Former FF Plus Swellendam Speaker Juan van Schalkwyk has broken his silence on how a forensic report exposing alleged tender irregularities came about.
The Vermaak report details serious allegations of corruption against senior officials in the municipality. It found that Supply Chain Management processes were manipulated, stating that the fact that work was done and paid for by the municipality to a service provider who was never appointed by the municipality was a serious form of financial misconduct/irregular expenditure and possible corruption.
The report also found that a consultant had “manipulated the procurement process of Swellendam Municipality, by finding ways and means to advantage the employer of his son. These ways and means included giving points to (the company), which it did not deserve”.
Van Schalkwyk dropped a bombshell earlier this month when he resigned as council Speaker and member of the FF Plus, saying his values and principles were not up for negotiation ahead of a council meeting to re-elect Francois du Rand of the DA as mayor.
His sentiments were in relation to Du Rand’s alleged inaction on the report’s severe findings.
In a recent statement, Du Rand who was subsequently re-elected mayor tried to discredit the appointment and process followed in terms of the Vermaak report, saying that because Van Schalkwyk had expanded the scope of the investigation, “the process and report are fundamentally flawed”.
“The ANC, Van Schalkwyk and Saptoe’s deliberate manipulation of the investigation’s scope was a fishing expedition designed to manufacture a scandal rather than uncover genuine misconduct. The ANC claims that the DA failed to act on the Vermaak Report. However, the reality is that the appointment of Advocate Etienne Vermaak as an investigator was irregular.
“The High Court of Cape Town ruled that the ANC-aligned former Speaker, Juan van Schalkwyk and ANC Councillors unlawfully suspended Municipal Manager Anneleen Vorster and that their appointments of Peter le Roux and Roslyn Saptoe were improper and invalid. All decisions made under their direction, including the appointment of Vermaak, are effectively null and void.”
In an exclusive interview with the Cape Times, Van Schalkwyk maintained that the mayor was “legally and factually” incorrect.
“He likes to refer back to the one legal win he has ever had, which is the one high court judgment that ruled against the council decision. The court ruled that the lack of evidence for council to consider whether to investigate the municipal manager (was incorrect), a pretty standard procedure that all councils use when they get complaints against senior officials.
“The court ruled the evidence in the beginning did not justify the things that came after. That’s important to note because the ANC chose not to give all the evidence in the beginning because they were protecting a whistleblower. The court ruling on the lack of evidence is a moot point now because the Vermaak report shows there was evidence, enough to justify a disciplinary investigation.
“He likes to say the appointment of (senior managers) Le Roux and Saptoe was irregular but it’s not true because the courts never ruled it was irregular, the ruling didn’t say that.”
He said he felt protecting the whistleblower was the right thing to do at the time because the person was allegedly harassed by staff ever since they came forward, that’s why he voted with the ANC for the suspension of the implicated official.
“I did not want them to fiddle with the witnesses because a lot of the proof of these tender irregularities are sitting on computers. You can’t have the very people being investigated still in charge of those people. That’s why legislation gives council the right to say we’re gonna remove the municipal manager on full pay just so they can’t fiddle with the powers they have as a manager.”
The council recently voted in favour of blocking public access to the report during a council meeting.
Together with the FF Plus, the DA voted in for a recommendation by Vorster, who was named in the report, for it not to be made public.
In her recommendation Vorster claims she had solicited a legal opinion which recommended that it should not be made public, citing financial risks because implicated parties had threatened legal action, among others.
