South African Rugby vice-president Mike Stofile claimed on Monday the appointment of Andre Bester as spokesperson for rugby boss Brian van Rooyen had been irregular.
”Bester is being paid R300 000 a year and he was never properly appointed by SA Rugby. I lodged a complaint in December about Bester,” said Stofile.
His accusation came after Bester accused Minister of Sport and Recreation Makhenkesi Stofile at the weekend of nepotism after his call for a judicial inquiry into the affairs of rugby.
The two Stofiles are brothers.
Bester said the minister appeared to be trying to advance the cause of Mike, who would be a contender for Van Rooyen’s position should he be axed.
”It’s nice to cover for your brother like that,” Bester said.
”It smacks of nepotism. Who will benefit the most if Brian resigns?” asked Bester, a former newspaper sports editor.
Mike said on Monday Bester was merely trying to shift the goalposts.
”By issuing a statement like he did and accusing my brother of nepotism, he intended to take the focus off himself,” said Mike.
”Bester’s appointment did not follow proper procedures laid down by SA Rugby, which require posts to be advertised before candidates are appointed.”
The rugby brother said he was under the impression Bester had stopped working at SA Rugby.
”I … was shocked recently to see him in our meetings. I checked this morning [Monday] and I see he is still being paid R25 000 a month, which does not include his cellphone and travelling expenses.”
However, Bester said on Monday he was employed by SA Rugby.
”I’ve been working for 20 months as Van Rooyen’s spokesman.”
Asked if he was aware Mike had lodged a complaint about his appointment, Bester said there had been questions about everything at SA Rugby.
”This has everything to do with the in-fighting. SA Rugby wouldn’t pay me if I was not doing a bona fide job,” said Bester.
Three weeks ago, SA Rugby’s attorneys presented a report to the president’s council after investigating allegations levelled at Van Rooyen. The report substantiated claims of poor corporate governance. — Sapa