The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) has been rocked by allegations that it is protecting a senior manager accused of sexual harassment, concealing a report into the matter and of delaying a disciplinary hearing.
Palesa (not her real name) opened a case of sexual harassment and bullying against the manager in September — the month when her year-long tenure at the corruption-fighting unit ended.
The manager’s name is known to the Mail & Guardian.
In documents seen by the M&G, the manager is accused of making unwanted romantic advances towards Palesa within the first few weeks of her fixed-term employment in October 2022., He allegedly switched to bullying when she eventually turned him down.
On 10 October, the Tshwane regional organiser for the National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union (Nehawu), Moses Rakolota, sent a letter to advocate Ntuthuzelo Vanara, the SIU’s chief legal counsel, stating that the union was representing Palesa in the matter and wanted the investigation report compiled on the allegations she made.
“The … request is informed by the fact that, on 22 September 2023, we were invited to a meeting between [Palesa] and the investigation panel, which was appointed by the SIU to investigate the matter that the member [complained] about.
“The panel promised us that once the report is available, it will be shared with the union and [our] member, including the audio recordings,” Rakolota wrote.
He added in the letter that the investigative report was completed on 30 September but had not been shared with the complainant or the union. To date, the report has not been made available to them.
The M&G has established that the manager was not suspended pending the inquiry’s outcome, in contravention of item 4 of schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act, despite the alleged perpetrator being in proximity and senior standing to witnesses Palesa needed for her case.
The M&G has also seen the complaint Palesa filed with the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) about her contract not being renewed after she made the harassment allegations.
Interestingly, the SIU emailed her a subpoena, seen by the M&G, on 10 April to appear at the manager’s disciplinary inquiry the next day. She received the email on the date of her first appearance at the CCMA.
“While I was being cross-examined [at the CCMA], I got an email from SIU subpoenaing me to appear for a hearing the following day,” she said, claiming that the unit had sent the email as a ruse to show the CCMA that the harassment allegations were being addressed.
Palesa’s next CCMA appearances will be on 5 and 6 June.
In her complaint filed with the commission, she said she was initially hired to work in a division in the human resources department under a different manager but was moved to the team of the man who allegedly harassed her shortly thereafter as he “needed someone urgently” to handle a new project.
She added the sexual advances persisted to a point where the manager declared his love for her.
She claimed, during his overtures to her, the official would bring up the issue of her contract, saying her future employment was in his hands, so “you don’t have to worry about anything, you must just date me”.
Palesa said she was so traumatised, she had to be hospitalised due to the stress. When she returned to work, she was told that her contract would not be renewed because there was no place for her in the accused’s department, despite the fact that she was involved in an ongoing project.
SIU spokesperson Kaizer Kganyago told the M&G the complainant’s contract had not been terminated but had rather come to an end.
He stressed that the disciplinary action was “between the employer and the employee”.
“The SIU has started the process as previously acknowledged. Without understanding what the SIU is accused of, we request that both us and yourself [the M&G] allow the process to unfold without any interference,” he said.
Palesa said she had made herself available for the hearing even though she was unprepared, due to the short notice she had been given.
“But, because months had already passed without this matter sitting down, I had to go, knowing that I would be examined and cross-examined,” she said in her complaint, adding that the delays had continued from then.
In addition, when she got to the hearing, the accused’s representative requested a postponement because the alleged offender did not know that he was supposed to foot the bill for his representative to fly from East London to Pretoria.
The SIU supported the motion to postpone to Monday, 13 May, Palesa said.
“When I got to the hearing today [13 May], just before the matter was due to start, the chairperson, employee relations manager, the initiator and the respondent were already inside discussing the matter.
“I opened the door and was told to wait outside and called in after 30 minutes to be told that the matter was postponed to 10 June,” she said.
Palesa said she was told the matter had been postponed because the accused’s representative had handed in a medical certificate showing that he was sick.
“All the witnesses, except for one executive who was called in as a witness, were hostile, telling the [Nehawu] observer straight that they will get to the CCMA and say they know nothing,” she claimed.
“How can the SIU boldly state that the witnesses have not been influenced directly or indirectly by the [accused], since he was not suspended for a fair investigation of such allegations?
“It is very clear from everything that they are protecting him.”
Kganyago said the accused had not been not suspended because “there was no legal basis to support the suspension”.
Palesa claimed the case at the CCMA was focused on her being unfairly dismissed. She believed the SIU planned to use the manager as a witness against her at the CCMA.
“He [the accused] was present … at the coffee shop [near the CCMA], which means SIU plans to use him as a witness against me.
“The attorney who was cross-examining me actually confirmed this. So, he is going to be there on 5 and 6 June at the CCMA,” Palesa said.
She said the SIU did not have a sexual harassment policy prior to her complaint and one was only implemented after her dismissal because she had filed the case.
When questioned on when the policy was implemented, Kganyago did not respond, saying only that there was a policy in place.
Moreover, Palesa alleged that hers was not the first sexual harassment case against the accused.
“There is another one that was filed a couple of years ago that they are trying to conceal,” she said.
But Kganyago rubbished her claim, saying there was no record of previous complaints.
A previous version of this article erroneously said that Kaizer Kganyago was speaking on behalf of the manager in question. We regret this error and apologise to Mr Kganyago.