1

VOLUME I

DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY HELD IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

INSETA EMPLOYER 5

and

MICHAEL SEBASTIAN ABEL 1ST

EMPLOYEE

SHIRLEY ANNE STEENEKAMP 2ND EMPLOYEE

10

B E F O R E: ADVOCATE N CASSIM – CHAIRMAN

PRESENT: MR GERRIT PRETORIUS – FOR EMPLOYER

MR BRIAN PATTERSON – FOR EMPLOYER 15

MR BASIL CHOCKLINGUM – FOR 1ST EMPLOYEE

MS RUTH EDMONDS – FOR 2ND EMPLOYEE

Date: 26 May 2009 20

CHAIRMAN 1Mr Pretorius where are we?

MR PRETORIUS Thank you very much Mr Chairman. Mr

Chairman this is the resumption for today,

1 Tape 1 – Side 1 – 26 May 2009

2

what is the 26th of, I think May, 2009. It’s

the beginning of the disciplinary enquiry

against Mr Mike Abel and Ms Shirley

Steenekamp. The employer is ready to

proceed. We will call as our first witness 5

Dr Len Konar from Orca the forensic

accountant who prepared a preliminary

investigation. We have a, there’s a ...

(inaudible) ... debate whether there was ...

(inaudible) ... we had about 10 or 12, 9 10

lever arch files. We reduced them to two

files relating to Mr Abel and two files

relating to Ms Steenekamp. And they’ve been

furnished in an un-paginated format to Ms

Edmonds and Mr Chocklingum. 15

MR CHOCKLINGUM If you have a problem with the name just

call me Basil.

MR PRETORIUS Basil. And we are ready to proceed. We

will call Dr Konar. There is a difficulty

with that Dr Konar is going overseas on 20

Friday evening so we made the suggestion

that his report, and I’ll go quickly through

how the reports are structured, standards

... (inaudible) ... if that’s not acceptable

3

for understandable reasons to the employees.

If I may just take you, Mr Chairman, as an

example to the file relating to Mr Abel

while Mr Patterson gets the document ready.

CHAIRMAN Yes, this is file number 1. 5

MR PRETORIUS File number 1. If you could turn to page 71

just as a, because that’s more ---

MS EDMONDS What we looking at? File?

MR PRETORIUS Page 71, file 1.

MS EDMONDS Of? 10

MR PRETORIUS Abel.

MR PATTERSON Those are paginated. The index is coming

now.

MS EDMONDS What page is that?

MR PRETORIUS Page 71. Now you’ll see what, it starts off 15

with, the heading will be complaint 2. And

that will refer to the second complaint

against Mr Abel according to the letter of

the charge sheet. You’ll find that set out

on page 70. 20

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MR PRETORIUS And that’s the structure. Each section

starts first with setting out the complaint

and then details the documents he relies

4

upon and his conclusions form the documents.

You’ll find that this deals with the SSP,

the Insurance Sector Skills Plan Research

Project, which is awarded to Professor Gool

from the University of the Western Cape. 5

And what he will then do, if you go down, he

says, he refers to the source documents. In

paragraph 2.1.1 he refers to Annexure 201

which you’ll find at 86. Now unfortunately

what happened when the industrious clerk 10

paginated it he took out the annexure

numbers. I’m in the process of preparing

the documents, correlating the annexures to

the page numbers. But there’s no

difficulty. The documents are described and 15

you can find them very easily Mr Chairman.

My learned colleagues might even still have

the Annexure 201. You don’t have that. So

Dr Konar will testify. Obviously a lot of

what he says with regard thereto will be 20

hearsay. But where it’s disputed we will

call, where we have them available, the

witnesses on which we rely. And where they

not available we’ll ask that due to the

5

nature of the proceedings that the evidence

be accepted under the exclusions. I

understood from my instructing attorney, Mr

Patterson, that there might be some

preliminary issues. Anyway, we’re ready to 5

proceed.

CHAIRMAN Can I ask you this, would you, I would

suggest that the parties just explore either

to settle the entire dispute or to settle

issues that are not in dispute. Whether you 10

think that should be done now or after Dr

Konar has given evidence, when would be the

appropriate time? Because I suspect after

he’s led his evidence in chief you’ll want

an opportunity to consult with your client. 15

MR PRETORIUS Yes, no. Well that’s the advantage. If we

can finish his evidence today, it gives the,

my learned colleagues 2 days to prepare the

cross examination of Dr Konar.

MS EDMONDS On the assumption I’m doing nothing else 20

over the next 2 days.

MR PRETORIUS Yes, well there’s a few evenings that they

have, Mr Chairman. So, I don’t know, maybe

if we can just stand down for 5 minutes and

6

speak to the attorneys quickly and see if

there’s any room for discussion. If not

then we can proceed.

MS EDMONDS Perhaps before we go into that, my

suggestion in order to allow the matter to 5

run, do you recall that at our first meeting

you made a suggestion that, and may I just

indicate, we’ve had these documents now,

we’ve had 9 lever arch files for a period of

2 weeks. In terms of the agreement around 10

that between the parties, were we to have

asked for further particulars and further

discovery, today would have been the last

day. And that would have been based on the

two lever arch files that we were told we 15

were going to get. In fact, we received

nine. So we have indicated to the

representatives of the INSETA that we would,

in fact, we requested a postponement a week

ago and that was denied. And we indicated 20

that we would apply for a postponement

today. But in discussions ---

CHAIRMAN But I suggested they lead all their

evidence.

7

MS EDMONDS Correct.

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MS EDMONDS The discussion with Mr Chocklingum, it

appeared to us that the pragmatic way of

dealing with it was, in order to avoid any 5

postponement, bearing in mind that my

clients are bearing their own costs as

individuals ---

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MS EDMONDS The INSETA is in a more privileged position 10

as are its representatives, that we do

exactly what we said. In order to avoid a

postponement, what the INSETA does is it

leads all of its evidence of all of its

witnesses. The matter then --- 15

CHAIRMAN Subject to them able to call a witness in

rebuttal if it’s not ---

MS EDMONDS Correct. Or when we reconvene, if there’s

something in addition they need to deal with

before cross examination commences, they 20

obviously are, within the normal course, be

entitled to do so. So all of their

witnesses lead their evidence. The matter

stands down. I assume from what I’m faced

8

with that we are looking at 3, 4, 5 days

worth of evidence. Certainly if Konar is

going to take us an entire day. We then

have an opportunity of perusing the

transcripts and we then come back and cross 5

examine and re-examine in the normal course

all of those witnesses. So we get started

today. The employer feels that all of its

witnesses takes as long as it needs to over

the days that have been set aside, and then 10

at the same time we will then have an

opportunity, this has now been indexed and

paginated in a form different as I

understand it from that with which we were

supplied. 15

MR PATTERSON Yes.

MS EDMONDS Well it must be. Ours wasn’t, the documents

that I had weren’t a charge and then the

documents relating to that charge.

MR PRETORIUS Ruth I don’t know what format you had, your 20

documents.

MS EDMONDS Well it’s your attorneys that provided me

with this.

MR PRETORIUS Sure, sure.

9

CHAIRMAN We’ll get to that. Gerrit, how many

witnesses have you got?

MR PRETORIUS Well Mr Chairman, I have no problem with one

witness being led. But with respect, it is

bazaar to say that I’ll lead all my 5

witnesses ---

CHAIRMAN How many witnesses do you have?

MR PRETORIUS Depending what’s placed in dispute, I might

have 4 or 5. If Dr Konar leads evidence and

nothing much is in dispute then --- 10

CHAIRMAN That will be your case.

MR PRETORIUS That will be my case.

CHAIRMAN Well let’s see how he goes.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN Let’s see how he goes. He’s is a position 15

to start?

MR PRETORIUS Absolutely.

CHAIRMAN Can the attorneys talk for a few minutes

just to see if they can resolve the matter?

MR PRETORIUS Yes. But the suggestion that Ms Edmonds has 20

that we lead all our witnesses and that they

then be called back, each one, to be cross

examined, we don’t go along with that.

CHAIRMAN Well let’s get a feel for what Dr Konar

10

says.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN We know when he gives his evidence how it’s

going.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. 5

CHAIRMAN But can you and Mr Patterson talk to Ms

Edmonds?

MR PATTERSON Yes.

CHAIRMAN I’m going to direct that.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. 10

CHAIRMAN Ms Edmonds might not want to talk to you but

I’d like her to talk to you.

MR PATTERSON We’re always pleased to talk to each other

Mr Cassim.

MS EDMONDS Nothing gives me greater pleasure. 15

CHAIRMAN Shall I give you another room or shall we

leave?

MS EDMONDS No, we’ll go somewhere else.

HEARING ADJOURNS FOR SHORT BREAK

HEARING RESUMES 20

CHAIRMAN Can we continue?

MR PRETORIUS Mr Chairman we waiting, we spoke to our

client who needs a mandate from the board.

And unfortunately can only get that by

11

tomorrow. So we are talking and obviously

we want to use the time today to ---

CHAIRMAN Sure.

MR PRETORIUS Then if I can please call Dr Konar.

MS EDMONDS Can I just have one little, very technical 5

and maybe slightly, very small, where’s that

file, here it is. Sorry Mr Chairman, but I

just want to for the purpose of the record,

you are instructed by the INSETA as

chairperson. I asked for the, a copy of 10

your instructions which the charges

provided. I have no doubt that the INSETA

will request the dismissal of my clients, or

the two individuals, should the matter come

to that. Just that your brief is to, at 15

paragraph 4, counsel is to act as though you

were an internal chairperson of INSETA and

is at all times to act in accordance with

the law and the best interests of INSETA. I

have no doubt my opponents will say that the 20

best interests of INSETA will be that you

are to dismiss Mr Abel and Ms ---

MR CHOCKLINGUM Steenekamp.

MS EDMONDS Yes, I know. And Ms Steenekamp. I just

12

would like to give the opportunity and have

it on record that, the reassurance that the

best interest of INSETA in this instance

will be interpreted as the best interests of

all concerned. 5

CHAIRMAN INSETA’s best interests can't be what the

board wants, isn’t it? I’ve got to look

beyond that.

MS EDMONDS I appreciate that.

CHAIRMAN Yes. Certainly. 10

MS EDMONDS Thank you. I mean if for instance, and I

know nothing about this matter, but if it’s

a situation where the board is tainted,

where they have a certain preference, then I

can't have regard to that. I must look at 15

the overall interests of the board. Yes.

MS EDMONDS The overall interests of the institution.

CHAIRMAN Somebody will have to tell me more about

what this institution is, what it stands for

and things like that. 20

MR CHOCKLINGUM I raised that with you in a letter as well.

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN Doctor, your name for the record?

13

DR KONAR My name is Doctor Deenadayalen Konar. Known

as Len Konar.

CHAIRMAN K-o-n-n-a-r.

DR KONAR K-o-n-a-r.

CHAIRMAN K-o-n-a-r. Do you have any objection to 5

taking the oath Dr Konar?

DR KONAR No Chair.

CHAIRMAN Do you swear the evidence you’ll give will

be the truth, nothing but the truth, so help

me God? 10

DR KONAR So help me God.

CHAIRMAN Yes, thank you. Mr Pretorius.

MR PRETORIUS Dr Konar, can you just very briefly tell the

Chairperson or Chairman what your

qualifications are. 15

DR KONAR Thank you Advocate Pretorius. I have a

Bachelor of Commerce Degree, a post graduate

diploma in accounting. I’m a Chartered

Accountant. I have a certificate in Tax

Law, a certificate in Electricity Tariffs, a 20

Master in Accounting Sciences and a

Doctorate in Commerce.

MR PRETORIUS And who or what is ORCA?

DR KONAR ORCA is a specialist service provider. And

14

Orca as you would gather is a killer whale.

And we’ve used the abbreviation ORCA to

represent Outsourced Risk and Compliance

Assessment, which is our business Chair.

MR PRETORIUS And sitting there on the couch is another 5

gentleman. Who is he?

DR KONAR His name is Chair, Mr Sivananda Pillay. He

holds a BComm, a post graduate diploma in

accounting and is a Chartered Accountant.

He is my assistant. 10

MR PRETORIUS ORCA was requested by INSETA to do certain

investigations. Is that correct?

DR KONAR Correct Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Who conducted those investigations?

DR KONAR Those investigations were principally led by 15

myself with the assistance of Mr Pillay and

another assistant in our offices, Mr Jabu

Zwane.

MR PRETORIUS And what, broadly speaking, was your brief?

DR KONAR Broadly speaking Chair, there were a number 20

of anonymous letters that had surfaced and

the audit committee, under the

chairpersonship of Mr Chris Kemp, in liaison

with the Council at what was constituted as

15

a special committee to look into the

allegations. And they addressed a letter or

invitation to different service providers

asking them to respond to the provision of a

forensic service in relation to the 5

allegations that principally involve Mr Abel

and Ms Steenekamp. And we were one of many

service providers that responded and we were

ultimately appointed.

MR PRETORIUS And again, we don’t need a particular date, 10

but approximately when was that appointment

made?

DR KONAR Chair, the discussion started in about

September. Effectively we started work in

middle of September and we went on in 15

October and we interviewed a number of

candidates on the 10th of October at INSETA’s

premises.

MR PRETORIUS And that is September 2008?

DR KONAR 2008 Chair. 20

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Now you prepared some working

documents during your investigation. Is

that correct?

DR KONAR Through the Chair, yes. We had preliminary

16

documents that we had compiled and we had

shared that with the Council. And that was

the impetus to do a further investigation

which we subsequently commenced. And from

that Chair, we compiled a number of files 5

with a number of aspects that related to

aspects that surfaced primarily in those

anonymous letters and there were five lever

arch files that emanated there from. And

from that we moved on to specifically 10

looking at aspects that related to the

conduct of Mr Abel and Ms Steenekamp in

their full time employment at INSETA.

MR PRETORIUS And that then resulted in what’s before the

Chairman, two files relating to Mr Abel and 15

two files relating to Ms Steenekamp.

DR KONAR Correct Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Now if you could go to Mr Abel’s file at

page 1. My understanding, you can correct

me, the structure of these files, and the 20

same in the case of Ms Steenekamp, was to

set out the complaint firstly. And you’ll

find the complaint on page 1 against Mr

Abel. The first complaint related to an

17

allegation of nepotism and that he unfairly

benefited with his son. What you then have

in this case page 2, would be your comments

on the charge referring to source documents

contained in the particular section of the 5

file. Is that correct?

DR KONAR Correct Chair.

MR PRETORIUS And then you’ll find for example on page 2

there’s a reference, in paragraph 2, to Mr

Greg Abel, Mr Gregory Michael Able, Mr 10

Abel’s son, who’s the sole member of the CC.

You have Annexure 1. Now unfortunately Mr

Chairman when the bundle was prepared the

clerk took out the Annexure 1. But the page

references we will by Friday, we’ll have a 15

file with the fly pages indicating which

annexure was annexure in your and the

employees bundle. But that will be, 1 will

be page 3 which is an extract from the

company, CIPRO records showing the CC. Is 20

that correct?

DR KONAR Correct Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Now could you just tell the Chairman what

INSETA is.

18

DR KONAR Chair INSETA is a service provider. So it

looks at the training and the award of

bursaries and sector skills plans in the

insurance sector so long and short term

insurance sector candidates can qualify for 5

grants and financial support via accredited

training organisations over a period of

time. And there are a number of different

instruments that I use by way of

learnerships and such like to --- 10

CHAIRMAN The source of funding is the employer

industry.

DR KONAR Chair, the employer industry, there is ...

(inaudible) ... on employers and you have a

skills development levy. You have your 15

PAYE, UIF, SDL, so 1 % of that is collected

by SARS and that’s made available to various

service providers.

CHAIRMAN To manage to train the employee force in the

industry. 20

MR PRETORIUS Yes, that’s short and long term insurance

industry.

DR KONAR Yes Sir. And what is important is that

there are certain norms that have been

19

suggested by the Department of Labour in the

sense that what amounts need to be spent on

training and what percentage needs to be

spent from an administration point of view.

MR PRETORIUS And then the structure, INSETA had a 5

Council. Is that correct?

DR KONAR Chair, INSETA has a Council.

MR PRETORIUS And on the Council’s representative are the

employers and the employees and other

stakeholders in the industry. 10

DR KONAR Correct Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then you have management. You

have Mr Abel in 2008 being the Chief

Executive Officer.

DR KONAR Correct Chair. 15

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And the Chief is a statutory party,

correct?

DR KONAR Correct Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Now the first complaint on page 1 is, as

I’ve paraphrased, nepotism. Now what you’ve 20

found on page 2 is, firstly you refer to the

appointment of Mr Abel to the Council of

INSETA. And that was in 2003. And he became

the CEO from 1 January 2006.

20

DR KONAR Correct Chair.

MR PRETORIUS And then you refer to the fact that Mr, his

son, is a sole member of a CC, close

corporation.

DR KONAR Agreed. 5

MR PRETORIUS And Annexure 1, Mr Chairman, you’ll find on

pages 3 to 5. You can just note that down.

And then you have that reference to the

close corporation being registered for VAT.

Annexure 2 will be page 6. Then page 4, 10

paragraph 4 you say that from November 2005,

just before Mr Abel was appointed CEO, the

close corporation rendered services to

Mountbatten Training Centre. And Annexure 3

you’ll find on pages 7 to 8 Mr Chairman. 15

Now what did Mountbatten Training Centre do?

DR KONAR Chair Mountbatten Training Centre is an

organisation that was based in Durban. And

in subsequent annexures we have provided to

you under the broad heading of 1, training 20

in this particular sector that INSETA

operated in and they had submitted bursary

vouchers for support from a funding point of

view as far as insurance training is

21

concerned.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Now just those bursary vouchers, if

you could explain that for someone who is

not in the industry, how that works. And

that’s the purpose of the vouchers. 5

DR KONAR Chair the INSETA office in Parktown has an

allocation of funding and candidates that

wish to be schooled and familiarised with

the aspects in the short and long term

insurance would be able to access a bursary 10

and that bursary is paid over to a service

provider. Normally 50 % of it is paid up

front and 50 % on the completion of the

training. So allocations are made to

various accredited service providers to 15

provide courses that have been accredited by

the qualifications ... (inaudible) ... and

they would then participate in the training

and hopefully they would have gainful

employment thereafter. 20

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And they get a voucher, a bursary

voucher.

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Then paragraph 6 you say that the

22

close corporation of Mr Abel’s son prepared

nine separate Unit Standard Titles for

Mountbatten. What is a Unit Standard Title?

DR KONAR Chair we have annexed that in the pack and

there are a number of aspects that relate to 5

qualifications that need to be completed by

individuals in the sector so that they could

practice the profession in the short and

long term insurance industry. So they have

got to complete a number of modules. And 10

you will find that Chair under the heading

of 5, where we have nine different Unit

Standard Titles Chair. And it starts off

with analyse current events reported in the

media that could impact on wealth, 15

management, explain the structure of the

financial services industry, research the

history and so on.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. You now reading from page 29. If you

turn to page 29 Mr Chairman. 20

DR KONAR So those are the standards Chair that Mr

Gregory Michael Abel prepared for

Mountbatten Training.

MR PRETORIUS And those were then used to train people in

23

the insurance industry.

DR KONAR There’s a letter from Eileen Parnell Chair

that makes reference to the involvement of

Mr Gregory Michael Abel. And the material

Chair that Mr Abel prepared, was sourced 5

from INSETA, are used the offices of Ms

Shirley Steenekamp, he had met, that appears

later in the documents and you will find

that the references that you have made to

page 28 are specifically items that he 10

called for in his request for documentation

to prepare this from INSETA. And Mr Mike

Abel was the courier in taking the material

to his son at the same residence that he has

referred to in his communications Chair. 15

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Now INSETA is situated in Parktown I

think you said. Their offices.

DR KONAR Yes.

MR PRETORIUS You referred to Durban. Where did Mr Abel,

and if I refer to Mr Abel, that’s Mr Mike 20

Abel, live?

DR KONAR Mr Mike Abel’s residence Chair is in

Westville, Durban. But he works at INSETA,

and INSETA in terms of the employment

24

contract with him has hired a flat for him

and provides him with point to point

transfer from a transport point of view to

getting from the airport to his residence or

to the offices. So he does have a residence 5

where he spends part of the week here and

the airfares to and from Durban are for the

account of INSETA.

MR PRETORIUS So then simplified, as I understand

correctly, while Mr, for the period that Mr 10

Abel was the CEO of INSETA, his son was

working for a service provider and being

paid by INSETA.

DR KONAR Agreed Sir. But just one item we need to go

back two steps, prior to Mr Abel’s formal 15

appointment as the CEO he acted in the

capacity of an acting CEO. So the time that

the Mountbatten contract and the

commencement of his son, Mr Abel was

engaged, and we do have invoices that make 20

specific reference thereto. So Mr Abel was

fully alive to the aspects from an

operational point of view that transpired at

INSETA.

25

MR PRETORIUS If you can then just look at page 30 of

bundle 1 of Mr Abel. That’s a copy of an

invoice from the close corporation, Gregory

Michael & Associates, dated 24 April 2006 to

Mountbatten Training Centre for R13 798. 5

The retainer is 13 500 and then there’s R298

reimbursement for cost. Is that correct?

DR KONAR Correct Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And you refer to that in paragraph 7

on page 2. Is that correct? 10

DR KONAR Correct Sir.

MR PRETORIUS Then in paragraph 8 you refer to Mr Greg

Able as the founder and CEO of the Genesis

Leisure and Entertainment Group. And

Genesis IQ is part of the group that has 15

entered into contacts with a subsidiary of

the ADVTECH group.

DR KONAR Yes Sir.

MR PRETORIUS Why did you make that comment? What’s the

relevance of that? 20

DR KONAR Chair you will find later on the ADVTECH

group features because a number of

submissions have been made by the ADVTECH

group for funding on various projects at

26

INSETA. And one of the partners that they

have used, and I use that terms loosely

Chair, is Mr Gregory Michael Abel. And if

one refers to the organogram that appears,

you will find that ADVTECH has made 5

submissions where Genesis IQ is a 51 %

shareholder and the IIE, which is a

subsidiary of the ADVTECH group, is a 49 %

shareholder in a company called FIN-IQ.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Dr Konar could you just stop there. 10

Mr Chairman that’s page 31 that Dr Konar’s

referring to. You must know Dr Konar, you

know this backwards, but it’s the first time

that Mr Chairman sees it. I also have some

part knowledge of it. Now on page 31, this 15

is the organogram of the Genesis Leisure and

Entertainment Group.

DR KONAR Yes Sir.

MR PRETORIUS Of which Mr Greg Abel is the CEO.

DR KONAR Correct Sir. 20

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And its principal office is the

residential address or given as the

residential address of Mr Mike Abel.

DR KONAR Correct Sir.

27

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And what you refer to as Genesis IQ,

and then you have an expanded view, the

ADVTECH group has an interest in the

Independent Institute of Education.

DR KONAR Which is part of the ADVTECH group, yes. 5

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And so we see a reference IIE, that

refers to Independent Institute of Education

because people like acronyms in this

industry, that’s clear. And then Genesis IQ

it’s shown that Genesis has a 51 % in FIN-IQ 10

and ADVTECH through the Independent

Institute of Education has a 49 % interest

in FIN-IQ.

DR KONAR Yes. It’s important Chair for you to note

that from an empowerment point of view 15

Genesis IQ is shown within that block as 51

%. So when you submit tenders Chair, you

are scored on various aspects, including

BEE. So if you’ve got a shareholder with a

51 % BEE you will take that into account 20

from a scoring point of view. In terms of

supply chain management you have either a

80/20 or a 90/10. So 80 will apply to price

and functionality and then you’ll have 20

28

that would apply to BEE, woman,

disadvantaged individuals. Or a 90/10. So

it’s important for you to take note Chair

that BEE is being promoted here by the

ADVTECH group and they are using Mr Mike 5

Abel’s son as their partner in certain of

the submissions to INSETA.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. When, what do we find from page 32 to

page 41 of the bundle?

DR KONAR Chair what we attempted to achieve was the 10

declaration of interest of Mr Abel. At each

of the meetings were various proposals

served and these are meetings of the

Council. And this is an extract that was

provided by the Council appointed secretary 15

to ourselves. And you will find that it was

baron from a declaration of interest in

relation to any of the contracts or

reference either to his son or to ADVTECH

which we will traverse later to you. 20

MR PRETORIUS Yes. So what it, it’s dated the 17th

November 2008.

CHAIRMAN I can take it that there’s no written record

of a declaration, of a disclosure of

29

interest.

DR KONAR As far as Gregory Michael Abel is concerned

and Mountbatten specifically Chair, there is

no reference.

CHAIRMAN Yes. 5

DR KONAR That we have been able to access.

MR PRETORIUS There is one which we will later claim that

post a tender Mr Abel requested Deneys Reitz

to give an opinion on a conflict of interest

relating to his son. 10

DR KONAR Correct Chair. But if we take two steps

back, that was done in March 2007 and these

aspects are dated November 2005 and 2006.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR Where Mr Abel was a member of the Council as 15

well as the CEO. So these, the opinion that

he sought in March 2007 from Deneys Reitz is

pre-dated by these activities and the

involvement of his son in these activities

in the insurance industry Chair. 20

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then the declarations of interest

forms we have from 12 April 2007 and it

covers a period up to 2nd October 2008.

Correct? We find that on page 33 and it

30

ends at page 41.

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Then if we go to page 42, we still

dealing with complaint 1, and the sub-

section is the Skills Development 5

Facilitator Training Contract. Could you

just briefly tell the Chairman what that

contract was?

DR KONAR Chair this relates to the Skills Development

Facilitator Training as the name indicates 10

which needed to be reviewed, evaluated and

supported by the INSETA which had advertised

this tender and invited bidders to come

forward and make themselves and their

expertise known to INSETA so that they could 15

go out there Chair and engage one of the

service providers to address training needs

in the industry.

MR PRETORIUS Now paragraph 1 you refer to the Request for

Bid, abbreviated RFB, that was advertised on 20

26th January 2006, with the closing dated 6th

February 2006.

DR KONAR Yes Sir.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And you refer then to Annexure 141

31

which you’ll find on page 46 where Mr

Phakama Nkosi sent an email to Mr Able

referring to the policy and say that a bid

must be advertised for at least 30 days.

DR KONAR Agreed Chair. 5

MR PRETORIUS Yes. But if it is for reasons, justifiable

reasons shorter, it should not be shorter

than 14 calendar days.

DR KONAR Agreed Sir.

MR PRETORIUS So this Skills Development Facilitator 10

Training Contract is from 26th January to the

31st January, I have is 6 days. And 6 days

in February, you get 12 days. So it’s even

shorter than the minimum period prescribed

by the policy. 15

DR KONAR Yes Sir.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR They’ve had policies and they’ve updated

their policies, but they’ve always had a

Supply Chain Management manual that was 20

accessible.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Then three companies submitted bids.

Regenesys, CCI, part of ADVTECH, and

Eclipse.

32

DR KONAR Agreed Sir.

MR PRETORIUS And then paragraph 4 you say that on the 14th

of February at 12:19 in the afternoon 8 days

after submission of the tender the bidders

were invited to make presentations to the 5

IPO. If you can just say what the IPO is.

DR KONAR The IPO is the projects office Chair that’s

been outsourced. Mr Abel has outsourced the

activities of projects from a funding point

of view to PriceWaterhouseCoopers. And one 10

of the requirements of many organisations

that comply with the Public Finance

Management Act is to have a Chief Financial

Officer. So the disbursement side has been

outsourced to Deloitte & Touche and the 15

project side has been outsourced to

PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. So IPO then is effectively

PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

DR KONAR Agreed. 20

MR PRETORIUS And it says that they were, could make

presentations. And then you say that at

Corporate College, part of IMFUNDO/ADVTECH.

Now what is IMFUNDO?

33

DR KONAR IMFUNDO is a division within the ADVTECH

group.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And ---

DR KONAR It looks after the logistics, arranges the

venues from a training point of view. 5

MR PRETORIUS And who is involved in IMFUNDO?

DR KONAR IMFUNDO as I said Chair, is part of the

ADVTECH group.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR The operations director of IMFUNDO is a 10

young man by the name of Mr P Steenekamp who

studied at the University of Pretoria and he

is the son of Mrs Shirley Anne Steenekamp.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then on 6th March 2006 the tender

was awarded to CCI. Is that correct? 15

DR KONAR Agreed Sir.

CHAIRMAN That’s Corporate College?

MR PRETORIUS Corporate College, yes, Corporate College.

IMFUNDO, ADVTECH.

CHAIRMAN It’s part of ADVTECH? 20

DR KONAR Part of the ADVTECH group.

MR PRETORIUS ADVTECH group.

CHAIRMAN That’s the schools, the Crawford Schools ---

DR KONAR They’ve got Crawford, they’ve got Redfern

34

and those schools are in the same stable.

MR PRETORIUS Yes, well they’ve got many stables.

DR KONAR Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN The attorney, is he still involved, Mr 5

Levine?

DR KONAR Mr Hymie Rubin Levin is still on the board.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Then you say that on 22nd March 2006 Mr

Greg Abel, that’s now Mr Abel’s son,

forwarded an email to Ms Steenekamp. And 10

then you quote the email. Mr Chairman

you’ll find the email on page 47. The email

itself. And it reads as follows, “Dear

Shirley, I do hope you are well. It was a

pleasure to meet you in Cape Town a few 15

weeks back. I have been given an

opportunity to develop course / knowledge

material for a Service Provider in DBN.”

That’s reference to Durban?

DR KONAR Agreed Sir. 20

MR PRETORIUS “I’ve already downloaded the Unit Standards

which contain some of the Specific Outcomes

– however, I am looking for actual knowledge

material that I can leverage from and

35

customise. Would you happen to have

material on hand that I could have. Mike

said to speak to you directly as you would

be in the best position to help me out. I

need for the follow.” And you underlined, 5

“Mike said to speak to you directly.” This

is now 22nd March 2006. Why did you

underline it?

DR KONAR Chair very crisply put, when we interviewed

Mr Abel and we gave him a series a questions 10

to respond to, and we also have a

transcript, Mr Abel denied that his son was

involved in the industry and gave us very

very cryptic answers. He didn’t wish to

elaborate on what Gregory Michael Abel did 15

or didn’t embellish any of it. So they were

truncated the answers, in our view Chair,

and he didn’t wish to point to a nexus

between his son and himself as far as

training is concerned. So the points that 20

we made by underlining this Chair, is that

in 2006 Mike said to speak to you. So if the

son is saying to Ms Steenekamp, the father

and the son, we’ve inferred Chair, have had

36

a conversation in relation to training in

the sector in which the father is the CEO.

That’s the purpose of that Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Then in paragraph 8 you say that Ms

Steenekamp, SS is referring to Ms 5

Steenekamp?

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Responded on the 27th of March with the

following response. “Dear Greg.” Now that

is early in the morning, according to the 10

email, 8:37. “Dear Greg, I’ve read the

mail. We will do a search on our website

for material that was developed in a recent

project for most of the unit standards that

were available at that stage 2004/2005. I 15

also have a contact with Butterworths who

have some excellent material available. I

will also look at what is available from

INTEC and other providers at INSETA, so that

you can benchmark against their material. 20

You may also want to contact ...” Why did

you quote that email?

DR KONAR Chair we are demonstrating a relationship is

developing here. And Ms Steenekamp is the

37

senior manager ETQA who is familiar with

these industry aspects.

MR PRETORIUS Sorry ---

DR KONAR And as far as Mr Greg Abel is concerned he’s

accessing the material from Ms Steenekamp. 5

And she is using official INSETA time to

access material to make available for Mr

Gregory Michael Abel to utilise to benefit

himself.

MR PRETORIUS Sorry, ETQA, what does that stand for? 10

DR KONAR Ms Steenekamp will ---

MR PRETORIUS Oh sorry ---

DR KONAR It’s Education, Training, Quality Assurance.

MR PRETORIUS Assurance, yes. I mean it’s, I’m still lost

with all these acronyms. Then on page 43, 15

paragraph 9, Mr Abel wrote another, Mr Greg

Able wrote another email to Ms Steenekamp.

“Hi Shirley, thanks for the mail. I really

do appreciate the assistance. I shall wait

for you to see what is available on hand 20

before we pursue other avenues. But it is

comforting to know that there are many

avenues to pursue. If possible – please

send with MSA on Friday (emphasis added).”

38

What does MSA stand for?

DR KONAR MSA Chair is Michael Sebastian Abel.

MR PRETORIUS That’s Mr Greg Abel’s father.

DR KONAR Greg Abel’s father.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. 5

DR KONAR And he was returning to Durban so he is

taking that with him.

MR PRETORIUS Now just to go back to paragraph 8, INTEC,

who is INTEC?

DR KONAR INTEC is one of the service providers Chair 10

to INSETA.

MR PRETORIUS So do I understand correctly, what Ms

Steenekamp envisages, she would go and get -

--

DR KONAR Material. 15

MR PRETORIUS Material from Butterworths, their own

website, other service providers and furnish

that to Mr Greg Abel so that he could

develop some material.

DR KONAR Agreed Sir. Some of the material would be 20

proprietary. Some of it would be on their

website. And there are laws relating to

copyrights and such like that would need to

be considered.

39

MR PRETORIUS And the courier of that would be his father.

DR KONAR Agreed Sir.

MR PRETORIUS Then back on page 43, paragraph 11, you say

that on the 6th of April Ms Steenekamp

communicated further with Mr Abel sending 5

copies of brochures from the various

providers in our sectors.

DR KONAR Agreed Sir.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then on paragraph 13 you put that

in bold. “From the Forgoing it is obvious 10

that by March 2006, Mr Mike Abel was aware

of his son Greg Abel’s involvement in the

insurance industry, and an appropriate

letter/communication to the

Chairperson/Council of INSETA drawn 15

attention thereto would have been considered

transparent.”

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And there was none.

DR KONAR None that we had encountered. But what is 20

significant Chair is when we looked at page

28, we looked at the various standards, the

nine standards that Mr Gregory Michael Abel

had developed for Mountbatten training ---

40

2--- it had the INSETA logo on it Chair.

Page 29.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR So if you look at page 29 Chair and you look

at the nine standards, and then you look at 5

this email from Mr Greg Abel to Ms

Steenekamp dated the 26th of March Chair,

you’ll find there’s a commonality of the

information that he requested and the

information that he developed for 10

Mountbatten training. So the headings and

the titles are exactly the same.

MR PRETORIUS Then back to page 43, you referred on

paragraph 14 to an email from Mr Shaun

Schwanzer if IMFUNDO. What capacity does Mr 15

Schwanzer have in IMFUNDO.

DR KONAR Chair he’s late now. He past away I think

early December.

MR PRETORIUS Sorry to hear.

DR KONAR The first week of December 2006. He was the 20

managing director of IMFUNDO, and

additionally he served on a body called

HRCOSA, on which Mr Gregory Michael Abel was

2 Tape 1 – Side 2 – 26 May 2009

41

the vice president of performance

management. So Shaun Schwanzer is part of

the IMFUNDO group. IMFUNDO is part of

ADVTECH. ADVTECH is a service provider to

INSETA. 5

MR PRETORIUS Then on paragraph 15 you refer to an email

dated 28 March 2006. It’s addressed to Ms

Sandy Mey. Who’s she?

DR KONAR She is within the group Chair. She’s the MD

of CCI which is part of the ADVTECH group. 10

MR PRETORIUS Yes. The email reads, “Hello Sandy, as

discussed I would like to pass on the SDF

ETD.” Now what is SDF ETD? Skills

Development Facilitator, I take it that’s

SDF. ETD? 15

DR KONAR Education and Training and Development.

MR PRETORIUS Development. “In KwaZulu Natal.”

DR KONAR Yes.

MR PRETORIUS “To Greg Abel. I must declare my interests:

Greg is a VP on HRCOSA, albeit for 20

Performance Management. As the SDF project

has been secured with the express objective

of quality and standards and with the SABPP

involved, I see the interest as more of a

42

complimentary situation in that we are

assured of a trustworthy as well as an

established relationship. Please meet with

Greg and set this up. I would like to see a

long-term relationship here based on trust 5

and Q&S, which already exists. I can assure

you that we’re in great hands with Greg’s

businesses in KZN. Please lets keep SABPP

involved too and invite Huma. Due to my

interest I am withdrawing and leave the 10

finer details to you guys. Let me know from

time to time how well you guys are doing.”

And then on page, paragraph 16 you say that

Mr Mike Abel sent the email to Mr Greg Abel.

DR KONAR Agreed Chair. There is an Annexure 15

attesting thereto.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Please turn to page 60. Now this is a

copy of the email. At the top it’s got

Debbie Sheldon. Who’s Debbie Sheldon?

DR KONAR Debbie Sheldon is one of my office 20

assistants and we downloaded, we accessed

the laptops of Mr Abel and Ms Steenekamp and

we downloaded their hard drives with their

approval and we printed this.

43

MR PRETORIUS Yes. So that’s why it’s got Debbie

Sheldon’s name on, but the email itself says

it’s from Mr Mike Abel. It was sent on the

29th of March 2006 at 10 to 6 in the evening.

5:50pm. To greg@ispace.co.za. That’s Greg 5

Abel’s email.

DR KONAR That is his email address Chair.

MR PRETORIUS And that is forwarding the email that you

just referred to, which you see at the

bottom page. 10

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Then you say that the contract between the

parties, that would be INSETA and the

subsidiary or division of ADVTECH signed on

the 25th of May 2006. Correct? 15

DR KONAR Agreed.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Then a year later approximately, on

the 3rd of April 2007, Mr Mike Abel

approached Deneys Reitz about the conflict

situation in the tender process. Is that 20

correct?

DR KONAR Agreed Sir.

MR PRETORIUS And then Deneys Reitz furnished him with an

opinion on the conflict.

44

DR KONAR Agreed Sir. This related to an ADVTECH

contract where his son, through FIN-IQ, had

submitted a tender and Mr Abel sought a

clarity and INSETA has obtained this legal

opinion from Mr Robert Driman. 5

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR So this is a year after what has transpired

in terms of the earlier conflict.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. It had nothing to do with Mountbatten,

the request. 10

DR KONAR No. This was in relation to, as you read,

the letter quite specifically in relation to

a tender where he’s become aware by a staff

member of INSETA that his son had tendered

for a contract. So Mr Abel displays 15

complete ignorance as far as the contract

and he seeks the opinion of Mr Robert Driman

in relation to the actions that he needs to

take on discovering that his son was

involved. 20

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then he says, you’ll see in

paragraph 20, you quote Mr Abel’s email of

3rd of April, where he says, “Many thanks

Robert.” That’s Mr Robert Driman of Deneys

45

Reitz. Correct?

DR KONAR Agreed.

MR PRETORIUS “I shall await the invoice to INSETA in due

course.” So Mr Abel requested an opinion on

an apparent conflict of interest between his 5

own interests and that of INSETA but INSETA

paid for the legal opinion.

DR KONAR Agreed Sir.

MR PRETORIUS “Subsequent to our call, the tender panel

independently decided to advertise the 10

tender again. Moreover, I have learnt that

my son’s interests were indeed declared to

the tender documents as an interested party

by way of being a lecturer in the bidding

company. Be that as it may the advise 15

received from Deneys Reitz holds true,

applicable and relevant for future

situations such as the one that arose and on

which I consulted you. Again my sincere

thanks.” Then you say in paragraph 21 that 20

Mr Mike Abel was fully aware that his son

Greg Abel was to participate in the SDF ETD

proposal awarded to the ADVTECH group having

directed him to Shirley Steenekamp to secure

46

the requisite training material and seeing

that they share a common residence, 8

Victoria Crescent, Westville. And then you

refer in paragraph 22 to an email Mr Mike

Abel sent to Mr Shaun Schwanzer at IMFUNDO. 5

“Dear Shaun, thanks for the time you spent

with me yesterday. It was most rewarding

and I’m sure mutually satisfying. One point

though related to the sponsorship by ADVTECH

of all the campaign material. INTEC did 10

some kind of gesture of INSETA and went on a

huge media blitz at their own expense. I

subsequently received huge flack from the

industry querying why INSETA had spent

obviously so much money on advertising and 15

especially too that the advertising gave

prominence to INTEC. Therefore Shaun I will

be very grateful if you would very

discreetly and in small font note on all the

material that goes out sponsored by ADVTECH 20

or CCI. We can talk about this if you want

to.”

DR KONAR Chair that is an email from Shaun Schwanzer.

I’ve indicated that there is a relationship.

47

And Shaun Schwanzer is from the ADVTECH

group.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR So there are contacts that are taking place

and they are promoting themselves. They are 5

receiving funding from INSETA and Mr Abel is

directing them to the styling of the punts

and acknowledgements from a funding point of

view.

MR PRETORIUS Then on page 45, paragraph you conclude as 10

follows, Mr Abel for his actions clearly

placed himself in contradiction to the

approved Conflicts of Interest Policy

reflected above, as well as the General

Responsibilities of accounting officers, 15

Section 36 of the PMFA, which requires

effective, efficient and transparent

processes. Here, ADVTECH/IMFUNDO/CCI are

unfairly advantaged, and through this Mr

Piers Steenekamp and Mr Greg Abel are 20

beneficiaries, the sons of Mr Abel and Ms

Steenekamp.

DR KONAR Agreed Sir.

MR PRETORIUS Then we move on to complaint number 2. And

48

I’m not going through each and every

attachment because we don’t want to spend 3

days going through the documents. They are

there and the employees have had them now

for at least 2 weeks. So I’m sure if Ms 5

Edmonds wants to ask you questions she will

do so. Complaint 2 deals with the contract

awarded to the University of Western Cape

and more specifically Professor Gool. Now

can you just in a nutshell explain to the 10

Chairman before we go into some detail ---

CHAIRMAN Sorry, can I just recap, as far as count 1

is concerned, can you just summarise what

are your findings in relation to the

complaint. 15

DR KONAR Chair, as far as count 1 is concerned,

Gregory Michael Abel, the son of Mr Michael

Sebastian Abel ---

CHAIRMAN He worked for, he did work for ---

DR KONAR Mountbatten. 20

CHAIRMAN He did work for Mountbatten.

DR KONAR And ---

CHAIRMAN Through a CC.

DR KONAR Yes.

49

CHAIRMAN But he got INSETA to pay.

DR KONAR Mountbatten received funding from INSETA.

CHAIRMAN Yes.

DR KONAR For various courses.

CHAIRMAN Yes. 5

DR KONAR And he billed Mountbatten.

CHAIRMAN And he billed Mountbatten. So Mountbatten

paid him?

DR KONAR And he used the material Chair that was

sourced from within INSETA. 10

CHAIRMAN But that would have been all in order if

there was proper disclosure.

DR KONAR Agreed Sir.

CHAIRMAN Because ---

DR KONAR Prior, proper prior disclosure. 15

CHAIRMAN Proper prior, you not, you not complaining

about value received.

DR KONAR We not complaining about value received.

CHAIRMAN That’s not an issue before me. It might

have been the best service in the world or 20

not but it’s the principal of nepotism.

DR KONAR Agreed Sir.

CHAIRMAN That is the point.

DR KONAR That’s crisply put.

50

CHAIRMAN Then the second complaint goes to his

interest in ADVTECH which placed ADVTECH,

that’s when you tried to demonstrate to me

by virtue of the email, that placed ADVTECH

in an advantageous position. 5

DR KONAR For two reasons Chair. One, Mr Mike Abel is

developing a relationship with ADVTECH and

Shaun Schwanzer. And his son is submitting

proposals with ADVTECH jointly to INSETA to

be awarded contracts. 10

CHAIRMAN And were they genuine BEE partners in

ADVTECH or were they just normally BEE

partners?

DR KONAR Chair, the candid opinion if you look at the

proposals, and we’ve look at that in detail. 15

CHAIRMAN Yes.

DR KONAR Gregory Michael Abel & Associates Chair, in

our view, visiting their website, we went to

8 Victoria Crescent where Mr Mike Abel

resides to see if there were any offices, 20

references to the documents Chair, this in

our humble opinion, is largely a one person

outfit.

CHAIRMAN I understand what your complaint is, but are

51

you saying ADVTECH used him as a genuine BEE

partner or they simply used him to project

an image of having a BEE stakeholder?

DR KONAR The latter Chair, in my view.

CHAIRMAN He might not have had a stake there? 5

DR KONAR He has had a stake but they did all the work

from a document, a tender document

submission point of view. And they scanned

his signature on to certain documents and

they used his letterhead so --- 10

CHAIRMAN And I see he had a 51 % shareholding.

DR KONAR 51 % shareholding, yes.

CHAIRMAN Because that’s what they reflect.

DR KONAR But he had no experience. He didn’t meet

the minimum criteria of 3 years in the 15

industry. He didn’t submit tax clearance

certificates. So in general terms he would

have been disqualified had the panel, the

evaluation panel applied it’s mind

objectively Chair. 20

CHAIRMAN When you come back to that, again that as I

understand it, functionality and ---

DR KONAR Price.

CHAIRMAN Price, 80 %, a lot of that usually is most

52

of the company’s ---

DR KONAR On the expertise ---

CHAIRMAN Yes, they sort of the same level. They

pitch at the same level. Then you look at

20 %, you look at your black empowerment 5

potential.

DR KONAR Agreed Sir.

