South Africa

IRREGULAR EXPENDITURE

Dirco director-general Kgabo Mahoai found guilty of gross negligence over R118m New York project

International Relations and Cooperation Minister Naledi Pandor. (Photo: Alet Pretorius / GALLO IMAGES) | Former director-general of the Department of International Relations Kgabo Mahoai. (Photo: Sebabatso Mosamo / Sunday Times)

Suspended director-general of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation Kgabo Mahoai found guilty of gross negligence, gross dereliction of duty and breach of legal obligation, and grossly irregular, wasteful and fruitless expenditure.

The suspended director-general of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco), Kgabo Mahoai, has been found guilty on disciplinary charges related to spending R118-million on a dilapidated building in New York which was never bought. 

In a judgment handed down by email on Monday, 23 August, but only obtained a week later, disciplinary chair Judge Cynthia Pretorius found Mahoai guilty of gross negligence, gross dereliction of duty and breach of legal obligation, and grossly irregular, wasteful and fruitless expenditure. Pretorius said the charge of gross failure of leadership was a duplication of the first charge, and it wasn’t proceeded with.

President Cyril Ramaphosa had delegated Dirco Minister Naledi Pandor to institute the disciplinary proceedings and the hearing started on 17 March and went on for four months after Mahoai – whose contract comes to an end in December – had requested a number of postponements.

The hearing was about Tender No DIRCO 10-2015/2016, published in March 2016, for the appointment of “a development partner, for the Design, Construction, Operation, Maintenance and Finance of the suitable and sustainable office and residential accommodation for the South African Diplomatic Missions in Manhattan, New York City”. 

The tender closed on 16 April 2016 and was awarded to Simeka Group Pty Ltd/JV Regiments Capital Pty Ltd on 27 May of that year. 

“It is important to note that this joint venture had never tendered for this project,” Pretorius said.

Just a little over two weeks later Mahoai became the department’s acting director-general and the responsibility for this project fell on him.

The first charge, of gross negligence, related to the fact that Mahoai had, on 28 March 2017, approved a payment of almost R113-million, which translated to almost R118-million with commission, the exchange rate and bank charges to Serendipity SA Investment LLC without a legally valid basis. This was a breach of the Public Finance Management Act, according to the charge sheet. Mahoai, however, said he based this approval on the fact that the pre-payment had been approved by his predecessor, Jerry Matjila, who later served as South Africa’s ambassador to the United Nations from 2016 to 2020.

Pretorius, however, said Mahoai did not have the necessary approval from the National Treasury to have done so. He wrote to the Treasury in August 2017, after he had already approved the payment, to ask for the necessary approval in terms of Treasury Approval III, but three months later he received a reply from Treasury saying: “It is the view of the National Treasury that the project should not proceed without certainty that the appointment of the preferred bidder complies with section 217 of the Constitution of South Africa which required the procurement process to be in accordance with a system that is fair, transparent, cost-effective and competitive.”

Treasury also recommended that the department go ahead with the purchase of the land on its own, without the Simeka and Regiments joint venture, to avoid any irregular expenditure.

Mahoai said the then minister, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, as well as the department’s then chief financial officer, Caiphus Ramashau, motivated for the deal to go ahead as it originally stood, and he acted on that. (Ramashau was placed on precautionary suspension in March.) Pretorius, however, said Mahoai knew that the Treasury had not granted approval.

“It is common cause that the tender should not have been awarded due to the flaws in the tender as set out above,” she said.

As more money was not made available, Dirco could not make further payments, which meant the deal fell through.

Pretorius, in the judgment, said Mahoai testified that the whole scheme was “orchestrated” and that he acted on pressure from the minister so that “the minister prevails”, because she told him he was only an acting director-general and she would be the first respondent should there be any litigation against the deal.

The Auditor-General in July 2018 found the R118-million to have been irregular expenditure as the winning bidder did not comply with at least six requirements, one of which is that the “company who the bid was awarded to is not the same company who submitted the bidding documents”. Pretorius said Mahoai had agreed that Dirco gained no value for the R118-million that it had spent, and as the department’s accounting officer he should have stopped it.

On the charge of gross dereliction of duty and breach of legal obligation, Pretorius said Mahoai already knew by 26 January 2018 that “something untoward was taking place in Dirco in connection with the tender” and he should have made enquiries with the officials involved and investigated the matter, but he only instituted disciplinary proceedings three years later. He could have stopped the payment of the R118-million “to an entity that had not tendered and that had not been awarded the tender”. 

Pretorius said Mahoai “chose not to do so or neglected to do so in a manner that was totally inappropriate in the circumstances”. She said his explanation that he was under pressure to sign the proposal could not excuse him. 

“An accounting officer, even under pressure, should still apply due diligence and ascertain that such a proposal is supported by the facts. He failed to do so.”

