Durban - eThekwini city manager S’bu Sithole has been accused of stalling Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s investigation of all section 36 contracts awarded by the municipality in the past 10 years.
Madonsela’s office, frustrated by the delays, has asked the KwaZulu-Natal Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs MEC, Nomusa Dube-Ncube, to “intervene”.
Sithole denied the allegation yesterday, saying he had co-operated fully with the investigation. He said section 36 reports were accessible to all councillors and the city had no reason to withhold information.
Speaking to The Mercury yesterday, Sithole said the public protector’s request for contracts dating back 10 years was “ridiculous”, and he had asked that investigators be “specific with documents they required”.
The Mercury understands that the move to approach Dube-Ncube came after investigators ran into “difficulties” with Sithole’s “lack of co-operation”. He allegedly became evasive and refused to submit the requested documents.
The investigation started more than a year ago when the DA asked Madonsela’s office to probe the city’s relationship with the controversial Zikhulise Cleaning Maintenance and Transport Company, owned by businesswoman Shauwn Mpisane and her husband, S’bu.
The company has, over the past few years, received numerous housing contracts worth hundreds of millions of rands. The public protector later expanded the investigation to all section 36 contracts awarded in the past 10 years.
Durban - DA provincial and eThekwini caucus leader Zwakele Mncwango was livid, saying Sithole’s conduct was “arrogant” and “shocking”.
“It shows he doesn’t even respect a constitutional institution … We’ll wait and see if the MEC will co-operate with the public protector – we hope she will,” he said.
He said the allegation raised a bigger question.
“What is it that he is hiding that he is willing to compromise the image of the municipality? It tells you that there is more than meets the eye. Politicians are being protected here. Our view is that there is a corrupt relationship between some individuals in the municipality and politicians. The fact that they are not willing to provide information proves this.”
Later last night, in a statement, Sithole said he and the city’s legal unit had met an advocate and a senior investigator from Madonsela’s Durban office “to determine whether a preliminary investigation would be conducted”.
At the meeting, he asked that the representatives be more specific about the contracts under investigation so that the information could be made available to them. But since then, “there has been no further communication from the public protector’s office on this issue”.
“We indicated during the meeting that this matter cannot be a fishing expedition. We are willing to give them reports with the information they require,” he said.
Sithole told The Mercury that the city had no reason to withhold information.
“The section 36 reports are easily accessible to all councillors, therefore the city has no reason not to provide the reports to the public protector,” he said.
“We respect the office of the public protector and the work they do. We reiterate that we are willing to work with them.”
Repeated efforts to get comment from Madonsela’s office were unsuccessful on Wednesday, but Dube-Ncube’s spokesman, Lennox Mabaso, confirmed that the MEC had received the letter from Madonsela’s office.
“It only came through around noon (Wednesday). We are going to study its content and respond accordingly.”
He said the department was concerned that “even before we acknowledged the letter, some of the content of it was already in the media”.
“We are concerned about this, but we respect the office of the public protector and we shall respond accordingly,” he said.
Mncwango said: “
If the public protector investigates, it means all secrets around these contracts will be revealed. They will analyse every contract … We always say we suspect that there is corruption and the abuse of section 36 in the city, but without proof.
“If he (Sithole) can’t disclose information, then definitely the mayor should review the appointment of the city manager. Maybe it is high time we appoint someone who is willing to account. We can’t have someone who is not willing to be transparent.”
The Mercury