Independent Online

Friday, July 1, 2022

Like us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterView weather by locationView market indicators

Mrs SA finalist wins bid to access charity’s financial records

Mrs SA finalist hails high court victory

Mrs SA finalist hails high court victory

Published May 25, 2022

Share

Cape Town - Mrs South Africa 2020 finalist Chandré Goosen-Joubert said her advocacy would always be for charity after the Western Cape High Court awarded her access to the financial records of NPO Women4Women (W4W).

W4W spokesperson Brigitte Willers said they would appeal against the decision.

Story continues below Advertisement

Goosen-Joubert said she was elated that the court ruled in her favour after she had, through a Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia) application in terms of the NPO Act, demanded the right to financial documents for 2019, 2020, and 2021, that she had requested and which had initially been denied by W4W.

“I am very happy for the fact that during my reign in Mrs SA, I had women approaching me and talking to me about how they felt silenced around issues and I was being their voice. I am very much for women empowerment and will always use my voice for this.

Chandré Goosen-Joubert. Picture: Facebook

“When I had entered, it was not advertised as a pageant, it was advertised as a women empowerment programme and I wanted to advocate for women and children in SA through such a programme,” said Goosen-Joubert.

Story continues below Advertisement

Willers, meanwhile, said W4W would appeal because they felt it was clear from two years of social media posts that “Chandre is not honest, transparent and impartial enough to depict the information given to her in a truthful matter and uses it out of context to defame the organisation, and, has in her own words, posted that she will not stop until she closes it down”.

Cindy Nell-Roberts. Picture: Facebook

“(W4W founder) Cindy (Nell-Roberts) made a handful of personal transactions which she rectified swiftly or as soon as the bookkeeper pointed them out to her since they were clearly marked as her own transparently. The expenses were run in a loan account. Cindy, when she started the charity, also gave the charity a loan account to get up and running. They were honest mistakes that happens to a lot of people and Cindy had apologised for them and since changed the name of the account on her app which was what caused the accidental payments since it was also named Cheque account, as is her own,” said Willers.

Goosen-Joubert had raised nearly R150 000 for a gala dinner held at Muldersdrift which was paid into W4W’s FNB Account.

Story continues below Advertisement

On failing to win the title of Mrs South Africa, Goosen-Joubert was awarded the ‘Mrs Charity’ title, which meant that she would be affiliated to Mrs SA and W4W, and would be expected to raise even more funds – while being responsible for any costs she incurred in the role, such as transportation and accommodation.

Unhappy with the arrangement, she decided not to accept the title.

Goosen-Joubert denied allegations of a smear campaign against Nel-Roberts.

Story continues below Advertisement

“The cause was to raise money for charity for women and children but instead it went to a luxury lifestyle which funded her child’s birthday party, schools fees, Uber transactions and Nel’s car insurance. Nel has since said that I am doing this because I want to be famous.

“Nel confirmed the money was used but she had put it back. This means if I never went for her, she would never have put it back. This is an unethical situation,” said Goosen-Joubert.

According to court documents, transactions from the W4W account included an unexplained R250 000 transfer, a number of payments for gym membership and a private trainer at a private Durbanville gym, Facebook game payments, school fees and an R8 000 payment for a birthday party.

In her judgment, high court Judge Babalwa Mantame said Goosen-Joubert had made a proper case for the documents she requested and the contention by Nel-Roberts that the information sought was for ulterior motives in a “smear campaign” was “irrelevant to the information requested”.

Cape Times

Related Topics:

High Court

Share