With regards to the charge of grossly irregular, wasteful, and fruitless expenditure, Pretorius said Mahoai should have acted when he became aware in 2017 that Dirco was paying hold-over charges for the mission building it was in at the time, as the lease expired in 2014. This amounted to paying double the rental each month, and this continued until January 2021 before action was taken. 

Dirco spokesperson Lunga Ngqengelele has not yet reacted to a message asking for comment.

It does appear that Mahoai could appeal against the ruling, as Pretorius in her judgment said that Mahoai’s legal representative tried to introduce new arguments at the end of his re-examination under oath. One of these arguments was that no investigation had taken place into allegations of misconduct against Mahoai before the disciplinary hearing took place, but it was not dealt with in the hearing because Pretorius said it was introduced too late.

Minister Pandor was slammed by MPs last week for being absent from a meeting by the National Assembly’s portfolio committee on Dirco where Mahoai’s case, among others, was discussed, reported TimesLIVE. Pandor had previously refused to confirm that Mahoai’s suspension was in relation to the New York deal. MPs had insisted that he was not director-general at the time and not implicated by the Auditor-General, and they said Pandor was taking action against the wrong official. DM

Gallery

Comments - share your knowledge and experience

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or sign in if you are already an Insider.

Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the knowledge and the experience to contribute meaningfully to a discussion. That’s what we want from our members. Help us learn with your expertise and insights on articles that we publish. We encourage different, respectful viewpoints to further our understanding of the world. View our comments policy here.

All Comments 20

  • As bad as this is, Maite must not be forgotten. Politicians were the driving force again.

    What a perfect scheme. Do cadre deployment where the emphasis is not on competence, but find a cadre who will look out for the party. Then put political pressure on the cadre to do your bidding, ready to stand out of the water when the paw paw hits the fan.

  • My take is focus on:
    1. getting back whatever of the money can be recovered
    2. preventing this clown from ever being a part of any political party ever again.

    Although not perfect by any means, it at the very least prevents this borer beetle from further destabilising the country’s foundation, allowing available energy to be productively focused on rebuilding a more solid SA house.

    • He will be redeployed as an ambassador somewhere.

      If ANYBODY tells me that Cyril Ramaphosa is the best thing for this country again I am going to loose it. NOTHING is changing under his watch.

      The clown just reappointed his spokesperson, who was suspended for PPE corruption on a warning. This is ludicrous. Cyril is just a better thieve than Zuma. Scary thought is that he can actually count. So he can steal more.

      • There are court cases happening that would never ever have happened under Zuma. They may not have the outcome we all want but they are at least happening.

        Imagine for a moment a bucket full of apples – virtually all of which have gone bad, even though on the outside some of them look fine. Which apples would you bite? Cyril is I believe faced with the same choice – and I further believe he is doing the best he can.

        But even if I’m wrong – and I freely concede I might be – who can take his place in the timeframes we need? Put Cyril’s hat on for a moment and throw some quality apples into the pool (who actually want the job mind) – I would love to hear some quality suggestions from you.

        Apartheid kept an entire people improverished and uneducated, then folded and said “ok here you can run the country”. ….don’t you think it a bit naive not to expect a period of complete chaos?

        At a general level : if you expect perfection I really suggest you leave South Africa because until its people are fed, housed and educated you’re not going to get it.

        • Richard, I really think that we need to stop being naive about this and repeating the historical narrative because we all understand that. My take on leadership is that the leader looks at the barrel of apples, sees the majority are rotten but identifies the few good ones and uses them to drive his personal agenda of renewal. That is not what is happening here. What happens here is that the bad apples are chosen to drive the ANC agenda while the good apples are being pushed out and hence one sees good people in the private sector chairing major boards and being independent directors in major corporations.

          And this is my beef with CR. Yes, there are some showcase activities to make us think that the legal system is working but that is in fact a cover up for the underlying poison that exists in the ANC, but generally CR is part of the system that must preserve the personal enrichment status quo. The only worse thing for CR now would be for him to be kicked out of the ANC because that would render him powerless.

          What I see in this case is a relatively junior person (an acting DG) being scapegoated to cover up a massive fraud which I would say embraces the minister, senior management in the dept, the legal advisors on this transaction and senior ANC people. Goodness me, laundered money offshore.

  • The revelation of never ending corruption and malfeasance is beyond the comprehension of any half honest citizen. Just the thought of their behavior sends me over the abyss. To think they were appointed on good credentials- NO PLEASE NO!!!

  • There is something hugely fishy here, apart from the normal cadre tricks. When doing a property purchase surely the funds get paid to the transferring attorney and the transferring attorney pays the seller on transfer of the property. It is not clear to me who the funds were paid to and, in any event, there would be a claim on those funds if no value was derived. This saga requires much more investigation.