ERMELO – During the Msukaligwa inaugural council meeting, an EFF councillor asked the same question the Highvelder has been asking the municipality for weeks on end, where is the mayoral chain of office?

Highvelder initially received a tip-off from a reliable source that the Msukaligwa Local Municipality (MLM) mayoral chain of office had gone missing.

The chain is said to have gone missing in 2017, two weeks after the inauguration of the previous executive mayor, Cllr Buti Joseph Mkhaliphi.

The newspaper reached out to the municipality’s spokesman, Mr Mandla Zwane, to enquire about the chain’s whereabouts.

He confirmed that it has indeed been missing since 2017.

It was also established that it is worth about R400 000.

“It went missing during and/or (sic) after the inauguration of the executive mayor on 27 October 2017,” said Mr Zwane.

According to him, it was reported to the police on 15 October 2018.

Highvelder checked with police who in turn informed the Highvelder that no such case was opened for the supplied month and year.

It was later established that a case was in actual fact only registered on 27 February, 2019, almost two years after the chain’s disappearance.

Mr Zwane responded to the Highvelder’s questions via WhatsApp, but not all of them were answered.

When asked whether he could also address the outstanding questions and a few follow-up ones, he phoned Highvelder and corresponded telephonically.

He was also asked whether the chain went missing before or after it had been placed around the mayor’s neck on the day of the inauguration.

“Apparently, after the mayor took it off, he gave it to a person.”

Mr Zwane did not provide the person’s name. Highvelder’s source also stated that the chain of office is kept in a safe, with access limited to only a select few; the mayor, the municipal manager and two mayoral assistants.

According to Mr Zwane, this is not completely true. He confirmed that only a select few high-ranking officials had access.

The Highvelder were informed by our source that these high-ranking officials are directors in different departments.

Mr Zwane did not wish to disclose their names and said their names had been passed on to the police.

When asked who would be footing the bill for the replacement of the missing/stolen item, or whether it would be paid from municipal funds, he said it depended on the outcome of the police’s investigation.

“All municipal capital is, however, insured,” Mr Zwane said.

What is puzzling though is that the police are still investigating the case, yet reliable intel indicates that an in-house tender for the chain’s replacement has been issued.

Mr Zwane confirmed this, but said it was “an unofficial internal process that was unfolding.”

When asked when this “process” was initiated, he at first said a week ago, then backtracked and said a month ago.

Responding to what the process entailed, he said quotations for the cost of its replacement had been sought from some service providers.

He further explained, “If the quotations are too high, then we need to advertise in the newspaper, if we find that the service provider can produce the right quality and at a fair price, then we can proceed to replace the item.”

Highvelder wanted to know why they would initiate this “unofficial process” if the case was yet to be finalised, to which he responded he would need to speak to the relevant officials to be able to answer the question.

This has not happened yet and all follow-up questions that were directed at the municipality whether via WhatsApp or e-mail have merely been ignored.

The Highvelder has been inundated with numerous enquiries about the mayoral chain of office’s disappearance and it’s still waiting on the municipality’s feedback on these questions:

• Can you shed light on whether the item has now been replaced as it’s rumoured that a new chain was delivered recently?
• As per our telephonic conversation, you stated all municipal capital is insured. With who is/was the chain insured?
• Was the chain specified and if so, for how much was it insured for?
• What were the insurance conditions that needed to be met for the coverage to be valid? (For example, the item needs to be placed in a safe etc.)
• Was the insurance company informed about the item having gone missing/stolen?
• If it was replaced, what was the replacement cost?
• If replaced, was this carried out using municipal funds or did the insurance company pay out the claim?
• You also stated that, should for instance, received quotations from service providers be in excess of the value of the missing/stolen chain, advertisements need to be placed in the newspapers – was this done?
• You also stated that there was no in-house tender and referred to it as an “unofficial process unfolding”, why was this done if the police’s investigation is not yet finalised?
• On whose instruction was this “unofficial processֲ” authorised?
• Who authorised the replacement of the chain of office?

Have you got more information on this matter? Contact us at 017 811 2221