CHAIRMAN I understand, yes. So that’s count 1.

DR KONAR Count 1 are those ---

CHAIRMAN Those are the complaints. 10

DR KONAR Yes.

CHAIRMAN Yes. Now when you confronted Mr Abel on

those counts what was his response?

DR KONAR Chair we followed a process that we invited

Mr Abel initially. We didn’t take it to a 15

conclusion by going back to him with the

charges. So we initially approached Mr

Abel, we invited him, we took a transcript

and he’s made various representations by

means of correspondence, trying to clarify 20

matters but unfortunately for him, in our

view Chair, he hasn’t clarified the matter.

He’s added to the confusion from the point

of alleging that the 51 % and 49 was in the

53

nature of a partnership and not of a

subsidiary. So he sent us clarifying

documents that didn’t clarify the aspects.

CHAIRMAN Thank you Mr Pretorius.

MR PRETORIUS Thank you Mr Chairman. Then the second 5

charge, if we can summarise the second

charge in relation to the University of

Western Cape, Professor Sulaiman Gool. What

was the situation there?

DR KONAR Chair Professor Sulaiman Gool is the 10

Standard Bank Chair of Finance at the

University. And Mr Abel, Mike Abel and

Professor Sulaiman Gool served on the

Council of Bank SETA, so they have contact.

And Professor Gool was trying to grow the 15

University of Western Cape’s finance and

insurance sector and they had developed four

modules. And Mr Abel had met Professor Gool

and had approached Professor Gool from his

side seeking to be appointed, in broad terms 20

Chair, to the Council of the University of

the Western Cape. And we go through various

aspects in the, in relation to the

complaint. He was appointed to the Council,

54

and Professor Gool prior to being appointed

to carry out the Sectors Skills Plan, the

SSP, had received two projects, funding for

two projects from INSETA and then was

appointed Chair, and we go into great detail 5

to perform the Sector Skills Plan. But he

didn’t evident any experience in the Sector

Skills Plan. His price was higher than the

service provider that had been engaged for

the previous 3 years at INSETA. 10

CHAIRMAN That was ---

MR PRETORIUS Regenesys.

DR KONAR No Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Research Focus.

DR KONAR Research Focus. 15

MR PRETORIUS Ok.

DR KONAR And in the conversation that Mr Abel had

with Professor Gool, he said that he wasn’t

keen on having two old white ladies perform

this particular function. And he Chair, 20

indicated in the interactions that we had

with him, that he takes no part, no

intervention as far as the awards of tenders

are concerned. He’s had clean corporate

55

governance and it reaches him when he sits

in his office in Parktown when the matters

have been decided already. We challenged

that Chair in the sense that he knew

everything that moved. There were steering 5

committee meetings that were held. He

participated in it. He signed off the

minutes of those steering committee

meetings. So he was fully alive to what was

going on and he deliberately interfered with 10

the award and the due process that was

followed on the Sector Skills Plan. So he’s

had a friendship, he’s introduced his son as

well to Professor Sulaiman Gool, been to his

home and tried to promote his son in 15

activities on the BEE side from the point of

view of introductions. So we find that the

award of the Sector Skills Plan to Professor

Gool without any experience Chair to have

been highly unusual in our view. That’s 20

from a high level summary point of view

Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes, well we can go in the detail then. You

set it out in 15 pages. The Request for Bid

56

was advertised on 13th of May 2007.

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS And three ---

MS EDMONDS Sorry, where are ---

MR PRETORIUS And three, page 21, sorry, I apologise. 5

Three proposals were submitted. GLab, The

Growth Laboratory (Pty) Ltd. KNC Associates

and Regenesys.

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS You then analysed the --- 10

DR KONAR Their abilities.

MR PRETORIUS Their abilities.

DR KONAR And experience.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then you, on page 72 ---

DR KONAR The panel scored then Chair and found that 15

this score that Regenesys had achieved of

30.185 was below a cut off of more than 50

and the committee in 3.5 Chair said that it

was deemed not to be of a high enough

standard to be considered for short listing 20

or any further evaluation.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. What you said on page 72, sorry, on

the second block, in your view, Regenesys

demonstrated ---

57

CHAIRMAN What do they do? What is the work that they

do, these bidders?

DR KONAR Chair, they are involved in training,

Regenesys is also an education, an

accredited organisation with various 5

vocations.

CHAIRMAN What do they train people in?

DR KONAR Education, they are higher tertiary

education.

MR PRETORIUS But SSP, the Skills Plan Research Project, 10

what did that entail?

DR KONAR Chair, it’s an annual submission that is

made to the Department of Labour on looking

at what impacts as far as the sector is

concerned. So it’s a Sector Skills Plan. 15

Where are the shortages? What do we need to

do?

CHAIRMAN So the markets raised up and ---

DR KONAR Agreed.

CHAIRMAN And you interpret the data. 20

DR KONAR You aggregate that and you draw graphs and -

--

CHAIRMAN Yes.

DR KONAR Put in commentary and then you apply for

58

funding or you want to promote the gaps that

have been identified in the SSP.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then on paragraph 3 on page 72 you

set out the members of the evaluation panel

which included Ms Shirley Steenekamp. Is 5

that correct?

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Then on page 73 when you say that

Regenesys’ score was 38.185 % you said well,

the score should have been scored out of 8 10

and not 10.

DR KONAR Chair it’s a technical issue that we have

raised in that one of the aspects that we

have found in the entire processes that have

been followed, and we’ll make a 15

recommendation in our closure report to the

Council of INSETA in their processes as far

as evaluating tenders and how one needs to

take into account particulars aspects to

follow best practice. 20

MR PRETORIUS And then the committee said that ---

CHAIRMAN But nothing turns on this.

MR PRETORIUS Nothing turns on that.

DR KONAR Nothing turns on that.

59

CHAIRMAN They should in fact get 50 %. That’s what

you saying.

DR KONAR No. We are saying that when you do scoring

---

CHAIRMAN Yes? 5

DR KONAR You know, how you allocate the points.

CHAIRMAN I see.

DR KONAR So if you take 80/20 then 80 % would be

functionality etc and 20 the other. So the

manner in which INSETA’s done it, or the IPO 10

has done it has not been consistent. But

nothing turns on it.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then the upshot was that the

tender was not awarded and had to be redone

and the committee then, and you see that in 15

paragraph 3.9, recommended that the limited

bidding process be followed. And that the

request to provide a proposal in this

regard, for a request to provide a proposal

in this regard. Is that correct? 20

DR KONAR Chair, that is permissible in terms of

Supply Chain Management. And you read

earlier Chair, Phakama Nkosi in 14 days,

Chair it’s permissible for you to follow a

60

limited bidding process.

MR PRETORIUS Then in paragraph 5 on page 73 you refer to

the second Request For Bid on 22nd of July to

submit proposals. And that tender closed

on the 24th of August. And then two 5

proposals were received from the Research

Focus for a bid price of R515 274.87 and for

GLab for more than double, 1.2 million.

DR KONAR While you on that point, Research Focus had

done the previous 3 years for INSETA without 10

complaint. So they had been the contracted

service provider for the past 3 years Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR And their price was 515.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Well what you do on page 74, you set 15

out the extensive ... (inaudible) ... that

Research Focus had.

DR KONAR And point 8 is in bold showing that we

emphasised the matter that in terms of the

existing delivery to INSETA that they were 20

considered to be so good that they were

appointed for 3 years running.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And in paragraph 9 you say the work

performed by Research Focus over the years

61

have been accepted without demur or

qualification by INSETA.

DR KONAR We had not seen any evidence to the contrary

Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Now we had the evaluation panel. 5

Again Ms Steenekamp is on that panel and

that tender was not awarded. Is that

correct?

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Now on page 75 you have in bold ORCA 10

comments. That no member of the Committee

raised the fact that Research Focus was the

existing service provider to INSETA and

would have to be considered in terms of the

limited bidding process. The allocation of 15

points appears unduly skewed. And it says

in ORCA’s view the price components of the

scoring was understated, did not do justice

to Research Focus, whose price was 41 % of

that proposed by GLab. And there is no 20

evidence that ORCA have had access to and

sight of that Mr Mike Abel had reviewed any

of the proposals received in the two bids

advertised.

62

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR I think if we dwell on that for a moment

Chair, we’ve looked at the minutes of those

meetings, we’ve looked at the scoring sheets 5

and that’s why we’ve put the comment (a),

that no member had referred to Research

Focus. And Chair you can see on top in that

box scoring out of a possible 6, 1, 1, 1, so

you come out of a possible 9 points. So in 10

terms of the 80/20 or the 90/10, this is one

of the recommendations we would make Chair

to the Council.

MS EDMONDS Chair, I’m not sure why this is relevant to

what you have to consider. We’ve already 15

got huge amounts of material before this

enquiry. Perhaps we could just stick to the

relevant material.

MR PRETORIUS Dr Konar, yes, I know we trying to get

through it but there’s a point we trying to, 20

listen the whole report is there, if anyone

wants to do it I’m sure Ms Edmonds could do

it tonight, she can read it. You explained

why, we don’t have to go into that great

63

detail.

DR KONAR Thank you.

MR PRETORIUS Then on page 76, and we leading up to the

fact that the tender was awarded to

Professor Gool from the University of the 5

Western Cape with no prior experience at a

higher price than Research Focus. I mean,

that is the point.

DR KONAR The process that was followed in awarding

the two and the short process that was 10

followed as far as three universities, Mr

Abel had unilaterally decided after a

meeting at DOL, and he had approached Mr

Adie Gerber at PriceWaterhouseCoopers that

we are following a separate process, and in 15

the submission that we’ve made Chair, we’ve

indicated the references and ---

CHAIRMAN Now where do I find that? Where do I find

that ---

DR KONAR In this particular block Chair. It’s in 20

here.

MR PRETORIUS Page 76 Mr, on paragraph 12. In paragraph

12 you refer to the email that Mr Gerber,

Adie Gerber of PriceWaterhouseCooper sent

64

back to Mr Abel and Ms Steenekamp.

DR KONAR Thank you Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And where he says the IPO, that’s

PriceWaterhouseCoopers, has contacted 11

SETAs to gain a better understanding of what 5

process they follow to have their SSP’s

updated. This is on a yearly basis and

which the two old ladies, white ladies, from

Research Focus have done quite successfully

for 3 years. And then, of the group 10

contacted only the W&R SETA used and

appointed service provider to compile the

SSP for them. All the other SETA’s used

their research department resources to

compile the document while printing was done 15

externally. And then he says well, you can

either do it internally or go externally to

get a service provider. Is that correct?

DR KONAR Agreed Chair, correct.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then in 12.1, later that afternoon 20

on the, sorry on the 28th September, later

that afternoon Mr Abel addressed the

following email to Mr Gerber and Ms

Steenekamp, copying to Mr Phakama Nkosi.

65

“Dear Colleagues, Very interesting finding

as my discussions with other SETA CEOs

confirmed. In the light of the evidence and

prevailing internal HR constraints, I want

the project done by university researchers. 5

Again, my information is that the SSP is an

update and analysis. In both these areas,

Shirley can give authoritative direction.

In the 2008 year it will be an internal

project as the majority of SETA do.” Then 10

“Phakama in terms of SCM and my mandate,

please do the paper work no adverts in

collaboration with Shirley and Adie”, that’s

Adie Gerber?

DR KONAR Agreed. 15

MR PRETORIUS “And approach the universities where we have

made ISOE grants and obtain quotes from them

to undertake the assignment. Speed is of

the essence. The Nelson Mandala

University”, it’s spelt incorrectly, “the 20

University of the Western Cape, the

University of Cape Town. And please obtain

a copy of the SSP of mining SETA as a sample

for the successful institution, as their SSP

66

scored the highest points in the scrutiny

undertaken by the Presidents Office.” Now

do I understand correctly that what they

would furnish to these three universities is

this fantastic SSP that got a high ... 5

(inaudible) ...

DR KONAR From the Department of Labour. But what is

interesting is that Mr Abel has unilaterally

decided he wanted the project to be done by

university researches. 10

CHAIRMAN You’ve already given that evidence. You

saying because he was promoting him because

he had an agenda, he wanted to get on to the

Council.

DR KONAR Yes. 15

CHAIRMAN Alright. Is that what you saying?

DR KONAR He’d already been appointed to the Council.

CHAIRMAN It’s just pay back. That’s what your case

is? He’s paying back to the person now.

DR KONAR Yes. 20

CHAIRMAN His bid is more expensive and he’s got more

experience. Is there anything else on this

one Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS Then just, if we can go to page 78. There’s

67

just an email that Professor Gool sent to

Tebogo Mathopa from INSETA. “I see you’ve

sent me a study of scarce skills and

critical skills needs in the mining and

minerals sector. Could you send me one that 5

was done in the insurance sector.” You can

conclude from that that Professor Gool had

not conducted an SSP in the insurance

industry and needed guidance to prepare the

report. 10

DR KONAR In our submission to yourself Chair we

demonstrate quite clearly that he had not

performed an SSP.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Then on page 79 ---

CHAIRMAN But the real complaint is that he’s 15

promoting his own interests because if one

wants to give the Professor an opportunity

to get into this arena, this activity, he

could cope, Professor Gool, I’m sure.

DR KONAR Chair yes. But the entire process has been 20

floored as ---

CHAIRMAN Yes. Because you saying he unilaterally

took the decision and he had an agenda.

DR KONAR Agreed. And then subsequently just, he

68

visited the Western Cape as a member of the

Council, he scored then prepared a contract

and then identified that, or the IPO office

identified that the contract was defective

and then amended it post the event and tried 5

to re-date it. So it’s a comedy of

conflicts that reveal themselves through

action and through supporting documentation.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And just to give a reference to that,

paragraph 13.8 to point out that the tender 10

price for the University of the Western Cape

was higher than that of Research Focus.

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Then on paragraph 13.13 on page 80 you

referred to a site visit that was held on 15

the 6th of November 2007.

DR KONAR Agreed.

MR PRETORIUS And that’s against the background that Mr

Abel told you that he never involved himself

in tenders and evaluations. 20

DR KONAR Agreed, agreed.

MR PRETORIUS Then you say that Mr Abel and Mr Phakama

Nkosi completed the evaluation scores.

DR KONAR And that is annexed in 223A and B Chair,

69

with his handwriting in it, Mr Abel.

MR PRETORIUS And on page 81 the scores of Mr Abel are

remarkably high accept for experience

working in the INSETA environment to those

of Mr Phakama Nkosi. 5

DR KONAR Agreed Sir.

MR PRETORIUS For example on capability, technical

approach, Mr Nkosi has it as a 4 out of 20

and Mr Mike Abel has it 17 out of 20.

DR KONAR Yes. 10

MR PRETORIUS And then you refer to the fact that the

tender was awarded to the University of the

Western Cape.

DR KONAR Agreed.

MR PRETORIUS And then you refer in paragraph 13.18 to a -15

--

MR CHOCKLINGUM Page 82.

MR PRETORIUS Page 82 sorry. To a different sign off

document. Now there’s a sign off document

dated the 6th of November and the 7th of 20

November.

DR KONAR Agreed Sir.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Now what is a sign off document?

DR KONAR Chair, when the payment needs to be

70

affected, you’ll find that the IPO as well

as the Deloitte & Touche office need to have

sign off of all the documents. They have a

check list that they go through. So when Mr

Adie Gerber reviewed the documents and he 5

determined, and this is what’s interesting

about this, is that the visit took place to

the University of the Western Cape on the 6th

of November and it was signed. So if you

had any reservations, you know, the 10

understanding Chair is that on the visit

that Ms Tebogo Mathopa, Mr Phakama Nkosi and

Mr Abel, when they undertook, they went

there with a signed contract. So even

though the panel indicates that there was an 15

intensive cross examination etc, for all

practical purposes the decision was made ---

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR In advance that the University of Western

Cape will be receiving this contract without 20

any intervention of any kind. So they went

on the 6th, they signed it, and then they

discovered Chair, from a sign off point of

view, and from an audit, from the IPO office

71

that it shouldn’t have been dated the 6th,

but the 7th. So to cover their tracks with

the Auditor General they had to resign the

document. But in the document you’ll find

that Mr Abel puts himself out as one of the 5

evaluators. And in the revised documents

you’ve got Mr Nkosi and Mr Nkosi.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR Because they took Mr Abel’s name off but

didn’t diligently follow through on that. 10

MR PRETORIUS Well that’s just important because this is

important, paragraph 13.15 on page 81, you

refer to the 6th of November 2007 sign off

document which says that the evaluation

panel comprised of Mr Abel and Mr Nkosi. 15

DR KONAR Yes Sir.

MR PRETORIUS And in paragraph 13.18 you refer to the

second sign off document dated the 7th of

November 2007 which says the evaluation

panel comprised of Mr Nkosi and Mr Nkosi. 20

DR KONAR Yes Sir.

MR PRETORIUS Clearly to take Mr Abel out of the picture.

DR KONAR Out of the conflict, because that has been

identified by Mr Gerber in 13.17. So Mr

72

Abel actively participated. You’ve seen his

score sheet Chair, and now they are amending

the document after the event.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR To get this clean audit that is so important 5

in the lives of the SETAs.

MR PRETORIUS And then contained in the supporting

documents are from page 226, sorry, it’s now

page 244 onwards are extracts, and they not

very good extracts, from the minutes of the 10

meeting. Did the project or research of

Professor Gool go off well or were there

difficulties?

DR KONAR Chair there were difficulties with the

project and reservations were expressed by 15

Ms Steenekamp on whether or not he

understood how he should be conducting the

research and whether he had the where with

all. And the steering committee meeting

makes reference thereto. 20

MR PRETORIUS Just as an example, on page 253, there’s an

extract from the meeting of the minutes of -

--

CHAIRMAN Page?

73

MR PRETORIUS 253, of the 5th of February 2007. It’s SAS,

to whom does that refer to in the minutes?

DR KONAR Through the Chair, Shirley Anne Steenekamp.

MR PRETORIUS “Informed all that Professor Gool has no

access with regards to writing and she is 5

concerned and she feels that the project is

now flowing. She stated that Professor Gool

is unfamiliar with the requirements and does

not have clarity with regards to outcome

required by this project.” 10

DR KONAR Agreed Sir. That was the meeting and you can

see the attendees that were at that meeting

Chair, from the steering committee.

MR PRETORIUS You’ll find that on page 250. Mr Abel is

there and Ms Steenekamp is there as well. 15

CHAIRMAN That is just to augment the view that it was

the wrong person to give the contract.

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

CHAIRMAN Yes. But your complaint really is his

misconduct. That’s your complaint. Why he 20

gave it to him.

DR KONAR And to bypass the established processes.

CHAIRMAN Yes. But he was determined to give it to

him. When the IPO finds deviations of the

74

policies he doesn’t sit back and say well,

then we must go back and fix it up properly.

He then unilaterally just fixes it up.

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

CHAIRMAN I understand the complaint. Anything else 5

on that charge?

DR KONAR A number of other aspects in the detailed

reading would reveal themselves Chair in

trying to regularise. There were issues on

the dating of Professor Gool’s submission of 10

the 19th of September. And he couldn’t

provide a logical explanation. The bid went

out and correspondence took place on the 4th

of October. But the ABSA Bank letter is

dated the 3rd of October. So how would you 15

go to the bank and try and procure details

thereof? It seems highly unusual Chair.

CHAIRMAN You say these features augment your argument

that he was determined to give it to ---

DR KONAR Supplement our point of view Chair. 20

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MR PRETORIUS And then just one final thing. At some

stage there was a request to Professor Gool

that the price should be reduced to R400

75

000.

DR KONAR Chair, there was an email in the pack from

Mr Nkosi that Mr Abel believed it could be

done for 200 thou. And then when the

proposal was received from Professor Gool, 5

his fee was of the order of 521 000. And Ms

Tebogo Mathopa contacted Professor Gool and

said please, my CEO has instructed me to get

you to reduce your price to 400 thou. And

if you get it below 500 thou Chair, it 10

doesn’t have to go to the finance and IT

committee.

MS EDMONDS Presumably Tebogo is going to be leading

this evidence in so far as it has any

bearing whatsoever on the charges which I 15

have yet to discover.

MR PRETORIUS Dr Konar, so the relevance of an amount less

than R500 000?

DR KONAR Chair, from a prudence point of view you

have a finance and an IT committee and 20

amounts that exceed that threshold need to

go for approval to the finance. And that

appears in a number of documents that we

have submitted.

76

MS EDMONDS Just to be, first objection, presumably

Tebogo is going to be testifying. This is

obviously hearsay.

MR PRETORIUS May or may not be testifying because the

instruction is that she got the instruction 5

from Mr ---

MS EDMONDS Just put my objection on record.

MR PRETORIUS Ok, put on record. So if the amount was

less than R400 000 it didn’t have to go to

the finance committee. 10

CHAIRMAN 500 000.

MR PRETORIUS Sorry 500 000.

DR KONAR 500 000. Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Then complaint number 3 on page 275.

CHAIRMAN Is that the one ... (inaudible) ... his 15

appointment?

MR PRETORIUS To the University of the Western Cape, yes.

Now in a nutshell the problems with the, Mr

Abel’s appointment to the University of the

Western Cape, why was that a problem? 20

DR KONAR Chair he sought the appointment so it was

not a problem. He sought the appointment,

he was appointed.

MS EDMONDS Sorry, forgive me, where does that start?

77

MR PRETORIUS Page 275.

MS EDMONDS 275.

MR PRETORIUS Just wait a moment Dr Konar.

MS EDMONDS I’ve put in nice little dividers for the

other charges but, thank you. 5

CHAIRMAN So seeking appointment for himself is no

problem?

DR KONAR It’s no problem. And having been appointed

he discussed the matter with the Chair of

the Council of the INSETA. And she indicated 10

that she was agreeable but Mr Abel was

working long hours at INSETA and one needed

to address the issue from a time commitment

point of view. And Mr Abel gave her the

assurance that he will correlate his visits 15

to the Council of the University of the

Western Cape with SETA business in the

province so that these trips would not

represent expenditure from INSETA. That

didn’t take into account project and 20

interviews that need to advance INSETA’s

business in the Western Cape.

MR PRETORIUS Now could you establish whether as

undertaken by Mr Abel that there would be

78

legitimate INSETA business every time he

went down for a Council meeting of the

University of Western Cape, whether that in

fact occurred?

DR KONAR No it did not occur Chair. 5

MR PRETORIUS On page 273 you set out the costs which,

sorry page 278, I apologise, page 278,

paragraph 12. There you set out the costs,

for the, borne by INSETA for the trips

undertaken by Mr Abel. 10

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS And it’s cost of the airfare, Southern Sun,

Cape Sun and Imperial Car Hire.

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Now, then you also set out on page 279 15

extracts from Mr Abel’s diary.

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS And you allocated it with no INSETA business

meeting scheduled to diarise. No meetings

held in Cape Town. Correct? 20

DR KONAR Agreed Sir.

MR PRETORIUS So as far as you could establish, having

reference to Mr Abel’s diaries and the like,

did he conduct any INSETA business when he

79

had Council meetings at the University of

Western Cape?

DR KONAR On certain of the trips Chair, that is true.

MR PRETORIUS And on the others?

DR KONAR Others, there were meetings that were held 5

with the parties that we referred to in the

annexure.

MR PRETORIUS Then you just have, sorry ---

CHAIRMAN I just want to understand. Are you saying

that every time he went there he combined 10

SETA business and university business?

DR KONAR The intention and the understanding ---

CHAIRMAN Was that’s what he would do.

DR KONAR Agreed.

CHAIRMAN And he did that. 15

DR KONAR No Chair. Some of the meetings, there was

no, it was in to the Council meeting and

then back on to an aircraft and ---

CHAIRMAN And where do I find that?

DR KONAR Chair, Item 14, page 4 or 5 of the --- 20

MR PRETORIUS Sorry, the numbered page ---

MR PATTERSON 279.

DR KONAR 279.

CHAIRMAN 279.

80

MR PRETORIUS Which you say were not linked to INSETA

businesses.

DR KONAR Chair one notes the Item 4, no meetings

held, but he did meet Mr Colin Daries. And

that’s a matter we will canvas later. And 5

then Item 5, no meetings were held. Item 6

Chair, no meetings held. And then Item 7,

no INSETA business meetings scheduled or

diarised.

CHAIRMAN So really he’s got to deal with, if he wants 10

to deal with it, he must deal with 5, 6 and

7?

MR PRETORIUS 4, 5, 6, and 7.

CHAIRMAN 4 is one item.

MR PRETORIUS One item, yes. 15

CHAIRMAN No, he did meet Colin Daries at the airport.

DR KONAR Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Well on the 20th of March.

CHAIRMAN Yes. Who’s Colin?

DR KONAR He’s the service provider. And that is one 20

of the complaints that appears in the file

later on Chair.

CHAIRMAN He’s a service provider to INSETA?

DR KONAR Yes Sir.

81

CHAIRMAN I see.

MR PRETORIUS While we at that, could you please turn to

page 374. And again Dr Konar we skipping

the supporting document, but you confer what

you said in your summary with all the 5

supporting documents.

DR KONAR Yes.

MR PRETORIUS And page 374 we dealing with complaint

number 4, Mr Colin Daries. And the

complaint is --- 10

CHAIRMAN Sorry page?

MR PRETORIUS Page 374. 3--- Is there anything you want to

add to complaint 3 Dr Konar of significant?

DR KONAR Chair I think one needs to understand that

we do set it out in our papers. 15

CHAIRMAN Yes, you’ve given a whole ... (inaudible)

... which you’ve confirmed and you say Items

5, 6 and 7 is when he goes to university

business, when he gets SETA to pay.

DR KONAR And stays at 5 star hotel and flies business 20

class. Organisations need to show from a

procurement point of view that they

transparent, that they have costs, that they

3 Tape 2 – Side 1 – 26 May 2009

82

efficient and effective in terms of supply

chain. So this appears extravagant. But

his status might demand that he considers

that appropriate.

MR PRETORIUS And complaint 4 is that you authorised 5

payments to Mr Colin Daries and Nu-Era

contrary to INSETA’s policies and the

provisions of the PFMA. Nu-Era contrary to

the policies of INSETA, conducted training

and thereafter applied for, and was paid 10

bursary funding. This was done on the basis

of a promise which you made to Mr Daries.

Now just explain in a nutshell what the

difficulty is with the conduct of Mr Abel

vis-à-vis Mr Daries. 15

DR KONAR Chair, very simply put there needs to be

consistency. When you follow particular

policies in an organisation you do it

without fear or favour. And as far as Mr

Colin Daries is concerned, and we have 20

another service provider by the name of Mr

Leon Liedeman, who has also undertaken

training, and after the training applies for

funding out of the bursary vouchers of the

83

bursary pool.

MS EDMONDS Is that one of the charges against Mr Abel,

Liedeman, Liedeman. There’s some evidence

about Liedeman.

MR PRETORIUS No, no. That’s just, Liedeman is the 5

contract.

MS EDMONDS Ok.

MR PRETORIUS How Mr Liedeman was treated, how Mr Daries

was treated. Is Mr Liedeman, is he also a

previously disadvantaged individual? 10

DR KONAR He is a previously disadvantaged, he’s a

gentleman of coloured origin.

MR PRETORIUS Alright.

DR KONAR And he had undertaken training and then

submitted and this has been going on for 15

years and has been disqualified in receiving

the amounts that he alleged that was due to

him for training that was undertaken.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Well if you look page 407 Mr Chairman,

that’s an extract from the INSETA Council 20

meeting of the 18th of September. It deals

with Mr Liedeman’s claim. And as I

understand it Mr Liedeman trained people and

then asked for a bursary and that’s contrary

84

to the provisions.

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And in this context his claim has been

discussed and it is minuted on 407 that,

Council enquired whether any other service 5

provider had deviated from the policy, to

which Mr Ganswyk advised, that Leon Liedeman

& Associates had, when the bursary/voucher

system was first introduced. However, they

were advised that should they deviate from 10

the policy again, payments would not be

entertained from INSETA and Mr Liedeman,

himself, had attended subsequent INSETA

forums where the processes and procedures

regarding the bursary/voucher policy and 15

system were explained in detail to

stakeholders. Alright, now let’s see how Mr

Daries was dealt with. Will you please go to

page 395?

DR KONAR Thank you Chair. Which point are you on? 20

MR PRETORIUS I’m on Mr, complaint number 4.

DR KONAR Yes, I’m aware of ---

MR PRETORIUS Page 395. It’s an email which Mr Daries

sent to Mr Abel.

85

DR KONAR Thank you.

MR PRETORIUS Page 403. Your Annexure 403.

DR KONAR That’s helpful Chair, thank you. I’m with

you.

MR PRETORIUS Now this is an email Mr Daries sent to Mr 5

Abel on the 11th of May. “Hi Mike, hope you

are well. Just a reminder on your FAB

promises.” What’s the FAB promises?

DR KONAR That’s the, on the funeral training side

Chair. 10

MR PRETORIUS Yes. “50 Bursaries for compliance training

@ R2 000 per person. R200 000 towards FAIS

Credit training @ R1 000 per 10 credits.

Voucher system applies. INSETA to sponsor

the three remaining breakfast meetings for 15

the year. I will talk to you in detail

about the budget for these meetings next

week.” So what occurred in the case of Mr

Daries and Nu-Era?

DR KONAR Chair, Nu-Era in the description of the 20

complaint under point 5 will show the

various claims that have been made to Nu-

Era. And over a period of time Chair, some

are bursaries, some are FAIS from a BEE

86

point of view they received 2.7 million.

And what’s transpired with Nu-Era is that

similar to Mr Liedeman who was disqualified,

this organisation undertook training and

they had a relationship with Mr Abel and 5

continued while he was at the helm of the

organisation with the training and the

financial support in terms of the various

payments that were made. But when Mr Abel

was suspended and Ms Sharon Snell received a 10

request for payment, she went to the IPO

office and asked the IPO office to

investigate this further. And it then

transpired Chair that they had been treated

differently to the laid down policy and to 15

the manner in which Leon Liedeman, so this

is a departure from an approved policy. And

you’ll find in the diary extract that we

have provided to you, a number of meetings

that have taken place between Mr Abel and Mr 20

Daries.

MR PRETORIUS Then just on page 379 where you deal with

the, paragraph 5, with the payment of 2.7

million Rand to Mr Daries for a period of 3

87

years. To a specific payment on the 21st of

August 2008 for R530 000. We’ve already

testified that amounts under R500 000 don’t

have to go to the finance committee. And

here you point out that it had to be 5

approved, this payment, by the FINCO Chair.

And you couldn’t find any reference that

this payment had been recommended to FINCO

or had been approved by FINCO. Is that

correct? 10

DR KONAR And we attended the minutes of those

meetings for the information Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR So that’s further non compliance with the

laid down policy. 15

MR PRETORIUS Before we step off this complaint, I’ll just

check something. Yes, on page 398, your 405

---

DR KONAR I’m with you Chair.

MR PRETORIUS That’s the letter that you sent to Mr Daries 20

and Mr Daries explained, came back to you

and explained why he felt it necessary that

payment had occurred on this basis. Is that

correct?

88

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And as a response, we’ll find on page

400.

DR KONAR Yes Chair. I think the important paragraph

there is the statement from Mr Colin Daries 5

saying, “As regards our modus operandi of

conducting training first and applying for

vouchers/bursaries afterwards, let me state

that we are fully cognisant ...” So this is

what Mr Leon Liedeman had attempted to do in 10

some of the cases and he was disqualified.

And this service provider had the blessing

of Mr Abel to conduct the training and

receive the financial support from INSETA.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. What you quotes is at the bottom of 15

page 400, the last paragraph. If we can

then turn to the second volume relating to

you, for Mr Abel sorry.

MS EDMONDS Can I request a bit of a break?

MR PRETORIUS Could we adjourn then for lunch for 45 20

minutes?

CHAIRMAN Half an hour or 45 minutes?

MS EDMONDS Probably half an hour given the time

constraints.

89

MR PRETORIUS Yes, half an hour. Quarter past 1 we’ll be

back.

CHAIRMAN And then we can have a 10 minute break at 3

o' clock.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. 5

CHAIRMAN That’s fine.

MS EDMONDS Yes. My client needs to leave by no later

than 4. He needs to get to the, sorry, not

my client.

MR PRETORIUS Mr Abel and Chocklingum, yes. 10

MS EDMONDS Chocklingum.

MR PRETORIUS Yes, we’ll break at 4.

HEARING ADJOURNS FOR LUNCH

HEARING RESUMES

MR PRETORIUS Thank you Dr Konar. You are still under 15

oath and remain under oath. We are now on

Volume 2, page 435, complaint number 5.

DR KONAR Chair for good order ---

CHAIRMAN Yes.

DR KONAR If I could complete complaint 4. 20

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN Yes.

DR KONAR After the complaint, the opening page, Item

numbered 2 Chair from Advocate Gerrit

90

Pretorius. 375 Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR Chair, if I take you to Item 2, this is the

important pervasive points that will follow

through in some of the next complaints. In 5

INSETA’s delegation of authority policies

and procedures manual, the following is

stated. “1.3. The objective of the document

is to emphasise a culture of accountability

over INSETA’s resources; ensure that 10

effective controls are communicated to

management and staff through clear and

comprehensive written documentation; provide

a formal delegation of authority that can be

implemented to ensure that INSETA’s policies 15

are achieved and are in compliance with the

relevant legislation and its constitution.”

And then Chair, if we look at 1.4, “Failure

to comply with the prescribed delegations in

the prescribed manner, that’s the 20

requirements set out in the following

approved INSETA manuals, namely, the Supply

Chain Policy and Procedures, the FPPM,

Financial Policies and Procedures Manual,

91

and the Office Administration Procedures

Manual, will result in the institution of

disciplinary procedures in terms of the

INSETA Grievance and Disciplinary Code and

Procedure’s Manual. Furthermore, a manager 5

to whom any financial authority has been

delegated will be liable for any Financial

Misconduct under the provisions of Section

83 of the PFMA, as set out in Section 42,

page 73 of the FPPM.” Chair, 1.6, “Any 10

authority not specifically addressed in this

document will remain the responsibility of

the Accounting Authority,” which is the

Council, “unless such authority has been

delegated to other members of management in 15

writing and documents other than this

manual.” The guts here Chair is 2.1. “Any

departures from the approved policies and

guidelines, including this delegation of

authority, of the INSETA, will require the 20

prior written approval of the following

bodies/persons, the accounting authority,”

which is the Council, “The Financial Admin

and IT Committee; and the CEO.” So if you

92

depart in any the agreed upon policies you

need tripartite approval to find that is a

regular transaction.

CHAIRMAN The principle of accountability.

DR KONAR That’s the principle. 5

CHAIRMAN Can I ask you from your experience now that

you’ve mentioned it, I know you do a lot of

this kind of work, are authorities, not

mainly to do with this matter, but are

authorities actually taking civil 10

proceedings to recover monies from issues

that deviate?

DR KONAR Chair they pursue it in terms of the Public

Finance Management Act. In Section 1 we

have definitions of fruitless and wasteful 15

expenditure.

CHAIRMAN Yes, but are they pursued civilly?

DR KONAR They have to because the Auditor General

will not sign off the financial report

unless you’ve made and shown tangible 20

efforts to recover the funds that have been

lost.

CHAIRMAN Thank you. Complaint number 5.

MR PRETORIUS Page 435 Dr Konar. Thank you very much. I

93

mean it’s very important. This complaint

deals with two transactions. The one is

what’s termed in the complaint, two contract

change notes updated Annexures A and B of

the contract between INSETA and ADVTECH 5

Resourcing (Pty) Ltd trading as IMFUNDO, for

the conduct of the FAIS Fit and Proper

project. And 2, without authority

transferring 2 million Rand from the bursary

of the fund to the FAIS project. 10

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. In a nutshell, what was the difficulty

with these two transactions?

DR KONAR Chair, this is a project that runs over a

period of time. And the initial approval 15

was obtained, but subsequent approvals were

not obtained. So what INSETA management

attempted to do was to have what we referred

to as change notes A and B. The change note

A Chair, is dated the 5th of July by INSETA. 20

But the approval for the amounts of 1.6

million approximately, was only obtained

from the FINCO and the Council in September

out of surplus funds. So the change note

94

has been signed off by Mr Abel on the 5th of

July. But the approval thereof was

regularised in September and there were

surplus funds Chair, which was utilised to

fund one of three projects. And that’s 5

change note A. So the contract was entered

into. The expense was incurred. But the

approvals were not available at the time

that the parties rendered the services to

INSETA. 10

MR PRETORIUS And change note B?

DR KONAR And change note A, it’s very instructive

Chair, for you to look at change note A, in

the sense that change note A is not signed

off by the service provider. It went to 15

INSETA Council in September 2008. But you

will note that change note A is signed by Mr

Abel, but it is not signed by the ADVTECH

group.

MR PRETORIUS Just go to page 488, is that change note A? 20

DR KONAR That is change note A Chair. So page 488,

you will note that Mr Abel has signed it and

dated it on the 9th of July. And then you

will find it to be witnesses by Mr Gerber

95

who is from the PriceWaterhouseCoopers

office. And it’s been signed by Mr Craig

Duff on the next page, but Chair, it’s not

been dated.

MR PRETORIUS And change note B? 5

DR KONAR Change note B Chair, when we look at the

authority that Mr Abel has, and Ms Sharon

Snell, the acting CEO, and the COO of the

organisation will testify and her documents

are available Chair, indicates quite clearly 10

that Mr Abel without authority transferred 2

million Rand from the bursary fund. So he

didn’t have the authority to do that. And

then change note B Chair, you will find

there is a minute that’s been initially 15

dated on the top of the page, you’ll find

May, and subsequently it’s dated September

Chair. And that’s been signed off by Ms

Steenekamp, Mr Edwards and Mr Abel. And

that was being pursued by the IPO because 20

they had received the invoices from IMFUNDO,

but they didn’t have an approved contract on

the basis of which to pay that. That also

arose in the steering committee minutes

96

Chair, where reference is made. And Mr

Gerber is requiring and requesting Mr Abel

to make available to him the documentation.

And change note B Mr Abel has signed without

the authority or approval of ... (inaudible) 5

...

MR PRETORIUS If I just find that change note.

MR CHOCKLINGUM 493.

MR PRETORIUS Sorry?

MR CHOCKLINGUM 493. 10

MR PRETORIUS 493, thank you very much. No, that’s

Annexure B. Sorry Dr Konar, perhaps you can

help, the minutes that was dated May and

signed in September is the document I’m

looking for and I can't lay a hand on it 15

now. Sorry, I don’t want to waste time on

that Dr Konar. You testified that there was

a document dated 20th May which you signed in

September as authority for the payment of

invoices after it was queried by the IPO. 20

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

CHAIRMAN Where does one see that? The actual change,

the document.

MR PRETORIUS Mr Chairman if you’ll just allow me, I had a

97

note and Murphy’s Law, it changed. 497.

CHAIRMAN It’s not 522?

MR PRETORIUS No, that’s a copy of the 9th of July one.

That’s change note A.

CHAIRMAN Right, we can always come back to it. 5

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN Now in so far as change note A is concerned

Dr Konar, why could he have not rectified

it? Is that because it would deviate from

the process? 10

DR KONAR The approval wasn’t in place. The monies

had been sent. The invoices had been

received. And there was some unspent

funding. What Mr Abel did Chair, was to

allocate that to three separate projects and 15

take 1.607 million off the amount. It was 4

821, 4.821 was the amount that was submitted

to the council. And this was in September.

And then the work had been performed before

the 5th of July. So he needed to find the 20

funding for that and had given the parties

the go ahead to perform the activities.

CHAIRMAN But who could have authorised that?

DR KONAR It’s pre-approval from the Council Chair.

98

CHAIRMAN But say now there’s no pre-approval and they

decide that, in any event, they want to meet

this allegation because it adds value, who

would take that decision?

DR KONAR Chair its an unapproved transaction. 5

CHAIRMAN So you saying he had to take it to the

board?

DR KONAR You need prior approval of anything above

500 thou. You have amounts that have been

budgeted. You have certain items that have 10

been dedicated in terms of the delegated

authority Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And on this you said you needed

tripartite prior approval from the ---

DR KONAR Yes. 15

MR PRETORIUS The CEO, Mr Abel. From the finance and IT

committee and from the Council, the board.

DR KONAR Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Then, and maybe we’ll find that document ---

MR PILLAY 614. 20

MR PRETORIUS 614. It’s in the next section, that’s why.

Thank you Mr Pillay. Yes, can you please

turn to page 614, later on.

DR KONAR Thank you Chair.

99

MR PRETORIUS Yes. That’s the 20th May and it’s dated ---

DR KONAR Now the top right hand corner it’s got the

20th of May.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And if you turn the page ---

CHAIRMAN When he signed? On the 23rd of September? 5

DR KONAR The 23rd of September.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And that occurred after the IPO raised

some queries about the documentation.

DR KONAR Yes. The IPO raised this issue.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. 10

DR KONAR And the heading Chair on page 614 is minutes

of a meeting held at INSETA. A transfer of

funds from the INSETA bursary fund to the

FAIS project for the INSETA National RPL

FAIS assessment. 15

MR PRETORIUS Then on page 549 it’s complaint 5.2.

DR KONAR Sorry Chair, which page are you?

MR PRETORIUS Page 549.

DR KONAR Thank you.

MR PRETORIUS This deals with the FAIS assessments in June 20

2008 on page 550 and it overlaps with what

you now testified. Just to process Dr

Konar, before payment was made it seems to

me that someone from INSETA had to say that

100

they were satisfied with the work being

done.

DR KONAR Chair, the process is that IMFUNDO was the

service provider, renders the services,

submits an invoice to the IPO, the IPO 5

contacts INSETA’s offices and Ms Steenekamp

is in charge and she writes and indicates

whether or not the projects been done or if

it’s done well, back to the IPO and then

they further process it from a payment point 10

of view. So there are, there are proven

structures in terms of the delegation of

authority and what is concerned to be

appropriate corporate governance.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Then on page 550, paragraph 2, you 15

deal with the FAIS assessments for June

2008. And you refer in paragraph 2.1 to the

invoice which is for 1.4 million odd where

Ms Steenekamp then said that she’s fine,

she’s happy and that they can go to FINCO in 20

2.4. In paragraph 2.6 you say the project

sponsor of the bursary project, Ms Sharon

Snell, was never consulted about the use of

funds from the bursary project to fund FAIS

101

over expenditure.

DR KONAR Agreed.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR Chair, it’s important, 2.4, there are a

number of controls that are put in place by 5

INSETA and this is commendable from a

control point of view and a discipline point

of view. So there’s a junior individual,

Shamika Pillay, in 2.2, that receives and

collates the documents. 2.4 from an 10

approvals point of view, Adie Gerber and

Leon Ganswyk look at the documents and

whether or not the contracts have been

signed and whether the budget has been

approved. And they Chair, qualify the 15

approval sheet by saying that there isn’t a

prior approval that needs to go to the

finance committee and Leon Ganswyk, he

agrees with the above. So the approval

wasn’t in place for that. And then Chair, 20

the point that you raised in 2.6 is the

project sponsor, Ms Snell, was unsighted on

this.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then what you point out in 2.7 is

102

that the minute do not reflect any

submissions for the approval for the

transfer or use of the funds.

DR KONAR We have tendered the minutes Chair and that

doesn’t provide any indication that this 5

followed due process.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. But in the end then it was ratified

later, and you refer to that in paragraph

2.8.

DR KONAR Chair, in February 2009 Ms Steenekamp and Ms 10

Abel were not on site. Ms Snell prepared a

motivation and then payments were

subsequently made in April. It went to

Council and Council sought legal advice and

they determined that they couldn’t escape 15

their obligations because a service had been

rendered and they ratified an over

expenditure of the amount of about 4.9

million.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. If we go to page 603 to 617, sorry, 20

618, is that Ms Snell’s report to Council

with the attachments to her report?

DR KONAR Chair she did prepare a detailed report.

Let me have a look at it.

103

MR PRETORIUS Go to 603 to 613 seems to be page 1 to 11 of

the report.

DR KONAR Yes.

MR PRETORIUS And then there are attachments.

DR KONAR Yes. She’s spelt that out in detail what 5

had been approved and what had not been

approved. That is Ms Snell’s presentation

Chair to the Council which ratified the over

expenditure and unapproved expenditure.

MR PRETORIUS I just want to check this, so I’m not going 10

to spend time on this. In all those three

instances you referred to in the complaint,

there was no prior approval for the

expenditure, it was ratified in February

2009 when it went to full Council after Ms 15

Snell’s report.

DR KONAR Agreed.

MR PRETORIUS Thank you.

DR KONAR Thank you Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Then page 619. The complaint is the 20

following, you knowingly allowed a senior

manager, namely Ms Shirley Steenekamp to

publish potentially disparaging and

defamatory information and allegations in

104

respect of service providers of INSETA and

broker companies operating within the

insurance industry in respect of obtaining

FAIS credits in terms of FAIS legislation

thereby bringing INSETA into disrepute and 5

exposing it to potential damages claims for

defamation. And you’ve taken complaint 6

and 7 together in your summary which appears

on page 620 to 622. Is that correct?

DR KONAR Correct Chair. 10

MR PRETORIUS In a nutshell, what is the gist of the

complaint?

