Section 36 reports probe gets heated

Investigators from Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s office will descend on the Durban City Hall next week in search of documents that are allegedly being withheld by the city. The documents relate to an official investigation launched by Madonsela’s office after it received a request from the DA to investigate the alleged abuse of the section 36 procurement regulation, which allows contracts to be awarded without going out to tender, in the past 10 years. Last November, The Mercury reported how Madonsela’s office had to request KwaZulu-Natal Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs MEC Nomsa Dube-Ncube’s intervention after city manager S’bu Sithole allegedly delayed releasing requested documents. The MEC’s office could not be reached for comment on the matter on Sunday. Last week Sithole said documents had been compiled in terms of the public protector’s request, but he could not confirm whether that had been sent to the investigators.

He appeared to be unaware of the investigators’ visit next month. Sithole had previously said that the investigators should specify which documents were needed. The probe emanates from DA provincial leader Zwakele Mncwango’s request for multimillion-rand housing contracts awarded to controversial Durban company Zikhulise Transport and Cleaning to be investigated. In an interview with The Mercury last week, Madonsela said her office still had not received the requested documents. She said her investigators, led by her deputy, Kevin Malunga, would be in the city on March 10 to retrieve the documents. The controversial Manase audit report is one of the documents being sought by Madonsela’s office. “The best way forward is to inform the municipality that the team will be coming. They should just show us a room where these things are and we will take the ones we need. We may be selective; that’s what we call camping. It is similar to what the AG (auditor-general) does. Instead of allowing them to sift through, the team can sift through. Of course we can’t deal with all of them,” she said.

“They said 10 years is a long time and they asked that we specify … It means my office can then say, ‘Give us the documentation centre, we’ll meet with your people and you’ll give the right documents,’” she said. Madonsela’s authority was underpinned last year by a Supreme Court of Appeal ruling that found that her office’s decision was “legally binding”. “If you are not happy with it (a decision), you have to take it on review. That was a good decision because it didn’t say ‘a report’ or ‘remedial action’; it said ‘a decision’. That includes a decision to ask you to give me a document,” she said.