Events officer found guilty of booking unauthorised accommodation and authorising booze for middle management strategy session despite ban.
Picture: Supplied.
The Water Research Commission (WRC) board has been accused of meddling in the body’s operational affairs after its chair allegedly ordered the reinstatement of an employee who was dismissed for financial misconduct.
Internal sources claim this was despite an ongoing public protector investigation stemming from the same allegations and that the decision triggered serious governance questions over whether the board illegally interfered in the running of the state entity.
Serious questions over whether Water board illegally interfered
At the heart of the saga is former WRC events officer Thobile Gebashe, who was dismissed following an internal disciplinary process that found her guilty of several acts of misconduct relating to procurement and expenditure.
Her dismissal followed findings that she had, among other things, authorised alcohol purchases worth about R50 000 for a middle-management strategy session, despite a ban on the provision of alcohol.
The disciplinary process also found that she booked accommodation for an executive who was not authorised to attend the event.
The allegations were not uncovered through routine internal controls.
A supplier involved in the event reportedly became concerned after hearing officials announce at the strategy session that the WRC had not approved the provision of alcohol.
The service provider subsequently alerted the organisation and provided documentation, including receipts allegedly signed by Gebashe, forming part of the evidence used during the disciplinary proceedings.
Investigation by Gcaleka still pending conclusion
The same allegations are now the subject of an investigation by Kholeka Gcaleka.
Despite the pending investigation, sources familiar with developments at the council allege that WRC board chair Rethabile Melamu instructed that Gebashe be reinstated, bypassing executive management and the disciplinary outcome.
“Gebashe was brought back by the board without informing anyone. She was just introduced to new colleagues who were told she will be working at facilities [division] where there’s currently no new position,” an official close to the process said.
The move has triggered concerns that reinstating an employee dismissed for financial misconduct, while the underlying allegations remain under investigation, risks undermining accountability in the public institution.
“It also raises questions about whether the board acted within the limits of its governance mandate.
“Under the principles contained in the Public Finance Management Act and the King IV Report on Corporate Governance, boards are expected to provide strategic oversight while management is responsible for the day-to-day administration of institutions, including disciplinary matters involving employees,” the official said.
Decision likely to attract additional scrutiny
They argue that if the reinstatement was carried out solely through a board directive without following established labour and disciplinary processes, it may amount to operational interference.
“The decision is likely to attract additional scrutiny because it comes while the public protector has yet to conclude its investigation into the allegations that led to Gebashe’s dismissal,” another official said.
“The Constitutional Court has previously affirmed that public protector remedial action is binding unless reviewed and set aside by a court [of law], reinforcing the importance of allowing investigations to run their course before public institutions take actions that may undermine accountability processes.”
Questions are being asked about what new evidence, if any, justified reversing the dismissal before the public protector had reached its findings and why management’s disciplinary decision was allegedly overturned.
Gebashe had not replied to questions by the time of publishing.