DR KONAR Chair, there was unhappiness as far as the

accreditation and the qualifications that

had been attained by individuals and whether 15

or not they had obtained those

qualifications by fair or foul means. And a

... (inaudible) ... Chair had surfaced and

the wars in 5.1.2, a communication on the

16th of October from Mr Gerry Anderson, the 20

Deputy Registrar of the Financial Services

Provider Section at the FSB, and this had

been sent to Mr Abel making him aware of

aspects that relate to the INSETA.

105

MR PRETORIUS May I just stop there. Is that the document

that appears on page 626?

DR KONAR Yes Sir.

MR PRETORIUS To 628?

DR KONAR Yes Sir. 5

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And that is the 16th of October 2008.

DR KONAR Yes Sir.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Sorry I interrupted you.

DR KONAR Chair, Mr Abel has made it known within the

organisation, and one of the complaints that 10

came forward in the anonymous complaint that

was lodged that he’s a proponent of sound

corporate governance and that INSETA is a

model of good corporate governance of public

institutions. So in terms of corporate 15

governance Chair, you have a number of

different criteria and that is in the King

Report as well as in the Public Finance

Management Act and the Treasury Regulations.

And we talk about fairness, accountability, 20

responsibility, transparency, independence,

discipline and social responsibility. Those

are the seven criteria of corporate

governance. Now this letter Chair, came as

106

you have referred to in the Annexure, from

Mr Gerry Anderson. And Mr Bruce Cameron is

the editor of the publication on a Saturday

called Personal Finance. And Personal

Finance Chair, published an article in 5

relation to INSETA and the accreditation

process and they quoted Ms Steenekamp in

that publication. Now the sequencing of the

dates Chair, it’s important because you’ve

got a brand and a reputation. And you’ve 10

got service providers and organisations that

have long been successful in being astute

from a business point of view. So on the

22nd of October Chair, Mr Abel sent an email

to Mr Bruce Cameron and he said in that 15

email Chair, which we have attached, “Dear

Bruce, I shall be grateful if you would

consider the attached as the presentation

for the proposed article.” So he was

mindful, he was alert, alive and he had 20

amended the earlier draft Chair, and he said

kind regards, Mike Abel indicating that

there was prior contact and there was an

acquaintance at least with Mr Cameron. What

107

Mr Abel also did Chair, is that at 5:04pm,

he sent this at 4:45, at 5:04 he sent Ms

Steenekamp the following message, and that’s

annexed as well. And he says, “Dear

Shirley, please see my version to Bruce 5

Cameron which I hope you’ll use. Kind

regards, Mike Abel.” And then Chair, what

transpired is that he subsequently sent an

email after the publication in Personal

Finance to the Chair of the INSETA Council, 10

Ms Jawuna, drawing certain references to the

article that has been published. But he was

cited on this and he is the CEO, the

accounting officer of the organisation. He

had seen this article prior to its 15

publication and it has got reputational

issues and there has been claims from at

least one service provider, that I’m aware

of, because we’ve had to copy certain

documentation. The Chair was unsighted of 20

what was developing. Now this is an

operational matter that does have a

reputational risk as far as INSETA is

concerned. So the communication of a matter

108

as serious as this to the chairperson of the

Council and the Council of INSETA did not

take place from the time that he was

informed by Mr Gerry Anderson of the FSB, to

the time that it was published. And when Mr 5

Abel was confronted Chair with the issue, he

pointedly declined in providing the Chair of

Council, and that has been minuted in

subsequent minutes of the Council and on

point 15 on page 622 Chair, at a meeting of 10

the INSETA Council Mr Abel was pointedly

asked about his knowledge of the foregoing

correspondence to which he replied and

denied any knowledge thereof. So the Chair,

Kim Van Niekerk of Dovetail Communications 15

who does take the minutes, as well as Ms

Jawuna, the chairperson of Council relayed

that. So what comes to the fore here Chair,

is the issue of transparency. It’s a

significant reputational issue. He had 20

consulted, he had shared this documentation

and he had seen the origins of it. And we

have also included in the pack his tracking

changes version thereof Chair which predated

109

the publication of this. And the issue is

that by allowing the publication of this and

the strong assertions that have been made,

it has exposed INSETA to potential damage as

well as actual claims for defamation that 5

have since emanated.

MR PRETORIUS And do I understand you correctly Dr Konar,

when confronted by this, although he shared

it with Shirley Steenekamp, he denied that

he’d done so to the Council. 10

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Now you said reputational damage. If you

can just go to page 629.

DR KONAR Thank you Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Now this is an email from Shirley Steenekamp 15

at 14 October sent to Mr Bruce Cameron and

copies to Mr Gerry Anderson and Laura du

Preez.

DR KONAR Yes Chair.

MR PRETORIUS We know who Gerry Anderson is. Who’s Laura 20

du Preez?

DR KONAR She’s a journalist with Bruce Cameron.

She’s also a leader page as well as, she had

an article on page 1 of Personal Finance

110

this past weekend. So she’s a regular to

Personal Finance.

MR PRETORIUS And then she says, Shirley Steenekamp, “Dear

Bruce, I’ve considered the email sent to you

by the writer calling himself/herself 5

“Tinker Bell” and believe that there are

three issues that need to be clarified and

stated clearly.” Now “Tinker Bell”, is that

one of the persons that sent critical emails

concerning Mr Abel and Shirley Steenekamp? 10

DR KONAR No, we don’t know that Chair. “Tinker

Bell”, this is an email that went through to

Mr Bruce Cameron.

MR PRETORIUS So that’s ---

DR KONAR The documents that we received came 15

anonymously via the mail.

MR PRETORIUS Ok, so that’s not “Tinker Bell?”

DR KONAR No, we don’t know, it could be.

MR PRETORIUS Alright, yes. Then that Ms Steenekamp on

the 14th of October say the following to the 20

two journalist, “1. The companies, brokers

and the compliance officers are so desperate

to achieve their FAIS credits, and retain

licenses, that they will cheat, plagiarise,

111

copy, bribe, and do virtually anything else

to get their credit to be FAIS compliant.

2. The providers who deliver the programmes

to the brokers and the companies will do

anything to get business, they will cheat, 5

lie, be unethical if necessary to get the

business of the companies.” And that will

include Research Focus, ADVTECH.

DR KONAR Sulaiman Gool.

MR PRETORIUS The lot. There’s no distinction but --- 10

DR KONAR There’s no distinction.

MR PRETORIUS No distinction. “3. The INSETA through the

ETQA division which I manage, has uncovered

the cheating, plagiarism, non compliant and

sleazy way the providers are assessing 15

learners and allow themselves to be bribed

by the companies. We have called a halt to

the unscrupulous activities with the result

in personal attacks.” Then, “The INSETA

ETQA has confirmed and has direct evidence 20

that brokers who represent the following

companies have cheated, plagiarised and

copied, all of which are criminal offences.

Santam, ABSA Brokers, AVBOB, Liberty, PSG,

112

Small Brokerages/SMME brokerages. The

providers involved with these companies are

PLC, DSBI, PSG Konsult/Academy, Santam

Academy, Leon Liedeman & Associates and

Masifunde. Cheating, plagiarising and 5

copying is rife. What we have seen appears

to be the tip of the iceberg.” Then it goes

on on page 630, and I’m not going to read

out everything. So this is the email on the

14th of October and we’ve seen on the 22nd of 10

October that Mr Abel responded to Bruce

Cameron.

DR KONAR And it’s published on the 25th of October.

MR PRETORIUS Yes, right. And then complaint 8 is the

FAIS, Fit and Proper project, Year 9. In a 15

nutshell what is the difficulty with this

transaction?

DR KONAR Chair, the go ahead had taken place as far

as IMFUNDO is concerned without the prior

approval of the INSETA funds. 20

CHAIRMAN Just to go back to the letter, I see in

closing, you see that Mr Pretorius? Just go

back to 630. I just want to understand what

this letter, it has to be in some context.

113

MR PRETORIUS Yes. She says “It has always been my belief

that anonymous writers are cowards, who know

they have no facts, but have an axe to

grind. The facts are that these statements

about IMFUNDO, my son, Mike’s son,” I see 5

that gave rise to the complaint.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. That’s why I raised “Tinker Bell” and

it’s something Ms Steenekamp will explain.

Is what ... (inaudible) ... with this email.

She goes on --- 10

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Yes, you correct.

CHAIRMAN Please continue.

MR PRETORIUS Back to page 647 Dr Konar. This is similar

to the previous ones where there wasn’t 15

prior written authority for the expenditure

of the monies. Correct?

DR KONAR Agreed. And this had to be ratified by

Council. This followed the same ---

CHAIRMAN Is this now complaint number 7? 20

MR PRETORIUS Complaint ---

DR KONAR 8.

MR PRETORIUS 8.

DR KONAR 6 and 7 are ---

114

MR PRETORIUS 6 and 7 are together.

CHAIRMAN Oh I see.

MR PRETORIUS It’s complaint 8, page 647.

CHAIRMAN So how does 7 link up with 6?

MR PRETORIUS If you go back to the --- 5

CHAIRMAN Oh I see, you saying that he ... (inaudible)

... his involvement with the article. I

see.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. It goes with the relationship with the

board. 10

CHAIRMAN Yes. Then you’re on 8.

MR PRETORIUS Then we’re on 8. So this is similar to the

previous one. And again the service provider

involved is IMFUNDO.

DR KONAR Is IMFUNDO where Mr Abel has met with the 15

ADVTECH Shaun Schwanzer as we had discussed

before lunch. He’s also met with Mr Frank

Thompson, the CEO of ADVTECH, together with

his son. And Ms Steenekamp’s son is employed

by IMFUNDO, a division of ADVTECH Chair. 20

And this hear is performing activities

without the prior approval of Council. And

he didn’t have the authority to make the

commitments that he did.

115

CHAIRMAN What is the FAIS project again? Just remind

me.

DR KONAR This is in terms of the legislation. Fit

and proper.

CHAIRMAN I see. 5

MR PRETORIUS Financial, Advisory ---

DR KONAR Advisory and Intermediary Services.

MR PRETORIUS Yes, services. And I correct that you have

to be recognised or accredited within a

period of --- 10

DR KONAR To be a practitioner.

MR PRETORIUS To be a practitioner?

DR KONAR Yes.

MR PRETORIUS And this is the process. Well that takes

care of Mr Konar. 15

DR KONAR So this unauthorised expenditure Chair in

the context of the Public Finance Management

Act.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR And Mr Abel had given the commitments 20

without following due process and without

having the requisite authority.

MR PRETORIUS And those again, some of them were ratified

in April this year by the Council.

116

DR KONAR They took legal advice Chair, to the legal

advice that they couldn’t deny, the

contractual obligations ---

CHAIRMAN Yes, because ostensive authority.

DR KONAR Monies had been expended. 5

CHAIRMAN Yes.

DR KONAR Services had been rendered and it was after

the event. So it had compromised the

position of the INSETA Council.

MR PRETORIUS Then we finished with the two files relating 10

to Mr Abel. We now will go to the files

relating to Ms Steenekamp Dr Konar, and that

will hopefully go far quicker.

DR KONAR Chair I need your paginated copy.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. The most important person, the 15

candidate attorney, will bring the files to

you. If we don’t have candidate attorneys

nothing will run here.

MR PATTERSON He’s a senior associate.

MR PRETORIUS Oh sorry. He’s an associate. So there 20

might be some errors.

MR PATTERSON You’ve damaged his dignity.

MR PRETORIUS Sorry Sabu. Page 698. Again it’s the same

format as the previous two files. You’ll

117

deal with the framework and then you have

the summary which you set out why there is

the complaint. Now the first complaint, if

I might summarise, is that Ms Steenekamp

participated as a member of evaluation 5

panels in four tenders with the ADVTECH

group CCI and IMFUNDO were the successful

bidders.

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS She did disclose that she had a conflict of 10

interest. Is that correct?

DR KONAR A declaration of interest form which is a

standard form Chair, is signed by the

attendees of the evaluation panel.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. 15

DR KONAR She completed those.

MR PRETORIUS She completed that. But what is the problem

if she declared her conflict of interest,

why is there difficulty?

DR KONAR Chair, the Public Finance Management Act, 20

Number 1 of 99, as amended, together with

the accompanying treasury regulations sets

out a number of objectives for organisations

that are classified in terms of the Public

118

Finance Management Act. And Minister Manual

in ... (inaudible) ... of the Act talks

about transparency and good governance. And

they have released the treasury regulations

which implore all officials that work Chair, 5

to be diligent in the execution of their

tasks. And they have made it typically

clear, and this morning we chatted about

Robert Driman’s opinion Chair, and on Robert

Driman’s opinion from Deneys Reitz he raised 10

the issue of conflict of interest and the

aspect that does arise is that you remove

yourself from any participation in contracts

where a family member is involved.

CHAIRMAN So in your case she complied with 16A8.4(a) 15

but not (b)? That’s your complaint?

DR KONAR That is the complaint yes.

CHAIRMAN I understand yes.

DR KONAR It’s illegal, it’s irregular in terms of the

treasury regulations to participate. She 20

voted on these particular transactions. She

scored them and the score sheets we have

accessed Chair. And she’s made comments on

the various projects that we have access to.

119

So the simple point here Chair, is that

being knowledgeable, and she does claim

insights into the Public Finance Management

Act, one would remove ones self from this

particular conflict. 5

MR PRETORIUS And she is a senior person, in that

evaluation panel, what is her seniority?

DR KONAR She is the senior manager ETQA and she has

got the insights, the industry knowledge.

So she is an individual that does contribute 10

significantly to the deliberations of the

panel.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. --- 4And just a minor issue on one of

those panels, the CCI tender, or one of the

tenders therefore, page 752 --- 15

CHAIRMAN As I understood she said that my son and I

have no interests. My son is an employee or

director of one of the companies. ...

(inaudible) ...

DR KONAR Yes. 20

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN But that we don’t have any interests in the

business.

4 Tape 2 – Side 2 – 26 May 2009

120

MR PRETORIUS Yes. She did declare that he was ---

DR KONAR A director, an operations director of the

company.

MR PRETORIUS Of IMFUNDO, yes. On page 752 there’s an

extract from the CCI tender. The first is 5

Doctor Des Leatt. PDI stated white female.

DR KONAR Chair this is quite instructive. If you are

diligent in the panel and you execute your

tasks, and Des Leatt Chair, was employed as

a consultant by INSETA over a period of 10

time, and this submission was by CCI as

you’ll see at the bottom of that page. And

this submission was made. And in normal

circumstances one would challenge this. So

Doctor Des Leatt is submitted by CCI, which 15

is part ADVTECH, and this is a material

misrepresentation where the individual is

shown as a white female and Dr Des Leatt is

a white male. And there is correspondence

in the file attesting to that. And the 20

qualifications that Dr Leatt possesses. And

when you submit this from a scoring point of

view Chair, the white female is regarded as

a previously disadvantaged individual.

121

MR PRETORIUS Well if you go to page 764 we have an email

that Dr Leatt sent to you on the 19th of

December last year. Is that correct?

DR KONAR Thank you Chair.

MR PRETORIUS And he’s, refers to ... (inaudible) ... and 5

the last sentence before the last paragraph

says the following, “IMFUNDO came along

later and if I had been invited to moderate

that program I would have refused as I do

not consider it a credible program.” 10

Correct?

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS So that, whether it’s good or bad or

indifferent, that’s what Dr Leatt who was

put into CCI’s tender, which is IMFUNDO, 15

says about that ---

DR KONAR He wasn’t ... (inaudible) ...

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN Sorry, you reading from page?

MR PRETORIUS 764. 20

CHAIRMAN 764, which paragraph?

MR PRETORIUS The last sentence of the first paragraph.

IMFUNDO came along, it’s got page 1 of 2, 19

December 2008.

122

DR KONAR Chair what’s transpiring here is that

ADVTECH has made a misrepresentation about

Dr Des Leatt. Dr Des Leatt is a consultant

to INSETA. And if you’re sitting on the

panel and if you’ve done your job diligently 5

you would have identified that Dr Leatt is a

white male.

MR PRETORIUS Then just on page 790, and I’m now just

checking something, there’s reference there

to FIN-IQ. We right in the beginning of the 10

evidence dealt with FIN-IQ in which Mr Greg

Abel has an interest.

DR KONAR Chair we pointed out in the complaints

against Mr Mike Abel, with the first

complaint relating to Mr Gregory Michael 15

Abel that there’s a block where ADVTECH is

represented and the Genesis Group is 51 %,

and the ADVTECH group through CCI is 49 %.

So they, in their submission Chair, put

forward these representations in relation to 20

the ownership. And you see FIN-IQ was

created and established as a black owned

joint venture initiative between Genesis IQ.

And that is where Mr Mike Abel’s son is the

123

driving force in the proposal.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then we’ll see that as far as

Genesis IQ is concerned on page 801, they

give us part of their reference, the College

of Insurance, INSETA Learnership, NQF5. 5

Correct?

DR KONAR Chair, from a declaration of interest point

of view, we did communicate with Ms Veni

Munsammy. And in legal terms you have what

is known as a hostile witness, somebody that 10

will not wish to cooperate or just deals to

the border line from presenting information.

So she really resisted answering the

questions that we had raised. But here, and

we have also extracted meetings that Mr Abel 15

has had with Ms Munsammy. She’s also the

person that does the brokerage for his motor

vehicle insurance. So that is from a

declaration point of view that he has done

training from an INSETA NQF5 point of view. 20

MR PRETORIUS And what we reading from is a letter, if you

go to page 800, dated 22 May 2007 from

Genesis IQ (Pty) Ltd to Mr Sandy Mey from

CCI. That’s correct. Dated the 22nd of May

124

2007.

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And part of this letter, what Mr Abel

envisaged doing, on page 802, is for CCI

first bullet, source the candidates for the 5

learnership from the Black Broker’s Service

Network, BBSN, Black Management Forum and

Black Brokers Council of SA, BBCSA Network.

Now is Mr Mike Abel involved in any of those

organisations? 10

DR KONAR Chair the Black Broker’s Service Network,

the formation of that, took place from the

offices of INSETA. So Mr Abel and one of

the persons that driving that Chair, was the

former member of the Council of INSETA, his 15

name is Mr Heartwell Hlengwa.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And the Black Broker’s Council of SA?

DR KONAR No Chair. The relationship here as well, Mr

Gregory Abel, assisted in another tender

where a declaration of interest was made by 20

Mr Abel, and that relates to the Boston City

group.

MS EDMONDS I’m not sure that I, again I seem to have

gotten lost. We dealing with Mr Abel’s son

125

and charges relating to Ms Steenekamp’s son.

It’s confusing enough as it is that we not

cross pollinating the various charges.

MR PRETORIUS We not cross pollinating because this is

FIN-IQ in which Mr Abel has an interest with 5

CCI, with ADVTECH, where Mr Piers Steenekamp

---

DR KONAR Piers Steenekamp.

MR PRETORIUS It’s not our fault that it’s so involved.

MS EDMONDS Yes. 10

CHAIRMAN Who’s got an interest? The son or the

father?

MR PRETORIUS No, Mr Greg Abel is involved in Genesis,

involved in FIN-IQ. It’s involved in

ADVTECH, in --- 15

MS EDMONDS Which Mr Steenekamp is employed by.

MR PRETORIUS Yes, is a director. Operations directors.

MS EDMONDS Is employed by, yes.

MR PRETORIUS Mr Steenekamp is the operations director of

IMFUNDO, which we see getting paid without 20

written authority and the like. It’s a

question for argument on how it’s being

dealt with.

DR KONAR And this is a document that was reviewed by

126

the evaluation panel where Ms Steenekamp

participated Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Precisely.

CHAIRMAN That’s all complaint number 1?

MR PRETORIUS That’s all complaint number 1 which we’ve 5

summarised, it’s the four tenders.

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MR PRETORIUS And we havent dealt with each tender.

CHAIRMAN But the principal is the same.

MR PRETORIUS The principal is the same. Am I, that’s 10

correct Dr Konar?

DR KONAR She should have been totally removed from

any participation.

CHAIRMAN I understand what your case is.

DR KONAR Yes. 15

MR PRETORIUS Then complaint number 2 ---

DR KONAR Sorry, by participating and having the

industry knowledge, one could influence the

outcome.

CHAIRMAN Yes. Are you saying she’s tainted the 20

process?

DR KONAR Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Then on page 871 is complaint number 2.

That’s nepotism and that’s a name sake of

127

mine. I don’t know whether she’s family, I

know about her. Ms Kim Pretorius.

DR KONAR Yes Sir.

MR PRETORIUS In a nutshell, what’s the difficulty there?

DR KONAR Chair, Ms Kim Pretorius was appointed to a 5

position within INSETA and subsequently

worked in the division that’s headed by Ms

Steenekamp. Prior to her appointment at

INSETA she had a personal relationship with

one of Ms Steenekamp’s sons. She was 10

employed by INSETA and Ms Steenekamp

continued to evaluate her performance. And

subsequently Chair, she had a relationship

with another son of Ms Steenekamp. And Ms

Steenekamp has motivated for her permanent 15

employment, for salary increases, and has

also made claims about her competence and

her fit within the organisation.

CHAIRMAN And your argument is that is not the conduct

of an officer. It’s unbecoming conduct. 20

DR KONAR It’s a, a relationship where the family is

involved and there is no disclosure of any

kind in signing of the performance

evaluation, one would remove oneself where

128

ones family is involved.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR And there are emails and the exchange of

correspondence that testify to this in great

detail Chair. 5

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And again we’ll just add a little snap

shot of it. On page 873, paragraph 8, just

Shirley Steenekamp evaluating Ms Pretorius’

performance giving her 96 out of 100.

DR KONAR Agreed Chair. 10

MR PRETORIUS No disclosure ---

DR KONAR No disclosure.

MR PRETORIUS Of the relationship.

DR KONAR We have annexed it. There’s no disclosure.

MR CHOCKLINGUM Page? 15

MR PRETORIUS 873.

DR KONAR There’s no disclosure on that annexure.

CHAIRMAN I recall that’s like your marks at

university.

MR PRETORIUS His father wasn’t the professor. 20

DR KONAR I’m pleased you recognised that Chair. I

tried hard. I worked hard.

MR PRETORIUS Then just on that, on the appointment on

page 879, there’s an email from ---

129

DR KONAR Mr Phakama Nkosi.

MR PRETORIUS That on 19 October 2006 Mr Abel, non

compliance to HR policy. And the fourth

bullet, when Ms Kim Pretorius was appointed

to the Skills Development Administration 5

position, the vacancy was not advertised and

our staff had no opportunity to contest.

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MR PRETORIUS So that is that when she was appointed the

policy wasn’t followed and then as she 10

stayed employed there was no clear

declaration of an interest and there was an

involvement of Ms Shirley Steenekamp in her

assessment and motivation for ---

DR KONAR And fell directly under her supervision in 15

the department. Allowing her Chair, to

handle disbursements within a short period

of her joining the organisation. Delegating

to her the authority to do that Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. 20

DR KONAR For a very junior official within the

organisation.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR So if one looks at the Public Finance

130

Management Act and one needs to do this in

writing, those particular steps need to be

put in place.

MR CHOCKLINGUM ... (inaudible) ... comment on the last

sentence of the letter. 5

MR PRETORIUS I believe that Mr Chocklingum says I should

read out the last sentence of page 879. “I

hope to have your support in nipping such

undesirable practices in the butt within our

organisation.” 10

MR CHOCKLINGUM Butt.

MR PRETORIUS Butt. So, and then I’m not going to waste

time on the emails and the documentation,

but the gist of this complaint is that Ms

Pretorius was, it’s nepotism in relation to 15

Ms Pretorius. Correct?

DR KONAR Thank you Chair. That’s quite correct.

MR PRETORIUS We can then go to file 2.

CHAIRMAN Just for the record I’ve read that paragraph

19 of the email to 27. 20

MR PRETORIUS We now going to count 3. That was count 2.

Count 3, it will start at page 948. It’s a

single sentence. You acted contrary to the

interests of INSETA by falsely denying to

131

third parties that INSETA ETQA had backlogs

and insisting that Mr Paul Kruger of

Moonstone should retract a critical article

which was circulated on 9 October 2008.

What’s the gist of the complaint here Dr 5

Konar?

DR KONAR Chair the gist of the complaint here is that

there’s been significant delays in issuing

certificates to candidates that have

completed the course work and needed to be 10

accredited so that they could reflect the

qualifications of their ... (inaudible) ...

through their employer. And this shows

quite clearly Chair that there were delays,

the processes, people were kept back for 15

periods of years as far as the

qualifications were concerned and Moonstone

went ahead and published an article Chair,

and you’ll find that Dr Karin Deller from

RPL brought this to the attention of INSETA 20

over a period of time.

CHAIRMAN Does this go to competency or to misconduct?

DR KONAR To both, to both Chair. The aspect of not

being truthful. And this was also an issue

132

that arose in the Gerry Anderson email that

we spoke about earlier from a personal

finance point of view. So what complaint 3

is about Chair is that a service, a

publisher publishes an article and indicates 5

what the state of affairs is at INSETA and

Ms Steenekamp demands the retraction of

that. And the evidence that accompanied

this particular complaint Chair, provides

clear evidence that everything wasn’t hunky 10

dory in the stables of INSETA.

CHAIRMAN Is this not a case of her perception that

things were coming right?

DR KONAR The issue is that you’ve got a publisher

that makes an assertion, makes a statement, 15

that publishes an article.

CHAIRMAN Yes.

DR KONAR And if one is truthful and one reads the

evidence that’s placed before you Chair, you

will find that that is not so. And to 20

demand the publisher as, in the case of

Bruce Cameron, where those allegations,

INSETA or service providers can go to

Personal Finance and say please, retract

133

that article because you have defamed us.

So here the truth is that there is poor

administration, poor follow through, poor

delivery and you are suggesting to the

publisher that the publisher is incorrect in 5

the publication of the actual state of

affairs within the INSETA.

CHAIRMAN Mr Pretorius can I suggest that Ms Edmonds

and I will read this.

MR PRETORIUS No, but I’ll just refer to two or three 10

paragraphs and just make it, on page 950,

just to give the details of this Dr Konar.

In paragraph 5.3 you deal with a ---

CHAIRMAN 950?

MR PRETORIUS 950, bottom page 2 of 9, paragraph 5.3 to an 15

email which Ms Steenekamp wrote on the 22nd

of October. She says to Paul Kruger, “Thank

you for your mail. It’s not a matter of

treading on toes. That would be a different

context. The issues that we would 20

appreciate a retraction and apology from

Moonstone. What was stated in the Moonstone

newsletter was not correct, was

unsubstantiated and based on hearsay. This

134

has caused INSETA a lot of damage as we’ve

had negative responses from the sector as a

result of this paragraph in Moonstone

newsletter. You may be willing to reveal

your source of the hearsay so that INSETA 5

can take the issue up directly with the

person or people involved. I will be

preparing a brief note re the process this

far in terms of INSETA ETQA activities,

which I will gladly forward to you in the 10

new week. I am out of town until Monday 27th

October 2008. Kind regards, Shirley

Steenekamp.” That is what Shirley

Steenekamp wrote to Mr Kruger.

DR KONAR Correct Chair. 15

CHAIRMAN But he accepts it Mr ---

MR PRETORIUS Yes, well let’s see what ---

CHAIRMAN The next paragraph he says, “Hi Shirley, the

intention was never to cast aspirations on

the competence of INSETA.” 20

MR PRETORIUS No, no. But we’ll deal with what happens

when people are not terrified of Ms

Steenekamp.

MS EDMONDS Is she being charged with making people

135

terrified of her?

MR PRETORIUS Just an example, and the documents speak for

themselves, page 1005.

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MR PRETORIUS This is a string of emails that’s starts in 5

the 3rd of March 3008 ---

MS EDMONDS Mr Chair again, I’m not sure that I

understand, if this is what happens when

people are terrified by Ms Steenekamp then

that must be a charge against her. It’s 10

utterly irrelevant to the, whatever this

alleged charge against her is that Mr Konar

obviously managed to cobble together.

MR PRETORIUS Well Mr Chair with respect, I take strong

exception because Mr Konar didn’t cobble 15

together anything.

MS EDMONDS Then somebody else cobbled it together.

MR PRETORIUS The charge is you acted contrary to the

interests of the INSETA by falsely denying

to third parties that INSETA ETQA had 20

backlogs and insisting that Mr Kruger of

Moonstone should retract a critical article.

We’ve dealt with that article. We’ll deal

with the backlogs and what the backlogs

136

were.

MS EDMONDS Ok. But the idea of being terrified?

CHAIRMAN I propose Mr Pretorius that Ms Edmonds be

given the opportunity of reading this. I

will read it. 5

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN And we’ll deal with it on when we next meet.

MR PRETORIUS Alright, I have no difficulty with that. Ms

Edmonds has had it for 2 weeks.

CHAIRMAN We’ve got to see it in context because Dr 10

Konar has, you have, we havent. But I don’t

want you to take us to ---

MR PRETORIUS No, no. That’s also not my intention. I’m

perfectly happy with that.

CHAIRMAN And you know the difference between the 15

misconduct and the competency.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN So we can then deal with this in that way.

Is that in order?

MR PRETORIUS Yes, that’s in order. Then on page 1167, 20

complaint number 4 is in the following terms

... (inaudible) ... You allowed Ms Rina

Opperman to post an assessment guide on

INSETA’s website which she had developed

137

while working for LearnSys (Pty) Ltd

training as Prior Learning Centre in respect

of which Prior Learning Centre had the

copyright and not taking steps to recognise

and protect the copyright of Prior Learning 5

Centre. Again Dr Konar, the gist of this

complaint.

DR KONAR The gist of this complaint is that Ms Rina

Opperman worked for Dr Karin Deller. She

was trained and developed material while she 10

was employed by Dr Karin Deller.

CHAIRMAN And Karin Deller works for who?

DR KONAR She’s the director, executive director of

LearnSys (Pty) Ltd. A service provider.

CHAIRMAN I see. 15

DR KONAR So Rina Opperman joined INSETA Chair and the

material that she was paid for and developed

was posted on the website of INSETA. And Dr

Karin Deller is a service provider through a

company to INSETA. So she engaged in 20

correspondence and notified Ms Steenekamp

that this material was developed, paid for

and copyrighted by LearnSys. And instead of

the matter being resolved, what transpired

138

here is that Ms Steenekamp tried to block

this Chair. And on page 1169 we show you an

email that Ms Steenekamp sent to Ms Rina

Opperman. She said, “Though I must pass

this on to you. From our dear friend. 5

Please lets talk so that we can make sure

she does not get her way.” So the material

was paid for to Intellectual Capital by

LearnSys under Dr Karin Deller. The

individual left the employ, joined INSETA, 10

reused the same material and Ms Steenekamp

would not allow Dr Karin Deller to see this

through to its conclusion. And Dr Karin

Deller stopped pursuing this and she is

available Chair. We did chat to her because 15

she didn’t want to further muddy the

relationship between INSETA and themselves

by pursuing the matter any further.

MR PRETORIUS And what you have as Annexure 406, is that,

you’ll find that on 1175, is that correct Dr 20

Konar? That that’s the email that you

referred to.

DR KONAR Through the Chair, that is correct.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then, on page number 5, on page

139

1184 is something for argument. The

complaint is it’s alleged that Ms

Steenekamp’s conduct and her close working

relationship with Mr Mike Abel destroyed the

trust relationship between herself and the 5

INSETA.

CHAIRMAN But that you’ll argue.

MR PRETORIUS That’s well argue. And then complaint

number 6, we’ve already dealt with that in

the case of Mr Abel. That is the article in 10

the Finance Week, not Finance Week, Personal

Finance.

DR KONAR Personal Finance.

MR PRETORIUS Personal Finance on the 25th of October and

Ms Steenekamp’s involvement in that. And 15

we’ve dealt with her email and we’ve dealt

with Mr Abel.

DR KONAR Thank you Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Is there anything else relating to these

two, or four bundles that you want to add 20

before I conclude your evidence in chief Dr

Konar?

DR KONAR Chair, we’ve interviewed Ms Steenekamp,

we’ve interviewed Mr Abel, we’ve shared with

140

yourselves those particular transcripts.

We’ve had representations that have been

made by Mr Abel in relation to corporate

governance, in relation to his son. Chair,

we have reported and we’ve supported the 5

assertions that have been made with

documentary evidence and we believe that the

complaints that have been framed are

supported by documentary evidence and one

needs to take that further in this hearing. 10

MR PRETORIUS Thank you. I’ve got no further questions

for Dr Konar.

CHAIRMAN Friday morning?

MS EDMONDS Friday morning or right now.

CHAIRMAN What time Mr Pretorius? 15

MR PRETORIUS As early as possible. It might be a long

day and Dr Konar’s leaving ---

MS EDMONDS I doubt it.

MR PRETORIUS Well, if my learned friend gives me an

undertaking that it should start at 9 and 20

we’ll finish about 4 ---

MS EDMONDS I can pretty much give you that undertaking.

MR PRETORIUS Alright.

CHAIRMAN What time? 9 o' clock?

141

MR PRETORIUS Friday, 9 o' clock.

MS EDMONDS 9 o' clock is fine.

MR CHOCKLINGUM Subject to flight arrangements.

MS EDMONDS You’ll just need to come the night before I

think. 5

MR CHOCKLINGUM Yes. Thank you Sir.

HEARING ADJOURNS

142

VOLUME II

DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY HELD IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

INSETA EMPLOYER 5

and

MICHAEL SEBASTIAN ABEL 1ST

EMPLOYEE

SHIRLEY ANNE STEENEKAMP 2ND EMPLOYEE

10

B E F O R E: ADVOCATE N CASSIM – CHAIRMAN

PRESENT: MR GERRIT PRETORIUS – FOR EMPLOYER

MR BRIAN PATTERSON – FOR EMPLOYER 15

MS RUTH EDMONDS – FOR 1st AND 2ND EMPLOYEE

Date: 29 May 2009

CHAIRMAN 5Mr Konar you are still under oath. Ms 20

Edmonds you now represent both the

employees?

MS EDMONDS I do.

5 Tape 1 – Side 1 – 29 May 2009

143

CHAIRMAN Thank you.

MS EDMONDS Thank you. Mr Konar, as you’ve heard I now

represent both employees so I’m going to

deal with you in cross examination in regard

to charges. Will you let me know when you 5

ready.

DR KONAR I am ready Chair.

MS EDMONDS Yes. With regard to the charges relating to

both of them. And if need be I’m going to

skip around the place and I’m almost 10

definitely going to take you over evidence

that you dealt with in your evidence in

chief in regard to Mr Abel because my reason

for listening to that evidence is different

then than it is now. But it seems to me Dr 15

Konar that there is one charge basically

that is in common with both Mr Abel and Ms

Steenekamp, and that has to do with the

article which was published by Bruce Cameron

in the, what was it called? 20

MR PRETORIUS Financial ---

MS EDMONDS Personal Finance.

MR PRETORIUS Personal Finance.

MS EDMONDS Personal Finance, that’s right. Am I

144

correct?

DR KONAR Through the Chair, that is one of the

aspects, but the others as far as the

procurement processes are concerned, Mr Abel

selected the evaluation panels where Ms 5

Steenekamp participated and both their sons

were involved. So it’s not only the

Personal Finance article that both parties

have the commonality.

MS EDMONDS Alright we’ll deal with that when we come to 10

that. And you’re inaccurate about that as

you are about just about everything else.

But the most serious charge as I can

understand it, and the charges out of which

everything else arose, and your 15

investigation arose is the way in which

Bruce Cameron came to write his article.

And that was courtesy of a number of

anonymous emails and anonymous letters. Is

that correct? 20

DR KONAR Chair, I’m not aware of a number of

anonymous letters. The one that I’ve seen

is the “Tinker Bell” which is recorded and

which we have copied. Other emails in

145

relation to Bruce Cameron from other

anonymous sources Chair, I’m unsighted on

that.

MS EDMONDS You unsighted? You’ve conducted a R750 000

investigation which is, as part of it at 5

this point, only resulted in this

disciplinary enquiry. But you unaware of

the two or three or four other anonymous

emails which proceeded the “Tinker Bell”

email. 10

DR KONAR Chair the ---

MS EDMONDS And letters.

DR KONAR Chair the ---

MS EDMONDS Let me be absolutely accurate.

DR KONAR Ms Edmonds is raising the issue of Personal 15

Finance. What predates all of this are the

anonymous letters. So as far as Bruce

Cameron are concerned there are specific

allegations in relation to the brokers. But

as far as the anonymous letters are 20

concerned, those that surfaced long before

Mr Bruce Cameron’s articles, they dealt with

aspects of governance and various aspects in

relation to contract awards and

146

participation and conflicts in relation to

Mr Abel and Ms Steenekamp.

MS EDMONDS Out of which your investigation arose Dr

Konar.

DR KONAR I was appointed Chair by the Council to 5

undertake that investigation.

MS EDMONDS Out of the receipt of those anonymous

emails.

DR KONAR Chair ---

MS EDMONDS And letters. 10

DR KONAR That’s the Council’s call as far as what

drove them but ---

MS EDMONDS Your knowledge is all I’m asking about.

MR PRETORIUS Sorry Mr Chairman, may the witness just

answer before --- 15

MS EDMONDS Yes, but we going to be here the whole day

if he keeps doing it this way.

MR PRETORIUS Yes, but only just common courtesy not to

interrupt it. If he’s being long winded she

can make a point. But at least she should 20

give Dr Konar the courtesy of finishing his

answer.

CHAIRMAN But I understand the drift. You saying that

they, the Council asked you to investigate.

147

DR KONAR The Council ---

CHAIRMAN Whatever consideration they had regard to --

-

DR KONAR Had received some anonymous letters.

CHAIRMAN Yes. 5

DR KONAR Anonymous correspondence and they set up a

task team and that task team went out and

called for bids as far as the forensic

investigation is concerned and we were the

successful bidder Chair. 10

MS EDMONDS Where are those anonymous letters?

DR KONAR Chair those anonymous letters are available.

We can retrieve them and make them available

to yourself.

MS EDMONDS Those were the basis of your investigation? 15

DR KONAR Through the Chair, that was the basis of the

investigation from the appointment by

Council of ourselves.

MS EDMONDS Dr Konar take that through the Chair is

read. You do not have to say it every time 20

you answer a question. So why are those

anonymous emails from which these charges

arose not part of the documents with which I

have been provided?

148

DR KONAR Chair we undertook, and I stated this in the

evidence in chief, a wide ranging

investigation and that comprised five lever

arch files. And those five lever arch files

contain many of those allegations together 5

with supporting information. That was

considered by INSETA’s attorneys as well as

by their counsel and they’ve distilled that

into the charges that have been formulated.

MS EDMONDS Right, well lets deal with the newspaper 10

article. Have you any idea how, did you

speak to Mr Lawrence at all? The

journalist.

DR KONAR Through the Chair, no.

MS EDMONDS Lawrence, Cameron, sorry. 15

DR KONAR I have not spoken to Bruce Cameron.

MS EDMONDS Bruce Cameron. My apologies. I also don’t

have a wonderful time with all of these

names. Mr Bruce Cameron, you havent spoken

to him? 20

DR KONAR No, I havent.

MS EDMONDS Do you know how he got the information about

which he wrote the article?

DR KONAR Chair, our report is based on the

149

information that is on file and we have

recorded the process and, so that the

process by which he obtained it, “Tinker

Bell” etc, we didn’t know we were tasked to

investigate the Chair. 5

MS EDMONDS Mr Konar I would be most grateful if you

would answer the questions that I’m asking.

You didn’t interview Bruce Cameron.

DR KONAR I did not interview Bruce Cameron.

MS EDMONDS You do not know how he came to get the 10

information on which he based his article.

DR KONAR I do not know that outside of the email that

we have had sight of.

MS EDMONDS And which email is that?

DR KONAR That is the “Tinker Bell”, the 14th of 15

October Chair, if my memory serves me

correctly.

MS EDMONDS So yet another anonymous email, this time

directed to whom?

DR KONAR Chair, it’s allegedly directed to Mr Bruce 20

Cameron.

MS EDMONDS What do you mean allegedly? Do you have any

information to the contrary?

DR KONAR We havent investigated that Chair.

150

MS EDMONDS But it is none the less out of that the

principal charge that is being levelled

against my two clients arose, is it not?

DR KONAR No it’s not. It predated that, that were

the earlier anonymous emails that had been 5

received. Anonymous mails that had been

received at the INSETA offices.

MS EDMONDS Dr Konar I’m not talking about the dates.

I’m not talking about chronology. The one

major charge against my two clients is the 10

issue of the publication in Personal Finance

of an article in regard to the conduct of

the INSETA and its relationship with some of

its stakeholders.

DR KONAR The interpretation that you attach to it as 15

being a major charge is your own. I’ve

investigated the matters ---

MS EDMONDS Answer my question please Dr Konar.

MR PRETORIUS Sorry, let the witness finish. With

respect, the question has been answered. 20

The witness do not agree that it is the

major charge.

MS EDMONDS That’s not even the question.

MR PRETORIUS Let me finish. Let me at least finish. And

151

it is the question. And he is dealing with

it, and why we going around the bush and

things is she wants the witness to say it’s

the major charge and it’s not the major

charge. 5

MS EDMONDS I don’t. I want him to answer the substance

of my question. A major charge, a

substantial charge, would you agree with

that so that we don’t have to deal with that

anymore? 10

DR KONAR No Chair, I do not agree with that.

MS EDMONDS Alright, a charge against the two

individuals.

DR KONAR A charge, Chair we need to contextualise

this because the anonymous emails started, 15

the anonymous mails started in August and

the “Tinker Bell” is the 14th of October.

It’s long after the event.

MS EDMONDS A charge arose out of the “Tinker Bell”

email to Bruce Cameron didn’t it? 20

DR KONAR It did.

MS EDMONDS Thank you. Now that “Tinker Bell” email, do

you know whether it was received by Bruce

Cameron alone or whether it was received by

152

anyone else?

DR KONAR I do not know that for a fact Chair.

MS EDMONDS Because you did not speak to Mr Bruce

Cameron?

DR KONAR I did not speak to Bruce Cameron. 5

MS EDMONDS Did you make any attempt to establish who

“Tinker Bell” was?

DR KONAR Chair we had examined the IT systems and we

had not had any success in identifying who

“Tinker Bell” was. 10

MS EDMONDS Now why is the “Tinker Bell” and all of the

other emails and correspondence with Mr

Bruce Cameron not part of the documents?

You provided us with nine full lever arch

files. You provided us with two specific 15

lever arch files for each of the charges,

for each of the individuals in regard to

each of the charges, why are those emails

not part of the voluminous documents which -

-- 20

DR KONAR I cannot answer for what Bruce Cameron has

or doesn’t have. So I cannot respond to

that. Nose Week Chair has also raised

issues. They have certain information. So

153

I have not interviewed Bruce Cameron and

therefore I cannot inform you what

information and documentation he is privy to

Chair.

MS EDMONDS Dr Konar you are aware of the “Tinker Bell” 5

email?

DR KONAR Yes Chair.

MS EDMONDS Have you ever seen it?

DR KONAR Chair we discussed it, yes, the answer is

yes. 10

MS EDMONDS Do you have a copy in your possession?

DR KONAR Chair we have the email that is referred to

as having been received from “Tinker Bell”

and that was sent by Mr Bruce Cameron to

various parties. 15

MS EDMONDS You have it? You’ve seen it?

DR KONAR I’ve not seen the original email that was

sent.

MS EDMONDS Why is that copy not part of the bundle of

documents? 20

DR KONAR Chair we have discussed the reference to

“Tinker Bell” and the email that has been

circulated. That is part of the bundle

Chair.

154

MS EDMONDS The email is not part of the bundle.

DR KONAR Chair the email is part of the bundle.

MS EDMONDS Well let’s, no, no, in the files relating to

the charges against Mr Abel and Ms

Steenekamp, can you find it in those files 5

please? The files that are before this

disciplinary enquiry.

DR KONAR Chair we will locate those files ---

MS EDMONDS Well feel free to do it now.

DR KONAR They in the files of Mr Abel. 10

MS EDMONDS In relation to those charges?

MR PRETORIUS File 1 of 2.

DR KONAR Chair it’s on page 629.

CHAIRMAN Ok. Is that the Abel ---

MR PRETORIUS Abel file 2. 15

DR KONAR The Abel file.

CHAIRMAN Thank you.

MS EDMONDS 629? 629?

DR KONAR 629 Chair.

MS EDMONDS That’s a letter from Shirley Steenekamp, 20

email from Shirley Steenekamp to Bruce

Cameron and Mike Abel. Certainly on my

document it is. Have you got something

different in yours?

155

DR KONAR Chair, with respect, it is the document that

refers to “Tinker Bell”.

MS EDMONDS Where is the “Tinker Bell” email please Dr

Konar? Which is what I asked you for and

which is what I asked you to point this 5

Chairperson to.

DR KONAR Chair this, I’ve recorded and it’s been

recorded already Chair, that we have not

consulted with Mr Bruce Cameron. I’ve

responded candidly Chair, and I’m under 10

oath, that we havent seen that original

email. The reference to “Tinker Bell”,

there is the reference to “Tinker Bell” on

page 629 Chair.

