Presentation to Parliamentary Public Works Portfolio Committee

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 governments 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

1. Discrepancy in the funding received and the
   monies paid to community beneficiaries. Copies of
   time sheets and ghost workers were given to IDT.
2. 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.
3. On monthly bases 500 job opportunities was
   claimed for but at no point was 500 community
   members employed. See Annexure 2A
4. No surplus was declared to IDT as required as per
   IDT at the community meeting.
5. 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.Peoples 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 Davids, the parish priest lead an
  in depth investigation on behalf of the church
  (whose premises was used)
• When sufficient evidence was compiled Pastor
  Davids 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

1. Beneficiaries were not paid what was due to them.
   Annexure 1
2. A letter was given to each beneficiary confirming
   R1000,00 monthly income from the 22nd July 2010
   till the 30th March 2011. Annexure 3
3. An invoice was submitted for June and July
   Totalling R390,000.00 but no work was done.
   Annexure 1
4. 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

1. 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)
2. 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)
3. 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)
4. Albert acquired a car within the first two months
   of the project and Frank in November 2010.
   (Annexure 1)
5. Albert Browns wife Sophia Brown is listed as a
   beneficiary but is not involved in the project.
   (Annexure 1)

13

• Albert Browns 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 Rouxs 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. Severo Cottle 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.