PPAC does not accept municipality’s excuses
A media statement from the Office of the Municipal Manager states that the report presented to the PPAC on 22 July was immediately retracted after the J.B. Marks delegation became aware of the inaccuracies it contained. But the Herald spoke to the chairperson, Job Dliso, who confirmed that no rule allows a municipality to retract a report once it has been presented.
The office of the municipal manager (OMM) claims that J.B. Marks’s Covid-19 financial report presented to the Provincial Public Accounts Committee (PPAC) was incorrect. The document sparked much criticism from the media.
A media statement from the OMM on 30 July states that the report presented to the PPAC on 22 July was immediately retracted after the J.B. Marks delegation became aware of the inaccuracies it contained.
The statement now claims that the media made inaccurate statements based on this incorrect report. “The contents of these statements are incorrect and clearly made with an ulterior motive to portray the OMM and financial management structures in the administration of the municipality in a bad light,” it reads.
The document denies that the municipality has already spent R47 million on COVID-19-related expenses and says “the municipality has spent R11,457,676 to date.” It also denies that the municipality spent R750 on one litre of sanitiser. The OMM says the amount was paid for five litres of sanitising liquid.
The statement also rejects the claim that they are keeping their own municipal public accounts committee in the dark. “The municipality at all times complied with its reporting obligations towards its own Public Accounts Committees, the Provincial Public Accounts Committees and the applicable Treasuries. In fact, the municipality’s own Public Accounts Committee has not convened since the commencement of the National State of Disaster. As such, no report on expenditure relating to it could be presented to them,” the document states.
The OMM is also saying that the administration of the municipality will comply with its reporting obligations to the municipal public accounts committee and in respect of any procurement deviations executed during the period of the National State of Disaster as required by the applicable procurement and disaster management regulations.
“The OMM also regrets the various media statements accusing the administration of the municipality of alleged fraud, corruption and the mismanagement of public funds. Moreover, certain persons and entities saw it fit to burden law enforcement agencies with these unfounded and malicious allegations.
“We have confidence that these allegations will be properly investigated with the full cooperation of the administration of the municipality and the same will be exposed as the unfounded falsehoods they are. Even more regrettable is that, in dealing with these untrue allegations, the time and resources of the municipal administration are diverted from service delivery to the community, a cause to which the administration of the municipality remains tirelessly committed,” it reads.
The PPAC rejected these reassuring words from the OMM, however.
On Tuesday, 7 August, the Herald spoke to the chairperson, Job Dliso, who confirmed that no rule allows a municipality to retract a report once it has been presented. “That is not how we operate. The meeting is a public hearing and a public hearing is transparent. The media only reacted to what was being presented to them. They didn’t fabricate the numbers.”
According to Dliso, J.B. Marks had plenty of time to prepare their report. “They only had to submit one report, which they should have done on 9 June,” Dliso said. According to him, the J.B. Marks delegation was supposed to submit their report two days before 9 June. The PPAC received it only an hour before the meeting started, however.
“The members of the committee never had a chance to familiarise themselves with the content and I then postponed the meeting to 1 July. They were supposed to present the report they submitted on 9 June, but they changed the contents. The meeting was then postponed to 22 July.”
Dliso said that when the J.B. Marks delegates presented their report on that day, there were major differences between their expenditures (R11 million) and that of the Provincial Treasury (R47 million). “Their explanation was that they were making a projection for two years. You can’t make a projection for a service provider.” According to Provincial Treasury, it was money that had already been spent. “Because of the major differences in expenses, I had no option but to report the municipality. They are welcome to clarify their issues with the law enforcement agencies”, Dliso said.