MS EDMONDS Dr Konar, do you think you could possibly 15

answer the question? You have already

admitted to having in your possession the

email or a copy of the email which purports

to come from “Tinker Bell”.

DR KONAR No, I did not say that Chair. There’s a 20

reference to “Tinker Bell”. I’ve said quite

clearly Chair, as far as Bruce Cameron is

concerned we havent interviewed Bruce

Cameron, we havent had the original email.

156

What we have is what is in our documents.

MS EDMONDS Dr Konar I’m not attempting to prove that

you are dishonest and I don’t want to have

to do that. That’s not part of my case.

You have testified before this enquiry that 5

you had in your possession a copy of the

“Tinker Bell” email that was sent to Bruce

Cameron.

DR KONAR Through the Chair, this is the reference to

the “Tinker Bell” email that I’ve referred 10

to in my testimony.

MS EDMONDS Dr Konar, have you or have you ever had a

copy of the “Tinker Bell” email that was

sent to Bruce Cameron?

DR KONAR The answer to that is no Chair, I’ve not 15

seen any other original document that was

sent to Mr Bruce Cameron.

MS EDMONDS Not the original Dr Konar. We have dealt

with this before. You said you had seen a

copy. I do not want to test your 20

credibility. That’s not what my case is

about.

DR KONAR Chair this is the “Tinker Bell” reference

that I’ve made to in my testimony and I’m

157

repeating that Chair.

MS EDMONDS Alright, we’ll leave it at that. The

“Tinker Bell” email does not appear as part

of the bundle of documents before this

Chairperson does it? 5

DR KONAR Chair, the original that was sent to Mr

Bruce Cameron, whether it was an email or

mail, we’ve not interviewed him and

therefore we do not have that original

document in this bundle. 10

MS EDMONDS Right. The charges against Mr Cameron are

in regard to the publication are contained

in paragraph 4.6 of the charges against him

and they are, at 4.7, and they read as

follows, complaint 6, you knowingly as a 15

senior manager, sorry, you knowing allowed a

senior manager, namely, Ms Shirley

Steenekamp to publish potentially

disparaging and defamatory information and

allegations in respect of service providers 20

of INSETA at broker companies operating

within the insurance industry in respect of

obtaining FAIS credits in terms of FAIS

legislation thereby bringing INSETA into

158

disrepute and exposing it to potential

damages, claims for defamation. You aware

of that charge?

DR KONAR I’m aware of that charge.

MS EDMONDS That arose out of your investigations. 5

MR PRETORIUS Sorry, can I just make, Ms Edmonds said Mr

Cameron, it’s Mr Abel. Just for the typist.

CHAIRMAN Yes. I followed it.

MS EDMONDS My apologies.

MR PRETORIUS No, you’ve warned us. Sorry to interrupt. 10

MS EDMONDS That arose out of your investigation, that

charge?

DR KONAR Chair, we’ve investigated that charge, yes.

MS EDMONDS That charge arose out of your investigation?

DR KONAR Agreed. 15

MS EDMONDS Complaint 7, you intentionally,

alternatively, grossly negligently omitted

in respect of complaint 6 above, adequately

and/or properly to inform the Council of

INSETA of your involvement in publishing 20

such material when requested by the INSETA

Council to do so, and when you had an

obligation to do so you failed to disclose

your full involvement with Ms Steenekamp’s

159

publication of such material properly

thereby misleading the INSETA Council. That

arose out of your investigation?

DR KONAR Chair that was framed by the attorneys and

we have investigated the matter. We’ve 5

provided the documentation and they framed

that charge.

MS EDMONDS And charge 6, complaint number 6 in relation

to Ms Steenekamp reads as follows, you

published potentially disparaging and 10

defamatory information and allegations in

respect of service providers of INSETA and

broker companies operating within the

insurance industry in respect of obtaining

FAIS credits in terms of FAIS legislation 15

thereby bringing INSETA into disrepute and

exposing it to potential damages, claims for

defamation. That arose out of your

investigations.

DR KONAR It did Chair. 20

MS EDMONDS Yes. You aware that the INSETA has been

sued by one of the persons named by Ms

Steenekamp in her correspondence with Mr

Cameron?

160

DR KONAR Chair I’ve been informed of that. Of a

lawsuit. I don’t know the details.

MS EDMONDS But you aware of it? That’s all I asked

you.

DR KONAR Yes, I am. 5

MS EDMONDS Yes. You aware that the INSETA has defended

that?

DR KONAR I’m not aware of that Chair.

MS EDMONDS You not aware of it?

DR KONAR I’m not aware of it. 10

MS EDMONDS If I tell you that that is so, and that is

obviously common cause, you don’t have any

difficulty with that?

DR KONAR I would have to accept that.

MS EDMONDS Yes. And you aware that Ms Steenekamp was 15

also sued for defamation?

DR KONAR I’m not aware of that.

MS EDMONDS The INSETA neglected to mention that to you?

DR KONAR I can't speak for the Council because that’s

not part of my brief. 20

MS EDMONDS I’m not asking you to speak for the Council.

I’m asking you to answer my question. The

INSETA neglected to mention that to you.

MR PRETORIUS Yes, but ... (inaudible) ... to say that if

161

something was entirely irrelevant to Dr

Konar.

CHAIRMAN Well I accept that they never mentioned that

to you.

DR KONAR It hasn’t been in the correspondence to 5

myself.

CHAIRMAN You can argue that ... (inaudible) ...

MS EDMONDS Are you aware that the INSETA has defended

that matter on behalf of Ms Steenekamp?

DR KONAR I’m aware that a lawsuit has arisen. I 10

havent gone into the details thereof Chair.

MS EDMONDS You’re not aware? If I tell you that the

INSETA has defended it on behalf of Ms

Steenekamp?

DR KONAR Then I would have to accept that. 15

MS EDMONDS Yes. Well it would also have to be common

cause because the documents are a matter of

public record. You aware that inter alia

the INSETA has stated that those allegations

that were published in Personal Finance are 20

not defamatory?

DR KONAR I’m not aware of that Chair.

MS EDMONDS Well again, that’s a matter of public

record.

162

DR KONAR I’m unsighted on those.

MS EDMONDS Yes. I’m cross examining you at the moment

and I’m not sure whether I’m going to have

the benefit of cross examining anyone else.

So this is relevant evidence which I’m 5

putting to you and giving you an opportunity

to deal with. What I’m saying to you is

that the INSETA, inter alia, has defended Ms

Steenekamp on the basis that the allegations

made by her were not wrongful and insofar as 10

they were, not only were they not wrongful,

but they were the truth and that they were

in the public interest.

DR KONAR Thank you for informing me.

MS EDMONDS Alright. Now lets go back to “Tinker Bell” 15

whom you have no knowledge.

DR KONAR I do not have knowledge of it ...

(inaudible) ...

MS EDMONDS Do you have any knowledge of what the

contents, now you’ve now told us that you 20

both have seen and havent seen a copy of the

“Tinker Bell” email, have you got any

knowledge of what the contents of that email

were?

163

DR KONAR Chair, I’ve been unsighted on that

particular document. No. I’ve referred to

page 629 of the bundle of documents which is

the reference that has been made to “Tinker

Bell”. 5

CHAIRMAN Sorry to interrupt you. Mr Pretorius, as I

understand this charge, if Ms Steenekamp

persuades me after you’ve been given an

opportunity, that she had good reasons to

say what she says here, you’ll be satisfied? 10

MR PRETORIUS Yes, well ---

CHAIRMAN So whatever this witness says, it doesn’t

really matter.

MR PRETORIUS No, it ---

CHAIRMAN If the employer gets this particular 15

document ---

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN The employer says her language, her

generality undermines the organisation, but

if she comes in and she satisfies me, one 20

should have a common sense approach, she

satisfies you why she said what she said.

She’s satisfies me on an objective standard

then you will say that’s fine.

164

MR PRETORIUS Once she’s satisfied you why she didn’t take

it up ---

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MR PRETORIUS In the organisation itself and ran to the

newspaper? 5

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. The benefit ---

CHAIRMAN It’s something you’ll put to her ---

MR PRETORIUS That’s correct.

CHAIRMAN Even if you’ve got reasons --- 10

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN Why didn’t you discuss it?

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN And she’s got a good reason why she didn’t

discuss it then that would be the end of 15

this matter.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. The ... (inaudible) ... that instead

of dealing it in INSETA and dealing with it

responsibility she ran to the newspaper and

in very aggressive terms and, that’s the 20

gist of the charge.

CHAIRMAN Yes, I understand the charge.

MS EDMONDS Alright.

CHAIRMAN Sorry, please proceed.

165

MS EDMONDS That’s useful because presumably that’s how

you understood the charge too?

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MS EDMONDS Right. You aware that the document which

appears at page 629 was in response to an 5

email and a request from Bruce Cameron, are

you not?

DR KONAR Chair, it is so headed on the email itself,

yes.

MS EDMONDS Yes. So where is the rest of that email? 10

DR KONAR Chair, we’ve stated on at least two

occasions that we have not seen the original

“Tinker Bell”. We’ve not even ---

MS EDMONDS Not the original. Dr Konar please, you are

under oath. Let’s stick with what you are 15

being asked. You cannot have placed this

document before this committee if you were

not also in possession of the email to which

this email is in response.

DR KONAR Chair I have investigated this evidence in 20

front of me and that appears in the

documentation.

MS EDMONDS Is that an answer to my question?

DR KONAR That is an answer to the question.

166

MS EDMONDS Are you seriously, and bear in mind once

again that I do not want to deal with your

credibility, I want to deal with the facts

before this committee. Are you ---

DR KONAR Chair, the evidence --- 5

MS EDMONDS Let me finish asking my ---

DR KONAR With great respect ---

MS EDMONDS Question Dr Konar.

DR KONAR Ms Edmonds has challenged my credibility.

MS EDMONDS I have been asked not to interrupt when you 10

are talking. I would like you to show me

the same courtesy please.

DR KONAR I agree with that. But Chair, that issue of

credibility, I’m under oath. I have nothing

to gain by being partial to any party. I’ve 15

got a professional responsibility which I’ve

carried out.

MS EDMONDS You have just indicated to this committee

that this email was in response to an email

from Bruce Cameron. 20

DR KONAR Chair, the top of that, it’s quite clear

that Ms Steenekamp has responded. It’s self

evident Chair on that email that Ms

Steenekamp on the 14th of October, it’s a

167

date that I mentioned earlier.

CHAIRMAN I’ve read it. It’s from Ms Steenekamp to

Bruce Cameron.

DR KONAR To Bruce Cameron, yes.

CHAIRMAN She says I’ve considered the email sent to 5

you.

DR KONAR Yes.

CHAIRMAN And I suppose the employer’s case is simply

your language here is too general. Come

tell us why you reacted this way. It’s a 10

simple matter.

MS EDMONDS The allegation has been made by Mr Pretorius

in this hearing, and presumably that’s the

one that you are trying to support, that Ms

Steenekamp ran to the media with these 15

allegations.

DR KONAR Chair I am not aware of her athletic

abilities.

MS EDMONDS For heaven sakes.

DR KONAR I’m responding to what appears in the pack. 20

CHAIRMAN But what Mr Pretorius is saying is when she

responded to the press, and I assume he’s

going to argue that he should have been more

---

168

DR KONAR Circumspect.

CHAIRMAN More cautious, or circumspect, the language

she used is unbecoming of somebody in her

position in an organ of State.

DR KONAR Agreed Chair. 5

CHAIRMAN Yes. I mean, if my secretary reacts like

this to my attorneys, I’ll expect an

explanation from her. Yes.

MS EDMONDS Ms Steenekamp is not a secretary is she?

DR KONAR I’m not aware of that, no. 10

MS EDMONDS But you are aware of her status?

CHAIRMAN She’s a senior employee. We know that.

MS EDMONDS She’s a senior manager in charge of ETQA.

She receives an email from Bruce Cameron

containing the “Tinker Bell” email and is 15

asked for comment. She receives a personal

email and is asked for comment. You never

saw the Bruce Cameron email?

DR KONAR Chair, I did not see that.

MS EDMONDS I cannot believe that you conducted this 20

investigation of this broadness and didn’t

bother to ask anybody for that email. Mr

Chairperson I have a copy of the email, but

I don’t have copies to hand up at this stage

169

I’m afraid. Perhaps just a response to that

as well.

CHAIRMAN Can I just say, it’s Friday 11 o' clock, we

serve food Gerrit. Can we take a 5 minute

break and just --- 5

MR PRETORIUS No problem. I never say no for food.

CHAIRMAN Shall we just go across, all of us, take our

coffee and bring it here.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

MS EDMONDS Whilst she’s making copies. 10

MR PRETORIUS While she’s making copies. Use the time

productively.

HEARING ADJOURNS FOR SHORT BREAK

HEARING RESUMES

MS EDMONDS Now I’m not going to give you an opportunity 15

unfortunately to read that right now because

we going to run out of time if I do, but

you’ll see from that Dr Konar that Bruce

Cameron addressed an email of the 13th of

October to Shirley Steenekamp and Mike Abel, 20

cc’d Gerry Anderson, who is he?

DR KONAR He’s the Deputy Registrar at the Financial

Services Board.

MS EDMONDS And Laura du Preez, do you know who she is?

170

DR KONAR I’ve seen her picture in the Personal

Finance.

MS EDMONDS She’s a journalist.

DR KONAR Journalist.

MS EDMONDS And a colleague of Mr Cameron’s. Ok, and 5

it’s headed, forward INSETA summit of

assessment strategy. “Dear Mike and

Shirley, these are serious allegations that

need clarification.” The serious

allegations clearly are those contained in 10

the email attached. Well forwarded in fact,

not even attached. Yes?

DR KONAR Agreed.

MS EDMONDS “I would like a clear and unambiguous

setting out of the procedures and what 15

companies are involved in training. I am

getting more and more confused. In the

meantime we continue to chase ABSA on what

happened there. I’m perturbed that FAIS

could become a meaningless exercise if there 20

are not clear definitions of fit and proper

and FSP are employing people who do not meet

these standards. Regards, Bruce.” Do you

see that.

171

DR KONAR I do.

MS EDMONDS Are you telling this hearing you’ve never

seen this email before?

DR KONAR I’ve not seen this email.

MS EDMONDS You’ve never seen it. When you extracted 5

the document which does appear at 629 of the

Abel bundle, you never saw this document?

DR KONAR I did not see that document.

MS EDMONDS Dr Konar I am telling you that Ms Steenekamp

in her email which appears at 629 of the 10

bundle of the 14th of October was responding

to this email.

DR KONAR Thank you.

MS EDMONDS Do you accept that?

DR KONAR I accept that. 15

MS EDMONDS Do you accept then that Ms Steenekamp did

not go running to the press? And I’m not

talking about her athletic prowess Dr Konar.

DR KONAR On the basis of what’s in front of me, yes.

CHAIRMAN Can I mark these letters S2, S2. 20

MS EDMONDS Thank you.

MR PRETORIUS That is the page 1 of 6, page 1 of 6 is that

S1, and page 2 of 11 is 2? Right at the

top.

172

CHAIRMAN I think it should be the other way round.

“Tinker Bell” S1 and ... (inaudible) ... S2.

MR PRETORIUS Thank you.

MS EDMONDS Now have a look at Ms Steenekamp’s email.

You see that Ms Steenekamp’s email of page 5

629 is dated the 14th of October?

DR KONAR I do.

MS EDMONDS And if I tell you that that was sent by way

of pressing the reply button so Mr Cameron’s

email and “Tinker Bell’s” email must of 10

necessity have appeared on the same email,

do you want to comment on that?

DR KONAR I am not technically qualified to comment on

that.

MS EDMONDS Where did you get this email from? 15

DR KONAR This was provided to us at INSETA offices.

MS EDMONDS By whom?

DR KONAR Various parties Chair. We didn’t make note

of every party that we had obtained the

documents. 20

MS EDMONDS But who ---

DR KONAR It wasn’t provided to a file Ms Steenekamp.

We did interview Ms Steenekamp and she did

not in the testimony to us or subsequently

173

refer to this matter.

MS EDMONDS Yes. Whoever provided this to you did not

provide you with Bruce Cameron’s email and

the “Tinker Bell” email.

DR KONAR Agreed. 5

MS EDMONDS Now she says, “Dear Bruce, I have considered

the email sent to you by the writer calling

himself, herself “Tinker Bell.”” So you

were aware that it was in response to

another email. 10

DR KONAR Agreed.

MS EDMONDS “And believe that there are three issues

that need to be clarified etc.” Now did you

not think that it was necessary to have a

look at the “Tinker Bell” email having been 15

aware that there was such a thing?

DR KONAR Chair, we accessed the documentation, we

requested the documentation including Ms

Steenekamp, can you make documentation

available to us? We interviewed her and she 20

said I will make documentation available to

yourselves that is relevant to the

investigation. On the day that we

interviewed her and we’d been ---

174

MS EDMONDS Dr Konar just answer my question please.

MR PRETORIUS He is answering the question.

MS EDMONDS I’m not asking whether it was Ms

Steenekamp’s obligation to provide you with

material. I asked you, having become aware 5

that this was clearly in response to another

email which was talking about yet another

email, did you not think it was necessary to

apply your mind to those emails?

DR KONAR We applied our minds Chair. 10

MS EDMONDS To documents you’d never seen?

DR KONAR Chair, I’ve responded already to the “Tinker

Bell” issue. Do I have to repeat myself,

three times Chair, that we did not see the

original “Tinker Bell”. That’s been 15

provided to us ---

MS EDMONDS That wasn’t my question Dr Konar.

MR PRETORIUS Let him finish.

MS EDMONDS Perhaps ---

DR KONAR Chair --- 20

MS EDMONDS Would you please answer my questions so I

will not have to interrupt you.

MR PRETORIUS Mr Chairman let Dr Konar please finish

before my ---

175

DR KONAR Chair I indicated earlier on, twice already,

that I’ve not seen the original which has

been copied and made available to us now.

Chair, I’ve also indicated that we’ve

interviewed Mr Abel and Ms Steenekamp and 5

they’ve had ample opportunity, and at no

stage did this come forth from themselves up

until the date of their suspension Chair.

MS EDMONDS Were they conducting the investigation or

were you Dr Konar? 10

DR KONAR I was, but they were ---

MS EDMONDS Yes.

DR KONAR Parties that were responding to requests for

information from ourselves.

MS EDMONDS Now if I was to tell you, as you can see 15

from the email addressed back to Bruce

Cameron, that as far as Ms Steenekamp, and

bear in mind that it is also cc’d, her

response to Gerry Anderson, Laura du Preez

and Mike Abel, you aware of that? 20

DR KONAR I have testified already to that.

MS EDMONDS Just answer my question Dr Konar. It will

be so much easier.

MR PRETORIUS Mr Chair, with respect, he did answer the

176

question.

MS EDMONDS He didn’t. I havent asked that question.

MR PRETORIUS Let me finish. Let me finish. He did

answer the question ---

MS EDMONDS Please don’t shout at me Mr Pretorius. 5

MR PRETORIUS Well if you will allow me to speak then I

will have no need to shout.

MS EDMONDS Chairperson please will you caution Mr

Pretorius about the appropriate way to

conduct himself towards colleagues in a 10

disciplinary enquiry.

MR PRETORIUS What I do Mr Chairman is I raised my voice

because Ms Edmonds was interrupting me.

That’s the only and sole reason why and it

worked because she’s kept quite. He 15

answered the question in a way that was

perfectly legitimate. And she said to him

he’s not answering the question. It’s

unfair. He doesn’t have to say yes if he

can give precisely the same answer in 20

different words.

CHAIRMAN Well for both legal representatives’

benefit, my view on this charge, and you

must persuade me otherwise, is simply for Ms

177

Steenekamp to explain of the intemperate

language and the generality of her email.

And if she gives me a satisfactory

explanation this matter will go no further.

If she doesn’t give me a satisfactory 5

explanation I’ll have regard to her position

and in the context of what she does, whether

its insufficiently damaging to merit the

sanction, if so what sanction? I must say,

with respect, what Dr Konar says to this 10

matter or what is elicited from you may not

have any bearing. That’s my view on the

matter.

MR PRETORIUS Thank you Mr Chairman. We fully appreciate

that. 15

CHAIRMAN Because an enquiry such of this nature,

there must be a principal of finality.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN Otherwise, you know ---

MS EDMONDS Thank you Mr Chairperson. Right, if I tell 20

you Dr Konar, as you now know and you’ve

been required to concede, Ms Steenekamp in

her capacity as senior manager ETQA

responded to a journalist’s questions within

178

a closed list of addressees. ie. that

journalist, her superior, the CEO, the

Deputy Registrar in the Financial Services

Board and another journalist to whom Cameron

had also addressed his email. And that she 5

understood her response only to be for those

person’s ears, would you accept that?

DR KONAR Generally yes.

MS EDMONDS If I was to tell you that Ms Steenekamp will

testify, if necessary, that at no stage did 10

she ever believe or understand or was she,

was it indicated to her by Cameron that he

would make use of what she had said in an

article to be published?

DR KONAR So be it. 15

MS EDMONDS Do you mean yes, you accept that?

DR KONAR I cannot influence that. Yes.

MS EDMONDS Thank you. And if I was to tell you that

her somewhat intemperate response, and she

accepts indeed that it may have been 20

intemperate, arose out of the fact that the

INSETA was once again being forced to deal

with anonymous allegations in the face of a

number of anonymous emails to which you have

179

already testified that had been sent to the

INSETA itself, that she might have conducted

herself with a little less caution than was

ideal. Do you accept that?

DR KONAR That’s an assertion that you make which I 5

accept and I can't challenge that. I’m not

here to challenge that.

MS EDMONDS Do you also accept that Mike Abel understood

that to be the context in which Ms

Steenekamp addressed that email to Bruce 10

Cameron, her senior and cc’d it to the two

other persons to whom Bruce Cameron had cc’d

his email?

DR KONAR Chair, what we’ve written is the basis of

the information that we had to have. I 15

can't impute thoughts into what Mr Abel,

because I can't read his mind. So the

answer to that is no.

MS EDMONDS Well I’m going to tell you that Mr Abel is

going to testify precisely in those terms. 20

DR KONAR Thank you.

MS EDMONDS Are you aware that in regards specifically

to the charges against Mr Abel that, who’s

Tetiwe Jawuna, do you know?

180

DR KONAR She’s the chairperson of the INSETA Council.

MS EDMONDS Are you aware that in regard to the charges

against Mr Abel and regard to the

publication of that article and in regard to

that which Ms Steenekamp is accused of 5

saying to Mr Cameron, that Ms Jawuna

accepted that he could do nothing to prevent

the publication of that article?

DR KONAR Chair, I’m listening to it, I can't respond

because I’m not Ms Jawuna. She was --- 10

CHAIRMAN Well you don’t know. The answer is ---

DR KONAR I don’t know.

MS EDMONDS Alright. Well then I’m going to have to

produce, did Ms Jawuna never tell you that

she sent an email saying, to Bruce Cameron 15

saying that Mr Abel could have done nothing

to prevent the publication of that article?

DR KONAR Chair, I have looked at hundreds of

documents. I’m unsighted on that and that

specific point Ms Jawuna hasn’t shared with 20

me.

MS EDMONDS She hasn’t? Sorry Chair, in that case I’m

going to have to ask for additional

photostat copies to be made.

181

CHAIRMAN Is there anything else that you need?

MS EDMONDS I don’t think so at this stage.

CHAIRMAN Can I just quickly read that please?

MS EDMONDS Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. 5

CHAIRMAN Then we can just proceed and Gerrit, do you

want to quickly read it? 6It says, I accept

that you could not have prevented the

publication of such article.

MS EDMONDS That’s addressed to Abel, yes. 10

CHAIRMAN I and other members of the Council warrant

that ... (inaudible) ... unprofessional

manner that this letter was addressed by Ms

Shirley Steenekamp and the fact that now you

ought to have been the one to ... 15

(inaudible) ...

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN I’m going to mark this S3.

MS EDMONDS And then sorry, just that document as well.

CHAIRMAN Thank you. 20

MS EDMONDS In which Jawuna in response to a request

from Cameron in which he details in a new

article all of the allegations in the

6 Tape 1 – Side 2 – 29 May 2009

182

original article, also confirms the

correctness of the contents of that article,

of the original article and the second

article.

CHAIRMAN Yes. 5

MS EDMONDS Can I continue?

CHAIRMAN Yes, certainly.

MS EDMONDS Ok, thank you. Are you aware that, if you

just bear with me at the same time, Julius

Cobbett of Money Webb asked of Mike Abel and 10

Shirley Steenekamp a series of questions

along the same lines as those addressed by

Bruce Cameron?

DR KONAR I do recall that Chair.

MS EDMONDS Do we have copies of his correspondence in 15

these documents?

DR KONAR In the earlier documents we have, but in

this particular frame of the charges, the

answer is no.

MS EDMONDS No. But you, having been aware of the fact 20

that Cobbett also asked the same two persons

the same sorts of questions, you should then

also be aware that Mr Abel asked Deneys

Reitz, the employer’s attorneys in this

183

matter what his responsibilities were in

regard to responding to that series of

questions. You were aware of that as well?

DR KONAR I was aware of that.

MS EDMONDS It would have been nice if you disclosed 5

that to this hearing. And cc’d a copy of

his request to Deneys Reitz to Barry Scott,

Chris Kemp, Tetiwa Jawuna and Ivan Jamela?

DR KONAR Ivan Mzimela Chair.

MS EDMONDS Sorry, Mzimela. Perhaps we could stick with 10

the substance of my question.

MR PRETORIUS It hasn’t been asked yet.

CHAIRMAN You were aware that he cc’d it to these

people? Yes.

MS EDMONDS You were aware of that? 15

DR KONAR I’m being told that, but I have seen as part

of the investigation Chair, the questions

from Mr Julius Cobbett.

MS EDMONDS And you were aware that those people whom

I’ve just mentioned, who he also cc’d, were 20

representatives of the Council appointed to

investigate the anonymous letters which were

called the Peer Group?

DR KONAR I do know that.

184

MS EDMONDS Yes. And you are aware that Deneys Reitz’s

advice to Mr Abel and Shirley Steenekamp was

that they were to answer directly to Julius

Cobbett at an interview?

DR KONAR Agreed. 5

MS EDMONDS You also aware that Barry Scott was advised,

sorry, that Barry Scott advised Mr Abel and

Ms Steenekamp that they were not to consult

with media consultants in dealing with these

questions and that it was for them to deal 10

directly with the media?

DR KONAR Agreed.

MS EDMONDS I just want to, if you’ll bear with me for a

moment Chair, I just want to see if there’s

any aspect on that charge that I need to 15

canvass any further. Perhaps just, the

Charge 7 in relation to Mr Abel, I’m not

sure that I understand it so therefore I’m

not sure that I know how to deal with it.

You intentionally, alternatively, grossly 20

negligently omitted in respect of complaint

6, which was the fact that you knew

Steenekamp was communicating with the press,

above, adequately and/or properly to inform

185

the Council of INSETA of your involvement in

publishing such material. When requested by

the INSETA Council to do so and when you had

an obligation to do so you failed to

disclose your full involvement with Ms 5

Steenekamp’s publication of such material

properly, thereby misleading the INSETA

Council. What is meant by that?

DR KONAR Chair that’s fully discussed in the charge

and that related to the article, the 10

proposed article that Mr Cameron was to

publish. And we shared that in the hearing

on Tuesday with yourself Chair, in the sense

that Mr Abel did not communicate at the

point in time and when he was challenged by 15

the Chair, of Council on his knowledge of

the publication thereof. He did not draw

attention thereto prior to it’s publication

in late October. The other element Chair,

which is important for you and this hearing 20

to take note of, is that these emails are

dated 18th and 12th of December and we’ve been

unsighted. We’ve not been copied with them.

MS EDMONDS Sorry, which emails are you now talking

186

about?

DR KONAR Chair, these emails that have just been

handed to me.

MR PRETORIUS S3 and 4.

MS EDMONDS And do you want to tell us what the 5

significance of that is?

DR KONAR Chair we conducted the investigation. This

is after the suspension of Mr Abel and Ms

Steenekamp.

MS EDMONDS But you are testifying at the disciplinary 10

enquiry in May about the charges against Mr

Abel and Ms Steenekamp are you not?

DR KONAR Agreed. But these documents were not made

available to us.

MS EDMONDS By whom? 15

DR KONAR By the Council.

MS EDMONDS Thank you. So your testimony in regard to

the failure by Mr Abel to disclose to the

Council the issue of the article and

whatever you want the Chair to draw from 20

that, you have testified that Mr Abel

specifically asked advice, legal advice from

the lawyers for the INSETA as to how he was

to deal with the media, was given such, no,

187

no, let me ask the question please Mr

Pretorius. Was given that advice and was

told by Mr Scott that it was his obligation

to deal directly with the media.

MR PRETORIUS Sorry Mr Chairman, he never testified that. 5

It was put to him from the Bar without

saying when that advice was given and he

agreed with the statements from the Bar.

MS EDMONDS He accepted it.

DR KONAR Chair --- 10

MR PRETORIUS There’s no way you can ---

DR KONAR I’ve never testified as far as Julius

Cobbett is concerned. I did not. I’ve only

responded because I’ve been challenged on

those issues today. 15

MS EDMONDS And that is part of your testimony.

Whatever you saying to me is also part of

your testimony.

DR KONAR I’m accepting and I’m mindful of that Chair

and I thank Ms Edmonds for bringing it to my 20

attention again.

MS EDMONDS Right, we going to move on then Dr Konar to

the charges against Ms Steenekamp, the

balance of the charges against Ms

188

Steenekamp. Let’s have a look at the first

complaint. As I understand your testimony

on Tuesday by and large the essence of the

complaint is that in some way Piers

Steenekamp benefited or could have benefited 5

from a number of tenders, four of which are

listed in the charge.

DR KONAR Chair the testimony on Tuesday was that Ms

Steenekamp participated in tender awards

where Mr Steenekamp was involved by the 10

ADVTECH group. And in terms of the Public

Finance Management Act and the treasury

regulations that accompany that, she is

disqualified from doing so.

MS EDMONDS And the basis of that testimony is that you 15

say that Mr Steenekamp had a business

interest in a contract to be awarded.

DR KONAR Chair, Mr Steenekamp is involved by the

ADVTECH group. The ADVTECH group in broader

terms has an interest in CCI and IMFUNDO and 20

IMFUNDO is a division within that group. So

he’s employed, so in terms of treasury

regulations Chair, Ms Steenekamp is

disqualified from participating in any

189

tender evaluation.

MS EDMONDS Are you suggesting that Mr Steenekamp, Piers

Steenekamp had an interest in any of the

tenders that were awarded? To ADVTECH or

any other part of that group. 5

DR KONAR He is employed by that group and his

success, his, the way we infer it, his

progress within the organisation depends on

his ability and depends on his delivery. So

that is a matter for the ADVTECH group. But 10

part and parcel of the involvement of Mr

Steenekamp is that he’s undertaken work at

INSETA. He’s communicated directly with his

mother on various occasions in relation to

opportunities from a work point of view and 15

tender awards from INSETA.

MS EDMONDS Ok, can we stick with the charges?

CHAIRMAN Can I just understand this now? Mr

Pretorius as I understand the law, if my son

is employed by a company which I have 20

adjudicated in a tender, the solution is

that there should be disclosure of that

fact.

MR PRETORIUS And non participation on the tender.

190

CHAIRMAN On my part?

MR PRETORIUS On your part.

CHAIRMAN Pure company law is simply disclosure.

MR PRETORIUS Company law is simply disclosure. That’s

right. 5

CHAIRMAN Disclosure. And in PFMA ---

MR PRETORIUS PFMA ---

CHAIRMAN Then you’ve got to look at the regulations.

It’s disclosure and my non participation.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. 10

CHAIRMAN In other words I step aside and somebody

else sits in my place.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN It’s objective facts.

MR PRETORIUS It’s objective. 15

CHAIRMAN So what this witness says to me doesn’t

really matter.

MR PRETORIUS But Ms Edmonds correctly said it’s

interpretation of the regulations.

CHAIRMAN Yes. 20

MR PRETORIUS And what will be relevant to Ms Edmonds is

what was disclosed to Ms Steenekamp.

CHAIRMAN Yes. That’s really the fact of the matter.

And then it’s a question of interpretation.

191

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN That’s your interpretation you say.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN And I’ve got to hear argument with that.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. 5

CHAIRMAN Please proceed.

MS EDMONDS Part of that charge is that Mr Piers

Steenekamp is the operations director of

IMFUNDO. Do you accept that he was not the

operations director of IMFUNDO at the time 10

of these tenders being made and granted?

DR KONAR We’d have to look at the timelines, but at

some stage he was. And he’d been part of

the ADVTECH group for a number of years.

MS EDMONDS I’m putting it to you, and Ms Steenekamp 15

will testify, and Mr Steenekamp can testify

if need be, that at the time of the granting

of the tenders and the assessment of the

tenders in question, Mr Steenekamp was not

the operations director of IMFUNDO. 20

DR KONAR If Ms Edmonds has information to that effect

Chair, let her put it to yourself.

MS EDMONDS You can't deny it?

DR KONAR Chair, based on the evidence that we’ve

192

seen, we’ve presented the ---

MS EDMONDS Well show us that evidence.

CHAIRMAN Just show us that evidence please.

MS EDMONDS Show us the evidence.

DR KONAR As far as the participation Chair --- 5

MS EDMONDS No. The fact that he was the operations

director of IMFUNDO at the time of the

granting of those tenders, those four listed

tenders, where’s the evidence to show that.

DR KONAR He was part of the ADVTECH group. We will 10

extract that information Chair.

MS EDMONDS Dr Konar.

CHAIRMAN Well just show it to me now, what have you

got.

MS EDMONDS And bearing in mind that the allegation in 15

the charge is that he was the operations

director of the IMFUNDO. That is what you

need to prove. It’s what the INSETA needs

to prove at the time of the granting of the,

at the time of the assessment of those 20

tenders.

DR KONAR Chair, we have the CV of Mr Steenekamp.

CHAIRMAN Where do I find that?

DR KONAR No. This is the CV of Mr Steenekamp which

193

we have extracted and he currently holds the

position as the operations director of

IMFUNDO.

CHAIRMAN Where do you get the CV from?

DR KONAR Chair we’ve extracted, as I said, various 5

sources that we have obtained that

information.

MS EDMONDS Where did you get that from?

DR KONAR As I say, we’ve had bundles of documents and

my assistants as well, have worked, we’ve 10

accessed that I think from the website.

MR PRETORIUS ... (inaudible) ... com.

MS EDMONDS This is his current CV?

DR KONAR At the time that we conducted it, August,

September, October last year. 15

MS EDMONDS Where’s the CV in relation to the time at

which these tenders were granted and

evaluated?

DR KONAR Chair, we have not included that in this

bundle. 20

MS EDMONDS But you making an allegation which you have

to prove on behalf of the INSETA. That the

basis of his interest was that he was the

operations director of IMFUNDO and for that

194

reason was going to benefit, or might

benefit, from the granting of a tender that

his mother participated in evaluating.

DR KONAR Chair, that is correct. And if you bear

with us we will provide to you the awards 5

and the interactions between the mother and

the son as far as INSETA and IMFUNDO is

concerned.

MS EDMONDS Dr Konar we accept all of those

interactions. We have no interest 10

whatsoever in denying the interactions. Mr

Steenekamp works for ADVTECH. He is

currently the operations director of

IMFUNDO. He has held a number of other

positions. At no time whatsoever has he 15

held a position in which he had an interest

in a tender in which Ms Steenekamp was part

of the evaluation.

DR KONAR Chair, we have presented to you, the fact

that he is employed by the ADVTECH group, 20

CCI and IMFUNDO have been successful in the

receipt of these tenders and Ms Steenekamp

has participated in the evaluation panels

where those particular awards have been

195

made. Including going out on site visits.

Including her son Chair, it’s in these

documents.

CHAIRMAN And that’s your case?

DR KONAR And that’s our case. That he has, she has 5

gone out on site visits Chair with her son

to ADVTECH, IMFUNDO sites. It’s in our case

Chair.

CHAIRMAN Yes. That’s as far as your case goes?

DR KONAR Yes. 10

CHAIRMAN And then I must draw inferences ---

DR KONAR Absolutely.

CHAIRMAN After I’ve heard the other side.

DR KONAR Yes.

MS EDMONDS Right, let’s deal with the second complaint 15

in regard to Ms Steenekamp and that has to

do with Ms Pretorius. Now what’s your

difficulty there?

DR KONAR Chair we’ve spelt that out in the hearing on

Tuesday. 20

MS EDMONDS I’m asking you to do it again Dr Pretorius.

CHAIRMAN Just take me to that email again.

MR PRETORIUS He’s Dr Konar, not Dr Pretorius.

MS EDMONDS Sorry. I do it all the time. There’s

196

nothing that I can, there’s no way I can

stop my brain from doing it. My children

get it all the time.

CHAIRMAN Can you please take me to that email.

DR KONAR Chair we are on page 871. 5

CHAIRMAN 871?

DR KONAR Yes. It’s complaint number 2 Chair.

CHAIRMAN Yes, but you showed me an email in support

of this.

DR KONAR Chair, there are a number of emails and we 10

discussed on Tuesday that Mr Phakama Nkosi -

--

CHAIRMAN The email is at 877.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

MS EDMONDS Let’s deal with the email at 877. When was 15

that addressed?

DR KONAR Chair, we have extracted this and this is --

-

MS EDMONDS Sent on the 20th of February 2008.

DR KONAR 2008. 20

MS EDMONDS How far pregnant is she with Mr Steenekamp’s

son? If that is an accurate email,

statement, which is also a matter for, of

some question. This is a personal email

197

that Kim Pretorius sends to personal friends

that you extracted from her computer. From

her PC. Yes?

DR KONAR Yes.

MS EDMONDS You accept it was sent on the 20th of 5

February?

DR KONAR I accept that Chair.

MS EDMONDS You accept that she’s been seeing her son,

her bosses son since the beginning of

December? That must mean 2007. 10

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MS EDMONDS When did she start working for the INSETA?

DR KONAR Chair she started working for INSETA in

2006.

MS EDMONDS So it can't have, the fact that she was 15

seeing her bosses son since December 2007

cannot have any impact on her employment

with the INSETA, am I correct?

DR KONAR Incorrect Chair. She had been seeing, and

there is an email that testifies to that, at 20

the time that she was employed she had been

seeing Ms Steenekamp’s son, the other son.

MS EDMONDS Correct. So I’m asking about this son, the

son that is dealt with here.

198

CHAIRMAN But Ms Edmonds, as long as the facts are put

before me, was she seeing a son of Ms

Steenekamp at the time when, in 2006 or not?

That’s the issue before me.

DR KONAR The answer to that is yes Chair. 5

MS EDMONDS And you know that?

DR KONAR As per the email that has been extracted.

MS EDMONDS Right.

CHAIRMAN Where do I find that email?

MR PRETORIUS It’s 877. 10

DR KONAR 877 Chair. We’ve lined it on the right hand

side. I’ve been seeing Piers, my bosses

son. I’ve know him for 2 years because I

was seeing his brother then.

CHAIRMAN Yes. 15

DR KONAR And then things progressed.

MS EDMONDS Ok. So that’s now proof that Ms Steenekamp,

who’s charged in this enquiry, was aware of

that relationship and made use of ---

CHAIRMAN All it says is prima facie there. She must 20

come and explain to me.

MS EDMONDS Yes.

DR KONAR Yes.

CHAIRMAN That’s all.

199

MS EDMONDS Well, she doesn’t even.

CHAIRMAN An employer is perfectly entitled to say, I

have something which suggests to me that she

knew him 2 years ago. If she doesn’t know,

she must come and tell me. That’s all. If 5

I’m satisfied with their credibility and

evidence after she’s cross examined, that’s

the end of it.

MS EDMONDS Where in the human resources manual does it

say that Ms Steenekamp cannot have anything 10

to do with the employment of a son’s

girlfriend?

DR KONAR Chair, I’m not aware of that. What the

human resources manual does indicate is that

all emails that are received or sent out is 15

the property of INSETA. As far as the issue

that ---

CHAIRMAN But that’s not the question. The question

is where, what is the policy insofar as

what’s improper for Ms Steenekamp to employ 20

Ms Pretorius even if she’s seeing her son,

provided she’s a good employee? What’s

improper with that? That’s the question.

DR KONAR There’s a conflict of interest policy that

200

is available.

CHAIRMAN But if she makes disclosure?

DR KONAR If she’s made disclosure and that’s been

accepted by the employer then there’s no

issue Chair. 5

CHAIRMAN There’s no issue. She says that she’s, and

if it’s common knowledge? If everybody

knows that she is her son’s fiancé?

MS EDMONDS And Ms Pretorius is still in the employ of

INSETA? 10

DR KONAR I’ll accept that.

MS EDMONDS Yes. So presumably the INSETA is satisfied

with her performance in her capacity as an

employee.

DR KONAR Chair, you’d have to ask INSETA that. 15

MS EDMONDS Bear in mind that you say that, not you, the

INSETA says that Ms Steenekamp did not

comply with the INSETA’s HR policy. Where

in the HR policy? You saying, you’ve now

testified that the HR policy does not find 20

the employment of sons girlfriends

offensive?

DR KONAR Chair, I’ve read hundreds of pages ---

CHAIRMAN No, but that goes to a point now. It goes

201

to a point.

DR KONAR Yes. We would have to extract the HR manual

and ---

MS EDMONDS But please do that now. I’m trying to deal

with these charges now. You knew you were 5

going to be cross examined by me about these

charges now. Courtesy of your investigation

Ms Steenekamp is being charged with these

charges now.

DR KONAR I accept that Chair, but I’m not somebody 10

that foresees the questions that Ms Edmonds

is going to ask and therefore we will have

to access the HR manual.

CHAIRMAN Will that take a long time?

DR KONAR Chair, we’ll have to ask for that to be 15

brought from our offices.

MS EDMONDS Perhaps I can make life a bit easier. Is

this the document that we’re talking about?

Sorry Mr Chairperson, I’m told that I may be

lucky enough to be in possession of those 20

documents even if they don’t form part of Dr

Konar’s nine files worth of documents. I

presume you’d want a copy of this

Chairperson? I understand this is the HR

202

policy that was in, was the one that was in

effect at the time of Pretorius’ employment.

Is she a relative of yours by any chance?

MR PRETORIUS Well there’s so many Pretorius’s, I don’t

know. Not that I’m aware of. She might be. 5

MS EDMONDS In 2006, and that talks about employment of

relatives. Relatives of an employee shall

not be employed to work either directly or

indirectly under the supervision of a

relative by blood or marriage. And it’s 10

generally, INSETA avoids appointment of

relatives to key positions etc etc. I don’t

know if you ---

CHAIRMAN Can you make copies of that please?

MS EDMONDS And I understand this is the current policy 15

which virtually repeats that. Ms Steenekamp

will also testify, Dr Konar, that as far as

she is aware, the position was indeed

advertised and that is how she became aware

of it and she simply advised Ms Pretorius of 20

the fact that there was such a position and

that should she wish to apply for it, she

could.

DR KONAR So be it.

203

MS EDMONDS It’s apparently also offensive that she

signed off the performance appraisal of Ms

Pretorius without declaring that she was

known to you. Ms Pretorius reported to Ms

Steenekamp, didn’t she? 5

DR KONAR That’s my understanding, yes.

MS EDMONDS In the normal course of events, performance

appraisals are done by the person to whom

one reports.

DR KONAR In normal circumstances, yes. 10

MS EDMONDS Is there anything to indicate that those

performance appraisals were inaccurate?

DR KONAR We did not investigate that.

MS EDMONDS You say on the 4th of February without

disclosing her relationship with Ms 15

Pretorius, Steenekamp recommended to Mr Mike

Abel that Pretorius be moved to ETQA

division as a junior consultant. If I was

to tell you that that recommendation was at

the request of Mr Mike Abel, would you be 20

able to deny it?

DR KONAR Chair, from the information that we have

seen and my recall is that no, she stays

where she is. And there is an email from Mr

204

Abel to that effect.

MS EDMONDS There is an email to that effect. If I tell

you that Mr Abel will testify, and I think I

even have documents which confirm that Mr

Abel asked Ms Steenekamp to recommend her 5

for, Ms Pretorius for promotion.

DR KONAR So be it.

MS EDMONDS Complaint number 3, you acted contrary to

the interests of the INSETA by falsely

denying to third parties that INSETA, ETQA, 10

had backlogs and insisted that Mr Paul

Kruger of Moonstone should retract a

critical article which was circulated on the

9th of October. We know from your evidence

in chief that Mr Paul Kruger of Moonstone 15

did not only retract the article and his

allegations but apologised to Ms Steenekamp.

Yes?

DR KONAR Agreed.

MS EDMONDS Is Mr Kruger going to testify that he did so 20

under duress?

DR KONAR I’m not aware of that Chair.

MS EDMONDS And Ms Steenekamp will say that she did not

falsely deny to third parties that there

205

were backlogs. In fact, what she stated and

what was correct was, and if you’ll bear

with me for one second, that there were no

verification backlogs.

DR KONAR If that is what Ms Steenekamp is going to 5

say Chair, she may say so with your

approval.

