Publications
Partners
Minister of Women Bathabile Dlamini’s equity portfolio of R21 081 and half of a house is hardly enough for the hundreds of thousands of rands’ worth of legal costs that she has to pay.
This is the sum of Dlamini’s declared assets in the latest interest register for MPs.
The Constitutional Court ordered Dlamini to pay 20% of the legal costs of human rights organisations Black Sash and Freedom Under Law (FUL) in the ongoing court battle over the Cash Paymaster Services (CPS) contract for the payment of social grants.
Although the final amount for legal costs has not yet been calculated, Dlamini’s share could total hundreds of thousands of rands.
In addition, FUL chairperson and retired judge Johann Kriegler told City Press on Friday that they would leave no stone unturned to recover the money from Dlamini. This includes legal action.
Kriegler says they expect the former minister of social development to pay every cent for which she is responsible. If she does not pay it, he said, they will ensure that the court order is enforced and that her fixed assets are seized and sold in execution.
If Dlamini’s interest register is complete, the R7 400 worth of shares in Telkom and Vodacom, together with her investment at Sanlam, would be far too little to cover the bill.
She also has an interest in the pension fund for politicians, but pension fund monies are protected against creditors.
Dlamini declared only one house in Pietermaritzburg, but according to records at the deeds office, she owns two. She bought one with her husband for R162 000 in 1994 and another in 2010 for R715 000.
There is still a bond registered in her name for the first house.
If Dlamini’s assets are not enough to pay her debt and she is declared insolvent, she could also lose her job. The Constitution states that unrehabilitated insolvents may not be MPs or ministers.
A unanimous judgment by the court’s full Bench, delivered by Justice Johan Froneman, found this week that Dlamini must pay the legal costs because she withheld information that she employed the services of work streams which worked parallel to the SA Social Security Agency (Sassa).
The work streams reported directly to Dlamini.
Furthermore, the court directed that the judgment and report of retired judge Bernard Ngoepe – who investigated who appointed the work streams and why – should be handed to the National Prosecuting Authority to decide if Dlamini should be criminally charged with perjury.
During the Ngoepe inquiry, Dlamini often answered questions with questions and made out that she did not understand other questions.
And, in an affidavit to the court, she said that the court had no power to issue a cost order against her since that would infringe on the principles of separation powers between the judiciary and the executive.
The court found in 2014 that Sassa’s contract with CPS signed in 2012 was illegal and invalid – almost threatening the future payments to millions of social grant beneficiaries.
Sassa returned to court over concerns that it might be unable to pay its cash allowances as the SA Post Office, which was appointed in place of CPS, could not handle cash payments.
About 2.8 million beneficiaries – about 25% of the scheme – receive their allowances in cash.
In the meantime, the contract with CPS had to be extended. One of the reasons for this was that Dlamini had appointed her own parallel team, which hampered the transfer.
The court’s finding about Dlamini’s accountability was widely welcomed by opposition parties as a positive step in holding political office bearers accountable.
Courts only issue cost orders against government officials to be personally liable in exceptional cases, where their actions are not in the interest of the public.
Former president Jacob Zuma is also fighting a cost order after he opposed the remedial action recommended in the Public Protector’s state capture report.
