A company that was contracted to manage government funds donated to the taxi industry in Gauteng channelled money into the personal bank account of provincial Transport Minister Khabisi Mosunkutu.
The now-defunct Union Alliance Media (UAM) was contracted in 2000 to manage a R4-million grant given to the Gauteng Taxi Council (Gataco) by Mosunkutu’s department.
The department was instrumental in the establishment of Gataco, which is an umbrella body for taxi associations in the province. Gataco was supposed to use the money to train taxi operators in customer service and conflict management.
The R4-million was the first instalment of the R10-million Mosunkutu’s department had allocated to Gataco.
The rest of the money has not been handed over to Gataco. The provincial transport department is apparently waiting for a final audit report on the UAM’s handling of Gataco’s finances before it will release further funds.
It is alleged that the taxi body, which was launched with much fanfare by provincial Premier Mbhazima Shilowa in 2000, is facing collapse because of cash flow problems occasioned by irregularities.
The audit was started by KPMG last year and a “Draft of Audit Issues” was forwarded to Johan du Toit, chief financial officer in Mosunkutu’s office, that July.
The Mail & Guardian has a copy of the draft, which shows that 10% of the R4-million was spent by the UAM without authorisation by Gataco’s executive committee.
The documents also show the UAM transferred R10 000 into Mosunkutu’s personal bank account for unspecified reasons.
Mosunkutu’s spokesperson this week refused to confirm or deny the transaction, saying that Mosunkutu would give “a comprehensive answer in due course” once he had received KPMG’s final audit report.
Sizwe Matshikiza, the spokesperson, said, however, that Mosunkutu “has no feelings of misdemeanours”.
“In view of the fact that we have, as yet, not received any report on this audit, we are unable to answer all your questions. We, however, wish to assure you of our full response as soon as we have substantial information as shall be provided by these auditors,” Matshikiza said.
Asked whether Mosunkutu had seen the draft submitted to Du Toit more than a year ago, Matshikiza said “he is not aware of that report”.
In the meantime, a senior official in Mosunkutu’s department has admitted to receiving funds from the UAM.
The UAM transferred R3 000 into Mpho Mashinini’s account in 2000. Mashinini is public transport assessor in the registrar’s office, which is responsible for issuing minibus taxi permits.
Mashinini said the UAM transferred the money into his account to organise meetings for Gataco in the Eastern Cape.
“The amount was not for me. Gataco was the first provincial taxi body to be established and I was there with them to help people in the Eastern Cape to democratise the industry as well,” he said.
It is not clear, however, why the UAM deposited money into Mashinini’s account while he was accompanied by Gataco leadership.
Asked about this, Mashinini said: “Well, the UAM deposited the money into my account because I was the one who happened to be there.”
The UAM, which was listed on the JSE Securities Exchange, was liquidated last year by FirstRand, to which it owed about R45-million.
The UAM was established in 1998 as a subsidiary of trade union investment company Union Alliance Holdings, which is made up of unions affiliated to the Congress of South African Trade Unions. It was a vehicle through which the country’s labour movement was to have obtained a stake in the media industry.
It is not clear why the UAM was chosen to manage Gataco’s finances in the first place, as the company experienced serious management problems from the beginning.
When the UAM began in 1998 it had 14 directors, but by December 1999 only four were left. Various senior managers in UAM subsidiaries lost their jobs through disciplinary action.
Despite the turmoil in the UAM, Mosunkutu’s department allowed the company to manage Gataco’s finances. The R4-million allocated to Gataco by Mosunkutu’s department was transferred into a trust account managed by the UAM.
The arrangement was that the UAM would not spend the money without authorisation from Gataco’s executive committee.
But, according to KPMG’s draft, more than R300 000 was spent by the UAM without the committee’s authorisation.
“There were two large payments to the UAM that have not been authorised by the Gataco executive committee. These two large payments are for various expenditure[s] paid by the UAM on behalf of Gataco, these expenses were mainly incurred and said to be verbally authorised by the Gataco chairman, who is currently suspended,” the report reads.
The Gataco chairman referred to by the report is Tutu Molefe.
Mandla Mnguni, Gataco spokesperson, this week confirmed that Molefe was suspended last year by the executive committee after allegations of irregularities. Gataco sources said Molefe was reinstated after the provincial transport department ordered the executive committee to do so. The department apparently ordered that the suspension be put on ice until KPMG had finished the audit.
Another source said, however, that Molefe was reinstated after he threatened to “spill the beans”. Molefe this week denied that he was reinstated after the department intervened, saying that an internal investigation had cleared him of any irregularities.
On the transfer of money to Mosunkutu’s account, Molefe said he was aware of the matter as it had been raised by the human resources department in Gataco. However, he said, he has not seen proof of the transfer.
Among the documents showing the transfer to Mosunkutu is one titled “electronic fund transfer authorisation sheet”. The document is dated October 24 2001 and lists the beneficiary as “EK Mosunkutu”.
The document does not state the reasons for the transfer. This appears to be consistent with some of the findings contained in the KPMG draft.
The draft stated that most expenditure incurred by the UAM on behalf of Gataco did not have supporting documentation.
“There is very little authorisation documentation for costs that have been incurred. Certain of the supporting documentation for expenditure incurred could not be found.”
The report stated that flight costs amounting to R240 000 could “not be agreed to any authorisation document”. In addition, cash payments amounting to R71 000 had not been accounted for in the cashbook.
There was also duplication of payment, the report said.