Cape Town - Stellenbosch Municipality has failed to act on a six-month-old public protector report accusing it of maladministration and improper conduct and ordering the council to report irregular appointments to the provincial Treasury.
The municipality has said it is currently in discussions with the Public Protector’s Office over findings made in a report over the disputed 2016 appointment of its strategic corporate services director, Annalene de Beer.
In March, a report by the public protector found that De Beer’s appointment amounted to maladministration and improper conduct and ordered the council to report the irregular appointments to the provincial Treasury.
This order was issued so that the Treasury could decide whether or not the remuneration paid to both constitutes irregular expenditure.
De Beer’s appointment in 2016 came under scrutiny in a public protector's report which followed an investigation. However, the municipality rejected the findings as “baseless complaints lodged with the public protector by an aggrieved ex-councillor”.
Last week, GOOD party councillor Christie Noble called for a full probe into mayor Gesie van Deventer’s (DA) role in De Beer’s appointment. Noble said: “We call for the recommendations of the selection panel that interviewed and recommended the appointments to be produced for scrutiny.”
She said this would either confirm or dispel suggestions that there was undue interference by the mayor.
Municipality spokesperson Stuart Grobbelaar said they maintained that the report was based on mistaken information, and anyway, the municipality had received clean and unqualified audits under De Beer.
He said the auditor-general audited the process of the appointment of both directors and found no irregularities or discrepancies. On the allegations of Van Deventer’s role in the appointment and that of the selection panel, Grobbelaar said: “The desperate attempt to drag the mayor’s name into this is absolute political opportunism which is baseless and libellous.”
He said the regulation on the appointment of Section 56 employees was very explicit and prescriptive and was duly followed.
“It should also be noted that these alleged irregular appointments stem from a complaint lodged by an aggrieved ex-councillor who was not re-elected to council ...”
The unnamed former councillor was Franklin Adams of the Democratic New Civic Association.
Responding to the municipality’s statement, Adams said: “I followed all internal remedies up to March 2018. I then laid a complaint with the Hawks and after the Hawks and NPA refused to prosecute, I took the matter to the public protector in 2019 while I was still a sitting councillor.”