My ultimate nightmare scenario for SA always includes failure of the courts. And this week I saw how that nightmare might start — with judges who condone corruption.
The problem came to light via a labour appeal court judgment concerning an employee of the Central University of Technology in Bloemfontein, EJ Channer. At the time of the 2010 soccer World Cup he had worked at the university for more than 20 years, and so the job he had to do in May that year would have been routine for him.
His superior instructed him to organise three quotes from registered contractors to paint the university’s fence before the soccer competition. A Ms Prinsloo of the procurement department gave him the names: a Mr Van den Heever of F van den Heever Dekoratief, a Mr Seboloa of Keorebotshe Trading Enterprises and a Mr Motshumi of Marang Projects. All were invited to an official site meeting but only Seboloa and Motshumi attended. Later that day, Van den Heever had a separate meeting with Channer on site, something both significant and improper.
The next bit of deception is telling: late morning on May 26 2010 Channer asked Prinsloo to open the quotation box. Inside were just two quotes, from Keorebotshe and Marang. At that stage Channer told Prinsloo there was "supposed to be a third quote" and that it was probably in the office of Channer’s superior.
Dismissal was appropriate because of his actions, not to mention the lies he told
Much later that day, Channer gave Prinsloo the Heever Dekoratief quote, and she stamped the envelope to show it had arrived late. Channer then took the three quotes to his superior and had a discussion about the quotes, during which he lied, saying that Prinsloo wanted Heever Dekoratief to be given the tender because his rates were so low.
The job was duly given to Heever Dekoratief and the company’s workers started to paint.
Seboloa, however, had returned to the site on the afternoon of the initial meeting. When he noticed Channer and Van den Heever there together he became suspicious and informed Motshumi of what he had seen. Once they discovered Van den Heever had been awarded the contract, they decided to complain to the university.
If you are still in any doubt about what was going on, consider this: as Motshumi headed to the university he met Channer who, realising what Motshumi intended to do, asked him to keep quiet and "assured" Motshumi that he, Channer, would "look after" Motshumi.
At the same time Prinsloo realised all was not well: why was Van den Heever given the job when she knew the quote was late and should have been disqualified? When she discussed the situation with Channer’s superiors, the whole story finally came out.
Unfair dismissal claim
A disciplinary inquiry recommended his dismissal, after which Channer referred an unfair dismissal claim to the CCMA which found he had been unfairly sacked and ordered his reinstatement with backpay of almost R150,000 plus interest. When the university asked the labour court to review this order, it agreed that Channer’s actions did not warrant dismissal.
The university turned to the labour appeal court which, I am relieved to report, found that the two previous hearings were bogged down in a dispute over whether a "rule" existed that Channer breached, and overlooked the "glaring" evidence of "deliberate manipulation of the quotation process". Dismissal was appropriate because of his actions, not to mention the lies he told, to achieve "quotation rigging". In view of his "seriously dishonest conduct", the "failure" of the CCMA and the labour court to approve his dismissal was "regrettable", said the appeal judges.
As I see it, though, both failed to name and deal with blatant corruption — and that is a whole lot more than merely "regrettable".
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.