The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) will not get away with not paying the R5.1 billion that a court-ordered report said the state entity owed to a contractor, the firm’s director said. (Delwyn Verasamy/M&G)
The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) will not get away with not paying the R5.1 billion that a court-ordered report said the state entity owed to a contractor, the firm’s director said.
Rui Ferreira — director of Siyangena Technologies, which received a contract to refurbish more than 150 train stations around the country — told the Mail & Guardian that, if needs be, Prasa would be hauled to court to get it to pay the substantial debt that an independent engineer said was due to his firm.
The M&G reported last week that an engineer appointed by the Pretoria high court, after a lengthy legal process, found that Prasa was liable for more than R5.1 billion after Siyangena fitted stations with public address speakers, speed gates, fire-detection technology, electronic display boards, closed-circuit television cameras and access-control fittings, among other things.
The appointed engineer, Errol Braithwaite, who said Siyangena’s work had “progressed in a competent and professional manner”, chastised the parastatal for its negligence in cancelling security contracts at its stations, allowing for widespread theft and vandalism of the high-tech equipment that the contractor had installed by 2019.
The state rail entity last paid Siyangena in April 2015, bringing the payment to the company since its contract was awarded in 2011 to more than R2.9 billion and an outstanding amount of more than R2.2 billion, which excludes VAT fees and interest that is currently roughly R1 billion.
Ferreira pointed to the October 2020 Pretoria high court order that said Prasa and Siyangena would have 90 days to settle the matter after Braithwaite had published and submitted his report — which was completed and handed to parties on 14 August 2024 — before instituting more litigation. The stipulated 90 days have elapsed.
“Our lawyers are engaging with Prasa’s lawyers and we are hopeful Prasa will pay,” the director said.
However, he added: “If the parties are unable to reach agreement, we will have no alternative but to approach the court for relief.”
His views are in line with the October 2020 ruling, which said that, should the parties fail to reach an agreement on payments, the Pretoria high court should be approached “on the same papers … to determine the value of the works”.
But the M&G has established from well-placed sources that the state entity has approached a well-known law firm, the name of which is known to the paper, to ascertain whether Prasa could get another independent engineer to override Braithwaite’s findings to avoid paying Siyangena.
Prasa’s revenue has dwindled since reaching a high of more than R2 billion in the 2014-15 financial year. It came in at a paltry R119 million in 2022-23, as detailed during Prasa’s appearance before parliament’s standing committee on public accounts in September.
A senior Prasa official, who asked to remain anonymous, said the entity was embroiled in a “waste of public funds” and could be held in contempt of court if it enlists the services of another engineer.
“So, to approach another engineer, Prasa needs to return to the same court and file papers motivating why they want to appoint another engineer,” the source explained.
The detailed questions the M&G sent to Prasa on 12 November have remained unanswered.