MS EDMONDS I think that the emails that you relied upon

in your evidence in chief bear out the fact

that that is precisely what Ms Steenekamp 10

was talking about. She did not deny that

there were no backlogs at all. She had

simply denied that there were no

verification backlogs and that denial was

correct. She will testify in that regard 15

and the documents to which you referred also

bear that out.

DR KONAR So be it Chair.

MS EDMONDS Complaint number 4, you allowed Ms Rina

Opperman to post an assessment guide on 20

INSETA’s website which she had developed

while working for LearnSys (Pty) Ltd

training as Prior Learning Centre in respect

of which Prior Learning Centre had the

206

copyright and not taking steps to recognise

and protect the copyright of Prior Learning

Centre. You will agree that Prior Learning

Centre itself said that that is not a matter

for Ms Steenekamp and that it is a private 5

matter between Prior Learning Centre and

Rina Opperman.

DR KONAR Agreed.

MS EDMONDS Ms Steenekamp will also deny that in any

event the document which was published was 10

copyrighted to Learnsys (Pty) Ltd.

DR KONAR So be it.

MS EDMONDS Complaint number 5, it’s been suggested that

that is a matter for argument. But perhaps

you would just tell this committee why a 15

close working relationship between a senior

manager and her CEO should be offensive and

should destroy the trust relationship

between an employer and employee.

DR KONAR Chair, we did not go into the details 20

thereof. This is a submission that Advocate

Pretorius has stated as complaint number 5.

MS EDMONDS You will agree that if there is no substance

to the charges against Ms Steenekamp then

207

there is no basis for terminating her

employment by reason of her close

relationship with her CEO.

DR KONAR Makes logical sense.

MS EDMONDS And we’ve dealt with number 6 in regard to 5

Ms Steenekamp. Let’s go to Mr Abel and

forgive me Chair and Mr Pretorius, I’m less

familiar and confident in my dealings with

these charges having literally taken

instructions in this regard today. But lets 10

see what we can do with those. Complaint

number 1.

CHAIRMAN Can I just request a 5 minutes break.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

MS EDMONDS It’s close to --- 15

MR PRETORIUS 8 minutes to 12.

CHAIRMAN Make it 12.

HEARING ADJOURNS FOR SHORT BREAK

HEARING RESUMES

CHAIRMAN 7When you ready. 20

MS EDMONDS Thank you. I might just wait for Shirley to

come back.

CHAIRMAN Sure. Yes.

7 Tape 2 – Side 1 – 29 May 2009

208

MS EDMONDS Thank you. Right, let’s go to the first

complaint against Mr Abel. And that is that

he’s made himself guilty of nepotism in that

he unfairly benefited his son, Gregory

Michael Abel, and/or business with which he 5

is associated and did not fairly or fully

disclose his relationship with him and his

interest in various contracts. And then you

detail contracts which you would like this

committee to accept as proof of such 10

nepotism. He’s a sole member of a close

corporation having an address which is the

same address as his residential address and

the same address as Mr Abel’s residential

address. You found something offensive in 15

that and that indicated some form of

nepotism did you?

DR KONAR Chair, I did not find anything offensive

with that.

MS EDMONDS So that’s not an indication of nepotism? We 20

can disregard that? It appears here in the

charge but it’s irrelevant.

MR PRETORIUS No. With great respect Mr Chairman, you

can't take things out as isolation and say

209

on it’s own it’s not nepotism and therefore

you can disregard it. You take it in its

totality.

MS EDMONDS Can I just ask the witness these questions

and have him answer him? 5

MR PRETORIUS But there’s an objection to you isolating

it. You said that’s not nepotism therefore

you can disregard it. I object to that.

MS EDMONDS Ok. Its been isolated in the charges

against my client. First, am I going to 10

deal with it on the basis which the charges

have been framed? Examples of this are the

following, your son is the sole member of a

close corporation, Gregory Michael &

Associates CC. We accept that. Nothing 15

offensive in that for you is there?

Standing on it’s own there’s nothing

offensive.

DR KONAR I’m not offended Chair.

MS EDMONDS No. It’s postal and business address is 8 20

Victoria Crescent, Westville. Nothing and

of itself offensive there. It is also the

business address of the Genesis group of

companies in which his son has a majority

210

interest. Nothing offensive there. And the

fact that both of those businesses share a

postal and residential address with Mr Abel,

nothing offensive there. Let’s move on.

From November 2005 to approximately April 5

2006 during which time Mr Abel was acting

CEO or CEO, that’s right?

DR KONAR Yes.

MS EDMONDS The close corporation rendered services to

Mountbatten Training Centre which operates 10

in the financial services industry. Yes?

DR KONAR Yes.

MS EDMONDS Nothing wrong with that. Close corporation

is there, there’s nothing wrong with the

close corporation rendering services to 15

Mountbatten?

DR KONAR No Chair.

MS EDMONDS The close corporation, and that would be

Gregory Michael & Associates, prepared nine

separate units standard files for 20

Mountbatten relating to the financial

services industry. Nothing offensive about

that?

DR KONAR No.

211

MS EDMONDS You did not disclose your relationship with

your son and the close corporation to the

INSETA Council despite your son having

rendered such services.

DR KONAR Agreed. 5

MS EDMONDS What’s the difficulty there?

DR KONAR Chair, we’ve got the CEO, he’s the CEO of

INSETA, his son is a service provider,

Mountbatten is a recipient of funding from

INSETA. Mountbatten is involved in the 10

financial services industry and so is

INSETA.

MS EDMONDS The two entities were both involved in the

same industry. Is that as far as that

allegation goes? Because I must say I’m a 15

little bit intrigued.

DR KONAR Chair, bursaries and awards have been made

to Mountbatten. And I testified on Tuesday

on the material that Mr Abel accessed from

Ms Steenekamp and used it to develop certain 20

unit standards for Mountbatten. And he was

paid for the unit standards that he had

developed for Mountbatten.

MS EDMONDS Who paid for the unit standards?

212

DR KONAR Mountbatten had paid for the unit standards.

MS EDMONDS Forgive me, but I really don’t then

understand where the difficulty lies. What

is the connection?

DR KONAR With respect, Mr Abel is the CEO, 5

Mountbatten is a recipient of grants,

bursaries, funding from INSETA. The son of

the CEO is rendering services in the

industry. The father is part of the

decision making of INSETA from making awards 10

to that organisation that’s rendering these

services.

MS EDMONDS But that’s got to be true for every single

organisation in the industry. Is the son

not allowed to do any work for anyone at all 15

ever in the industry?

DR KONAR Chair with respect, we’ve pointed out the

PFMA, the treasury regulations from a supply

chain management point of view.

CHAIRMAN But that’s your evidence and then I’ll hear 20

argument on that.

DR KONAR Yes.

CHAIRMAN It’s really a judgement I have to make.

DR KONAR Yes.

213

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MS EDMONDS But what I understand you to be saying is

that there is no nexus at all between any

money that Mountbatten might have received

from the INSETA and any money that Mr Greg 5

Abel might have received from Mountbatten.

DR KONAR Greg Abel has received money from

Mountbatten and Mountbatten has received

money from INSETA.

MS EDMONDS Just answer my question. The actual monies 10

that Greg Abel received, is there any nexus

that he received from Mountbatten, is there

any nexus between the monies Greg Abel

received from Mountbatten and the monies

Mountbatten received from the INSETA? 15

DR KONAR No.

MS EDMONDS Thank you. Two tenders, the Wealth

Management Program and the Skills

Development Facilitators Training tender

were awarded to companies with which your 20

son has an association or link. You did not

declare this conflict of interest. Were

those tenders awarded by the CEO, by Mr

Abel? Or were they awarded by the tender

214

committees?

DR KONAR They were awarded by the evaluating

committees Chair.

MS EDMONDS To your knowledge your son was awarded the

Skills Development Facilitators Training 5

contract for KwaZulu Natal as a

subcontractor to IMFUNDO. To your knowledge

Mr Piers Steenekamp, the son of Ms Shirley

Steenekamp is the operations director of

IMFUNDO. What’s the complaint there? 10

DR KONAR Chair we led on Tuesday the fact that Shaun

Schwanzer featured quite prominently in that

the connection with IMFUNDO had taken place.

Mr Greg Abel had submitted a number of

tenders as far as FIN-IQ is concerned, and 15

he was represented in these tenders that

were submitted by ADVTECH and which were

awarded to ADVTECH.

MS EDMONDS I remember your testimony in that regard but

again I can't remember finding that there 20

was anything offensive. That the PFMA would

be offended by anything in those

connections. That they were all open, that

there wasn’t any non disclosure, there

215

wasn’t any need for disclosure.

DR KONAR Chair with respect, the skills development

took place in March 2006 and those emails

were shared with you on Tuesday. Mr Shaun

Schwanzer meeting with Mr Abel, being 5

provided with information, participating in

advertisements. And Mr Shaun Schwanzer is

in general terms been made an insider. Now

Mr Abel went to Mr Robert Driman subsequent

to the awards of these tenders to ask for 10

advice as far as the declaration of interest

is concerned.

CHAIRMAN Can I just find this email? Can you just

refer them again to me please so I can just

make a note? 15

DR KONAR The emails Chair are on page 61 onwards

Chair. And that’s in April 2007 and these

discussions took place in 2006. And we

shared with you the declarations of interest

that Mr Abel had submitted. 20

CHAIRMAN Yes, but page number?

DR KONAR 61 Chair.

CHAIRMAN Thank you. That’s Volume 1?

DR KONAR Volume 1.

216

CHAIRMAN 61 onwards?

DR KONAR File 1 Chair.

CHAIRMAN Mike Abel?

DR KONAR Yes.

CHAIRMAN Is that the one? 5

DR KONAR The Deneys Reitz tender process.

CHAIRMAN Yes, but where do I see the email?

DR KONAR The email Chair appears on page 60.

CHAIRMAN 60, thank you. Yes, thank you. I remember

this email. Who is Shaun Schwanzer again? 10

DR KONAR He’s the late managing director Chair.

CHAIRMAN Of?

DR KONAR Of IMFUNDO.

CHAIRMAN Oh.

DR KONAR It’s on the email. 15

Sschwanzer@imfundo.co.za.

CHAIRMAN Yes, thank you. Please continue.

MS EDMONDS Mr Abel will say that any correspondence

which you may have in regard to the dealings

of Schwanzer and Greg Abel are irrelevant in 20

that when a contract was awarded it was not

awarded to Abel and Schwanzer. They were

not in business together.

DR KONAR Let Mr Abel say so Chair.

217

MS EDMONDS I can hand up a copy of a contract which

indicates the body to whom the award was

made and it is clear from that that Greg

Abel has nothing to do with that business.

And I’ve only been handed that copy today so 5

---

CHAIRMAN But as I understand the complaint, the

complaint is his sons got a director or

indirect interest and you would have

expected, an employer would expect from the 10

CEO to make disclosure.

DR KONAR Declaration. You’ve seen Schwanzer ---

CHAIRMAN If that’s the complaint he must come and

explain why, because you uncomfortable with

it. 15

DR KONAR There are meetings taking place.

CHAIRMAN Yes.

DR KONAR They are putting their logo on to banners.

CHAIRMAN The fact that it’s happening in every other

business in South Africa doesn’t make it 20

right.

DR KONAR It doesn’t make it right.

CHAIRMAN That’s your case isn’t it?

DR KONAR That’s our case.

218

CHAIRMAN But he might have a very good explanation

for it.

DR KONAR Which we, which you need to listen to and

apply your mind.

CHAIRMAN Sorry, can I make a copy of this? 5

MS EDMONDS I’m going to ask then that the matter be,

because I’m not sure that I’m understanding

this evidence or indeed my client’s response

to it. And I don’t want to put Mr Abel in a

difficulty by reason of my failure to 10

properly understand my instructions. So I

don’t want to continue cross examination in

circumstances in which I am probably not

properly understanding my instructions. I

certainly don’t want to compromise Mr Abel. 15

CHAIRMAN Mr Pretorius, what is the complaint here?

Let me just understand the complaint.

MR PRETORIUS Precisely ---

CHAIRMAN ... (inaudible) ... in our society and

people really ... (inaudible) ... normal. 20

MR PRETORIUS Yes, precisely ---

CHAIRMAN If my son, and we see this at the Bar and

the side Bar and ... (inaudible) ... not

right.

219

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN Unless you deal with it. Now what is the

real complaint?

MR PRETORIUS The complaint here is that Mr Abel ---

MS EDMONDS Mike Abel. 5

MR PRETORIUS Mike Abel, Mr Mike Abel as the CEO of

INSETA.

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Had business dealings with companies in

which he knew his son had a direct interest 10

or indirect interest in either as a service

provider or as being in business with him.

Did not disclose it and did not remove

himself from the process. Because the whole

basis --- 15

CHAIRMAN Let’s tell you my difficulty.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN My difficulty is if today he says to me

well, what’s wrong with that? In other

words he still doesn’t appreciate that 20

you’ve got to make disclosure then I have

serious problems. Then I might say to you

why do you want to lead more evidence?

Shouldn’t I just decide it on that basis?

220

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN Because at the end it’s a valued judgement.

My valued judgement might not meet the

current South African standard but that’s

the risk your client must take. 5

MR PRETORIUS Well in this case ---

CHAIRMAN My valued judgement is that it just can't be

right.

MR PRETORIUS Your valued judgement ---

CHAIRMAN But somebody else might say no, it happens 10

every day at Anglo and De Beers and they’ve

been doing it for the last 90 years.

MR PRETORIUS They don’t have the PFMA and the treasury

regulations binding on them. I mean that’s

--- 15

CHAIRMAN But that you going to argue.

MR PRETORIUS That we going to argue.

CHAIRMAN Because I’ve got a few questions on that.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN After our first sitting. 20

MR PRETORIUS But I mean, that’s the basis. That’s the

basis.

CHAIRMAN But if he now says to me what’s wrong with

that, then I’m asking you must we still hear

221

evidence?

MR PRETORIUS Well if he asks what’s wrong then we’ll feel

that’s an admission of guilt on that basis.

But I understand the difficulty, we

certainly don’t want --- 5

CHAIRMAN No, no, I don’t want ---

MR PRETORIUS We don’t want to railroad Mr Abel into a

position that he feels he’s uncomfortable.

MS EDMONDS Well I’m more uncomfortable because I don’t

think that I’m properly understanding my 10

instructions.

MR PRETORIUS The difficulty we have, Dr Konar when you

back from London?

DR KONAR Next week Sir.

CHAIRMAN No, we’ll stand down for an hour. Ms 15

Edmonds will you be ready in an hours time?

MS EDMONDS I may be ready in an hours time. I’d

hesitate to guarantee that I will.

CHAIRMAN But let’s just stand down.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Well let’s take lunch now until 20

quarter past 1, an hour?

CHAIRMAN That’s fine. Can I ask you, can you

indicate to us by 1 o' clock where you think

you are?

222

MS EDMONDS Certainly.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN I’ll be here.

HEARING ADJOURNS FOR SHORT BREAK

HEARING RESUMES 5

CHAIRMAN Thank you. You still under oath Sir.

MS EDMONDS Thank you.

CHAIRMAN Ms Edmonds?

MS EDMONDS Dr Konar, just, we were dealing with the two

tenders and the allegations of conflict of 10

interest and non disclosure of interest

which on the employer’s version goes to

indicate nepotism and unfair benefits

accruing to Mr Greg Abel. Now the Wealth

Management Program to which the employer 15

refers in 4.1.3, Mr Abel will testify that

he, it is correct that CCI won the tender.

It’s correct that Greg Abel has a

partnership with CCI, or does have one and

did have one at the time for the purposes of 20

this, by way of FIN-IQ of which he is the

sole member and that CCI is owned 51 %,

sorry, FIN-IQ, I’m going to have to have a

look ---

223

DR KONAR FIN-IQ.

MS EDMONDS Owns 51 % of CCI and 49 % is owned by

ADVTECH. Am I right?

DR KONAR Agreed.

MS EDMONDS Alright. And we accept all of that. What 5

Mr Abel will testify and which I’m putting

to you is that at the time of the granting

of the wealth management tender he was

unaware of his sons relationship with CCI

and therefore was not in a position to 10

disclose that relationship. He did not sit

in a tender committee but a disclosure of

the relationship was indeed made by the

company itself to that committee. So it is

not the case that the tender committee, the 15

evaluation committee was unaware of the

relationship. And I have, do you want to

comment on that? Are you unaware, is it

your version that CCI itself failed to make

disclosure? 20

DR KONAR No Chair. I hear what attorney Ruth Edmonds

is stating. So let Mr Abel do so when he’s

given the opportunity.

MS EDMONDS No, no, no. Do you deny that CCI made such

224

disclosure?

DR KONAR I do not deny that Chair.

MS EDMONDS Chair, I don’t know then whether you need to

see this document.

CHAIRMAN It’s not, is it an issue? 5

MR PRETORIUS No it’s not an issue.

MS EDMONDS So it’s not an issue that the evaluations

committee at the time that it made the

evaluation and awarded the tender was fully

aware of the relationship between Greg Abel, 10

CCI ---

MR PRETORIUS No. What it is, there was a disclosure made

that there’s such a relationship.

MS EDMONDS Yes.

MR PRETORIUS I’m not sure they were fully aware of the 15

circumstances.

MS EDMONDS Well, I don’t know how much further do you

want to take it than that. But that’s fine.

So you don’t need to see that document?

CHAIRMAN You conceding that it was --- 20

MR PRETORIUS I concede and I think it’s in the bundles.

MS EDMONDS No.

MR PRETORIUS It’s not?

CHAIRMAN You want to just hand it up in the bundle?

225

MS EDMONDS I think it will probably be easier.

CHAIRMAN Yes, fine.

MS EDMONDS And it is highlighted there for, so you

accept that Mr Abel will testify that he was

unaware of the relationship and as such 5

could not make such disclosure?

DR KONAR Chair, attorney Ruth Edmonds, he can say

these things and I’m not going to object to

it. There’s no reason for me to do so.

MS EDMONDS Well you not going to deny it. You can't 10

deny it. You don’t have knowledge ---

DR KONAR I can't read his mind and therefore I cannot

say whether he knew about it or he didn’t.

That’s his assertion.

MS EDMONDS Dr Konar --- 15

DR KONAR So I’m not passing judgement.

MS EDMONDS I’m not asking you to pass judgement. I’m

asking if you have any knowledge to the

contrary?

DR KONAR I do not have. 20

MS EDMONDS What he will also say is that at the point

of signing off of the tender he did become

aware courtesy of the document, of his sons

involvement for the first time and he does

226

accept in retrospect that he probably ought

to have made disclosure at that point, that

he was insufficiently familiar with the PFMA

to appreciate that that might have been his

obligation and that he understood that the 5

disclosure which had been made at the

evaluation committee stage was sufficient.

DR KONAR So be it from Mr Abel’s point of view. But

the counter to that Chair is that the

organisation had signed off its annual 10

report for the three financial years. And

the article that appears in the pack says

that they’ve had a hat trick. So it states

quite clearly that you have complied with

the Public Finance Management Act. So from 15

a corporate governance point of view, to now

say that you were unaware of the

implications of the PFMA when you are

intimately involved, and you have put in

place checks and balances with 20

PriceWaterhouseCoopers and Deloittes sounds

a bit hollow to me Chair.

MS EDMONDS But you’re not judging. Right, the Skills

Development Facilitators Training Tender of

227

which he’s also accused of not disclosing

his sons interest and his relationship, I

put to you, and Mr Abel will testify that

there was nothing for him to disclose at the

time because there was no relationship 5

between Mr Greg Abel and the company awarded

the tender at the time that the tender was

granted.

DR KONAR If Mr Abel says so Chair, so be it.

MS EDMONDS Do you have any information to the contrary? 10

DR KONAR Chair, there was extensive contact that’s

taken place, including the sharing of

confidential information that has

subsequently arisen pointing to a

relationship as well as breaching the 15

policies of INSETA from a confidentiality

point of view.

MS EDMONDS Please Dr Konar, you’ve just said absolutely

nothing. Do you have any information to

contradict what I have just told you about 20

what Mr Abel says, that there was no

relationship between the company that was

awarded the tender and his son in the Skills

Development Facilitators Training tender?

228

Do you have any information? And there’s

nothing confidential. You’re sitting in a

disciplinary enquiry where my client’s job

is at stake. If you’ve got information,

disclose it to this enquiry. 5

DR KONAR Chair, it’s under complaint number 1. The

contracts that took place as far as Skills

Development Training is concerned. Shaun

Schwanzer is the managing director. He

sends those emails. We canvassed that on 10

Tuesday Chair.

MS EDMONDS Let me ---

CHAIRMAN Is that email at page 60?

DR KONAR We shared the information with him. The

contract was awarded Chair to the ADVTECH 15

group and Shaun Schwanzer in the email that

we have shared with you Chair, has indicated

quite clearly that he would like to see the

SDF awarded to Mr Abel and Mr Abel is alive

to the issue on the 29th of March 2006. But 20

the point that we’ve made is that he became

alive to the issue but he only sought the

conflict of interest opinion from Robert

Driman of Deneys Reitz in 2007.

229

MS EDMONDS The fact is Dr Konar, and I say it now for

the third time, it was not awarded to any

company in which Mr Abel’s son had an

interest so therefore there was nothing for

Mr Abel to declare. 5

DR KONAR At that point in time yes, but subsequently

with the award and the contracts and the

making of confidential information, and

advantaging ADVTECH and not the other

service providers, it’s a wholly conflicted 10

situation. It’s a wholly unhealthy

situation that any individual given the

facts that are in front of us would

conclude.

MS EDMONDS And the same thing Dr Konar applies in 15

regard to the allegations contained in

4.1.4. IMFUNDO didn’t get the contract.

CCI did and therefore once again there was

no relationship that Mr Abel’s son had in

regard to the awarding of the contract and 20

therefore there was nothing for Mr Abel to

disclose.

MR PRETORIUS Mr Chairman, if CCI got the contract, FIN-IQ

had a 50 % in CCI and Mr Abel’s son is the

230

sole member.

MS EDMONDS Is that the charge? Is that the allegation?

I’m dealing with the allegations here.

MR PRETORIUS Well, allegations that IMFUNDO was unfairly

advantaged. 5

MS EDMONDS Well would you explain how IMFUNDO was

unfairly advantaged if IMFUNDO was not the

recipient of the tender?

MR PRETORIUS Chairman I’ve made a point again ---

MS EDMONDS Can I ask the witness to answer the 10

question.

MR PRETORIUS No, the objection was that IMFUNDO didn’t

get the contract, CCI did. And all I said

is that in CCI, IMFUNDO has got 51 %

interest. That’s all. So the purpose of 15

the question is IMFUNDO had nothing to do

with it, it’s factually wrong.

CHAIRMAN Dr Konar your ---

MS EDMONDS The purpose of the question is what is,

sorry Mr Chairperson. 20

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MS EDMONDS 4.1.4, to your knowledge your son was

awarded the Skills Development Facilitators

Training Contract for KwaZulu Natal as a

231

subcontractor to IMFUNDO. He was not

awarded such contract. That is what I’m

putting to you. He was not the

subcontractor to IMFUNDO.

DR KONAR That is your point of view. Let it be so 5

Chair.

MS EDMONDS It’s not my point of view and it’s not the

Chairperson’s point of view. It is what

evidence will be led by Mr Mike Abel and if

necessary by Mr Greg Abel. 10

DR KONAR Fine. If that is so, so be it Chair.

MS EDMONDS You’re not in a position to contradict that?

DR KONAR I’m not. We’ve made our case Chair and our

case is, in my view, crystal clear as far as

conflicts are concerned. 15

MS EDMONDS Right, complaint number 2, Mr Gool. Sorry,

Professor Sulaiman Gool. The allegation is

that Mr Abel unfairly, contrary to sound and

ethical business practice and contrary to

INSETA’s policies awarded the Insurance 20

Sector SETA Skills Plan research project to

Professor Sulaiman Gool of the University of

the Western Cape notwithstanding the fact

that, and we’ll deal with that. Are you

232

saying that Mr Abel himself awarded the

contract?

DR KONAR Chair we spent time on Tuesday again ---

MS EDMONDS I am cross examining you. I am entitled to

ask you these questions. Please do not keep 5

repeating that you dealt with it on Tuesday.

Just answer my questions please.

DR KONAR Can I ask your indulgence Chair for attorney

Ruth Edmonds to restrain herself.

MS EDMONDS Chairperson, please ask him to answer my 10

questions.

MR PRETORIUS Chairman with respect, he is answering the

question. He started as he said on Tuesday

and he was interrupted. The cross

examination started with Ms Edmonds saying 15

that we will canvass things that he said

because she wasn’t acting for Mr Abel on

Tuesday.

DR KONAR The answer very crisply Chair is Mr Abel

deliberately interfered in the process. 20

MS EDMONDS Now if you could from now on simply answer

the questions that I ask please Dr Konar.

Would you do that please? Then we could

move along a lot quicker. Now you saying he

233

deliberately interfered with the process.

That’s not the charge against him. But now

please, explain to us in what way he

deliberately interfered.

DR KONAR Chair, the SSP was advertised. There were 5

three bidders and the panel decided that the

scoring of Regenesys was not high enough.

So the committee decided to re-advertise the

process and ---

MS EDMONDS Stop there for a minute. Was Mr Abel on 10

that panel? That evaluation panel.

DR KONAR Mr Abel was not on the evaluation panel.

MS EDMONDS Continue please.

DR KONAR Mr Abel is the CEO of the organisation and

every document in the organisation goes to 15

Mr Abel for signature.

MS EDMONDS Did Mr Abel interfere with that evaluation

process?

DR KONAR I do not have any evidence that he

interfered with the evaluation process. 20

MS EDMONDS Thank you. Let’s continue please.

DR KONAR Chair, the evaluation panel comprised a

number of different members including Ms

Steenekamp and they went forward and

234

followed a process by issuing a request for

bid on the 22nd of July and that closed on

the 24th of August and two proposals were

received. One from Research Focus and the

other one from GLab. And both organisations 5

demonstrated extensive experience as is

indicated on page 74 of our submission. The

submission from GLab was similar to an

earlier submission and the evaluation panel

considered the matter. They scored it and 10

the outcome of the scoring was that GLab

should be awarded the contract. And if one

looks at page 75 Chair, the decisions taken

by the committee, 11.7, in the decision

panel of the evaluation and recommendation 15

compiled by the IPO, neither the corporate

service manager nor the chief executive have

completed nor signed off the decision. So

they didn’t sign off the decision so he’s

alive to the issue. Then Chair --- 20

MS EDMONDS Did he sit on that panel?

DR KONAR Chair, I’ve answered that already. The

answer is no.

MS EDMONDS You have not. I have only asked you that

235

question now. This is a second evaluation

panel. Did he sit on that panel?

DR KONAR He did not sit on that panel.

MS EDMONDS Thank you. Continue please.

DR KONAR Chair, on the 28th of September Mr Adie 5

Gerber of PWC sent an email to Mr Abel in

relation to the matter of the SSP and

contacting, the IPO contacted 11 SETAs

Chair. And the understanding that they had

received is that the SSPs were updated 10

internally accept for one of the SETAs which

was the wholesale and retail SETA that had

appointed a service provider to do so.

MS EDMONDS Stop there please. The INSETA had

previously appointed a service provider to 15

do so, had it not?

DR KONAR Agreed.

MS EDMONDS Continue please.

DR KONAR Then Mr Gerber Chair, said based on the

above we can either follow the approach of 20

updating the SSP internally or use an

external service provider. Given current

resource challenges the internal option

would not be feasible for the short term.

236

That we have already issued the RFB, the

request for bids, twice. We could first

attempt to negotiate the current bidder that

was selected by the evaluation team. The

challenges on price only which would leave 5

room for discussion and negotiation.

MS EDMONDS Yes?

DR KONAR Then Chair, that failed ---

MS EDMONDS What did Mr Abel do there to interfere?

DR KONAR Not at that stage Chair. 10

MS EDMONDS So thus far we’ve got no interference with

Mr Abel?

DR KONAR Agreed.

MS EDMONDS Continue please.

DR KONAR On the 28th of September Chair, Mr Gerber 15

responded to Mr Abel and Ms Steenekamp. On

the 28th of September Mr Abel addressed the

following email to Mr Gerber and Ms

Steenekamp copying Mr Nkosi on the subject,

and it says, “Dear Colleagues, very 20

interesting finding as my discussion with

other SETA CEOs confirmed in the light of

the evidence and prevailing internal HR

constraints, I want the project done by

237

University researches.” He’s indicated

earlier that he will not be involved in any

of these processes. But that can be

contradicted because at the steering panel,

steering committee meetings Chair, he has 5

indicated that everything will go via his

office and we could make that minute

available to yourself. So here Chair, on

the 28th of September, what Mr Abel is doing,

he says he wants the project, he wants the 10

project done by University researchers.

Again my information ---

MS EDMONDS What’s offensive about that?

DR KONAR You are restricting the completion of this

particular sector skills plan. 15

MS EDMONDS There’ve already been two public processes

which were both unsuccessful.

DR KONAR It was unsuccessful for reasons that were

decided internally. Mr Abel did not sign

off the second recommendation and his view 20

Chair was that the price was too high and

that there were white women that were

involved in the process.

MS EDMONDS What’s offensive about that?

238

DR KONAR Chair, you have a process, you come to a

conclusion. Either you bring it to a close

or you advance very good reasons why it

shouldn’t be. So you’ve had this process

that was performed twice. Suddenly there’s 5

an intervention that the SETAs are doing

something differently. So I want to do what

the SETAs are doing. So all the expense

Chair of advertising the bids, having the

meetings, sitting and considering this, that 10

Chair in terms of the Public Finance

Management Act is considered to be fruitless

and wasteful. Because you’re not continuing

with that process. You are saying to

service providers, and I do this on a 15

regular basis Chair, complete this tender,

come to a briefing, submit your proposal and

that Chair on average costs R100 000 in

opportunity costs.

MS EDMONDS Can we please --- 20

DR KONAR So you are putting people to these tasks and

here Mr Abel comes, doesn’t sign that, he

intervenes, he wants the University. Now

what evidence is there that he has adduced

239

that the University has the best people, the

most qualified people to complete this

particular exercise? And as subsequently

revealed his approaches to the Nelson

Mandela University, the University of Cape 5

Town, they didn’t respond. And the

University of the Western Cape, we’ve

indicated that there are certain issues from

a logic point of view that didn’t make

sense. The letter from ABSA which was dated 10

the 3rd and documentation went out on the 4th.

We’ve referred to the proposal from the

University of Western Cape being dated

September when the proposal went out in

October. So there are inconsistencies. But 15

here Mr Abel says he wants the proposal done

by University researchers. So we find that

unusual that from Public Finance Management,

from a procurement point of view, that you

make the appointment of the most able 20

individuals to carry out this study. Why

didn’t Mr Abel Chair, if this is the

contention that has been raised, why didn’t

Mr Abel do it internally? Why didn’t he

240

update the three previous surveys that had

been completed by Research Focus? Why does

he want University researchers and nobody

else to do this now?

MS EDMONDS You finished? 5

DR KONAR Not completely.

MS EDMONDS Well carry on then please. Continue if

you’ve got more to say.

DR KONAR Chair he wants, Mr Abel wants the project

done by the University researchers. Again 10

my information is that the SSPs and update

and analysis, in both these areas Chair, you

can give authoritative direction. In the

2008 year it will be an internal project as

the majority of --- 15

MS EDMONDS Are you reading from a document?

DR KONAR I’m reading from page 76.

MS EDMONDS The same document that you read from on

Tuesday?

DR KONAR I did not read this on Tuesday Chair. 20

MS EDMONDS Alright, carry on.

DR KONAR Phakama in terms of SCM and my mandate, this

is page 76. This is Mr Abel’s mandate.

Please do the paperwork. No advert and

241

collaboration with Shirley and Adie and

approach the Universities where we have made

ISOE grants and obtained quotes from them to

undertake the assignment. Speed is of the

essence. The Nelson Mandela University, the 5

University of the Western Cape, the

University of Cape Town. Also please obtain

a copy of the SSP, of mining SETA as a

sample for the successful institution as

their SSP scored the highest points in the 10

scrutiny undertaken by the president’s

office. So Chair ---

MS EDMONDS What’s offensive about that so far please?

In what way is the charge that he unfairly,

contrary to sound and ethical business 15

practices and contrary to INSETA’s policies

awarded the Insurance Sector Skills Plan

research project to Professor Sulaiman Gool,

and he didn’t award it to Sulaiman Gool of

the University of Western Cape. What 20

indicates that he conducted himself

improperly in that regard?

DR KONAR Chair, if you’ll allow me a moment ---

MS EDMONDS You’ve had plenty of time but please take

242

some more.

DR KONAR Chair, I’m offended by these biting

comments. They totally trivial, they

unnecessary and they not going to upset me.

CHAIRMAN I just want to understand your case. You 5

say you go through a whole process, it’s

very expensive and then you scrap it for a

new one. I understand that. Is there any -

--

DR KONAR Chair, what we are saying to you, this is 10

the Public Finance Management Act.

CHAIRMAN Yes.

DR KONAR And there is a supply chain management

document that INSETA follows. And Chair ---

CHAIRMAN And you saying there was a deviation from 15

it?

DR KONAR Absolutely. Chair, the process is flawed,

fatally flawed.

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MS EDMONDS Sorry, may I just interrupt you there. 20

Chair, that is not the charge that I’m

dealing with. The charge does not say that

there was a contravention of the supply

chain management. Where does it say that in

243

this charge?

DR KONAR Chair the outcome ---

MR PRETORIUS INSETA policies.

DR KONAR Outcome, it’s a contravention ---

MR PRETORIUS Contravention of INSETA policies. 5

DR KONAR Contravention of an INSETA policy.

MS EDMONDS Where is the contravention?

DR KONAR Chair, I’m coming to the point that after

two bidding processes had been ---

CHAIRMAN Yes I understand that. Then it gets 10

geticent ---

DR KONAR Geticent.

CHAIRMAN And he gives an instruction ... (inaudible)

...

DR KONAR Intervention. 15

MS EDMONDS I want to know where the contravention is

please. At which point has there been a

contravention?

DR KONAR Very simply put Chair ---

CHAIRMAN Can I suggest that can be argued? 20

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

DR KONAR Very simply, the accounting officer

forwarded a ---

CHAIRMAN Dr Konar, you don’t have to argue the case.

244

You put the facts as you see them and Mr

Pretorius can argue them.

DR KONAR Yes. But to help you Mr Chair, the general

response, section 38 of the PFMA ---

CHAIRMAN I must say the more I hear the less ... 5

(inaudible) ... because I go on the

documents. I mean I’m just saying

generally.

DR KONAR Sure. I just need to complete this point.

CHAIRMAN I’ve had an opportunity of looking at all 10

the documents.

DR KONAR The accounting officer for a department

trading entity or constitutional

institutions must ensure that the department

trading entity, your constitutional 15

institution has and maintains sub 3, an

appropriate procurement and provision system

which is fair, equitable, transparent,

competitive and cost effective. That’s been

completely broken in the intervention by Mr 20

Abel in the process.

CHAIRMAN And I also know quite a few of the Supreme

Court of Appeal judgements on tender

processes.

245

DR KONAR Transnet had a case.

CHAIRMAN Yes, Longborough and I know those types.

DR KONAR Yes.

CHAIRMAN That’s fine.

MS EDMONDS In which way is the tender process 5

interfered with?

DR KONAR Chair I’ve explained it.

CHAIRMAN He’s given me the facts. You don’t have to

argue. Mr Pretorius will argue his case.

MS EDMONDS And you are aware of the response by the 10

Department of Labour to the SSP that was

provided by the INSETA no doubt?

DR KONAR Chair, I’ve revealed documents that have

been made available to you.

MS EDMONDS Are you aware of the response by the 15

Department of Labour to the SSP that was

provided by the INSETA?

CHAIRMAN It’s either yes or no. Are you aware of the

response?

DR KONAR I havent seen, I’m unsighted on that because 20

as I’ve said to you, I’ve seen thousands of

documents.

CHAIRMAN So at this stage you can't say you aware of

it?

246

DR KONAR Absolutely.

CHAIRMAN Unless it’s shown to you.

DR KONAR Yes.

MS EDMONDS And if I tell you that the Department of

Labour found that there was a vast 5

improvement in the evaluation, would you be

in a position to contradict that?

DR KONAR So be it.

MS EDMONDS May I hand up this document. I’m afraid I

don’t have copies. I just got copies now. 10

CHAIRMAN Yes. Are there going to be more documents

handed up?

MS EDMONDS I think that’s probably it. And if there

was a vast improvement Dr Konar, that vast

improvement would have to be an improvement 15

over what had come before, would it not?

DR KONAR Logically that would be the case.

MS EDMONDS And what had come before had been produced

by whom?

DR KONAR By Research Focus Chair. 20

MS EDMONDS Which was one of the tenders which was not

accepted. Is that correct?

DR KONAR Correct.

247

MS EDMONDS Thank you. 8Complaint 3, you’ve got no

complaint with Mr Abel accepting an

appointment onto the Council at UWC?

DR KONAR None whatsoever Chair.

MS EDMONDS Your sole complaint it appears is that his 5

diary does not demonstrate that each and

every time that he went down to the Western

Cape to the UWC Council he did not also

apparently coordinate that with other INSETA

meetings. 10

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MS EDMONDS That’s the extent of your complaint?

DR KONAR Agreed Chair.

MS EDMONDS And not that I should take this any further,

Mr Abel will say to you his diary is in no 15

way a complete reflection of every single

thing he does every day.

DR KONAR So be it.

MS EDMONDS Complaint 4. You authorised payments to

Daries and Nu-Era contrary to INSETA’s 20

policies and the provisions of the PFMA.

Nu-Era contrary to the policies of INSETA,

conducted training and thereafter applied

8 Tape 2 – Side 2 – 29 May 2009

248

for, and was paid bursary funding. This was

done on the basis of a promise which you

made to Mr Daries. You are aware that the

policy which is operable here is, and I’m

going to quote from the document with which, 5

well a quote that my client provided me,

“Council approval granted on the

understanding that management will role out

the project as needed and only revert to

Council if the final approval amount 10

increases during the lifecycle of the

project.” You aware of that policy.

DR KONAR I accept that.

MS EDMONDS In regard to all projects?

DR KONAR I accept that. 15

MS EDMONDS Not limited to voucher and bursary project

but all projects.

DR KONAR If it is stated as such and the approval’s

been granted, I accept that Chair.

MS EDMONDS Yes. Now from what I can understand and 20

what Mr Abel can understand, your

difficulties in regard to charge, to

complaint 4, sorry, not regarding number 4.

If you bear with me for one minute. You

249

aware aren’t you Dr Konar that PWC and

Deloitte administer and process all payments

for the INSETA?

DR KONAR I am aware of that, yes.

MS EDMONDS You accept that Mr Abel as CEO, is entitled 5

to rely on PWC and Deloitte in so

administering and processing payments?

DR KONAR I accept that.

MS EDMONDS And that no payments are possible or allowed

by PWC or Deloitte if they are in 10

contravention of regulations.

DR KONAR I accept that with one qualification Chair.

Very simply, the bursaries and the

administration of the bursaries and the

awards are handled at INSETA’s offices. And 15

the processing thereof is different to the

processing at the IPO office of tenders. So

there’s a material difference as far as that

is concerned Chair.

MS EDMONDS We talking about payments now, not tenders. 20

DR KONAR For a payment to be effected there needs to

be an approval. There needs to be a

process. So PWC and Deloitte can make the

payment. So if your process is to unduly

250

favour a particular service provider, PWC,

if they’ve got the supporting documentation,

they will accept that and make the payment.

MS EDMONDS Do you accept, which you have just accepted

that the CEO has a discretion to make such 5

payments?

DR KONAR Provided it complies with the policy and the

policy is quite clear on what has been

delegated and it needs to meet with the

INSETA policies as such. 10

MS EDMONDS If the monies have been allocated, in terms

of the policy which I’ve just read to you

and you agree, the CEO has the discretion to

make payments within the terms of that

tender. 15

DR KONAR If it is consistently applied, it has been

historically applied, there should be no

challenge to that.

MS EDMONDS Alright. Well lets deal with your

consistency. You say that the payments that 20

the CEO authorised in regard to Liedeman and

Daries were inconsistent? That Liedeman was

prejudiced and Daries was benefited in some

way.

251

DR KONAR Both service providers worked at the

industry. Both service providers submitted,

and the answer to that is yes.

MS EDMONDS Thank you. And you saying that they both

operated in regard to the INSETA and the 5

training provided for the INSETA in exactly

the same way?

DR KONAR No, I’m not saying that Chair.

MS EDMONDS We talking about consistency here.

DR KONAR Consistency and application, consistency in 10

treatment. So the type of training, the

level of training, the unit standards that

are applied can be very different. But the

protocol that has applied as far as the

awards is concerned and the payments needs 15

to meet with the PFMA and INSETA’s policies.

MS EDMONDS Dr Konar, please tell me that you

investigated the way in which Daries and the

way in which Liedeman operated, vis-à-vis,

the INSETA. Please tell me that you did 20

investigate that.

DR KONAR Chair we reviewed the matters relating to

Colin Daries. Leon Liedeman had long been

removed and there were letters from Mr Abel

252

indicating that he was not going to be paid

for the services that had been rendered and

PriceWaterhouseCoopers had conducted that

forensic investigation.

MS EDMONDS Alright. All of which is fascinating. The 5

most fascinating is the fact that Mr

Liedeman was removed. Why was he removed?

DR KONAR Mr Liedeman was removed as a service

provider because there were issues with the

INSETA management and he submitted a number 10

of tenders and he made certain claims which

were contrary to the INSETA policy.

MS EDMONDS Which were proved not to be valid claims.

Am I correct?

DR KONAR I didn’t do the forensic investigation. 15

MS EDMONDS The forensic investigation revealed that he

had submitted claims that he was not

entitled to submit.

DR KONAR PriceWaterhouseCoopers did it. Yes.

MS EDMONDS Thank you. Did any forensic investigation 20

indicate that Mr Colin Daries had submitted

claims that he was not entitled to submit?

DR KONAR Chair, the process, the ---

MS EDMONDS Can you answer the question.

253

DR KONAR Yes.

MS EDMONDS Yes.

DR KONAR The issue here, and it’s well spelt out in

the emails from Brian Pritchard as well as

from Colin Daries, that they had bypassed 5

the system by taking note of what funds were

available. So they didn’t follow the

bursary policy that was in place. They had

a relationship with Mr Abel. He had made

certain commitments to them and his 10

friendship as was evidenced by the number of

meetings and emails had been received by

Sharon Snell, so Mr Abel did not apply the

policy consistently.

MS EDMONDS Ok, can we have an answer to the question 15

please? Is there any forensic investigation

indicating that Mr Daries submitted improper

claims to the INSETA?

DR KONAR We have not commenced that segment of the

assignment at this stage. 20

MS EDMONDS So there isn’t a forensic investigation

indicating that Mr Daries had submitted

improper claims to the INSETA?

DR KONAR We have not undertaken that.

254

MS EDMONDS So there isn’t.

DR KONAR There isn’t.

MS EDMONDS Now Mr Abel will testify that the difference

between the operations of Daries and

Liedeman is that Daries first checks with 5

PriceWaterhouseCoopers before he embarks

upon training and acknowledges that he

carries all the risk and that the INSETA is

entitled to refuse him payment. What

Liedeman did was that he went ahead with the 10

training without advising the INSETA so that

funds could be ring fenced for him and then

demanded payment after the training.

DR KONAR Let Mr Abel say so Chair.

MS EDMONDS Are you in a position to deny that that was 15

the case?

DR KONAR If Mr Abel says so, so be it Chair.

MS EDMONDS You not in a position to deny that?

DR KONAR I’m not in a position to deny that. I

havent spoken to PriceWaterhouseCoopers that 20

he had approached them on that basis. But

if they are examined in this forum Chair,

they would be able to confirm or deny that

under oath.

255

MS EDMONDS That’s correct. Bear with me a moment Mr

Chair. Complaint 5, we talking about the

change notes. Do you recall that?

DR KONAR I do Chair.

MS EDMONDS You aware Dr Konar no doubt that the 5

limitation to the CEO’s authority is in

regard to payments of R500 000?

DR KONAR Yes.

MS EDMONDS And as I understand it, you are complaining

in this charge that he exceeded his 10

authority by authorising payments in excess

of that amount.

DR KONAR What we are alleging Chair ---

CHAIRMAN So we on complaint 4, is it right?

MS EDMONDS 5. 15

DR KONAR 5.

CHAIRMAN 5, sorry. Ok, yes.

DR KONAR That the prior approval of Council before

disbursements and contracts taking place had

not been in place and these were attempted 20

to be regularised after the event.

MS EDMONDS And if I tell you that what in fact happened

here and what you have misunderstood Dr

Konar is simply a transfer of funds

256

internally from one part of a project to

another. It did not, it was not a payment

of R500 000. It did not require the

authority. The money had already been

approved, it was in the project and was 5

simply in accordance with SETA policy being

transferred from one part of the project to

another. From the part of the project which

did not need the funds to a part of the

project which did need the funds. And 10

therefore authority of Council was not

required.

DR KONAR Chair I disagree with that.

CHAIRMAN Virement, don’t they call it virement in the

--- 15

DR KONAR Virement. It’s called virement.

