Stefaans Brummer
Evidence against Gauteng Premier Mathole Motshekga mounted this week when it emerged that the United States embassy in Pretoria had serious reservations about his administration of donor money in 1989.
The Mail & Guardian earlier reported that the Irish organisation Trocaire, a conduit for European Union donor money, severed links with Motshekga’s National Institute for Public Interest Law and Research (Nipilar) after accusing him of fraudulent administration.
Trocaire, whose allegations are at the centre of a probe by the African National Congress into the new premier, has now broken its silence, saying in a terse statement: “No further funds were transferred because of the lack of adequate narrative and financial reporting on the use of the funds for the purpose originally agreed.
“This was one of 25 projects funded by Trocaire during 1988 in South Africa, and it was the only one with which problems of this nature arose.”
The M&G has a letter written by the US embassy in Pretoria to Motshekga in October 1989, appearing to reinforce Trocaire’s allegations.
Project officer Peter Olson wrote that USAid’s funding of Nipilar, of which Motshekga was executive director, was in jeopardy. The reasons included the following.
*It appeared that Nipilar employees, whose full-time salaries were paid by USAid, also engaged in private work. “To the extent that aid funds may have been used to pay salaries of persons who engaged in these practices, that would constitute a misuse of our funds. We cannot take such a matter lightly.”
The M&G has letterheads of what appear to have been two private businesses which had the same address as Nipilar’s and staff who were attached to Nipilar. Progress Translations and Secretarial Services included in its list of directors Angie Ramorola, now Motshekga’s wife. Legal & Labour Consultants’s managers included Simon Tshidi, a Nipilar employee.
Company records show that Ipopeng Community Services Centre — “financing, insurance, real estate and business services” — was registered in March 1989 with directors including Motshekga and Ramorola.
Motshekga would not say this week whether he, Tshidi or Ramorola had been paid full- time salaries by USAid while doing private work.
* Olson said it appeared that Motshekga had informed Trocaire that Nipilar had no sources of funding but from Trocaire — while in fact USAid was also a major funder. “That statement suggests that information known to be … inaccurate was knowingly provided to one important donor. As another such donor, this is a matter of deep concern to us.”
* Olson said the resignation of a D Rosendaal, Nipilar’s bookkeeper, “raises important questions about the viability and integrity of the institute’s financial institutions … It appears, moreover, that Rosendaal’s resignation was precipitated by certain questionable events relating to payment of staff and other bills.”
The M&G last week published extracts from a draft letter, signed by Motshekga, admonishing Rosendaal for communicating to Trocaire what appears to have been her misgivings about maladministration at Nipilar.
Olson said: “These three matters are only the latest, and most serious, in a long series of questions relating to the administration of grants made to the institute and to the Democratic Lawyers’ Congress [which was also headed by Motshekga].”
The US Information Service said this week that Olson’s letter referred to “project implementation problems which were identified and subsequently resolved”, and that an audit in 1990 certified the financial position of Nipilar “conformed with generally accepted accounting practice”. A review the same year found “systems of the institute were adequate”.
The M&G has published information which showed the auditors, Coopers & Lybrand, had serious reservations about Nipilar’s financial controls and accounting practices.
Motshekga’s lawyer, Julian Meltz, responded on behalf of Motshekga this week: “USAid has since 1988 until the present been a major funder of Nipilar. Motshekga continued as director of the institute for some five years after the [Olson’s letter] was addressed.
“USAid have confirmed that they were satisfied in every respect with both Dr Motshekga’s handling of the institute as well as all the necessary audit and financial controls and surely would not have continued to fund and support the institute had they had any problem therewith.”
Meanwhile, Motshekga’s office and Midrand officials this week tied themselves in knots trying to explain the discrepancy between Motshekga’s insistence that he resigned from the board of MidDev last October, while his resignation letter is dated January 21 this year, shortly after his inauguration as premier. MidDev is a not-for-profit development company with links to two casino applicants in the Midrand area.
Motshekga’s press secretary, Makhosini Nkosi, and Meltz both claimed Meltz had given a verbal resignation to Hans Jooste, chief executive of the Midrand town council and chair of MidDev’s board, in October. Jooste backed that version in a public statement.
“About a week before the October [24] board meeting of MidDev, Mr Jooste was informed that because of the pressure of his new position, Dr Motshekga would not be able to devote time to his duties as one of the directors of MidDev,” a statement issued on Jooste’s behalf read.
But minutes of the October 24 board meeting indicate Motshekga apologised for not attending. No mention is made of him stepping down as director. On January 27, Jooste was still blissfully unaware of any resignation, when he told the M&G: “He has certainly not resigned.”
The next day, ANC councillor and MidDev vice-chair Alan Dawson told the M&G that Motshekga had resigned — but only after his inauguration and after “we had discussed it with him”.