dependency allowed for a range of abuses to take place. One current example, she said, involved department-funded vehicles. In some cases, the department had issued directives claiming the right to use vehicles purchased for NPOs and had expected those organisations to transport officials without compensation. Even more alarming, Vetten said, was the legal risk being imposed on NPO leaders, with directors and board members expected to assume full personal liability for anything that might happen to the vehicle. 'Some organisations refused to sign the agreement in full, instead submitting declarations that they were signing under duress… but it is happening. I have voice notes from officials to this effect saying, 'Sign this or you will not get funded.' It's that simple.' Vetten referenced a landmark Free State court case that confirmed that when the Department of Social Development funded NPOs, it was fulfilling state obligations under Sections 27 and 28 of the Constitution, guaranteeing social protection and children's rights. 'NPOs get subsidised in exactly the same way that the government subsidises schools and universities. They are helping the state meet constitutional obligations; it is exactly the same principle,' she said. When the department cut or delayed funding without providing alternative services, it wasn't just an administrative failure, it was a violation of rights. Such inaction amounted to a regressive realisation of constitutional rights, rather than their progressive expansion. 'The Department of Social Development is not doing organisations a favour. When the department presents statistics for its work and the targets it's met, that's not actually their work that they're reporting on. They're reporting on the work that NPOs have done, and that gets lost in much of the annual reports,' said Vetten. 'It is not the NGO that has the right to the funds, vulnerable people are entitled to those funds in terms of the Constitution. The NGO is the vehicle by which the right is delivered. Organisations need money in order to deliver and realise a right on behalf of the government.' At time of publication, the Gauteng Department of Social Development has not responded to requests for comment. This article will be updated when a response is received. DM