CHAIRMAN How do you spell that again?

DR KONAR V-i-r-e-m-e-n-t. In the government sector.

CHAIRMAN Yes.

DR KONAR Chair we have a situation here where we have 20

change note A that is dated July. The

approval for the expense was only presented

to the FINCO in September 2008 and the

Council.

257

MS EDMONDS Can you refer us to the actual document

please?

MR PRETORIUS It’s probably page 534. I don’t want to

help the witness but if it’s going to save

time. 5

MS EDMONDS No, no. I’m quite happy for you to do so.

DR KONAR Contract change note A Chair is on page 530.

This is dated Chair on page 531 on the 9th of

July 2008.

MS EDMONDS When it is signed by Mr Abel? 10

DR KONAR By Mr Abel on the 9th.

MS EDMONDS Yes?

DR KONAR And Chair, if one goes to page 534, 534 you

see that the finance, IT and administration

committee meeting is on Tuesday the 9th of 15

September 2008.

MS EDMONDS Yes?

DR KONAR And if one goes to page 536 Chair, under

item 5, the committee considered the project

motivation for the allocation of unspent 20

surplus funds in the amount of 4 821 and

approval for recommendation to Council. So

that is a project motivation Chair. And

thereafter if one goes to the meeting of the

258

Council Chair, which is on the 18th of

September, so it went from the FINCO, it

went to the Council.

CHAIRMAN 18th September is 539.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. 5

DR KONAR Page 539 Chair. But Mr Abel had signed the

contract change note on the 9th of July.

CHAIRMAN Where you reading?

DR KONAR I’m trying to identify Chair.

MR PRETORIUS Page 541. 10

DR KONAR Page 541 Chair. Discretionary grant funds,

motivation for unspent surplus funds,

Council considered the project motivation

for unspent surplus funds. Chair on page

541 --- 15

CHAIRMAN Yes.

DR KONAR That’s attached as Annexure 4 to the agenda.

The chief executive officer advised that the

motivation has been presented to the

finance, IT and admin committee. That was 20

in September, a week ago. And it had been

approved for recommendation for the Council

by the committee. Council approved the

project motivation in the amount of 4 821

259

Chair. So change note is signed July, and

the approvals, the work’s being performed.

The prior approval Chair that needed to be

procured was not procured. And that was

spent on three projects and contract note A 5

Chair, is for 1.6 million. And if you take

4 821 and divide it by three projects, you

have 1 607.

MS EDMONDS The money in regard to the change note Dr

Konar was approved in the meeting in May. 10

DR KONAR I’m unsighted as far as the minutes of that

meeting are concerned Chair. And that

needs, because it is above 500, that needs

the prior approval of the FINCO as well as

the Council. I havent seen --- 15

MS EDMONDS But it doesn’t Dr Konar. That’s just

precisely what I put to you at the beginning

of this aspect. It is a transfer. It is

not a payment. The money has already been

allocated. The CEO has the authority --- 20

DR KONAR I disagree with that interpretation Chair.

MS EDMONDS You disagree with the interpretation?

Alright, well we’ll argue that.

DR KONAR I disagree with the interpretation.

260

MS EDMONDS We’ll argue that.

DR KONAR This is an irregular transaction in the

sense that ---

MS EDMONDS I think let your counsel argue that.

DR KONAR In the sense, Chair we need to understand 5

the difference between an allocation and a

disbursement. So you can make the

allocation but you’ve got to have the

approval and this is an unauthorised

transaction at that point in time. But it 10

was regularised afterwards. Council

approved it so that they could put the books

in order after the event. That’s contract

change note A.

MS EDMONDS Right, let’s go on. We’ve dealt with the 15

allegations at complaint 6.

DR KONAR There’s also contract change note B Chair,

which has been extensively reported on and

the explanations that relate thereto is that

they had to be ratified subsequently because 20

the CEO didn’t have the authority in the

contract with IMFUNDO and therefore the

Council had to approve an amount of 4.8

million after the event. He didn’t have the

261

authority and it had to be ratified by the

Council. That’s change note B.

CHAIRMAN And this IMFUNDO is the same ---

DR KONAR Part of the ADVTECH group.

CHAIRMAN Entity in which his son has an interest 5

indirectly.

DR KONAR No, Ms Steenekamp’s son.

CHAIRMAN Ms Steenekamp’s son?

DR KONAR Yes.

CHAIRMAN Not his son. 10

DR KONAR And his son, he’s involved in a number of

projects that came through FIN-IQ to be

considered by the evaluation panel.

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MS EDMONDS Have a look at change note B then please. 15

CHAIRMAN Change note B, what page is that?

DR KONAR Change note B Chair is 614.

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MR PRETORIUS It’s 465 I think. Sorry no, that’s not it.

That’s the contract. 20

MS EDMONDS Can you find that for us please Dr Konar.

MR PRETORIUS It’s page 492. Sorry, it starts at 491, 492.

Contract change note number 2.

CHAIRMAN Yes, thank you.

262

MS EDMONDS And your difficulty with this one Dr Konar?

DR KONAR Chair, prior approval of Council was not to

hand as far as expending the resources and

having the contractual commitment and this

was raised by the IPO office on occasions 5

and Mr Abel was attending to the paperwork

and as Sharon Snell’s detailed analysis is

to hand Chair, it indicates quite clearly

that Mr Abel didn’t have the authority to

award these sums of money and this was not 10

during his tenure. And up until the date of

his suspension, had not been approved either

by the finance committee or by the Council.

MS EDMONDS Mr Abel will testify that he signed the

original contracts in the first place and 15

that he had the authority to transfer the

money because that is what he was doing.

Was simply transferring it. And that Ms

Snell, and that relates to the final charge,

didn’t know what she was talking about. 20

Miscalculated what was going on, didn’t know

what she was talking about and has an axe to

grind. Do you want to comment?

DR KONAR Chair, the assertions that attorney Ruth

263

Edmonds makes about what Mr Abel will

testify, careful reading of the documents

Chair will convince anyone that those

particular assertions are unconvincing.

They will not persuade anyone that it is 5

correct. And the minutes that are being

referred to were minutes of management and

they did not have the authority to expend

such significant resources which needs to be

presented from a budget business plan point 10

of view to the Council. So these are paper

trails that have been created, in my view,

to regularise an irregular process.

Authority wasn’t in place. Even the IPO

office has drawn attention to that and Mr 15

Abel was buying time by trying to develop a

plausible response and therefore I’m not

convinced by it. The fact that Ms Snell has

got gripes or whatever Chair, I’m not in a

position to respond to that particular 20

issue. Mr Abel can take it along. But I

believe in the analysis that we have

performed that this is an unauthorised

transaction and therefore it had to be

264

regularised by being ratified by the

Council. So with great respect, I do not

subscribe to Mr Abel’s assertions.

MS EDMONDS Dr Konar, what would Mr Abel have benefited

from this wonderfully elaborate 5

manipulations?

DR KONAR Very simply put Chair, we’ve got an

organisation that is boastful of its really

really ethical climate, it’s corporate

governance and it’s ... (inaudible) ... 10

audit reports. And we have indicated quite

clearly he’s made IMFUNDO, ADVTECH insiders

by associating with them, by sharing the ...

(inaudible) ... So if this gets identified

Chair, by the Auditor General, which it is 15

likely that they will by reviewing the

minutes, his reputation and he’s exceeded

his authority within the organisation. So

he’s trying to regularise things that have

... (inaudible) ... his diligent attention 20

to detail.

MS EDMONDS And that’s the reason? Because he boasted

that he’s got good corporate governance,

he’s now going to make absolutely sure that

265

he hasn’t got?

DR KONAR Chair, he will apply whatever he needs to do

to maintain this because he wants to

maintain this ---

CHAIRMAN Can I just understand, sorry to interrupt 5

you. If he had authority there must be a

document which says that this 2 million Rand

is okayed?

DR KONAR Agreed.

CHAIRMAN So where is that document? 10

DR KONAR We have put in front of you Chair, that

after the event, after the event Mr Abel

tried to regularise this. There’s nothing

sinister Chair as far as undertaking the

training, paying for the registration that 15

you need the prior approval, you need the

cash flows. Those things need to be

budgeted. That wasn’t done Chair.

MS EDMONDS Dr Konar I’m not sure whether you

misunderstanding me or I’m misunderstanding 20

you. It was all budgeted for. All that

there was, was a transfer of monies that

already existed from one part of the project

to the other. It didn’t need any authority

266

other than the CEO’s authority.

DR KONAR Well Chair, let’s agree to disagree because

our detailed analysis indicates quite

clearly that change note B was unauthorised

and therefore the amounts that had been 5

expended needed to be ratified by the

Council. Why would Council with long

serving members be persuaded to ratify an

expense if prior approval had been procured?

I’ve yet to see why. And this with the 10

dates Chair and the minutes, and September,

this, the payments that were delayed, the

contestation from the IPO office, they are

disagreeing. They are saying no, we are not

going to sign this off. Please take this to 15

FINCO. Mr Abel, Ms Steenekamp, we can't

sign this off. You think IMFUNDO, ADVTECH,

CCI, they’ve done wonderful jobs. Great.

But we are not going to pay because we don’t

have the approval. Now we’ve heard Chair, 20

from attorney Ruth Edmonds on behalf of Mr

Abel, what fabulous systems have been put in

place with Deloittes and

PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Now if that was the

267

case why would Mr Leon Ganswyk and Adie

Gerber push this back and say we can't sign

this off because we don’t have the approval.

And that is what we are saying. So he’s

trying to regularise an irregularity. 5

MS EDMONDS On that point Dr Konar, Dr Adie Gerber will

come and testify here that you misunderstand

the way in which the INSETA runs and you

misunderstand the authority that the CEO had

and that he indeed had the authority to sign 10

the change notes which he did.

DR KONAR So be it. He can be cross examined. He can

make these assertions and he can contradict

himself from what he said in the steering

committee minutes where he’s asking Mr Abel 15

to come forward with the authority and the

sign off sheets that are presented here from

a payments approval point of view. And he’s

saying no, I’m not going to allow this.

Please bring me the approval. I havent seen 20

that Chair and Mr Adie Gerber, he hasn’t

achieved a doctorate yet, so if attorney

Ruth Edmonds wants to confer him the title,

I’m not going to object, but he can be

268

examined and cross examined here and in this

forum and he can explain his about turn

Chair.

MS EDMONDS PWC prepares the sign off sheets Dr Konar?

DR KONAR They do Chair. 5

MS EDMONDS And in those circumstances, what about your

last bit of evidence?

DR KONAR Chair, PWC receives the invoices. They have

received these invoices. And when they

examined the invoices against the approvals 10

they did not have the approvals to make

these payments. So they said please, go to

the finance committee and the minutes are

attended, there’s no approval from the

finance committee and Mr Abel nor Ms 15

Steenekamp have the authority to make these

payments. Bring me the authority, show it

to me and then we will effect the payments.

CHAIRMAN And on your evidence the CEO must say no,

no, no, I can't make this, I don’t have the 20

authority.

DR KONAR I don’t have the, but he ---

CHAIRMAN He does it and then he seeks ratification.

DR KONAR Absolutely.

269

CHAIRMAN I understand your case.

DR KONAR He tries to rectify the irregular situation.

MS EDMONDS And he will deny that. He will state that

he has authority and there was no attempt to

rectification and that is a figment of your 5

imagination.

DR KONAR Chair I have a vivid imagination. But I

havent imagined ---

CHAIRMAN I’ll tell you where I’m lost. Normally

there’s a document which gives the, where do 10

I find his authority document?

DR KONAR There is a delegation of authority where ---

CHAIRMAN Yes, where do I find that?

DR KONAR We will make that available to you Chair.

Where the CEO has a limit of up to 500 000. 15

So there is an approvals manual. Anything

over and above that Chair needs to follow

due process from a budget, FINCO, Council

point of view. They need to approve it

before you go out and contract. 20

CHAIRMAN And if it was approved you said then you

didn’t need ratification?

DR KONAR Then you didn’t need ratification.

CHAIRMAN I understand your case.

270

DR KONAR So you’ve got Council of 12 people ---

CHAIRMAN I really understand that case. I want to

make progress. Thank you, yes. Please

continue.

MS EDMONDS And I’m not going to go over the issue of 5

transfer. You understand the difference

between a transfer and expenditure do you

not?

DR KONAR I’m a professor of accounting.

MS EDMONDS Do you understand the difference --- 10

DR KONAR Yes. The answer is yes.

MS EDMONDS Thank you. Right, perhaps we can deal with

the final charge, complaint 8. Can you

explain that charge to me Dr Konar?

DR KONAR Chair this is the FAIS project and it needed 15

approval and expenses that had been incurred

and invoices that were submitted to be paid.

And for a payment to occur Chair, the prior

approval needed to be in place.

CHAIRMAN How much is involved here? 20

DR KONAR 1.562 million Chair.

MS EDMONDS Dr Konar, what Mr Abel will say is that

there can never be an overspend on a project

because the gate keeping protocols

271

established by the INSETA will not allow for

such a thing. With Deloitte and PWC in

place there cannot be an overspend. What

there can be is that there might be

expenditures that are unbudgeted for because 5

of higher demand for training etc. Do you

accept that?

DR KONAR I accept that Chair.

MS EDMONDS And you accept that the FAIS project falls

under the bursary fund which funds Council 10

has approved?

DR KONAR I accept that Chair.

MS EDMONDS And the voucher project also falls under the

bursary fund which funds have also been

approved. 15

DR KONAR I accept that Chair.

MS EDMONDS So that if there was no unexpected demand in

one and an underutilisation of the balance

in the other an internal transfer can be

effected. 20

DR KONAR Chair I disagree with that. And if you go

to page 647 it’s contradicted. The IPO

represents ---

CHAIRMAN Page 6?

272

DR KONAR 647, 1.3.

MR PRETORIUS 647.

DR KONAR On the payment advice the IPO representative

signed off with the following comments.

These are the experts that have been 5

appointed at a humungous amount Chair. And

they saying it needs to go to the FINCO

Chair to approve and Mr Ganswyk says agree

above. Now what is happening here Chair is

that there is a misunderstanding with 10

accounting terminology. There’s a question

of allocation, there’s a question of budget

and there’s a question of disbursement. So

if the amount isn’t budgeted for by the

Council then Mr Abel cannot have the 15

authority Chair to go ahead and spend that

money. You need the prior approval to do

so.

MS EDMONDS But it was transferred from elsewhere. It

wasn’t spending the money. It’s not new 20

money.

DR KONAR Chair I’ve explained already the situation

of allocation and transfers. The ultimate

event, from a basic accounting point of

273

view, is a disbursement. So for you to

disburse money, and if you do not have the

prior approvals to do so, then you need to

get the approvals ---

CHAIRMAN I understand your evidence. You saying that 5

if one uses transfer to justify an

expenditure then you are undermining the

whole object of having delegation of

authority.

DR KONAR Delegation of authority. So you’ve got 10

particular silos where you park money. So

it’s not illegal for you to transfer from

one to the other. But you need the approval

and this exceeds the amount Chair that Mr

Abel has been authorised to spend. 15

CHAIRMAN So when he is using, you say he’s using the

pretext of a transfer to avoid his

obligation to seek authority. That’s what

you saying?

DR KONAR Chair --- 20

CHAIRMAN They saying no, no, no, all I’m doing is I’m

just transferring from one department to

another.

DR KONAR That’s what they saying. But their own

274

people Chair that they have appointed as

their experts are telling them on page 647,

you can't do this. Now why would Mr Adie

Gerber and Leon Ganswyk say you can't do

this and Mr Abel believes that you can do it 5

in 1.3? He says you don’t have the money in

this pot. So transferring it from one silo

to another doesn’t make good the process.

You don’t have the authority. You’ve

contracted, if you read this carefully 10

you’ll find that in October and November

communication starts getting exchanged. The

amounts are about 7 million and Mr Abel

decides from the graciousness of himself and

the funding of INSETA to pay just above 50 % 15

and to exclude white candidates as far as

payment is concerned. That’s clearly

articulated here Chair. It’s irregular.

MS EDMONDS You got anything further?

DR KONAR Chair, I’ve made my point. 20

MS EDMONDS Thank you. I’ve got no further questions

for Dr Konar.

MR PRETORIUS I’ve got no re-examination.

CHAIRMAN Thank you very much Dr Konar. You may be

275

excused.

MR PRETORIUS Thank you very much Dr Konar.

CHAIRMAN Mr Pretorius, you got three witnesses?

MR PRETORIUS We’ll assess over the weekend all three, but

they won't be long. We’ll call them Monday 5

morning.

CHAIRMAN Will you be in a position to continue on ---

MS EDMONDS Yes.

CHAIRMAN Can I ask you, can we sit Monday a bit

later? I’ve been required to attend court 10

on Tuesday morning in a matter where I’ve

been implicated for something.

MR PRETORIUS No problem with that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN Perhaps continue Tuesday 2 o' clock.

MR PRETORIUS No problem. 15

HEARING ADJOURNS

276

VOLUME III

DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY HELD IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

INSETA EMPLOYER 5

and

MICHAEL SEBASTIAN ABEL 1ST

EMPLOYEE

SHIRLEY ANNE STEENEKAMP 2ND EMPLOYEE

10

B E F O R E: ADVOCATE N CASSIM – CHAIRMAN

PRESENT: MR GERRIT PRETORIUS – FOR EMPLOYER

MR BRIAN PATTERSON – FOR EMPLOYER 15

MS RUTH EDMONDS – FOR 1st AND 2ND EMPLOYEE

Date: 1 June 2009

CHAIRMAN 9Good morning. Your full names for the 20

record please?

MS SNELL Sharon Snell.

CHAIRMAN S-h-a-r-o-n.

9 Tape 1 – Side 1 – 1 June 2009

277

MS SNELL S-n-e-l-l.

MS EDMONDS Nazeer, can we wait for Shirley.

CHAIRMAN Sorry. Ms Snell, do you have any objections

in taking the oath?

MS SNELL No. 5

CHAIRMAN Do you swear the evidence you’ll give will

be the truth, nothing but the truth, so help

me God?

MS SNELL So help me God.

CHAIRMAN Thank you. 10

MR PRETORIUS Ms Snell where do you work?

MS SNELL I work at INSETA. I’m currently the acting

chief executive officer. But my original

position is chief operations.

MR PRETORIUS And when were you appointed at INSETA? 15

MS SNELL As of the 1st of November 2007.

MR PRETORIUS Now I’m going to show you a lever arch file,

this is file 2, Mike Abel. I want you to

turn to page 465. This is a document, it

goes from page 465 to page 486. Is that 20

correct? Which is the original document.

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. What is this document?

MS SNELL This is the document signed with IMFUNDO in

278

2007 relating to the appointment as a

service provider to deliver the FAIS

project.

MR PRETORIUS We see on page 477 that it was signed by, on

behalf of IMFUNDO on the 10th of October 2007 5

and on behalf of INSETA on the 17th of

October 2007. Is that correct?

MS SNELL That’s correct.

MR PRETORIUS Now Annexure A on page 478 sets out some

deliverables. Is that correct? 10

MS SNELL That’s correct.

MR PRETORIUS Annexure B on page 482 is the payment

schedule.

MS SNELL That’s correct.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Could you just explain, because this is 15

a new English, it’s got various descriptions

on the left hand side, then the dates and

the prices. I’m more interested in

explaining what’s on the left hand side.

The assessment tool development, what does 20

that refer to on page 482?

MS SNELL In simple English it would be the

development of the examination paper for the

students. Assessment is an examination.

279

MR PRETORIUS Alright. Then the curriculum design, what

was that?

MS SNELL Well part of the delivery of the assessments

would also be a curriculum that has been

especially created to provide the learners 5

who are doing the RPL assessment with the

learning material for the, the curriculum

and learning material for the assessments so

that they could either go to a training

provider and be trained on that or they 10

could do it by themselves.

MR PRETORIUS Alright. And you refer to RPL, that’s not

the cricket. What does RPL ---

MS SNELL Ok, RPL is recognition of prior learning.

In FAIS assessments, when INSETA decided to 15

do national assessments, these were mainly

designed around RPL assessments. That’s

recognising the prior learning of the people

in the industry and the assessment tools

were designed around that. So it was a very 20

quick fix type of assessment designed on

multiple choice questions taking into

account that the learners had the necessary

experience and it was simply an RPL type of

280

examination.

MR PRETORIUS And then there’s exam logistics, per venue.

MS SNELL Yes. Exam logistics would involve the

logistics for the exams. There were a

number of venues around the country that, 5

where the learners could go out and do the

exams. They were to be held mostly on a

Saturday. And that would be the costings

for the venues, mostly schools. And also to

have the invigilators involved in doing the 10

invigilation for the exams.

MR PRETORIUS And the RPL tool development, what does that

refer to?

MS SNELL That would be what I’ve just mentioned. A

special tool to assess learners who had a 15

prior experience and qualifications but

didn’t have the necessary credits towards

FAIS. So recognising that in RPL too.

MR PRETORIUS And then learning material development?

MS SNELL That’s very much linked with the curriculum 20

design because you first design the

curriculum and then you design the learning

material. So the project was initiated to

take everything into account from the

281

learning material design, the curriculum

design, the assessments and also the

provision of the necessary venues where the

exams will be held.

MR PRETORIUS And then the service provider is ADVTECH 5

Resourcing (Pty) Ltd trading as IMFUNDO, is

that correct?

MS SNELL That’s correct.

MR PRETORIUS Then on page 487 to 490 is a document. It

says contract change note. What is that? 10

MS SNELL Ok, these are the contract change notes

there were signed in 2008. When the initial

IMFUNDO agreement had been put in place it

was to deliver assessments right up until

the last assessment which would have been 15

November 2009. So although the detail

wasn’t provided in the main contract because

of the funding arrangements, each year

there’s, INSETA would go to INSETA Council

and obtain the funding and thereafter a 20

change note would be signed dealing with,

obviously price escalations and the

deliverables at that particular time.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

282

MS SNELL So this is just a continuation of the

contract of the non deliverables.

MR PRETORIUS If you go to 482 you will see there Annexure

B, it has for the first three deliverables,

2007 only. So it was necessary for 2008 and 5

2009 to change that. And then for, there’s

TBD. Is that to be ---

MS SNELL Determined.

MR PRETORIUS Determined.

MS SNELL Yes. 10

MR PRETORIUS And that is what the change note was about.

Is that correct?

MS SNELL That’s correct.

MR PRETORIUS And on page 490, that then is the 2008

changes to the deliverables. Is that 15

correct?

MS SNELL Yes, that’s correct.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Then the document at page 491 to 493,

what’s that?

MS SNELL This is a second contract change note that 20

was signed.

MR PRETORIUS You see that on 492 it was signed on the 23rd

of October by IMFUNDO and on the 5th of

November 2008 by Mr Abel on behalf of

283

INSETA. Is that correct?

MS SNELL That’s correct.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then on page 493 we see Annexure B

is the changes to the assessment tool

development and exam logistics. Correct? 5

MS SNELL Yes, that’s correct. Because there were two

sets of assessments that had been delivered

in 2008. One was the June assessment and

the second one was the November assessment.

And this was specifically dealing with the 10

November assessment.

MR PRETORIUS Then if you could please turn to page 528.

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS There is, at the top of it it’s page 2 of 3.

It’s a series of emails and we going 15

backwards from 528 because that’s where it

starts to page 525 I think. At the bottom

of the page, page 2 of 3, page 528, there is

an email from Ella Matshikiza on behalf of

Mike Abel to Shirley Steenekamp and yourself 20

dated 2nd of July 2008. “Dear Colleagues,

working together, can you please ensure that

the necessary changes to the IMFUNDO

contract are effected and that the contract

284

relying on two projects on two separate

years that were approved by Council. I do

not see this taking more than a day to

finalise internally at INSETA office so I

can sign the contract before I go on leave 5

on 9 July.” To what does that refer?

MS SNELL Ok, this refers to an instruction Mike Abel

gave me prior to this email being sent out.

We had the draft contract change not being

done and Mike asked me to vet the contract 10

change note up against what Council had

approved in terms of the project. This I

then did and when Mike questioned me about

it I informed him that I’d done it already.

So he followed this up with an email because 15

at that stage I didn’t know what had

happened because I had sent the information

and the changes that I had done and nothing

came of it. So the process had stalled at

that point in time. So Mike was essentially 20

reviving the process with this email.

MR PRETORIUS Alright. Then on page 527, if you turn a

page back, you see there’s an email at the

bottom of the page from Shirley Steenekamp

285

dated the 3rd of July to yourself copied to

Ella Matshikiza and Mike Abel.

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS And that’s in response to a previous email.

It says “Dear Sharon, this is a FAIS 5

project. I do not understand why Ella gave

this to you for. Adie, Glen and I have been

dealing with this matter and Adie gave the

amended contract to Mike to sign which is

just a slight scope change. And no, Ella 10

has not given anything to me from ...

(inaudible) ... IMFUNDO at all. All we are

waiting for was Mike’s signature on the

amended contract as discussed with him.”

MS SNELL That would be correct. 15

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then you responded at the top of

page 527, “Dear Shirley, Mike just ask me to

vet the contract from a legal point of view

and to match up deliverables and pricings in

terms of original contract and make notes 20

with him.”

MS SNELL That’s correct. And I did that.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Then please turn to page 582. This

are the minutes of the meeting of the

286

finance, IT and administration committee

which took place on the 9th of September

2008. Is that correct?

MS SNELL That’s correct.

MR PRETORIUS And then on page 584, item 5, discretionary 5

grant projects. There’s a heading project

motivation for allocation of unspent surplus

funds.

MS SNELL Thanks, I see that.

MR PRETORIUS And an amount of R4 820 000 was approved for 10

recommendation to Council. Could you just

tell the Chairman what that relates to and

what the situation was with regard to

unspent surplus funds.

MS SNELL Thank you. When we talk about unspent 15

surplus funds we mean that pot of money that

we have collected as levies for

discretionary grants which has not yet been

approved by Council. So it’s not yet

allocated. So there was a motivation done 20

by Adie Gerber, Shirley Steenekamp and Mike

Abel to allocate some of the unspent surplus

fund to three projects in equal amounts and

this was then approved. One of those

287

projects would have been the FAIS project

for learner registration fees. And there

were two other projects, one being the

bursary project so that they would have all

received equal amounts in respect of that. 5

MR PRETORIUS Yes. One third. And it was FAIS learner

assessment?

MS SNELL Yes. What I mean by that is the learner,

because we had set up this national

assessment the learners would have had to 10

pay out of their own pocket to write the

exam. About a thousand Rand or so. And a

decision was taken to find some of the black

learners for this registration fee and that

top up funding would have been taken for 15

that purpose. To pay the exam fee for the

learners.

MR PRETORIUS And then go to page 582. These are extracts

from the SETA Council minutes of 18

September 2008. 20

MS SNELL Sorry, 582?

MR PRETORIUS 58, sorry 589, sorry. 589, I apologise.

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS You see item 6, matters for approval.

288

Council has approved the project motivation

in the amount of R4 820 000.

MS SNELL That’s correct.

MR PRETORIUS That’s correct. Then if you, now the

process, that’s approval payments, if 5

invoices were received, what was the

protocol for payment of invoices?

MS SNELL When, I’m speaking specifically to

discretionary grant invoices.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. 10

MS SNELL Because we have a slightly different process

for operational spending. When it came to

discretionary grant invoices we had

outsourced project management which was

PriceWaterhouseCoopers and they commonly 15

referred to as the IPO, INSETA project

office. You will hear that term used

interchangeably. They were appointed on a 5

year contract to manage INSETA’s project.

So when an invoice was received it would be 20

received by their offices. They would check

it up against the project deliverables and

obviously sent it to the particular project

sponsor within INSETA. Different projects

289

were managed by different project sponsors.

So the project sponsor would say that they

are happy that the deliverables have been

met and that will be communicated to

PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Once that’s done 5

they would send the invoice through for

payment and depending on the amount of the

invoice then delegations would apply. So if

for example an invoice fell within just

Shirley’s delegation at that point, it would 10

be about, under R30 000 and that she would

then approve it and it would then be sent to

Deloitte for processing. If it was

something under Mike’s delegation Shirley

would sign as the project manager and then 15

it would go to Mike. So there would always

be the project, a sponsor from INSETA who

would sign. It would be the project office

as well and the relevant person would have

the authority. So if for example it’s 20

something within Mike’s delegation Shirley

would, and if Shirley’s the project sponsor,

she would recommend for payment to Mike.

Likewise if it’s not within Mike’s

290

delegation, it’s something within the FINCO

delegation, that’s the finance and IT

committee, Mike and Shirley would then

recommend for payment to the IT, finance and

IT committee. 5

MR PRETORIUS And the amount of delegation that Mr Abel

had? Or Mike had.

MS SNELL Just below 500 000.

MR PRETORIUS 500 000?

MS SNELL Yes. 10

MR PRETORIUS Ok. Could you then please go to page 603.

In my copy it’s almost illegible, it’s got a

604, you’ll see it’s the previous page.

What is this document that appears from page

603 up to page 618? 15

MS SNELL This document is a report which I authored

and obviously the inputs from our finance

manager Deloitte as well as the project

managers and the relevant people at INSETA.

The reason I had done this report is when I 20

was appointed to act, one of the things I

needed to do was to immediately look at the

IMFUNDO invoices that we had on our desk for

payment. And when I looked at that, there

291

wasn’t sufficient money, although there was

a credit in the year 9 FAIS project, there

wasn’t sufficient money to cover the

invoices and some of the previous FAIS

projects were already in debit which meant 5

that they were, there was an over

expenditure on those projects as well. When

looking into what happened and investigating

it, it was quite clear that the spending for

year 9 had far exceeded what the budget had 10

been set out and what Council approved funds

had been set out. Some of the invoices were

debited off previous FAIS projects without

the necessary Council approval and some of

the invoices had done off the bursary 15

project without myself as a bursary project

sponsor’s approval, I have to authorise

that, and without FINCO or Council’s

approval. What I did is I put together this

report. And if you have a look at the 20

report, I don’t know into what detail you

need me to go.

MR PRETORIUS Well ---

MS SNELL You’d be able to see if page 604, I start

292

off there by showing what amounts was

approved by Council in respect of the year 9

deliverables and I’ve included the top up

funding that Council had approved in

September as well. And that would then give 5

you the total amount of funding that was

approved for the project.

MR PRETORIUS Sorry, if you say the total amount of

funding, is that 4 018 620?

MS SNELL That’s correct. 10

MR PRETORIUS And the top up funding that you refer to?

MS SNELL That was the 1.6 that Council approved. I

think it’s ---

MR PRETORIUS If we can go, let’s just go to ---

MS SNELL Here it is on the first page. If you look 15

at the heading background discussion you’ll

see the second paragraph there. I mention

that ---

MR PRETORIUS Page 603, yes?

MS SNELL That’s right. The 4 million was approved by 20

Council for the project and then on the 18th

of September a motivation for the allocation

of unspent surplus funds, a further 1.6

million was approved to top up the FAIS

293

project. So in my calculations I take into

account the 4 million that was initially

approved and then later on the top up

funding of R1.6 million.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Well maybe if we just jump ahead to 5

the summary that you have on page 611.

Going back, I think that sets it out rather

nicely. You summarised the over expenditure

for FAIS year 9.

MS SNELL Yes. 10

MR PRETORIUS Approved Council provider fees, is it 2.8

million?

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS And I’m rounding off. Then you have the top

up funding that you’ve included as 1.6 15

million.

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS And you have the contract amount or contract

change note from 9 July.

MS SNELL Yes. 20

MR PRETORIUS But the two, the first two, the top up

funding and approved by Council is 4.427

million and the actual expenditure is 9

million. Just over 9 million.

294

MS SNELL That’s correct.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And what you set out then from pages

606 to 610 is the make up of ---

MS SNELL The provider invoices.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. 5

MS SNELL That were done. And in terms of our invoice

process whatever documentation supports that

payment will be attached to it. So when I

uplifted the necessary documentation I

referred to what was supporting the payment. 10

So on the side you would be able to see what

was supporting the payment. Some of the

invoices were paid and some of them were not

paid. Because Mike and Shirley became

suspended they had not gotten the approval 15

of FINCO because FINCO had set it aside. So

everything was ready accept that FINCO hadnt

signed it because they wanted it to be

looked into, the necessary detail that I

provided. If I can take you, for example, 20

to the main deliverables on page 604 on the

paginated document you’d be able to see

there the detail of what Council approved.

And just off one example, if you look at

295

support for learner in the form of payment

for exam fees, those are the payment of the

examination fees for the black learners

which I spoke about who this whole project

for that year Council had approved 1 500 5

learners at a cost of 1 000 per assessment.

And if you look right on to page 606 you can

be able to see immediately off 1 and 2, for

June assessment alone they had done 913 and

thereafter 1 407. So you can already see in 10

respect of amounts approved by Council, that

was over exceeded. The 1 500 learners

Council had approved was over exceeded by

820 already in this particular invoice.

Then we still have the November learners to 15

deal with. So even with the top up funding

that was approved by Council, you could see

that the authority given to IMFUNDO was

given without, or exceeded already what

Council had provided in terms of the 20

contract and taking into account the top up

funding that was provided by Council for

this project.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Now the use the monies, at page 606,

296

from the bursary fund project for the FAIS

project ---

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Was that regular?

MS SNELL It was highly irregular for a number of 5

reasons. The first reason is no protocol

was followed because I was the bursary, you

know when you deal with separation of

powers, I was the person that was in charge

of the bursary pot of money. I was the 10

person appointed to do that. I was the

sponsor for that project. My project was

not short of money. There was money in the

project. But what happened is they’d

requested a further 1.6 million to top up 15

the project. So although the project wasn’t

spent it was no where near spent, top up

funding was provided for that particular

project which I don’t have a problem with.

But it seems that then that was used for the 20

FAIS project and it wasn’t used for the

bursary project to pay these expenses. Now

that is now allowed. You can't transfer

money meant for one particular project and

297

transfer it to another project because

Council has approved it for bursaries. And

there’s an additional issue that when

applying for bursary funding or when using

bursary funding, there is a Council approved 5

policy for bursaries that has to be

followed. So one can't simply transfer

bursary funding to another project. It must

be used in terms of the bursary policy.

MR PRETORIUS And then this report which is submitted in 10

February 2009 was to get ratification and

approval for the over expenditure. Is that

correct?

MS SNELL That’s quite correct. There’s just one

invoice which was unpaid which was not 15

recommended which we still havent paid. But

all the other invoices have now been paid.

All the projects that were in debit, other

FAIS projects which they had paid some of

the invoices over and including the bursary 20

projects we have now credited and

regularised those projects and insured that

everything that was don’t in terms of the

year 9 FAIS project could be paid off with

298

the additional funding that Council had

approved.

MR PRETORIUS Let me just make sure I’ve covered

everything in this bundle with you. Yes,

sorry, if you can turn to page 453, perhaps 5

where I should have started. This is, 453 -

--

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS This was the original motivation for the

allocation of the unspent surplus funds to 10

projects?

MS SNELL Yes. To get top up funding.

MR PRETORIUS To get top up funding. And there you have

three, the FAIS project for learner

assessment support. 15

MS SNELL That’s quite right.

CHAIRMAN While you on that page, can you just explain

to me, I see under paragraph 2 there’s three

bullet points. The first one is FAIS

projects, the learner assessment, and the 20

third one is the bursary fund. Now what’s

the difference? The FAIS project ---

MS SNELL Yes.

CHAIRMAN For learner assessment, what is the FAIS

299

project?

MS SNELL The FAIS project is a project that we’ve

been talking about where there was an over

expenditure. The FAIS project was intended

to deliver the national assessments for the 5

year 9 deliverables.

CHAIRMAN Assessment in what?

MS SNELL For the FAIS. FAIS assessments in the June

2008 and the November 2008. That’s what I

discussed right at the beginning. 10

CHAIRMAN Yes, but what is a FAIS? Just explain to

me, to someone who doesn’t know.

MS SNELL Ok. FAIS is a requirement, it’s an Act in

terms of the FAIS Act. Learners or, which

people employed in the industry would have 15

to achieve a certain amount of credits by --

-

CHAIRMAN In the insurance industry.

MS SNELL Yes. And also other financial sector

industries. 20

CHAIRMAN What do they do? Like a course in maths or

---

MS SNELL No. It’s about ethics and standards in the

industry. And they would have to achieve

300

those particular credits.

CHAIRMAN So if somebody wants to be an insurance

broker he’s also got to get the FAIS ---

MS SNELL Compliance. He must be FAIS compliant. He

must have achieved --- 5

CHAIRMAN FAIS compliant. I see.

MS SNELL A certain number, what the FSB have done is

they’ve broken down, the ultimate aim is to

achieve full FAIS qualification. But

they’ve broken it down in terms of what do 10

you have to achieve by December 2009 and

thereafter. And then there’s a further step

afterwards. But eventually to take

everybody in the industry who is providing

financial advice --- 15

CHAIRMAN There’s a moratorium period for people to

qualify, to become fit and proper.

MS SNELL Yes. And they’ve broken it down.

CHAIRMAN Because you not effecting people who have

always been brokers. All you saying is by 20

2009 you must meet the first requirement.

MS SNELL Yes. The minimum credits that you would be

required to have achieved by December 2009.

CHAIRMAN And the people who administer that in terms

301

of the agreement is IMFUNDO, a training

division of ADVTECH.

MS SNELL Yes, but not solely. There were other

providers providing the same service. But

because of the numbers involved, the numbers 5

of brokers that needed to go through this,

INSETA had developed a special, through

getting some sort of go ahead of SACWA,

which is the qualifications authority, we

had developed special national assessments 10

which were specifically designed around

recognition of prior learning. That’s why I

said it was done in a very simply multiple

choice type of question environment. And it

was a very very good project because the 15

project was taking literally thousands of

brokers and fast tracking them to achieve --

-

CHAIRMAN So a successful broker will fund it himself

and go through the process. 20

MS SNELL That’s quite correct.

CHAIRMAN But somebody who needs money will apply to

your bursary fund.

MS SNELL No. The bursary fund is something quite

302

separate. The bursary fund provided

bursaries to training providers to do all

sorts of courses. Leadership and

management, call centre, you know, it wasn’t

just about FAIS. But you could access FAIS 5

bursaries ---

CHAIRMAN But who could apply for it? Anybody in the

industry?

MS SNELL It would be training providers and they

would be registered with INSETA to deliver 10

that particular skills program. But that

was not for exam fees. Exam fees is

something totally different. The bursary

project was never intended to provide exam

fees. It’s not in the bursary policy. 15

There was no such question. The only money

that was set aside to provide people who

couldn’t afford the exam fees. You must

remember INSETA was covering the cost of a

broker in a number of ways. We cover the 20

cost in terms of the fact that we had

designed the curriculum. We had designed

the training material and we had made, paid

all the costs to have these assessments

303

brought to them at a venue close to them.

So there was quite a lot of money that we

had set out to provide. So all they would

pay for is for their exam fees. To write

the exam and for that to be assessed and 5

loaded on to the data base and to achieve

the credit. Now in some instances we

decided where it concerns black brokers,

because especially in the small little black

brokerages who cannot afford this, to cover 10

those exam fees. And that’s the 1 500 that

Council had agreed to initially in the

project. And then this top up funding was

also for that, for learner assessment

support. That’s the learner and exam fees. 15

CHAIRMAN Thank you.

MR PRETORIUS Well it says, it’s three projects.

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS The FAIS project, the learnership and

internship part with special focus on 20

training of work place coaches and mentors

and the development work place guides for

the coach and the learner.

MS SNELL Yes.

304

MR PRETORIUS And then the bursary fund for the financial

support, particularly to the funeral

assistance business for compliance training

and black and female employees who are, who

have been identified for management or 5

leadership positions in the company.

MS SNELL That’s correct.

CHAIRMAN Yes, thank you.

MR PRETORIUS We can put that file to one side Ms Snell.

Could you please turn in file 1 of Shirley 10

Steenekamp to page 947. It’s the last page

of that lever arch file.

MS SNELL 947?

MR PRETORIUS 947, yes. It’s the very last page. This is

an email which you sent to Mr Abel on the 15

19th of December 2008. Is that correct?

MS SNELL That’s correct.

MR PRETORIUS And it’s a grievance about Shirley

Steenekamp. I don’t want to go through most

of it. What I’d like you to go is to the 20

fourth bullet.

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS And after the end of the second line, she

advised that she’s reserving a position for

305

Kim Pretorius. Do you have that?

MS SNELL No, not yet.

MR PRETORIUS If you go to the fourth bullet.

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS It says she repeatedly shouted at me. And 5

then to the end of that sentence, we start

the next sentence, the vacant position of

ETQA secretary.

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Must not be advertised and should be 10

withdrawn.

MS SNELL Yes, that’s correct.

MR PRETORIUS That’s something which Shirley Steenekamp

said to you?

MS SNELL That’s correct. 15

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Then she advise that she’s reserving a

position for Kim Pretorius which she intends

to create at a junior specialist level.

MS SNELL Yes, thank you.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Then I’ve already discussed with you 20

my concerns about the rumours that Shirley’s

son had a relationship with Kim Pretorius

from a long time and that he may well be the

father of the child. In this regard you

306

informed me that you recently approached

Shirley and that she denied this.

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Do you confirm that Mr Abel told that to

you? 5

MS SNELL That’s correct because we had been engaging

on this issue quite a bit before this

incident actually had taken place. So I

thought Mr Abel had resolved it with Shirley

because what has happened is there wasn’t a 10

vacancy for a secretary. And Shirley

discussed separately both with myself and Mr

Abel that she’d like to change that position

and instead of filling that vacancy to

change her position to a specialist position 15

for Kim Pretorius. Now Mr Abel did not

agree with that. He requested that I go

ahead with advertising the vacancy. So I

had to just update the position. When that

was sent to Shirley, Shirley was quite upset 20

about it. She didn’t it off. We had a

pending deadline in that we had to have our

advertisements put into the paper otherwise

we were going to miss a deadline and we’d be

307

out of time with our closing dates. So I

spoke to Mr Abel about this. He said bring

this here, let me sign it off, he authorised

the placement of that and it went out into

the newspaper, website and it was circulated 5

etc. So this incident followed that because

Shirley saw this and she became upset about

it and then she approached us and that’s why

she said, you know, she repeated again that

was her instruction and she seemed to think 10

that Mr Abel had agreed to it and yet Mr

Abel had actually agreed to us advertising

the position. He even signed on the vacant

position to show that he’d approved it. I

had requested him to do it so that I don’t 15

have issues with Shirley a bit later on.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Then if we go down a couple of lines

to where it starts, this whole matter needs

to be resolved. Do you have that section of

the email? 20

MS SNELL Sorry which bullet?

MR PRETORIUS It’s still the same bullet.

MS SNELL Ok.

MR PRETORIUS The last four lines. This whole matter

308

needs to be resolved.

MS SNELL Yes, yes.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. You wrote to Mr Abel, this whole

matter needs to be resolved because there

are even allegations that Kim knew Shirley 5

well before she worked at INSETA and

allegations that her hiring constituted ...

(inaudible) ... practice.

MS SNELL Yes, that’s quite correct. There were such

rumours. In fact, it was creating a lot of 10

unrest amongst the staff because of, you

know, Shirley consistently saying there is,

there will be no such vacancy. There will

be a special position created for Kim. And

she had been saying that according to the 15

staff quite loudly upstairs on the floor

that she had worked. So it was common that

Shirley was reserving this position for Kim

and the rumours downstairs and upstairs,

people were talking. People were even 20

behind Shirley’s back calling Shirley

“Grandma”, which would indicate that she’s

the grandmother of Kim Pretorius’s child.

So it had really become an uncomfortable

309

thing. And from a management point of view

I thought that we should arrest the

situation as soon as possible and deal with

it. And I understand Mr Abel did deal with

it with Shirley and she obviously denied the 5

position and sent him an email in this

regard.

MR PRETORIUS Then the next sentence is there are now, and

it should be now without the “k” alleging

that Shirley is motivating her promotion to 10

cover expenses of the new baby.

MS SNELL Yes. It was a stupid thing but I had to

show Mr Abel exactly what people were saying

because Kim Pretorius was obviously really

upset that Shirley’s son, that’s what she 15

was saying, was not recognising the

paternity of the baby and she was in court

dealing with that and she was doing tests

etc. And, you know, being staff, that’s

what they were saying. You know, that her 20

son doesn’t want to pay maintenance and

therefore increase her salary. I’m not

saying Shirley said that but that’s what the

rumours were.

310

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Those were the rumours in the ---

MS SNELL It was really sort of uncomfortable.

MR PRETORIUS In the work place.

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Could you then just go to 879 please of that 5

same bundle. What is this document?

MS SNELL I actually don’t know.

MR PRETORIUS Alright. It’s an email that Phakama Nkosi

sent to Mr Abel on the 19th of October. Page

879. 10

MS SNELL Ok. I’ve never seen it before.

MR PRETORIUS I’m told there’s two 879s. If you can have

a look at this, it has page 1 of 1. Let’s

identify, yes, that one.

MS SNELL 19th October 2006. 15

MR PRETORIUS Yes, 19th October.

MS SNELL Ok.

MR PRETORIUS It’s an email from Phakama Nkosi. Does he

still work for INSETA?

