Publications
Partners
It stands accused of racism, having underqualified officials in its employ and irregularly awarding tenders
The SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) is investigating allegations of racism at the department of justice and constitutional development.
Last year, members of the National Education, Health and Allied Workers’ Union (Nehawu) at the department laid a complaint at the commission after two white officials allegedly referred to their black supervisor as a monkey and a baboon on Facebook.
The pair was then suspended.
Buang Jones, the SAHRC manager in Gauteng, said on Friday that the commission wanted to understand the extent of racism within the department.
“We are still engaging with the department. Obviously, we want to establish whether allegations of racism are there or not. We are still investigating and the file is still open,” said Jones.
Jones said that although the department had conducted its own investigation, there were a number of things that the SAHRC still needed to settle with the department.
“We have not yet closed an investigation into the matter. We still have to meet the department to go through its findings and understand the extent of alleged racism within the department.”
However, Nehawu branch secretary Peter Masango accused the commission of failing the union.
“We reported this matter last year in March. Till today we have not received any report from the commission,” he said.
Masango also berated the department, accusing it of protecting the two employees because of the “colour of their skin”.
“They were supposed to support the victim. Instead, they charged a black official who was called a baboon, after he complained about racism at the department.”
Steve Mahlangu, spokesperson for the department of justice and constitutional development, said director-general Vusi Madonsela became aware of a complaint from certain employees in the department’s finance unit, alleging that an incident of racism had taken place on Facebook in March last year.
“The department initiated two separate but complementary processes – through its forensic audit unit and its labour relations unit. The forensic audit unit also enlisted the services of a private investigation company. Both investigations could not find evidence linking the cellphone devices of the alleged perpetrators to the Facebook posts,” Mahlangu said.
“The probe by the labour relations unit indicated that, for the matter to be taken further, contact would have to be made with Facebook. This necessitated that a criminal case be opened by the affected employees.
“The labour relations unit advised these employees and their union that they would therefore need to pursue such action with regard to any further investigation into the claims.
“The employees indicated that they did not wish to pursue such a course of action. As a result, the matter could not be taken further and was subsequently closed,” said Mahlangu.
. Meanwhile, the EFF has approached the Public Protector’s office, accusing the justice department of, among other things, the “irregular awarding of tenders” to security company Fidelity and the appointment of officials without the necessary qualifications.
In the letter, addressed to Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane and written by EFF secretary-general Godrich Gardee, the party states that it has been approached by individuals within the justice department, as well as those with knowledge of the goings-on there, informing them of such improprieties.
In the letter, the party names a director within the department who “does not possess the prerequisite qualifications” and who apparently “embellished his academic qualifications and/or has questionable academic qualifications”.
Mandla Mathebula, media research and liaison officer in the justice department, said that contrary to the allegations, the department could confirm that the director was employed in January 2009 and held a national diploma in human resources, which he obtained in 1997.
“He also has an advanced diploma in labour law, which he obtained in 1998,” said Mathebula.
In its letter to Mkhwebane, the EFF also states that it is further alleged that the director “engineered the awarding of guarding and cash-in-transit security contracts to Fidelity Security Group between 2004 and 2009”.
Gardee informed City Press that the EFF had exhausted every possible attempt to engage with Justice Minister Michael Masutha with regard to the allegations, adding: “We have even raised these questions in parliamentary portfolio committee meetings and have not received any compelling response.”
The EFF also writes in the letter that the director was earmarked to be redeployed to the post of security director – a position that, according to the EFF’s sources, would “amass him more influence to enable Fidelity to get the coveted R1.2 billion-plus security contract, set to be advertised in May”.
However, Mathebula denied this.
“Allegations relating to a so-called R1.2 billion security tender that ‘will be advertised in May’ are untrue,” Mathebula said.
“Security management has submitted a request for physical security services – namely, CCTV cameras for high-risk courts and the national office – to be placed on the departmental procurement plan. The business case and specifications are in the process of being formulated, after which the tender process will start. Hence, the budget is as yet unknown.”
He reiterated that “the bid process in the department was highly regulated and restricted the ability to ‘give’ bids to a specific company above another company”.
Responding to questions from City Press, Fidelity’s group chief executive, Wahl Bartmann, confirmed that the security company had had “various contracts with the department of justice and constitutional development since 2005, based on success in various tender processes over that time”.
He said that, based on the company’s experience, there had always been a very stringent tender process, governed by strict Treasury requirements and commercial rules in acquiring any contract from the department.
“Where we have been successful, it is because we have been 100% compliant with the tender requirements. It is important to note that we have not been successful in winning the tenders consistently for all areas every time that we have re-tendered, and that while we have been working with the department since 2005, these contracts have varied materially over the years,” said Bartmann.
 |
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
