SSeta dragged to court over R162 million contract it allegedly awarded irregularly

The Services Sector Education and Training Authority (SSeta) is counting the days before it goes to court to justify its refusal to disclose information pertaining to a R162-million contract it allegedly awarded irregularly.

One of 21 Sector Education and Training Authorities, which are statutory bodies mandated to skill up citizens, the SSeta will square off against the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa) at the Johannesburg High Court next week. Outa sought an order compelling SSeta to disclose information pertaining to the multimillion-rand tender awarded to Grayson Reed Consulting in 2017.

The Sandton-based biometrics company was awarded the contract to provide trainee attendance monitoring systems and disburse stipends. This contract was cancelled in 2019, six months before it was due to end and about a year after Outa started questioning awarding regularities. SSeta executives told Parliament’s portfolio committee on higher education and training last year the contract was mutually terminated.

Speaking before the same committee, Outa maintained just cancelling the contract was not enough. It called for criminal charges and recovery of the allegedly misappropriated funds. Stefanie Fick, Outa’s chief legal officer, explained in court papers that the civil organisation resorted to court because the SSeta refused to disclose information it needed to prove its corruption and fraud allegations.

Outa’s application was brought under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia). “During 2018 the applicant was given information by several whistleblowers about tender irregularities within the Seta that could amount to fraud, corruption and maladministration,” Fick said in Outa’s papers. “In particular, there appear to be irregularities in the tender awarded by the SSeta to the second respondent, Grayson, in November 2017.”

Outa maintained that SSeta gave “unreasonable reasons” for refusing to hand it information it requested. The requested data included copies of trainee biometric attendance reports, the names of trainees and providers that were paid via Grayson, and the copy of the bid committee’s recommendation to appoint Grayson. “The first respondent has refused the request, and the applicant’s internal appeal in accordance with section 74 of Paia was unsuccessful,” he said.

“The applicant accordingly has no option but to turn to this court for relief in accordance with Paia.” In SSeta’s reply papers, chief executive Amanda Buzo-Gqoboka said Outa was granted access to some of the information it requested. The SSeta withheld the remaining data based on Grayson’s submission to it that the information was confidential and would expose its trade secrets, Buzo-Gqoboka said.

“In effect, the second respondent strongly holds that the applicant is not entitled to its confidential information,” Buzo-Gqoboka said. “The first respondent does not intend to be obstructive. It is simply caught between a rock and a hard place.” Fick denied that the information Outa sought was confidential or commercially sensitive.

“The applicant accordingly has a right to access the information held by Seta and Seta has an obligation to foster accountability and transparency,” he said. Grayson elected to abide by the court’s ruling.