MS SNELL No he does not. 20

MR PRETORIUS What was his position when he still worked

for INSETA?

MS SNELL Phakama was the corporate services manager.

MR PRETORIUS And then it’s subject is non compliance to

311

HR policy.

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS And the fourth bullet said when Ms Kim

Pretorius was appointed to the Skills

Development Administrator position the 5

vacancy was not advertised and our staff had

no opportunity to contest.

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Are you aware whether, what policies

were followed or not followed in the 10

appointment of Ms Pretorius?

MS SNELL No. I was not there at the time. I’d have

to rely on what Phakama was saying. He was

the corporate services manager. If I could

just take you through some of that. For 15

example, Fiona James and Neesha Naidoo would

have already been in the company. This is

relating to an internal promotion. And then

William Fisher and Kim Pretorius, those

positions would have been external. 20

MR PRETORIUS Yes. I just want to make sure, oh yes, then

there’s a document, I’m going to hand it to

you, it’s C9. If you could just look at

this document. Do you recognise this

312

document? It’s dated the 18th November 2008

from the Department of Labour.

MS SNELL Yes. We have this on our file.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. To whom is it addressed?

MS SNELL To the SETA CEO. 5

MR PRETORIUS And to the, and who’s it copied?

MS SNELL And copied to SSP managers of SETAs.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Do you know why it’s not addressed to

Mr Abel in particular?

MS SNELL The Department of Labour would have sent 10

this out and they send out sometimes

documents just addressed to SETA CEOs. They

don’t particularly distinguish them unless

of course there would be something that

needs to be distinguished or addressed 15

separately. So they would send, quite a lot

of their correspondence comes in this

manner.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. So if it’s general correspondence it

goes to the SETA CEO. 20

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS If it’s particular correspondence it goes to

the particular SETA or person involved.

MS SNELL Yes. But it’s meant for the SETAs.

313

MR PRETORIUS Yes. But for all the SETAs.

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Now can you recall on the SSP of INSETA in

2008, were there any problems with that?

MS SNELL Shirley was managing the SSP. She was the 5

project sponsor on that. So I did not have

direct involvement in it. But I’m aware

that there were problems because Shirley had

discussed it on a number of occasions with

us. She had experienced problems, Shirley 10

is an expert on this particular area, and

she’d experienced problems with Professor

Gool in terms of delivery. And there was,

towards the end, quite a lot of strain in

getting the project completed and I 15

understand that Shirley had given Professor

Gool extensive support in this regard. But

she had complained about Professor Gool’s

ability to deliver and that’s why she had to

actually babysit the project to such an 20

extent.

MR PRETORIUS Thank you very much Mr Chairman, I have no

further questions. You’ll now be cross

examined Ms Snell.

314

MS EDMONDS But not immediately. May the matter stand

down for a few minutes while I take

instructions please? Can we have, I think,

half an hour.

CHAIRMAN Alright. 5

MS EDMONDS It’s quarter past ---

MR PRETORIUS Until quarter to.

HEARING ADJOURNS

VOLUME IV

10

DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY HELD IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

INSETA EMPLOYER

and

MICHAEL SEBASTIAN ABEL 1ST

EMPLOYEE 15

SHIRLEY ANNE STEENEKAMP 2ND EMPLOYEE

B E F O R E: ADVOCATE N CASSIM – CHAIRMAN

20

PRESENT: MR GERRIT PRETORIUS – FOR EMPLOYER

MR BRIAN PATTERSON – FOR EMPLOYER

MS RUTH EDMONDS – FOR 1st AND 2ND EMPLOYEE

315

Date: 3 June 2009

CHAIRMAN 10Ma'am you’re still under oath. Thank you.

Please proceed. 5

MS EDMONDS I was expecting a response. Perhaps for the

record I indicated on Friday to my

colleagues that I would require to consult

with Mr Adie Gerber from

PriceWaterhouseCoopers as he was the person 10

appointed by the IPO to manage the finances

of the INSETA and has far more detailed

knowledge, and in fact obligations in regard

to some of the allegations made by this

witness, and that I would need to consult 15

with him ideally before cross examining this

witness. In fact, it’s my view that he

should be in the witness box rather than

this witness. But be that as it may, I have

gained consent from my colleagues to such 20

consultation on Friday evening when we

adjourned. I then addressed a letter to

PriceWaterhouseCoopers confirming that Brian

10 Tape 1 – Side 1 – 3 June 2009

316

Patterson, that Deneys Reitz had no

objection to me consulting with and using Mr

Gerber as a witness if need be and

requesting that he be made available for

such purposes. I got a letter from PWC 5

yesterday saying that they needed to,

because of a possible conflict, no not,

basically it reads, “Our firm is currently

engaged by INSETA to provide certain

services and it is only appropriate that we 10

discuss this matter with our client, INSETA

and/or it’s legal representative and obtain

written consent from them to testify. We

will therefore first discuss this matter

with acting CEO INSETA,” who is the witness 15

presently before this enquiry, “and Mr

Patterson of Deneys Reitz where after we

will respond to you in more detail.” I

hadnt heard by this morning further from

PriceWaterhouseCoopers. I indicated to my 20

colleagues that I would have some difficulty

cross examining this witness, particularly

in regard to the financial aspects of her

evidence without consulting with Mr Gerber

317

beforehand. And they took the opportunity

to speak to Ms Snell and I, before we can

proceed, I think it’s necessary that we

understand what her position is.

MR PRETORIUS Whose position? Her position? 5

MS EDMONDS Well she would have had to have given you

instructions or ---

MR PRETORIUS Can we put on record that the INSETA has no

difficulty as we’ve conveyed to

PriceWaterhouseCoopers. It seems to me that 10

Ms Edmonds has a difficulty speaking to Mr

Gerber. It’s not our difficulty, it’s Ms

Edmonds’ difficulty. We made it quite clear

on Friday that we have no objection to Mr

Gerber being approached. We made it clear 15

this morning again, that’s why we delayed.

We were told to speak to Mr John White.

He’s not answering his cell phone or his

office line. But it certainly can't be, and

there seems to be a tendency, we were 20

notified about it yesterday. I don’t know

what time that letter came in yesterday.

But it seems to me that they have an

unwilling witness, Mr Gerber. And we now

318

have the delay because Mr Gerber won't speak

to them or is not willing to speak to them.

We have no objection to them speaking to Mr

Gerber. Obviously we can't force Mr Gerber

to consult with us. 5

MS EDMONDS That’s entirely inaccurate. There’s no

indication here that Mr Gerber is unwilling

to testify. Simply that your consent, the

consent of Deneys Reitz and the consent of

this witness is necessary. Do I understand 10

that this witness has no difficulty?

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

MS EDMONDS Well then can we not please convey that to

PriceWaterhouseCoopers?

MR PRETORIUS We’ve conveyed it to PriceWaterhouseCoopers. 15

It’s not for us ---

MS EDMONDS Well then can I ---

MR PRETORIUS You must take it further. We’ve conveyed it

to PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

MS EDMONDS I’m happy to take it further. I’d asked you 20

to deal with it this morning. You’ve

apparently dealt with it this morning. May

I have an opportunity to call

PriceWaterhouseCoopers?

319

CHAIRMAN Certainly.

HEARING ADJOURNS FOR SHORT BREAK

HEARING RESUMES

CHAIRMAN Thank you, you still under oath.

MS SNELL Yes Sir. 5

MS EDMONDS Ms Snell, you testified on Monday in respect

of a document which appears at page 947 of

the bundle, that’s the Shirley Steenekamp

file 1. It’s the last document in that

bundle. Ok, perhaps before we go there, can 10

you just tell the Chairperson how long

you’ve been working at the INSETA.

MS SNELL Since the 1st of November 2007.

MS EDMONDS So you’ve been there about 18 months now?

MS SNELL Yes, since that date. 15

MS EDMONDS And you commenced employment in what

capacity?

MS SNELL The chief operations officer.

MS EDMONDS And you currently acting in what capacity?

MS SNELL I’m currently acting as the CEO at the 20

Council’s request.

MS EDMONDS And how long have you been acting in that

capacity?

MS SNELL Actually from the day that Shirley and Mike

320

were suspended, the Council called me and

approached me to act.

MS EDMONDS Which is when?

MS SNELL I can't be sure about the date Ruth.

MS EDMONDS If I tell you it’s the 11th of December? 5

MS SNELL That would be round about, yes. That sounds

right Ruth.

MS EDMONDS And Ms Snell, your qualifications?

MS SNELL Just formal qualifications in terms of

degrees? 10

MS EDMONDS Any qualifications you want the hearing to

know about.

MS SNELL Ok. I’m qualified in law, I’ve got a

Masters in law.

MS EDMONDS In what aspect of law? 15

MS SNELL Labour law and commercial law. I’ve also

got qualifications in strategic management

and planning. I’ve got qualifications in

project management.

MS EDMONDS What are those? Diplomas? 20

MS SNELL It’s, well with the University of Free

State, I’ve got strategic management.

MS EDMONDS What is that? A diploma?

MS SNELL I’m not sure what the status of the

321

qualification is but ---

MS EDMONDS Well surely you know what the qualification

is Ms Snell.

MS SNELL It’s at NQF level 7.

MS EDMONDS NQF level 7. So it’s not a diploma you’ve 5

got.

MS SNELL No, it’s not a diploma. Nowadays they don’t

stick diplomas and degrees, they have, they

pitch it at a certain level.

MS EDMONDS And it would be presumably the same sort of 10

thing as a diploma?

MS SNELL I’m not sure Ruth.

MS EDMONDS You working in a SETA, in a sector,

education and training authority, surely you

know what level of qualifications you have. 15

MS SNELL Ruth, can I rather say that it’s a program

pitched at NQF level 7?

MS EDMONDS Alright. Well what else have you got at

what other NQF levels?

MS SNELL You know, most of these things were obtained 20

before the national qualifications framework

came into being.

MS EDMONDS Well then they did have something like a

diploma or a certificate or whatever

322

attached to them. So whatever their initial

name was, can you give that out to us

please?

MS SNELL I have a BProc degree.

MS EDMONDS Yes 5

MS SNELL I have a LLM degree.

MS EDMONDS Yes.

MS SNELL And I have a program, an NQF level 7 with

the University of Free State.

MS EDMONDS You have a program? 10

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS Never mind what its NQF level is unless that

did come in after the national skills.

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS Sorry? 15

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS It did come in after the national skills?

MS SNELL Yes. At NQF level 7.

MS EDMONDS Alright.

MS SNELL And I have qualifications, you know, in 20

terms of certificates issued in labour law.

MS EDMONDS You’ve got certificates. Ok, and what

qualifications, what financial

qualifications have you got?

323

MS SNELL I’ve done a financial, at a certificate

level ---

MS EDMONDS Financial what?

MS SNELL Financial management.

MS EDMONDS At a certificate level? 5

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS And what is your employment history?

MS SNELL I’ve really worked at, in a legal position

as a regulator.

MS EDMONDS Sorry? Speak up a bit please. 10

MS SNELL Sorry Ruth, I will speak up. I worked as a

legal advisor at the regulator for estate

agents. I then worked at ---

MS EDMONDS How long did you do that?

MS SNELL It was almost about 10 years Ruth. 15

MS EDMONDS Legal advisor for the regulator of estate

agents?

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS Right. And what kind of legal advice did

you give? 20

MS SNELL I was, legal advice was part of my work, but

my main function was prosecuting estate

agents who had contravened the Acts in terms

of the trust accounts.

324

MS EDMONDS Right.

MS SNELL And, so I ---

MS EDMONDS You did that for about 10 years?

MS SNELL Yes. I used to look into all the

disqualified audit reports and prosecute on 5

trust accounts.

MS EDMONDS And thereafter?

MS SNELL Thereafter I was, I headed the City of

Jo’burgs law enforcement planning division.

I was involved in, you know, all the bad 10

debts on, and you know, the ---

MS EDMONDS And how long was that for?

MS SNELL That was for quite a while Ruth. I don’t

have an exact date.

MS EDMONDS No you don’t need to give --- 15

MS SNELL About 4 years or so Ruth.

MS EDMONDS About 4 years?

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS And after that?

MS SNELL I was then head hunted back to my old job to 20

do their strategy and I was involved in

that?

MS EDMONDS And how long were you there?

MS SNELL About 2 years.

325

MS EDMONDS And then?

MS SNELL And then I got a job at INSETA.

MS EDMONDS Then you got your job at the INSETA. And

that job was as?

MS SNELL Chief operations officer. 5

MS EDMONDS Chief operations officer. Right. What were

your responsibilities as chief operations

officer, do you remember?

MS SNELL Yes I do. Ruth, I was responsible for the

operations of INSETA. We had two main parts 10

of our business, that was not the core

operations of INSETA, outsourced. That was

the financial management and IT etc, that

was outsourced to Deloittes. I was

responsible for that. And then I was also 15

responsible ---

MS EDMONDS Sorry, you were responsible for that.

You’ve just said it was outsourced. In what

way were you responsible for it?

MS SNELL I was the INSETA official responsible for 20

the outsourcing of that to the management of

the outsourcing contract.

MS EDMONDS So you were responsible for how PWC

conducted themselves and how Deloittes

326

conducted themselves?

MS SNELL Yes, with the management of the outsourcing

contract.

MS EDMONDS Correct. So you were responsible during

your period as COO, is someone acting in 5

your place?

MS SNELL No, unfortunately not.

MS EDMONDS So you’ve got those obligations, they remain

your obligations at this stage?

MS SNELL That’s correct. 10

MS EDMONDS So insofar as the functioning of the IPO and

Deloittes was concerned you had oversight

over that functioning?

MS SNELL That’s correct.

MS EDMONDS And you had oversight over that functioning 15

during the period for which the allegations

that you have made in regard to overspending

in the FAIS project is applicable. Was it

not?

MS SNELL Yes. Since the 1st of November, yes, 2008. 20

MS EDMONDS And all of your allegations relate to that

period don’t they? They relate to 2008.

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS So you were the person responsible for the

327

management of the IPO and obviously their

correct conduct during that period, during

the period of your complaint.

MS SNELL That’s correct Ruth.

MS EDMONDS Alright. I’m going to, as you know, have an 5

opportunity of dealing with Mr Gerber and

speaking to him about the financial

management and your specific complaints

about overspending and Mr Abel acting

outside of his authority. And I’m going to 10

come back to you about those aspects. If we

can just deal with your allegations in

regard to Ms Steenekamp. And in that regard

specifically you referred to your email at

page 947. Now what was your relationship 15

with Ms Steenekamp like?

MS SNELL I found Ms Steenekamp to be an unusual

person. I’ve written to Mike in regard to

that. But I found it very difficult to have

a professional relationship with her. On 20

some days she would be extremely

professional and on other days she would

really, you know, one would imagine that,

you know, should have been unprofessional

328

she becomes actually irrational and it’s

very difficult to maintain a relationship

with somebody like that. So we did struggle

with our relationship and I did inform Mr

Abel about it. 5

MS EDMONDS Ok. You found her irrational?

MS SNELL Not all the time. I mean, on some occasions

she could be extremely rational, you know.

She’d have such a good solid day. She’s a

very very intelligent person and she’s got a 10

lot of strategic insight and you really have

a very beneficial day by interacting with

her. And some days it is just downhill.

You cannot say that is the same individual

that you’ve been dealing with. 15

MS EDMONDS Ok Ms Snell, the purpose of my question is

that this is a subjective ---

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS View of yours that she conducted herself

irrationally on some days. It hasn’t been 20

confirmed by anyone with psychological

credentials?

MS SNELL That’s quite correct Ruth. I’m not a

psychologist but I do understand how

329

rationality works.

MS EDMONDS And Ms Steenekamp will say that she found

you extremely difficult and extremely

irrational and extremely unprofessional

throughout the short duration of her 5

dealings with you. What do you have to say

about that subjective approach to your

personality?

MS SNELL She has indicated that so I’m aware of that.

MS EDMONDS Do you know how long Ms Steenekamp has been 10

in the INSETA?

MS SNELL I don’t have her file here but she has been

there since prior to Mike having even

arrived at INSETA. So it’s at least more

than 5 years Ruth. 15

MS EDMONDS So her experience there is somewhat longer

than yours.

MS SNELL That’s quite correct Ruth.

MS EDMONDS And your experience with sectoral education

and training authorities prior to November 20

2007 was non existent wasn’t it?

MS SNELL No, that’s quite incorrect Ruth.

MS EDMONDS Quite incorrect. Did you work for one

before?

330

MS SNELL I didn’t work for one but we were moving

towards becoming an ETQA so I was involved

with ---

MS EDMONDS Sorry, we being whom?

MS SNELL At the regulator for estate agents. I was 5

involved, we ran out qualifications and we

were linking up with services SETA to become

an ETQA, that’s an education training and

qualification authority. Because prior to

the national framework we were in effect the 10

ETQA for real estate and that’s what we were

working towards. And in essence I’m also a

qualified assessor.

MS EDMONDS Assessor?

MS SNELL Yes. 15

MS EDMONDS And how long does it take to become a

qualified assessor?

MS SNELL It depends. An assessor ---

MS EDMONDS Alright, how long did it take you to become

a qualified assessor? 20

MS SNELL It was, you initially go for a training

course which you did at services SETA.

MS EDMONDS How long did it take you Ms Snell?

MS SNELL Ruth, the reason I’m breaking it down is

331

because if I say to you 3 months you’ll

think I was on a course for 3 months and

that’s not the case. So can I explain to

you? It won't be long.

MS EDMONDS Alright, the composite period of time is all 5

I want to know. How long did it take you to

become an assessor?

MS SNELL It was a couple of months Ruth.

MS EDMONDS A couple of months.

MS SNELL When I eventually received my 10

qualifications.

MS EDMONDS And the Estate Agents Board was essentially

an employer in relation to the services SETA

while you were in it’s employ, were you not?

MS SNELL Yes, that’s quite correct. But I didn’t 15

interact with them on that basis.

MS EDMONDS Ok.

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS Now your complaint, your grievance at page

947 in regard to Ms Steenekamp, to which 20

charge does that relate? Do you know?

MS SNELL Ruth, I’m not, you know I was just called to

give evidence.

MS EDMONDS Yes. Do you know?

332

MS SNELL Actually no.

MS EDMONDS You don’t?

MS SNELL Not offhand, no.

MS EDMONDS Well I’d like you to indicate since you are

giving evidence about this and this is your 5

complaint, I’d like you to indicate to the

Chairperson what charge this substantiates.

MR PRETORIUS Sorry Mr Chairman, ... (inaudible) ...

doesn’t substantiate any charge. It’s not

submitted as part of the charge. It’s 10

submitted for the content which we did.

It’s not part of the charge and Ms Snell

doesn’t even know what the charge is. I

doubt whether she knows precisely what the

charge is. We didn’t consult with her on 15

the charges.

MS EDMONDS I’m getting confused. What was the purpose

of the content?

MS SNELL Ruth, this is ---

MS EDMONDS You wanted the Chairperson to understand 20

what by it?

MS SNELL This is an old document that I sent to Mike

and I was raising a grievance with him.

This is not the first grievance I raised

333

with him about Shirley. I did raise another

one before. And I was simply raising a

grievance with him about ---

MS EDMONDS Well there’s nothing simple about this

document. 5

MS SNELL But what I mean is I’m simply raising a

grievance with him in terms of INSETA’s

policy about some of the issues that I had

with Shirley.

MS EDMONDS What did you want the Chairperson to draw 10

from your evidence in regard to this?

MS SNELL This particular Chairperson?

MS EDMONDS Yes, this particular Chairperson at this

particular hearing.

MS SNELL Ruth, I’m here just as a witness. I’m here 15

to give evidence. I have been on other

sides, I’ve been sitting as Chair, I’ve been

on both sides. Today I’m not here ---

MS EDMONDS Can you answer the question Ms Snell?

MS SNELL To be drawing inferences. 20

MR PRETORIUS Again Mr Chairman ---

MS SNELL We havent dealt with it in consultation. I

was simply to be giving evidence. But yes,

I sent this document ---

334

MS EDMONDS Alright, perhaps your representatives will

let us know.

MR PRETORIUS Well I don’t know whether Ms Ruth Edmonds

was here when evidence was given.

MS EDMONDS I think you’ll recall that I actually was. 5

Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then she’ll know precisely what it

was. It was that Shirley denied that there

was a relationship between her son and Ms

Kim Pretorius. 10

MS EDMONDS She has never denied that. No charges have

ever been put to her and she has never

denied it.

MR PRETORIUS Well, I mean, I will deal with it in

argument. 15

CHAIRMAN My recollection is that she didn’t know what

their relationship, but we can deal with

that in argument.

MS EDMONDS Yes. But insofar as you felt it necessary

to go right throughout this email, I’d like, 20

presumably, and that’s not something that

you dealt with in your evidence in this

enquiry before this Chairperson, is that Ms

Steenekamp had substantial complaints about

335

the way that you conducted yourself and your

failure to comply with HR policies and your

relationship and your lack of

professionalism towards here and towards the

INSETA in general. 5

MS SNELL Ruth, I’m aware of that because Mike Abel

alerted me to the fact. And what he said

Sharon, you don’t know how much of letters I

receive of complaints against you from

Shirley. I do know that he gave me one 10

particular letter to respond to. But there

were more than one letters. I’ve never seen

them but I’m aware that Shirley has

complained about me verbally to Mike and

also in writing. 15

MS EDMONDS May I be permitted to hand up that bundle of

documents. Chairperson forgive me, because

it’s not in chronological order because it

deals with different charges and I have

simply continued with the numbering --- 20

CHAIRMAN Yes, thank you.

MS EDMONDS And lettering that we at some stage changed

from S to C. But the numbering stays

consecutive.

336

CHAIRMAN Thank you.

MS EDMONDS I don’t want to deal in too much detail with

C10, C11 and C12, but perhaps I can just

point you to certain aspects raised by Ms

Steenekamp to Mr Abel about you Ms Snell. 5

MS SNELL Thank you.

MS EDMONDS Have a look at the second paragraph of the

C10.

MS SNELL Yes, I’m there.

MS EDMONDS “I’m rather surprised at Cynthia Ross who is 10

appointed in a temporary position and

Kgomotso who has significant disciplinary

issues that remain unresolved are in the

panel that will be interviewing the new

incumbent into the SD.” That’s the Skills 15

Development Managers position. You see

that?

MS SNELL I see that Ruth.

MS EDMONDS Who appointed those people to the panel?

MS SNELL You know, I responded to this. 20

MS EDMONDS No, I’m asking you a question please.

MS SNELL I responded to this to Mike. This was

certainly incorrect. The statement was

incorrect. The actual statement that these

337

people were on the panel was incorrect.

MS EDMONDS Who appointed these people to the panel?

MS SNELL They were not appointed. The statement is

incorrect.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. 5

MS EDMONDS What is the correct statement then? Ms

Steenekamp is going to confirm that this is

what you did.

MR PRETORIUS Well let the witness, the witness has said

the statement is incorrect. Let her deal 10

with that. I know Ms Steenekamp says it’s

correct but she interrupts the witness ---

CHAIRMAN You saying they were not on the panel?

MS SNELL Only Cynthia Ross was sitting in. Kgomotso

is a very low level junior employee at 15

INSETA and what she was doing was

facilitating the process. Inviting the

guests in etc. She was not a panel member.

So she would invite them to the interviews

and offer them tea and coffee and things 20

like that. But she was certainly not a

panel member. She wasn’t rating anybody.

She couldn’t do that. I mean, she just

doesn’t have the qualifications to do that.

338

MS EDMONDS Which is precisely Ms Steenekamp’s point in

this email isn’t it?

MS SNELL But I clarified that and I responded to

clarify that. I’m not sure if, I can't

remember if I copied Shirley but I certainly 5

clarified that to Mike Abel.

MS EDMONDS And making use of temporary staff to

interview people for permanent managerial

positions?

MS SNELL Cynthia Ross was a fixed term employee. She 10

wasn’t a temporary staff member as one would

define temporary staff. She was employed in

terms of a fixed term contract.

MS EDMONDS But that’s temporary isn’t it? She’s not

permanent employment? 15

MS SNELL No, I’m going to have to differ with you

there Ruth.

MS EDMONDS Well you may certainly differ with me. But

she is not in permanent employment is she Ms

Snell? 20

MS SNELL No, she’s not in permanent employment.

MS EDMONDS Therefore she’s in temporary employment is

she not Ms Snell?

MS SNELL Fixed term is slightly different from

339

temporary employment.

MS EDMONDS Well we’ll argue that.

MS SNELL Thanks Ruth.

MS EDMONDS Ms Snell, please feel free to call me Ms

Edmonds. 5

MS SNELL Sorry Ms Edmonds. Sorry Mr Chairperson. I

wasn’t aware of the formality.

MS EDMONDS Let’s go to the email that deals with the

complaints specifically raised by you at

length in your email at page 947. Sorry, 10

let’s just, I wanted to indicate the dates

on the earlier emails. The 4th of September

2008, the 4th September 2008 and 14th of

November 2008. So we’re aware of at least

three separate complaints about you to Mr 15

Abel prior to your email of, and it says the

19th of December 2008, we’ve got to assume

that it was not the 19th of December 2008.

MS SNELL Which page Ruth?

MS EDMONDS Page 947 Ms Snell. 20

MS SNELL Oh ok, sorry. I was your bundle.

MS EDMONDS You got that now have you? Now what date

was that?

MS SNELL The 19th of December 2008.

340

MS EDMONDS Well it clearly wasn’t so what date was it?

When was Mr Abel suspended?

MS SNELL I think it might well be that when, I think

Dr Konar would have gotten this off Mike’s

system and might have forwarded it to 5

himself. I’ll be able to give you the date

that I would have sent this computer ---

MS EDMONDS Well lets try work it out from the email

shall we? You say in the absence, sorry,

second paragraph, “In my absence she forced 10

Kgomotso Mogane to open my office and remove

the CVs that I was processing in terms of

the human resources policy. I would like

you to have regard of the following. The

closing was 28 November 2008 and not a 15

single working day has elapsed after this

date to cause her to have any grievance of

the delay.” So it must have been?

MS SNELL You know, I regard a working day as Monday

to Friday so it would be, I don’t have my 20

calendar here, a day afterwards or if there

was a weekend in between then it would be

the Monday.

MS EDMONDS Ok. And then have a look at C13 in which Ms

341

Steenekamp responds to Mr Abel. Her email

is dated the 8th December and she refers to

an email from Mr Abel dated the 4th of

September. So your grievance must have been

somewhere between the 28th of November and 5

the 4th of December. Do you accept that?

MS SNELL That would be fine. Yes, I’ll accept that

Ruth, Ms Edmonds.

MS EDMONDS And she writes as follows, “I’m writing this

as an initial response to the letter 10

received from you on Tuesday 4th December

2008 re Ms Snell’s complaints. This is only

an initial response and must in no way be

seen as a final response to the issues she

raises. I reserve all my rights as well.” 15

Now you went through the entire email,

including the fact that she had gone into

your office ---

MR PRETORIUS No, that’s not correct Mr Chairman. We ---

MS EDMONDS She did deal with it. 20

MR PRETORIUS She did not. I specific and I heard the

remark, I referred her in the email to the

allegations relating to Ms Pretorius in the

fourth bullet. My learned friend can deal

342

with the whole email but we didn’t deal in

evidence with the whole email.

MS EDMONDS The documents there in evidence. Just read

the first paragraph please Ms Snell.

MS SNELL Of the 8th of December document? 5

MS EDMONDS C13, yes.

MS SNELL Ok. “This complaint deals with the issue of

forcing Kgomotso to remove the documents

from her office. This is not true. I asked

Kgomotso where Sharon was in order for me to 10

get the CV’s of all the applicant’s for the

ETQA specialist position and ETQA secretary

position that she had received. Kgomotso

answered that she did not know where Sharon

was and could not get hold of her. I asked 15

if she had a key for the office to which she

replied affirmatively. I asked for the CVs

and other documents so that we could begin

to evaluate them as Sharon had already sent

a mail to me and Neesha informing us of 20

interviews that would conducted on to and

for December 2008. Kgomotso then fetched

the documents and brought them to me. At no

stage did I force her to do anything.”

343

MS EDMONDS Go on.

MS SNELL To the second paragraph?

MS EDMONDS Please.

MS SNELL “The INSETA HR policy is clear in that it

states preliminary screening ie. reference 5

taking and personal credential verification

of individuals is to be done by the relevant

manager. Not the CEO or any other person.”

MS EDMONDS Please go on.

MS SNELL “Ms Snell is also significantly undermining 10

as a senior manager in the ETQA division re.

the wording of the advertisement, the

scrutiny of the applicant’s and the

management of the process to fill the post

in my division as well as the timing to fill 15

positions in my division in the following

way. As a senior manager I report directly

to you. On instruction more than a year ago

I wrote two job descriptions for promotion

post. One for Kim Pretorius and one for 20

Fiona James. The post for Kim was for an

ETQA junior consultant and the one for Fiona

was for the junior SD consultant. Fiona was

promoted earlier this year but Kim was not

344

promoted at that time due to the fact that

the new SD manager was being appointed and

she would be needed in the SD division for a

time to ensure that he had sufficient

support for a period of time. The SACWA 5

audit identified the need for the ETQA to be

better resourced and a proposal was

submitted and approved at the INSETA

strategic planning session in April 2008 for

a new ETQA junior consultant, a data 10

capturer and four additional auditors in

addition to them existing to the then

existing staff compliment of the ETQA

division.” Should I continue?

MS EDMONDS Please. 15

MS SNELL “The same proposed resource increase was

signed as part of the SACWA chip by you and

Sam Isaacs. In August this year you

approached me to activate the ETQA

specialist position that had been earmarked 20

for Kim previously so that we could move her

upstairs. This was part of the career

planning for her. You also requested me to

temporarily fill three positions for the

345

division at R25 000 per post for 2 months as

interim relief. You have also required me

to advertise for the other post that were

identified in the chip. We informed you

that we would first discuss the various 5

roles and functions of each of the new

positions before we wrote the

advertisements. You agreed to this. In the

meantime Itumeleng had applied for the post

in SD which had already been advertised and 10

she was then appointed as a junior

consultant in the SD division. Her

application was not discussed with me as per

the HR policy.” There’s a little mistake

there. “Which states that “in those cases 15

where a manager knows of an employee who is

a possible candidate for an open position in

his or her department, the manager must

first speak with the employee’s current

manager prior to speaking to the employee.” 20

This never happened in the case of

Itumeleng. I heard from Neesha that

Itumeleng had applied. When Tumi Peele

informed me that she had been invited by Ms

346

Snell to form part of the evaluation

committee ---

MS EDMONDS Do you have any ---

MS SNELL As a SD junior consultant.

MS EDMONDS Do you have any quarrel with what Ms 5

Steenekamp has stated thus far?

MS SNELL All what I’ve read? Yes, I’ve got lots of

quarrels with it.

MS EDMONDS Well let’s hear your quarrels.

MS SNELL My gosh, where should I start. 10

CHAIRMAN This goes to credibility.

MS EDMONDS It goes not just to credibility but also

she’s accused of deliberately manipulating

the situation in order to allow Ms Pretorius

to get a promotional position. And that 15

this is all precisely about that. She

testified also on Monday about the fact that

she, that Ms Steenekamp refused to sign off

an advertisement and she had to get Mr Abel

to sign off an advertisement. This goes to 20

the same issue. What are your quarrels with

that?

MS SNELL My quarrels in relation to the position

which became vacant, the ETQA secretary, the

347

position was in Ms Steenekamp’s department

and it was a vacant position. Ms Steenekamp

indicated orally to me and to some other

people that she should like to have that

position changed to accommodate a promotion 5

of an employee within my division and that

would be Kim Pretorius. So she didn’t want

the position advertised as is. She wanted

it changed to be a promotion for Kim

Pretorius. 10

MS EDMONDS Did she indicate that that was by agreement

with Mr Abel?

MS SNELL Yes she did.

MS EDMONDS Do you have any quarrel with that?

MS SNELL That she had an agreement with Mr Abel? 15

MS EDMONDS That the promotional position and the change

in the job description was by agreement with

Mr Abel.

MS SNELL I would have a quarrel with that because Mr

Abel said that’s actually not true and he 20

wants the position advertised. And he asked

me to have a look at the ETQA secretary

position and ensure that it’s advertised

with the same, obviously to save costs, that

348

it’s advertised in the same batch and that

the position can be filled as soon as

possible.

MS EDMONDS Ms Snell, Mr Abel is going to say that that

is not correct. That his agreement as 5

detailed here with Ms Steenekamp is what in

fact happened and you acted outside of that

agreement and contrary to the needs of the

SETA and contrary to the needs, in

particular, of the ETQA and skills 10

development departments.

MS SNELL Ruth, I would have ---

MS EDMONDS Ms Edmonds will do nicely.

MS SNELL Sorry Ms Edmonds. In fact, what I’m going

to say with that would be an absolute lie. 15

It would be an absolute lie.

MS EDMONDS Mr Abel will be absolutely lying?

MS SNELL Absolutely lying to say that he did not tell

me that he had no such agreement with

Shirley Steenekamp and he wanted me to 20

advertise the ETQA secretary position. That

would be absolutely lying Ms Edmonds.

MS EDMONDS And this long email in response to your

grievance, all of this would have been

349

manufactured. Where Ms Steenekamp

specifically says to Mr Abel, in agreement

with you we agreed that there would be two

different job descriptions. That this would

all be manufactured as well, would it? 5

MS SNELL I would to a certain extent want to maybe

side a little bit with Shirley Steenekamp

here and I’ll tell you why. Because she

previously sent an email reiterating that

there was an agreement to promote Kim at 10

some stage. But it wasn’t in relation to

when there was a vacancy with the ETQA

secretary post. And when I received that

document, the manager I had in charge there

was Mr Dumisani Tayama. So we had thought 15

because she said she had an agreement with

Mr Abel to move Kim, so we thought we’d

obviously put systems in place to move Kim

upstairs to her for a promoted position. Mr

Abel said to us, and it’s in writing, it’s 20

documented, it was copied to the corporate

services manager and to myself at that time

to say I have no such agreement with

Shirley. I want you to just file this in

350

the file for record keeping purposes so that

we have it in record.

MS EDMONDS We do actually have that but it doesn’t say

I have no such agreement.

MS SNELL Yes. 5

MS EDMONDS And we’ll find that right now, shortly, but

it does not say I have no such agreement.

MS SNELL Mr Abel did tell me as well that he had no

agreement with Ms Shirley Steenekamp to

promote Kim Pretorius. He wanted Kim 10

Pretorius to stay in the Skills Development

division.

MS EDMONDS For the time being. Not at the time that

the promotional position was created. She

was kept back, and you’ll see it all set out 15

here. What I’m trying to understand, and we

can carry on through all of this ---

MS SNELL I disagree with that.

MS EDMONDS Ms Snell. And we will carry on through the

portion where she deals with your rather 20

defamatory and inflammatory statements in

your email. Are you suggesting that all of

this, this three and a half page email was

manufactured and all of the statements made

351

by Ms Steenekamp were manufactured in regard

to the promotional position for Ms

Pretorius? That she made it up on the spur

of the moment to avoid allegations of

nepotism. 5

MS SNELL Ms Edmonds, I’m not going to be so general

to say that something is manufactured. I

think I’m going to deal with anything

specific from you. So I’m not saying ---

MS EDMONDS Alright, then read through the rest of it 10

please.

MS SNELL From where?

MS EDMONDS Where you stopped reading it Ms Snell.

MS SNELL Would you please just remind me of that.

Where did I stop? I think it would be 15

perhaps on the second page, after the first

paragraph. Yes. “Furthermore the HR policy

goes on to state that agreement on transfer

date should be between the two departments

involved. This never happened and I was 20

informed by Itumeleng that she was moving to

the SD division on the 22nd of October 2008.

No discussion had taken place with me.

Similarly ---”

352

MS EDMONDS Do you want to comment on that?

MS SNELL Pardon?

MS EDMONDS Do you want to comment on that? Had you

discussed moving Itumeleng with her manager?

MS SNELL When --- 5

MS EDMONDS With Ms Steenekamp.

MS SNELL When I was recommending the position, the

appointment of Itumeleng to Mr Abel, Ms

Steenekamp was present there and she even

insisted that we don’t offer her the full 10

salary but we reduce her salary because she

made a recommendation, because she thought

that Ms, although Fiona was earning a

certain amount, that Itumeleng shouldn’t

receive that particular salary and she’d 15

received something slightly lower because of

her knowledge and understanding of Itumeleng

and how she fits into the organisation and

the fact that she’d come in as a learner and

she didn’t really have much qualifications 20

etc. So she did make a contribution ---

MS EDMONDS Is your answer to that ---

MR PRETORIUS Let the witness finish.

MS EDMONDS That she did discuss that with Ms

353

Steenekamp?

MS SNELL Ms Steenekamp was part of the discussions

when we discussed the appointment of

Itumeleng.

MS EDMONDS Ms Snell, is your answer to my question, 5

that you did in terms of the HR policy

discuss the movement of one of her employees

to another department?

MS SNELL Yes. It was in the discussion that she was

going to be posted into that position as of 10

a certain date that Ms Steenekamp was part

of those discussions.

MS EDMONDS Why would Ms Steenekamp then say that there

was no such discussion? Neither about the

removal of the employee from her department, 15

nor about the transfer date.

MS SNELL I am aware that Itumeleng even filed a

letter of resignation to Ms Shirley

Steenekamp informing her that she’s

resigning and she’s formally moving to that. 20

So I’m not sure why Ms Steenekamp is saying

that she was not aware, or she was not

informed.

MS EDMONDS Because Ms Snell, you accused her of

354

manipulating employment processes in order

to advantage Ms Pretorius for reasons of

nepotism. She is saying that you did not

follow HR processes. That’s why she’s

saying it. Because you complained in your 5

email that she had manipulated the

advertising process and the promotional

process and HR policies in order to

advantage somebody who might have been

bearing her grandchild. 10

MS SNELL I think if you ---

MS EDMONDS She in response says, but you, how can you

possibly suggest that I have manipulated HR

policies when you, Ms Snell, yourself have

made yourself blameworthy of worse. One, I 15

havent manipulated them. But you Ms Snell,

have made yourself guilty of worth

manipulations.

MS SNELL Ms Edmonds, that is quite correct. That is

what Shirley accused me of. 20

MS EDMONDS Yes.

MS SNELL I’m not saying that it has any merit to it.

She did accuse me of that. It is a counter

accusation that you yourself, you say that I

355

am, you know, doing this, but you also

contravened the policy. So these are the

accusations there. And I can take you

through them.

CHAIRMAN But can you just deal with that? Did you 5

manipulate the policy?

MS SNELL No, I didn’t manipulate the policy.

MS EDMONDS So what she’s saying here that you didn’t

get her agreement to transfer an employee is

wrong. 10

MS SNELL That’s correct.

MS EDMONDS That you didn’t get her agreement in regard

to the date of that transfer is wrong.

MS SNELL She was part of the process. She was a

senior manager --- 15

MS EDMONDS Did you get her agreement?

MS SNELL Yes. I don’t have a document in writing

from her but she was part of the process

when we were discussing the appointment of

the employee. She took part in the whole 20

process and ---

CHAIRMAN So you saying it’s a collective decision.

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS But it is not in accordance with the HR

356

policy is it?

MS SNELL And why is that? I’m not sure why you

saying that.

MS EDMONDS Because the HR policy is set out here. She

deals with over and over again where you 5

didn’t comply with HR policy.

MS SNELL I did comply. I’m going to disagree with

you Ms Edmonds.

CHAIRMAN The policy says agreement of transfer date

should be made between the two departments 10

involved.

MS SNELL That’s right.

CHAIRMAN Where the two departments involved?

MS SNELL That’s quite correct.

MS EDMONDS Go down the page please. The HR policy 15

states in section 3.9 that the recruiting

manager then compiles a job specification.

All job profiles need to be kept up to date

and need to reflect the genuine job

requirements. ie. experience, knowledge, 20

qualifications and skills needed to perform

the job. Do you see that?

MS SNELL I see that Ms Edmonds.

MS EDMONDS “Ms Steenekamp says I wrote the job

357

specification and circulated this to the

colleagues in the divisions for their input.

A minor change was made by Neesha. I then

sent this job specification to Ms Snell with

a request that she send us the correct 5

format so that we can ensure that the job

was advertised in the format required. A

mail to that effect was sent on the 2nd of

November. I also ensured that we place the

salary parameters in the advertisement to 10

better inform potential applicants of what

broad parameters of salary expectations

could be. This was done by most SETAs and

by all government departments and other

public bodies in all advertisements. I also 15

required a short advert placement time as

the ETQA division had lost Shana and

Itumeleng and was going to lose Adeline

within a month. Most government posts and

SETA posts were advertised with closing 20

dates between a week or 10 days of

placement. Two advertisements by two

separate SETAs which appeared yesterday, 7

December, close on 15 and 17 December

358

respectively. Unbeknown to me Ms Snell

unilaterally changed the job specifications

I had compiled and unilaterally changed the

date of closing of the advertisement.” What

do you have to say to that Ms Snell? 5

MS SNELL I did not unilaterally do that.

MS EDMONDS Is Ms Steenekamp lying again?

MS SNELL I would say she might not have been aware.

But I did discuss with Mr Abel and I’ll tell

you why we, the closing date was always the 10

closing date that we had. Ms Steenekamp’s

was a portion into the advert and she wanted

a shorter closing date. And I discussed

that with Mr Abel and I said to him in terms

of the policy this is our closing date. At 15

least 2 weeks closing date that we need to

have. She wanted a shorter closing date and

we agreed that we were going to maintain the

closing date on the advert.

MS EDMONDS And the job specifications Ms Snell? 20

MS SNELL The job, it was a very minor change. It was

relating to, Ms Steenekamp had an original,

there was an original job in the file and

she made some changes because she wanted to

359

split the positions and the

responsibilities. But she also changed the

entrance requirements. She lowered the

entrance requirement. And our jobs are

pitched at a certain level. So I retained 5

the entrance requirement onto the post, the

minimum qualification onto the post. The

way it was worded.

MS EDMONDS Which meant that you unilaterally changed

the job specifications of a person, sorry --10

-

MS SNELL No, I did not unilaterally.

MS EDMONDS Hold on Ms Snell.

MS SNELL You know ---

MS EDMONDS Hold on Ms Snell. 15

MS SNELL You are putting words in my mouth.

MS EDMONDS Ms Snell.

MS SNELL I did not unilaterally. I said right at the

beginning I changed in consultation with Mr

Abel because I discussed those changes that 20

she had with him. If you have to, it’s, I

was acting as corporate services manager

because we did not have a corporate services

manager. And it was important that we

360

retained consistency in a job. So if you

had two ETQA consultant’s position and the

one you going to have a difference entrance

requirement from the other, you have a whole

lot of different job descriptions that are 5

not talking to each other. Your job

descriptions needs to retain the essence.

So although you changing, your components of

what you going to be doing is slightly

different, maybe this person would be 10

responsible for the QCTO etc, you cannot

change the basic entrance requirement into

the post. What would be the minimum

qualification we going to have for a

candidate on this --- 15

MS EDMONDS 11 Ms Snell, surely the person who is going

to decide what minimum qualifications are

necessary is the person who is going to have

that person in that position. Who is going

to, to whom that person is going to report. 20

MS SNELL Ms Edmonds, you would be correct and Shirley

would have sent the document to myself and

to Mr Abel whom she reported to. So I

11 Tape 1 – Side 2 – 3 June 2009

361

informed Mr Abel of the anomalies that I

found in her request. And Mr Abel agreed

with me that we should just change this.

And he signed the documents to change it.

He appended his signature on it after I 5

changed it and it went into the

advertisement. So Mr Abel and Ms Steenekamp

have a relationship. Ms Steenekamp

expressed her wishes which were certain

changes from a corporate services point of 10

view. I said to him this is a problem, it

wouldn’t be fair if we have such a short

time period to the applicants. Mr Abel

agreed with me and he said I should amend

it. So I have not unilaterally done 15

anything. I reported to Mr Abel. I was

wearing two hats. The hat of the chief

operations officer and the hat of the

corporate services manager at the time and I

gave him my advice. And he requested me to 20

change it and he signed on it. So I can't

see why ---

MS EDMONDS And what about the HR policy?

MS SNELL It’s been saying unilaterally. The HR

362

policy, it says that the recruiting manager

will compile the job specification.

MS EDMONDS And who is the recruiting manager?

MS SNELL The recruiting manager in this instance will

be Ms Steenekamp. 5

MS EDMONDS So did you comply with the HR policy?

MS SNELL Yes. But the HR policy also says other

things and I have a senior role in terms of

the HR policy in both hats. As chief

operations officer and as corporate services 10

manager being responsible for the human

resources division, I have to agree to these

things. Any budget that has to be depicted

in terms of hiring new staff etc. would fall

under my capabilities. 15

MS EDMONDS And job specifications has to do with that?

