Publications
Partners
Last week we published a story entitled “Ceta whistle-blowers ‘hunted’ by CEO” (City Press, February 28 2016). Several complaints were received from the chairperson of the Construction Education and Training Authority (Ceta), Raymond Cele, the CEO, Sonja Pilusa and former Ceta administrator Themba Mhambi.
In the story it was alleged that Mr Cele and Mr Mhambi are members of the SA Communist Party. They have denied this. City Press failed to verify this allegation before publication and we accordingly retract it and apologise for any embarrassment caused.
It also appears that City Press did not ask Mr Cele and Mr Mhambi for comment on the allegation that they attended a meeting with Ms Pilusa and others in Durban. Mr Cele, Mr Mhambi and Ms Pilusa have strongly denied attending such a meeting.
The story also stated that the Ceta is now “worse off than it was when it was placed under administration in 2012”. Again, no prior comment was sought on this allegation.
The Ceta denies this and points out that it emerged from administration in April 2013 and received a clean audit in respect of its supply chain management for the 2014/15 financial year.
We apologise for not having afforded the Ceta and Ms Pilusa the opportunity to comment on these allegations before publication.
City Press has given the Ceta and Ms Pilusa the right of reply, which is published below:
In last week’s article, serious allegations of misconduct were levelled against the CEO and chairperson of the Ceta. Not only did the article contain inaccuracies, as the apology acknowledges, but it did not give appropriate weight
to the detailed written responses provided to
City Press by the Ceta; it contained news that was neither presented in context nor in a balanced manner.
Given the number and nature of allegations put by City Press in a series of 15 questions, as well as the detailed responses provided by the Ceta, it is particularly disturbing that much information relevant to context and balance was not included. The purpose of this reply, therefore, is to provide information relevant to context that the Ceta submits ought to have been included in the article:
. The allegations of mismanagement and abuse of office were not only made anonymously, by email, but without any supporting evidence to substantiate them.
. The Ceta’s employees have unequivocally distanced themselves from the anonymous email. In all likelihood, the “whistle-blowers” are disgruntled former employees with an axe to grind.
. In response to the anonymous allegations, the department of higher education and training commissioned an independent investigation. The Ceta has cooperated fully with the firm of attorneys conducting the investigation.
. As part of its investigation, which has yet to be completed, the attorneys made provision for the receipt of information and evidence on a confidential basis.
. During the investigation, the Ceta has had no option but to continue to discharge its statutory obligations. This has included the initiation of disciplinary processes against employees, where appropriate.
. Independent legal practitioners have been appointed to conduct these disciplinary processes in accordance with the Ceta’s code of conduct and applicable labour legislation.
The Ceta wishes to address a further allegation: that a former financial manager was dismissed after being charged for leaking information. This was central to the main thesis of the City Press article: that whistle-blowers are “hunted”. But here are the facts:
. The former financial manager was charged and
dismissed for, among other things, the unapproved disposal
of organisational assets, and issuing an unauthorised instruction for payment contrary to Ceta finance project payments, together with a serious misrepresentation of authority.
. The claim that she was charged for whistle-blowing is inaccurate. No protected disclosures in terms of applicable law were made.
Finally, the Ceta is aware that allegations have been levelled against its management, and in particular the CEO. Significantly, these allegations were made anonymously, without any supporting evidence to substantiate them.
Despite numerous platforms having been created for such evidence to be made available on a confidential basis, it has yet to be provided.
The law does not recognise allegations made in this manner as whistle-blowing.
