Unisa accused of hiring legal advisers irregularly

Unisa Vice-chancellor Puleng LenkaBula provide updates on development and overall progress of institution following appointment of independent assessor. Picture: Thobile Mathonsi/African News Agency (ANA)

Unisa Vice-chancellor Puleng LenkaBula provide updates on development and overall progress of institution following appointment of independent assessor. Picture: Thobile Mathonsi/African News Agency (ANA)

Published Oct 25, 2022

Share

Johannesburg - The hiring of legal consultants and advisers at the University of South Africa is proving to be an irregular task.

In yet another letter sent to the independent assessor investigating irregularities and a tumultuous season under the vice-chancellor Professor Puleng LenkaBula, The Star has seen, invoices from Siwela Vincent Attorneys from February to March detail a series of payments totalling R55 000. Some of the payments are for printing services.

The document seen by the Star also includes an invoice by Pearl Ndaba of S Pearl Ndaba Attorneys, who is said to be a full-time employee of Unisa and uses Unisa stationery while still claiming an invoice.

This invoice dated June13, 2022 cost the university R75 000 for services rendered to identify employees engaged in unprotected strike. The firm also charged the university R15 000 for perusal of documents, R20 000 in preparation for a workshop and R40 000 for attending and participating in the same workshop.

The amount charged is R75 000, all in a day’s work. Another invoice by the same firm, dated June 22, 2022 charges the university an amount of R19 500 for reporting to work, check-listing of a contract, and for being engaged at Fire and Ice Hotel at R6 000 and drafting a memorandum of authorisation.

Another invoice from the Siwela Vincent Attorneys, dated March 22, indicates that the university was invoiced R55 000 for legal work done between February 2, 2022 to March 2022. Description of services rendered - drafting of legal opinion and attending a strategic planning workshop on behalf of head of legal services head, Dr Vuyo Peach. The firm was paid R10 000 to attend this workshop on behalf of Peach.

In his letter to the assessor, the concerned source said there was a litany of irregular appointments with the office of legal services at the university. He said he had tried to alert the university’s portfolio manager regarding these irregularities. The source has accused Peach of hiring his friends and acquaintances to act as consultants within the department.

The source reveals that the legal services department, headed by the executive director or acting executive director, are made up of three senior legal advisers who are contracted on a 12-month term, with two of these legal advisers usually located at conciliation and arbitration services.

These legal advisers were also supported by administration officers, with one assigned to contracts, while another is assigned to litigation, policies, opinion and general administration. The third acts as a personal assistant to the acting executive director doing miscellaneous work.

The whistleblower said the appointed legal advisers were normally assigned work as follows: “Two legal advisers are usually responsible for contracts, one for litigation, policies. Any other activities such as legal opinion would be assigned to either of the legal advisers.

“We were surprised when the acting executive director informed us that there were some new people who have joined the department. What surprised us the most was the way the appointment was made as there was no advertisement for these posts,” the source said.

According to the source, these two additional legal appointments from the two firms (Siwela Vincent Attorneys and S Pearl Ndaba Attorneys) are said to be close to the acting executive director for legal services, Dr Peach.

“Furthermore, it was discovered that one of the individuals is neither an admitted attorney nor an advocate, therefore such a person is not qualified to do the work being done by an admitted legal practitioner,” the source told The Star.

The source further alleges that a few months later, three more were brought to the office and were introduced to members of the staff.

“Two of the three individuals were neither admitted as advocates and the third one was recently appointed in 2020/2021. We also learnt that the three are the acquaintances of the acting executive director, and the acting executive director introduced these people as consultants who must be trained,” he said.

The source alleges that since August 2022, more such individuals have been brought into the department. “During the beginning of August, other consultants were appointed using the same modus operandi except this time, there were some sort of interviews, but we have no knowledge of whether HR was involved,” he said.

It is alleged that these consultants are paid by the university by the use of invoices which must be compiled by the consultants and then sent to their respective legal firms who in turn invoice the university as they do not have an approved contract with the university.

Another source, who has worked in the university’s legal department recently, said after looking at the invoices, it was clear that the university was running a scheme of sorts as there should be clear indication of hiring and contracting of legal advisers to the university. He said contracting of external legal firms went against cost containment, which was a strategy embarked by the university in the past to bring legal costs down.

He said that a contracted legal advisor could not make use of company stationery and still claim an invoice, as they would be working from their own offices, and that only appointed personnel could make use of company resources while at work.

“The budget of the legal services department as far as I know was R16 million, which included operational costs and salaries. The department then appointed three people on contract, this was done because at the time the university was reviewing all the policies of the university.

“That meant additional work ... what I see here is illegal because if you appoint a law firm, you can’t dictate to them who to appoint and you place the firm on retainer, or you simply appoint staff on a human resource basis because there is no provision for consultants in the structure... here, I am not sure what they are trying to do. These invoices are a scheme at play,” the former employee said.

The Star has reached out to the university and Peach. There was still no response from both at the time of publication.

The Star

Related Topics:

educationUNISA