MS SNELL Yes. Job specifications have to do with

that because when you drafted job

specification, yes, the manager would be

involved in terms of that. But there are 20

certain HR components that are relevant in

terms of our policy, that when we advertise

we must make sure that there is sufficient

opportunity given to the applicants in a

363

fair manner to apply. So we advertise in,

as widely as possible, in newspapers. We

make sure the closing date gives the

applicants sufficient opportunity to apply

for the post. We ensure the competition is 5

fair. So there is a whole lot of things

that we have to take into account as a

corporate services division and all the

legislation involved when you recruiting

employees that Ms Steenekamp wouldn’t 10

specifically know. And that is why I raised

some of the issues with Mr Abel and he

agreed with me. He did not say let’s refer

this to Shirley. He said, fine Sharon, make

those changes and bring it here. I want 15

this out immediately. I attended to the

changes. He signed off on it.

MS EDMONDS Right. Mr Abel will deny that he gave you

authority to meddle with the job

descriptions. 20

MS SNELL Mr Abel did not give me authority to meddle

with the job descriptions. I have just at

length now told you exactly what Mike Abel

gave me authority to do. He did not say I

364

must meddle with the job descriptions. So

I’m going to disagree with you there Ms

Edmonds.

MS EDMONDS But you did meddle with it without authority

then. Is that now your testimony? 5

MS SNELL I’m really, I’ve explained at length what

was the two issues I’ve had with it and the

discussions I had with Mike Abel and that he

agreed with me that, yes, this time period

is too short. It’s not in line with INSETA 10

closing date time periods and he agreed that

we must change the closing date. And then

the entrance requirement that was lowered by

Ms Steenekamp for the position, he agreed

that that was the change that --- 15

MS EDMONDS And he will deny that.

MS SNELL That’s his, you know, if he denies that ---

MS EDMONDS Alright. Lets go on to your allegations

which appear to be your major problem in

regard to Kim Pretorius and Ms Steenekamp’s 20

son. Have a look at paragraph 14 of that --

-

MS SNELL The same page Ms Edmonds?

MR PRETORIUS No. It’s the next page.

365

MS EDMONDS Paragraph 14.

MR PRETORIUS You have to take the binding back to see

paragraph 14.

MS EDMONDS Right. Perhaps you’ll just read that in

response to your --- 5

MS SNELL “A third issue that has caused great harm to

me personally and to my son is the fact that

Ms Snell raises the issue of the paternity

of Ms Kim Pretorius’s child in her letter of

complaint. In this regard, the following, 10

this is a serious breach of protocol and

infringes not only Ms Pretorius’s right but

on those of my son as well. Ms Snell is

rumour mongering and her statements harm the

integrity of my son, of Ms Pretorius and my 15

integrity. Ms Snell deduces from the

hearsay conversation she says was repeated

to her by Ms Shana Singh that my son is the

father of Ms Pretorius’s child and she then

attempts to draw a conclusion that Ms 20

Pretorius’s post is being reserved because

of this relationship. These claims are

extremely damaging and we are seeking legal

counsel regarding our rights in this regard.

366

Ms Shana Singh as informed me telephonically

that this is not what happened at all and

that it was in fact Ms Snell who told her

that the father of Ms Pretorius’s child was

my son. I’ve required Ms Singh to provide 5

us with a statement regarding the evidence

written in Ms Snell’s letter.”

MS EDMONDS The events written in Ms Snell’s ---

MS SNELL Sorry, the events.

MS EDMONDS What do you say about that? 10

MS SNELL Ok, I have a problem with it and I’ll start

with the first part of it to say that it’s a

serious breach of protocol and it infringes

not only on Ms Pretorius’s rights. If you

have a look at the document on page 947 --- 15

MS EDMONDS Yes.

MS SNELL What I’ve raised there is very critical in

an organisation. If there are such rumours

going around and it’s being unresolved, it

needs to be taken up formally. And I felt 20

it was my duty to then put it in writing to

Mr Abel. This was not the first time that

these issues have come up. I have discussed

it only with Mr Abel and unfortunately I’m

367

not sure how far he took it with Ms

Steenekamp. But the situation was getting a

bit more critical because we’ve had all

these funny allegations that were going

around --- 5

CHAIRMAN Can I just ask you, Ms Snell raises the

issue of paternity of Kim Pretorius’s child.

Well what does hindsight tell us? Was it Ms

Steenekamp’s son’s child or not? Do you

know? 10

MS SNELL Mr Chairman I was not involved in the ---

CHAIRMAN No, but as we sit today was it ---

MS SNELL No. I’ve never been informed about that

because the forensic took that forward. The

forensic, Dr Konar would have taken that 15

forward. He never came back to me and said

this is what our findings are. So I don’t

know what the situation is today.

MS EDMONDS And he hasn’t testified that the child is Mr

Steenekamp’s child. 20

MS SNELL I’m not sure of his testimony but if he

hasn’t, yes, then I would imagine that he

is.

MS EDMONDS But you make all of these allegations. Did

368

you perhaps say to the staff as chief

operations officer, I don’t want to hear any

further discussion along these lines? It’s

utterly ridiculous, there’s no proof of

this, just get on with your jobs. 5

MS SNELL Initially no, I did not tell them that.

MS EDMONDS Why not?

MS SNELL Because I took the allegation to Mr Abel and

I was trusting that he would follow up on

it. 10

MS EDMONDS Why didn’t you deal with it as chief

operations officer?

MS SNELL Because Ms Steenekamp did not report to me.

She reported directly to Mr Abel.

MS EDMONDS But the people making the allegations 15

reported to you. Why didn’t you say to them

there is no substance to these allegations?

Ms Pretorius is not related to Ms Steenekamp

in any way. And just because there are

rumours about who the paternity of her child 20

is, doesn’t impact upon anything at all.

There is no, even if Mr Steenekamp was the

father of the child, there is nothing in the

human resources manual that finds that

369

offensive. Did you tell your staff that?

MS SNELL No, I didn’t tell my staff that.

MS EDMONDS Why not?

MS SNELL I wouldn’t agree with that approach. I

heard some gossip and I informed Mr Abel 5

about it so that he could deal with it in

the institution because it was quite

important that it would take up, it’s not

only people that were under my direct report

that we talking about here. 10

MS EDMONDS Did you deal with the people under your

direct report?

MS SNELL As I said, subsequently I did speak to the

people Ruth, Ms Edmonds.

MS EDMONDS At the time that the issue arose did you 15

deal with the people under your direct

report or did you inflame the issue by

making these kinds of allegations?

MS SNELL I certainly did not inflame the issue. I

felt it my duty to bring it under Mr Abel’s 20

attention formally so that he could deal

with it. I certainly did not inflame the

issue.

MS EDMONDS Ms Steenekamp says in this email that Shana

370

Singh told her that it was not her that had

said that her son, Mr Steenekamp, was Ms

Pretorius’s child’s father, but that it was

you who told Ms Shana Singh that.

MS SNELL I would disagree with the portion where it 5

was me that told her. But I do not know

what Ms Shana Singh would have told Ms

Steenekamp. And if she would it would have

been, certainly a lie, because she was the

person that informed me of that. But I have 10

no knowledge of her speaking to Ms

Steenekamp.

MS EDMONDS What’s Ms Shana Singh’s position?

MS SNELL Ms Shana Singh was asked to leave INSETA.

MS EDMONDS What was her position at the time? 15

MS SNELL At the time she, I’m not sure what position

she held. I’ll have to think about it. But

she was doing some work under the FAIS

project.

MS EDMONDS She was substantially lower level than you 20

were was she not?

MS SNELL She actually started as a PA, temporary PA

at INSETA and Mr Abel requested that we keep

her on. And she then occupied a position

371

when a lady that was employed with me for

marking left, PR and marketing. And then Ms

Steenekamp then recruited her to do, on a

fixed term contract some FAIS work.

MS EDMONDS And did she make a formal complaint to you 5

about the relationship between Ms Steenekamp

and Ms Pretorius and the unborn child?

MS SNELL She did not make a formal complaint in terms

of the policy. She just alerted me to it.

MS EDMONDS So you gossiped with her about it? 10

MS SNELL No, I did not gossip with her.

MS EDMONDS Well it certainly appears from the document

in your allegations at 947 that that’s what

it sounds like.

MS SNELL Where are you referring to? 15

MS EDMONDS Have a look at 947, you got that document?

MS SNELL Yes I do. Which specifically are you

referring to?

MS EDMONDS If you go about halfway down the document,

“Subsequent to this Kim Pretorius allegedly 20

phoned our offices and expressed her

displeasure against a staff member who she

believed reported the matter to you and

ruined her changes of promotion. My source

372

of information was not this person. The

person who told me about the alleged

relationship was Ms Shana Singh. She also

stated that she overheard a conversation

whereby Kim Pretorius was talking over the 5

phone and shouting to Shirley that this is

not your grandchild after Kim apparently

received the results of ---”

MS SNELL Sorry, you misquoted.

MS EDMONDS Sorry, “This is your grandchild after Kim 10

apparently received the results of a blood

test that she had done on the unborn child.”

That sounds like a fairly long discussion to

me.

MS SNELL Yes, that’s the discussion Shana Singh said 15

she had overheard from the opening plan

office where Kim Pretorius, everyone was

aware that Kim Pretorius was doing extensive

blood tests to confirm the paternity of her

baby. But she said she had overheard a 20

discussion where Kim was shouting and she

said to Shirley, I cannot confirm whether

that was Shirley or not, but she was saying

this is your grandchild. That is simply

373

what I have been told and that’s what I

recorded to Mike at the time.

MS EDMONDS And did you say to Ms Singh, stop this silly

rumour mongering, its inappropriate?

MS SNELL I did not know whether it was silly or not 5

and as far as I know she wasn’t rumour

mongering. She was just informing me of

what had happened. And it was important

that I, I was the chief operations officer,

I was a senior person which staff members 10

could approach and tell them of any concerns

relating to governance issues. So I

wouldn’t regard it as she was, you know,

gossiping to me about that. I would regard

it as informing me of something that’s quite 15

important to inform.

MS EDMONDS Ok.

MS SNELL In the absence of informing me, she should

have informed Mike. Which is what I was

doing. I was informing Mike. 20

MS EDMONDS Why didn’t you tell her to inform Mike?

MS SNELL Because I was quite comfortable to do it. I

didn’t see a problem with it. I didn’t

think it was silly at the time. I thought

374

we’d get Mike to have a look into it because

Mike could call Shirley and get her to

respond to that.

MS EDMONDS Go down to the fourth bullet point on the

fourth page of C13 please. Just read that 5

out please.

MS SNELL “Ms Peele will testify that the post for

which Ms Pretorius applied was an open post

advertised by the CS division. Ms Pretorius

was interviewed by Ms James, Ms Peele and 10

me, and a final selection and the

concomitant paperwork was finalised by the

CS division through Mr Phakama Nkosi.”

MS EDMONDS Read the next bullet point.

MS SNELL “Ms Pretorius is not related to me in any 15

way and was not a friend prior to the

appointment.”

MS EDMONDS And can you deny the correctness of the

allegations in those two bullet points?

MS SNELL No, I cannot deny the correctness of those 20

allegations.

MS EDMONDS If you bear with me for one more minute

please Mr Chair. On that aspect I havent

got anything further. If the matter can

375

stand down so I have the opportunity of

speaking to Mr Gerber.

CHAIRMAN Is he here, Mr Gerber?

MR PRETORIUS No, he’s still on the way.

MS EDMONDS We’ve asked him to come. 5

MR PRETORIUS I don’t know what the arrangements are. I

have no objection. For how long do you

want?

MS EDMONDS About an hour.

HEARING ADJOURNS FOR SHORT BREAKU 10

HEARING RESUMES

CHAIRMAN You still under oath. Thank you. Please

proceed Ms Edmonds.

MS EDMONDS Thank you Mr Chair. Ms Snell, the bundle of

documents with which I provided you this 15

morning. If you can just have a look at

that please before we go much further. Have

a look please at the document C20. It’s the

INSETA constitution which is gazetted. Do

you see that? 20

MS SNELL Yes I do.

MS EDMONDS Do you confirm that it is the INSETA

constitution and that it is gazetted in

terms of the Act?

376

MS SNELL It looks like the INSETA constitution.

MS EDMONDS Well I’m telling you that it is. Have a

look please at page 11 of that document.

The numbering is at the top of the document.

Immediately under Staatskoerant 8 September 5

2005. See that?

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS You got page 11?

MS SNELL Yes I do.

MS EDMONDS See where it says chief executive officer? 10

MS SNELL That’s right.

MS EDMONDS Just read out what the chief executive

officer’s responsibilities and functions are

please.

MS SNELL “The chief executive officer will be 15

responsible for the administrative and

secretarial work arising from the

functioning of the Council and for

performing the duties imposed by the

authority in terms of this Act and this 20

constitution. All SETA functions as

recorded in terms of Section 10 of the

Skills Development Act is delegated to the

chief executive officer and is authorised to

377

delegate same.”

MS EDMONDS You’ve seen this before of course?

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS So you aware that all the powers and

functions, or sorry, all the functions 5

recorded in Section 10 of Skills Development

Act were delegated to Mr Abel during the

course of his employment as CEO?

MS SNELL Yes. That’s where ---

MS EDMONDS You aware of that? 10

MS SNELL Yes. That’s what it says here.

MS EDMONDS Yes. Do you want to quarrel with that?

MS SNELL I’m not going to quarrel with it. I presume

this is the finalised gazetted constitution

so I’m quite happy with what you say. 15

MS EDMONDS Well that’s nice. And if you go to C21,

which is the very next document.

MS SNELL Of the Government Gazette?

MS EDMONDS That’s right. And that is the Skills

Development Act which governs the INSETA is 20

it not?

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS And perhaps if you would move then to

Section 10 which is referred to in the

378

constitution as being functions that are

delegated in their entirety to the CEO.

Well, you can just find it. It’s on page 14

of that document by the looks of things.

You got it? 5

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS And you see that SETA must be implemented,

sector skills planned by establishing

learnerships, approving work place skills

plans, allocating grants in the prescribed 10

manner to employers, education and training

providers and workers and etc. See that?

MS SNELL Yes. This subsection B.

MS EDMONDS Yes. You see it?

MS SNELL Yes. 15

MS EDMONDS You accept that that is part of the

delegated functions of the CEO in terms of

the constitution?

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS And it continues C, D, E, all of which are 20

relevant but not as relevant as F. Collect

and disburse the skills development levies

in it’s sector. See that?

MS SNELL F, yes.

379

MS EDMONDS You see that’s part of the delegated

functions of Mr Abel? Overleaf, well just

confirm because the recording can't record a

nod. Would you confirm that?

MS SNELL I confirm that you’ve read F, yes. 5

MS EDMONDS Well, do you want to quarrel with me about

whether that is a function that ---

MS SNELL No, I’m not quarrelling with you.

MS EDMONDS Can I finish?

MS SNELL Ok. 10

MS EDMONDS If you want to quarrel with me about any of

these functions as being functions that are

delegated to the CEO in terms of the

constitution of the INSETA you must do so

please otherwise we going to have to accept 15

that you accept that these are the functions

delegated to the CEO.

MS SNELL Ok. I hear you Ruth, Ms Edmonds.

MS EDMONDS Go overleaf please. 1K, inter alia, gives

him the function of performing any other 20

duties imposed by this Act or consistent

with the purposes of this Act. Do you see

that? You see it?

MS SNELL K, yes. I see K.

380

MS EDMONDS And 2, a SETA has all such powers as are

necessary to enable it to perform its duties

referred to in subsection 1 and the other

powers conferred on the SETA by this Act.

See that? So obviously those powers are 5

conferred then upon the CEO by way of its

constitution. Do you accept that?

MS SNELL Yes, I accept what is stated under the

Skills Development Act, yes.

MS EDMONDS And 3, a SETA must perform it’s, and 10

presumably you’ve read this before because

you’re now the acting CEO. So you obviously

would have made yourself familiar with the

provisions of the legislation that govern

you. 15

MS SNELL Yes. I’m familiar with the Skills

Development Act.

MS EDMONDS And the provisions of that legislation which

govern you in your current capacity as

acting CEO. 20

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS And 3, a SETA must perform its functions in

accordance with this Act and its

constitution.

381

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS You confirm that you’ve seen that and that

is part of the Act?

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS Right. So the constitution is specifically 5

incorporated into the legislation.

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS You accept that?

MS SNELL Yes. It’s gazetted as such.

MS EDMONDS Yes. Just to move on to something slightly 10

different then if we may. Have a look at

C19. Part of that same bundle. Go

backwards. Do you have it?

MS SNELL Yes I do.

MS EDMONDS And that’s the INSETA financial policy and 15

procedures manual updated 27 January 2003.

I see it’s not signed. Do you want to have

a quick look at it and see whether I havent

perhaps slipped in an inaccurate policy and

procedures manual? 20

MS SNELL The cover looks unfamiliar to me.

MS EDMONDS Alright, well just, let me take you to the

provisions that I want you to pay attention

to and if that doesn’t accurately reflect

382

the manual perhaps you’ll point that out to

the hearing. Go to the very next page,

these are just extracts from the manual.

The heading duties and responsibilities of

the financial manager. 5

MS SNELL Yes, page 19.

MS EDMONDS You see that? Do you see that?

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS And who is the financial manager of the

INSETA? 10

MS SNELL It’s outsourced to Deloittes.

MS EDMONDS To Deloittes. It’s not Mr Abel or indeed

yourself?

MS SNELL No, I occupied the role in an acting

position of CFO. 15

MS EDMONDS I beg your pardon?

MS SNELL Of CFO.

MS EDMONDS Just repeat everything you’ve just said.

MS SNELL Chief financial officer.

MS EDMONDS Yes. Just repeat what you’ve just said 20

please.

MS SNELL I said I occupied the role in an acting

position of chief financial officer.

MS EDMONDS Who is the financial manager?

383

MS SNELL Deloitte is our financial manager.

MS EDMONDS Thank you. That is what I was asking about.

MS SNELL That’s what I said.

MS EDMONDS I put to you that Mr Abel was not the

financial manager. 5

MS SNELL I didn’t hear that. I’m sorry Ms Edmonds.

MS EDMONDS “The financial manager of the authority

shall a) in the exercise of his/her

financial related responsibilities be

accountable directly to the accounting 10

officer; b) ensure compliance with the

provisions of the Act, the manual and the

PFMA to the extent applicable to the

authority and its employees including any

delegations and instructions. Do you see 15

that?

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS So that’s Deloitte’s responsibility, to

ensure compliance with the Act. Do you see

that? Or do you want to quarrel with it? 20

MS SNELL The financial manager is Deloitte. Sorry,

in terms of this policy that you have here

which I’m having a look at now for the first

time, yes, that would be their

384

responsibility.

MS EDMONDS Alright, I don’t want you to have a look at

it for the first time.

MS SNELL Because this is a 2003 ---

MS EDMONDS I don’t want you to have to respond to 5

something that you say that you unfamiliar

with. Are you familiar with the INSETA’s

policies?

MS SNELL Yes, the INSETA policy. But I don’t

recognise this particular document. 10

MS EDMONDS Are you familiar with the INSETA policies?

MS SNELL That’s right.

MS EDMONDS You not familiar with this document?

MS SNELL That’s right.

MS EDMONDS Can I ask that we can stand down so that he 15

can establish whether this is in fact the

policy that she’s familiar with?

CHAIRMAN But when you referring me to Acts and

policies I go by what they say. It doesn’t

matter what the witness says. 20

MS EDMONDS Yes. But if she says this is not the policy

then it may well be that I’m referring you

to the wrong policy. I don’t want to ---

CHAIRMAN Well, what have you got a problem with

385

what’s put to you? Let me just tell you,

common sense tells me it doesn’t matter what

Deloitte’s responsibility is.

MS SNELL Yes.

CHAIRMAN You are the CEO of, if Deloittes get it 5

wrong, I would say all of ... (inaudible)

... is wrong because you are in a

responsible position. So ---

MS SNELL Yes.

CHAIRMAN Let’s just be very practical about this 10

thing here. What’s wrong with this? I

don’t see anything wrong with this?

MS SNELL That’s what I said. I just havent seen this

particular policy before.

CHAIRMAN I’ll take it that --- 15

MS EDMONDS That it’s the correct one. Alright. You

aware that Deloittes on a monthly basis

signs off a PFMA compliance document?

MS SNELL They don’t per se sign it off. They give

the authority from INSETA and then that goes 20

off to the national treasury. So the PFMA

checklist, is that’s what being specifically

---

MS EDMONDS That’s correct.

386

MS SNELL Yes, they compile the PFMA checklist and

provide it to INSETA and INSETA then

obviously has a look at it and it’s agreed

to and then it goes off.

MS EDMONDS So on each occasion, on every single month 5

you get the checklist from Deloittes and the

Council presumably, or is it FINCO, approves

it before it goes to treasury.

MS SNELL On a monthly basis it goes off and it’s

approved by the INSETA. 10

MS EDMONDS Who in the INSETA?

MS SNELL On a quarterly basis, that checklist. It

would be approved by the person who is the

CFO, which as I said, I’m in that role as

well. I’m acting in that role. 15

MS EDMONDS And you were acting in that role last year

as well?

MS SNELL Since I’ve been acting, I’ve been acting as

acting chief executive officer and acting

chief financial officer. 20

MS EDMONDS Alright, well ---

MS SNELL It’s three positions.

MS EDMONDS No, I’m not interested in all of that.

Every single month there is a checklist that

387

comes from Deloittes.

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS Which confirms that the INSETA is complying

with the PFMA.

MS SNELL Yes. 5

MS EDMONDS And that is signed off by somebody or some

body that is authorised to do so by the

INSETA.

MS SNELL That’s correct.

MS EDMONDS And it then goes to treasury. 10

MS SNELL That’s correct.

MS EDMONDS Has there been a single occasion in which

that has not been agreed to by the INSETA?

Or that the treasury has had a difficulty

with it? 15

MS SNELL We have noted on our documents some of the

issues that have come to the fore. Now it

doesn’t mean that national treasury is going

to scrutinise a document and don’t agree

with it. We just have to submit whether we 20

billing the SETAs in compliance or not with

the particular section of the PFMA. And we

have noted on occasion where there have been

issues ---

388

MS EDMONDS Just hold on.

CHAIRMAN Sorry, I’ve got people from the UK to see me

for half an hour. It’s 1 o' clock I see.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN Can I suggest quarter to 2 we reassemble? 5

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN I didn’t realise that we going to be off and

I couldn’t raise them.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN I was trying to raise them. 10

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Quarter to.

HEARING ADJOURNS FOR SHORT BREAK

HEARING RESUMES

CHAIRMAN Please proceed when you ready.

MS EDMONDS Thank you very much. You’ve had a chance to 15

have a look at the documents in that bundle?

MS SNELL Yes, thanks Ms Edmonds.

MS EDMONDS Have you found any difficulties with them

that you’d like to bring to the attention of

the Chairperson? 20

MS SNELL No thanks. They are, well most of them, is

extracts of different pages, especially the

policy, so I’ve familiarised myself with it.

MS EDMONDS Ok.

389

MS SNELL And then also the government gazette ---

MS EDMONDS Are you satisfied ---

MS SNELL And Skills Development Act which was

applicable at that time.

MS EDMONDS You satisfied that each of the documents are 5

what they purport to be?

MS SNELL I’m satisfied.

MS EDMONDS And we were dealing with the duties and

responsibilities of the financial manager of

the INSETA. 10

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS And that we know is Deloittes.

MS SNELL Ruth, I’ve had an opportunity to look at the

full document including the definition

section of financial manager. So yes, the 15

financial manager as appointed by INSETA is

Deloitte in terms of the service level

agreement with them. In terms of the

definition of this document it says that the

financial manager is either the manager 20

responsible for finance or the Chief

Financial Officer. So that would be the

chief financial officer. And both Mike and

myself would have been the chief financial

390

officer. I, when I was appointed in the

acting role and he at the time when he was

appointed CEO. Because the CEO also has a

role as a chief financial officer. So you

appointed in both positions. 5

MS EDMONDS And we also were dealing with the fact that

Deloittes get agreement from INSETA at the

end of every month on PFMA compliance.

MS SNELL The checklist.

MS EDMONDS The checklist, yes. 10

MS SNELL That’s quite right.

MS EDMONDS And you’re in agreement with me that each

month the PFMA checklist was agreed to by

the INSETA. Certainly each month with which

we are dealing with her in this period. And 15

the INSETA agreed to it and it was sent to

treasury.

MS SNELL That’s correct.

MS EDMONDS Now page 21 continues the responsibilities

of duties and responsibilities as financial 20

manager. It continues on 20 and 21, but I’d

like you to have a look at sub p and sub q,

ensure that effective and appropriate steps

are taken by employees to prevent within the

391

employee’s area of responsibility any

unauthorised irregular fruitless and

wasteful expenditure and any under

collection of revenue due. And q, ensure

that the system of financial management and 5

internal control established for the

authority is carried out within the area of

responsibility of the individual employees.

MS SNELL I see that.

MS EDMONDS Thank you. If you go then to the page that 10

is numbered 39. You see the heading

principles of payments?

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS After sub 2, what appears should be in fact

a heading, fixing of level of approval for 15

payments made by the INSETA CEO. You see

that?

MS SNELL Yes, I do see that Ms Edmonds.

MS EDMONDS And that’s under the, it talks of payments

and under principles of payments and it then 20

says expenditure approved by the CEO must

adhere to the following procedures, it must

be within a limit of 500 000, inter alia.

You see that?

392

MS SNELL Yes, on the bottom there, I do.

CHAIRMAN Which page?

MS EDMONDS It’s page 39 of that ---

MR PRETORIUS Of the ---

MS EDMONDS 19. 5

MR PRETORIUS 19 policy. It’s before the Act.

MS EDMONDS The document that we were, the financial

policy and procedures manual.

CHAIRMAN I’m on C, is it C19, page 39?

MR PRETORIUS Yes, bottom of page 39. 10

CHAIRMAN Limit of 500, yes, thank you.

MS EDMONDS Right, now lets turn to the actual charges

against ---

MS SNELL Just give me a page reference.

MS EDMONDS I havent got there yet. Against Mr Abel. 15

They don’t appear in any of our bundles. Do

the charges appear in any of the bundles

prepared ---

MR PRETORIUS They in front of each of the subsections.

MS EDMONDS Oh right. Perhaps we can refer to those 20

then. Have a look at charge number 5,

complaint number 5 is in fact what it’s

called.

MR PRETORIUS It’s page 435, file 2.

393

MS EDMONDS You see that?

MS SNELL Yes, I do.

MS EDMONDS You’ve seen those charges before I take it.

MS SNELL I’m sure I did but it was in a different

format. I saw a charge letter. 5

MS EDMONDS Yes. But you’ve seen those charges before.

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS And if you go then to complaint number 8

which is page 646 of that same bundle.

MS SNELL Yes, I’m here. 10

MS EDMONDS You see that? Now it appears to me that the

bulk of the complaints raised by you in your

report to the Council dealt with those three

charges or that those three charges arose

out of your report to the Council. Am I 15

correct?

MS SNELL Yes, certainly complaint number 8.

MS EDMONDS Well just have a look at complaint number 5.

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS Yes. And your report is the document which 20

appears at page 565 of that same bundle.

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS Yes. And that’s the report which you

submitted to the INSETA Council, is it not?

394

MS SNELL Yes, that’s correct.

MS EDMONDS Now did you deal, well, let’s deal with this

instead. What is PWC in relation to INSETA?

MS SNELL PWC are appointed in terms of contract and

they have three contracts with INSETA. The 5

one has since expired. So they were the

managers of the bursary project. They were

INSETA’s project managers and they were

since appointed, last year, as a

learnerships, to manage the INSETA 10

learnerships as well.

MS EDMONDS And when we talk about IPO, who are we

talking about?

MS SNELL The INSETA project office which would be

PriceWaterhouseCoopers. 15

MS EDMONDS And in that capacity they do what?

MS SNELL They are the INSETA project office. They

provide a project management service to the

INSETA. They assist INSETA in scoping

projects, in administering the projects. In 20

processing invoices for the projects and in

reporting on the projects. So they work

together with the project sponsor. They

would spend more time with the project

395

sponsor on definite projects and obviously

keep all the records for the projects. So

if there’s a meeting relating to a specific

project, they would be in attendance. Most

occasions they would minute that and they 5

would keep all the project records at their

offices.

MS EDMONDS Basically they project manage the projects?

MS SNELL That’s quite correct. They provide a

project management service to INSETA. 10

MS EDMONDS Including right from inception the documents

which propose a project to the Council,

right to closure of that project when it is

completed.

MS SNELL Yes, yes, that’s correct. The project 15

management service would be from the

beginning to the end.

MS EDMONDS And everything that is incidental to that

from the beginning to the end.

MS SNELL I’m not sure what you mean by that but they 20

provide a project management service.

INSETA administrators, the officials,

ultimately are the project managers per

project and PriceWaterhouseCoopers provides

396

a project management service.

MS EDMONDS They do the actual day to day project

management, don’t they?

MS SNELL Yes, they do that together with the relevant

project manager at INSETA. 5

MS EDMONDS And they are presumably paid good money to

do this. They don’t do it out of the

kindness of their hearts.

MS SNELL Absolutely.

MS EDMONDS And how would PWC have come by this 10

particular position within the INSETA?

MS SNELL Insofar as project management is concerned,

there is a tender that went out for project

management services and they were awarded as

the company who was the successful bidder. 15

MS EDMONDS So in the normal course, they competed for

it and they were found to be the best bid

for that particular ---

MS SNELL Yes, through a public tender process.

MS EDMONDS Thank you. And they were the project 20

managers or the IPO of the FAIS projects

were they not?

MS SNELL FAIS was slightly unique in that it had a

dedicated intern manager, Glen Edwards. And

397

he and Shirley Steenekamp then were also the

project sponsors and yes, they certainly

provided project management services to the

project.

MS EDMONDS And do you know Adie Gerber? 5

MS SNELL Yes, I’ very familiar with Adie Gerber, yes.

MS EDMONDS And what was his role within the PWC and the

INSETA?

MS SNELL Adie was an official of

PriceWaterhouseCoopers who provided project 10

management services together with the

others. John White was the director.

MS EDMONDS But Adie Gerber was dedicated to INSETA

projects was he not?

MS SNELL Yes, yes, that’s quite correct. 15

MS EDMONDS And how long was he dedicated to such

projects? Did he predate your arrival at

the INSETA?

MS SNELL He did predate my arrival at the INSETA but

I’m not sure when I came through if he was a 20

dedicated person because I’m aware that Leon

Ganswyk also used to work and then he

received a promotion. I can't remember what

the date was.

398

MS EDMONDS Alright. Are you happy to say that Mr

Gerber was very familiar with the

functionings of the projects and with

project management within the SETA?

MS SNELL Yes, I’m quite happy to say that. 5

MS EDMONDS You happy to say that he probably had more

experience and skills in this regard than

you did?

MS SNELL I would say he had more experience with

regard to what was happening at INSETA and 10

how they managed the projects.

MS EDMONDS You avoided saying skills.

MS SNELL Certainly, yes I have.

MS EDMONDS Would you like to explain why you believe

you have greater skills at project 15

management of INSETA projects than a project

manager specifically employed to do so has?

MS SNELL I wouldn’t say my skills are less than him.

I would say he has more experience.

MS EDMONDS We talking about skills. 20

MS SNELL Yes, that’s what I’m saying.

MS EDMONDS So you saying your skills are either the

same or better?

MS SNELL I would say my skills are equal to his.

399

MS EDMONDS Right. I’m going to lead Mr Gerber, but

perhaps you’d like to explain to this

meeting why you believe, having been

incumbent in the SETA now for less, for 18

months but at the relevant time, for 5

probably about a year you were in, at least

the same level of skills, if not better,

than somebody who’d been dedicated to that

job predating your arrival as COO, not

project manager, COO of the INSETA. 10

MS SNELL Yes. Because I have extensive project

management experience. I’ve managed huge

programs that have more budget that what the

INSETA has put together with different

projects within it. So I’ve got extensive 15

project management experience. So when I

say yes, Adie’s got more experience in

what’s happening at INSETA, I wouldn’t put

myself at a lower level in terms of skills

level in terms of project management. 20

MS EDMONDS Alright. And presumably its for that

purpose that when you go about reporting on

over expenditure in FAIS project to the

Council, you do not go to Adie Gerber or PWC

400

and say have I got it right. It’s because

you had more skills or at least the same

skills.

MS SNELL I’m not sure what you basing that question

on. Certainly --- 5

MS EDMONDS You don’t have to worry what I’m basing ---

MR PRETORIUS No, let her finish.

MS SNELL But certainly I would have consulted with

Adie Gerber, with John White, and if I

recall it might also be with Leon Ganswyk. 10

But I’ll have to double check on that. And

also our financial managers were responsible

for the finances of INSETA including the

registration of foreign funding. And that

would be Deloittes. 15

MS EDMONDS Ok.

MS SNELL So ... (inaudible) ... all other INSETA

managers at the time. The only people I was

not able to consult with, and I mentioned it

in the report, was Mike and Shirley because 20

they were suspended at the time.

MS EDMONDS 12In drawing up your report to the Council

did you consult with Adie Gerber?

12 Tape 2 – Side 1 – 3 June 2009

401

MS SNELL Yes, I did.

MS EDMONDS Before you drew it up?

MS SNELL That’s right.

MS EDMONDS You said I’ve got certain concerns. I might

not be absolutely familiar with how things 5

run around here, perhaps Mr Gerber, since

you are the specialist that we’ve employed

to do this job, you could be of some

assistance. You did that didn’t you?

MS SNELL Yes, I did. 10

MS EDMONDS And Mr Gerber will say that you didn’t.

MS SNELL I’ve got documentary proof that I consulted

---

MS EDMONDS Well perhaps you’d like to pull that out.

MS SNELL I don’t have it here. 15

MS EDMONDS We’d like to see it.

MS SNELL But I did certainly consult with Adie Gerber

and not just Adie Gerber. I also had to

consult extensively, before even

conceptualising the report and deciding that 20

we’d need the ratification, I consulted with

them. Because the invoices were on my desk

and they were requirement payment and we

were trying to make sure that, already we

402

had exceeded the 30 day PFMA requirements so

that became an urgent issue. And that’s why

I did consult with Adie Gerber on those ---

MS EDMONDS Ms Snell, you consulted with him perhaps

about the invoices. We know about that. 5

And we’ll deal with that and your report in

more depth just now. You know that I’m

talking about your report to Council.

MS SNELL Before and afterwards, after I drafted it --

- 10

MS EDMONDS No, no.

MR PRETORIUS Let her finish. Let her ---

MS EDMONDS About the report to Council.

MR PRETORIUS Sorry Mr Chairman, she started answering and

Ms Edmonds immediately interrupted her. She 15

must be allowed to finish her answer before

the question is asked.

MS EDMONDS Perhaps you’ll answer the question I’m

asking.

MR PRETORIUS She was. 20

MS EDMONDS Mr Pretorius please. Perhaps you will

answer the question I’m asking.

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS This report at page 565 through to 575, have

403

a look at it please.

MS SNELL Yes Ma'am, I have had a look at it.

MS EDMONDS In compiling this report ---

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS With the view to compiling this report, did 5

you consult with Mr Gerber about what you

were going to put in the report?

MS SNELL I consulted with Mr Gerber before I drafted

the report and I consulted with Mr Gerber

after I drafted the report. 10

MS EDMONDS Now please answer my question.

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS You’ve said that more than once. I’ve put

the question to you three times, I’m going

to put it to you a fourth time. This 15

report, in compiling this report, not about

anything else that might have happened. Any

invoices that might be mentioned in the

report. But in making the decision to

compile this report which you took to 20

Council, in which you accused Mr Abel of

acting outside the bounds of his authority,

out of which Mr Abel has been suspended and

charged, in conceptualising and compiling

404

this report, in deciding that you are going

to make this report and then writing it.

MS SNELL Thank you. The report had no bearing on Mr

Abel’s suspension because he was suspended

well after the report. So to answer your 5

question very specifically, the decision to

actually do a report to Council, I did not

consult with Adie on that decision because I

was requested by Council to put together the

report and provide it to them. So yes, I 10

consulted with Adie. He knew I was doing a

report. And I consulted him on the contents

of the report before and after I drafted the

report. But certainly not whether or not a

report was going to be done to Council. 15

That I did not consult him on. And I did not

need to.

MS EDMONDS The content of the report, not whether.

MS SNELL The content, certainly. I said yes, I’ve

consulted Adie about the content of the 20

report.

MS EDMONDS Well Mr Gerber will say that you didn’t.

And in fact, what did happen, was having

done the report, you then circulated it. Do

405

you recall that?

MS SNELL I did circulate the report after I completed

it for comments.

MS EDMONDS You circulated it for comments.

MS SNELL Yes. 5

MS EDMONDS Now explain to this hearing please, what

comments? What did you mean by comments?

MS SNELL When you do a report of this nature, in

order to be able to put all the information

here I would go through a consultation 10

process. And then at the end of the day,

because I’m consulting a number of different

people, what would be here, not everybody

would know what’s on this report. So this

would then be the draft version that gets 15

circulated for comment. So when it goes to

Council it has the necessary comments on it

and I will apply my mind to the comments

that people have provided.

MS EDMONDS The document that we see here at 565 is the 20

document that actually went to Council isn’t

it?

MS SNELL That’s quite correct.

MS EDMONDS Ok. In what way, courtesy of Mr Gerber’s

406

comments, has this document been changed

from your original document?

MS SNELL I actually had to take into account Mr John

White’s comments. He provided me with

detailed comments. Adie Gerber provided me 5

with very minimal comments so I requested

John White to provide me with further

comments.

MS EDMONDS Ok. In what way did you take into account

either Mr Adie Gerber or Mr John White’s 10

comments in this report? What is the

difference between this report and the

report that you originally drafted and sent

to Mr Gerber?

MS SNELL I’ll have to check exactly what his comments 15

is and show you. It’s a very difficult

question to answer, you know, without having

all the documents in front of me. But I

certainly had a look at the comments

submitted by John White. Adie had some, he 20

made some comments not ... (inaudible) ...

in the report and then also had some

grammatical, he was changing some of the

grammar and things like that which I then

407

said to John White, that as project managers

I would like some detail as to, you know,

contents wise, what are their comments.

MS EDMONDS I’ll get there.

MS SNELL Which John White then in detail provided me 5

with.

MS EDMONDS We’ll get there. I want to deal with Adie

Gerber for the moment.

MS SNELL Ok.

MS EDMONDS And in fact I want to deal with the question 10

you have yet to answer. What is the

difference between this document at 565 to

574, which is the document that’s served

before Council ---

MS SNELL Yes. 15

MS EDMONDS And the document that you drafted and

circulated for comment?

MS SNELL That’s what I’m saying Ms Edmonds, it’s a

very difficult question for me because I

don’t have both documents in front of me and 20

I can't tell you what the difference is.

MS EDMONDS Alright, if I tell you there is no

difference?

MS SNELL I’d have to accept that you studied both

408

documents and you’ve noted that there’s no

difference.

MS EDMONDS You drafted them. You don’t have to accept

anything I say. You’ve got much more

intimate knowledge. And this is only in 5

February this year. You don’t have to

accept what I say. You going to have, if

you going to accept it you must accept it

because it is fact.

MS SNELL Yes. 10

MS EDMONDS Otherwise you must show me something

different.

MS SNELL I’m having great difficulty with your

question Ms Edmonds. You asking me to

compare this document to a document that is 15

not in front of me. We must remember it got

circulated and out of the circulation

process a lot of people would have told me

different things. And based on that I would

have checked whatever information came in. 20

And I wouldn’t be able to say so. You are

saying to me this document is exactly the

same as a document that I have circulated.

So I’m saying I will have to accept that. I

409

presume you sitting with a document in front

of you and I’ve gone through all the

necessary things.

MS EDMONDS But you’ve got personal knowledge. I’m

giving you an opportunity to say but that’s 5

not true.

MR PRETORIUS With great respect, I think it’s ---

CHAIRMAN I think she’s answered the question.

MR PRETORIUS She’s answered the question.

CHAIRMAN She’s answered it. 10

MR PRETORIUS It’s greatly unfair to say to someone

there’s the document you prepared 3 months

ago. Is it identically the same as ---

CHAIRMAN Well I think she’s answered to the best of

her ability. 15

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

MS EDMONDS And Mr Gerber is going to say that he made a

number of comments and that they were

intended for inclusion and that it was clear

from the comments that they were intended 20

for inclusion and you declined to include

them. Do you want to comment on that before

I hand you another document?

MS SNELL I did receive comments from Mr John White

410

which I went through which, that was

PriceWaterhouseCoopers comments that I

received from Mr John White.

MS EDMONDS Did you receive comments from Mr Gerber?

Please, could you answer the question? 5

MR PRETORIUS She has answered Ruth, and she has already

dealt with it and she said he also, inter

alia, gave grammatical changes. So ---

MS EDMONDS When I asked you the question did you

receive comments from Mr Gerber, you said 10

you received comments from Mr White. Would

you like to tell us why you avoiding dealing

with the comments you received from Mr

Gerber?

MS SNELL No, I didn’t say that. Can I just correct 15

what I said so that it’s recorded correctly?

I said I did receive comments from Mr

Gerber.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

MS SNELL I did not regard his comments as directly 20

dealing with the contents and specifically

the email I sent to everyone circulating,

specifically I asked them to look at certain

things into the document and to give me

411

comments on it because it’s quite an

important document. It was saying quite

important things. I was not satisfied with

what Adie said. And he was dealing with

grammatical changes in the document which I 5

thought was a bit too low level at this

stage. I was looking content wise from a

project management office. So I approached

the director, Mr John White, and Mr John

White gave me some very good comments to it. 10

So that’s why I’m saying to you ---

MS EDMONDS Alright, we’ll deal with what you did with

Mr John White’s very good comments shortly.

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS But we’ll stick with Mr Gerber. Now you do 15

place a great deal of emphasis on the fact

that he put INSETA and FAIS in capitals

whereas you hadnt. Which seems to me ---

MR PRETORIUS She never said that.

MS EDMONDS What did he do grammatically? Let’s spend 20

as much time as we possibly can on this.

MS SNELL What I’m saying is when I sent the document

to Adie Gerber ---

CHAIRMAN Can I ask you Ms Edmonds, are these changes

412

material?

MS EDMONDS The ones that I’m talking about that this

witness is avoiding dealing with are very

material.

CHAIRMAN But Mr Gerber is going to give evidence. 5

Won't he just tell me and take me through

that.

MS EDMONDS No, I’m sure he will.

CHAIRMAN And we can decide on the probabilities then.

MR PRETORIUS What is more for the mention Mr Chairman is 10

the document, my learned friend is in

possession of the document.

CHAIRMAN She must give ---

MR PRETORIUS Now she’s cross examining the witness on a

document and she’s not going to produce the 15

document. Well, we’ll deal with it in

argument.

MS EDMONDS Yes.

CHAIRMAN Why don’t you just give her the document?

MS EDMONDS I’m going to give her the document. 20

CHAIRMAN Well give her the document. Just ---

MS EDMONDS I don’t have a difficulty giving her the

document.

CHAIRMAN Take us to the material irregularity.

413

MS EDMONDS And I’m happy enough for her to see the

document after the evidence she’s just given

about grammatical changes.

CHAIRMAN This will be C ---

MR PRETORIUS What’s your last C? 5

CHAIRMAN C31 and C32.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Well which one is C31 and C32?

MS EDMONDS Well no, we dealing with, I’ve only handed

the witness the one document which is the

changes by Mr Adie Gerber. 10

MR PRETORIUS This one?

MS EDMONDS That’s correct. Do you recognise that

document Ms Snell?

MS SNELL Yes, I do.

MS EDMONDS What is it? 15

MS SNELL This would be the document that was amended.

MS EDMONDS By?

MS SNELL Adie Gerber.

MS EDMONDS Well those are not amended. Those are

comments made by Mr Adie Gerber, are they 20

not?

MS SNELL Yes, they were comments made by him Ruth.

And what I was saying to them is, and that’s

exactly where I was disrupted, what I was

414

saying is I sent an email, a cover sheet on

this document, where I said to people, I

need all your comments. And I want to

include your comments under, this is the

comments of everyone. I don’t want you to 5

amend my document. I want you to provide me

with comments so that I can include this is

what PWC’s version is and this is what the

FAIS project manager said etc. This is a

document that I’ve put together from all 10

that available information to Council. Now

if I take you through Adie’s comments you

will see where it has been dealt with in a

sense. So I’m not going to amend my wording

in my document. What I want to do is 15

include his comments as this is what PWC’s

comments to the document is. So I’m not

looking for anyone to edit the document.

And I made that quite clear in my email.

And if you pull out my email you’ll be able 20

to actually see that is my exact wording.

This is a formal document. I do not want it

edited. I want you to give me your comments

for inclusion under the commentary section.

415

And I even clarified that to Mr John White,

which he then subsequently attended to. But

as far as I could see here, whatever’s been

dealt with in our discussions, initial

discussions Adie and I spoke about, we did 5

raise this. So this is not new issues to me

per se. I have now summarised the report

for Council and I just want

PriceWaterhouseCoopers and other people that

were relevant in this, like Marius etc, to 10

be able to give me their comments for

inclusion.

MS EDMONDS Are you finished Ms Snell?

MS SNELL Yes, thank you. And if you look at my

covering letter to --- 15

MS EDMONDS So you not finished Ms Snell.

MS SNELL Yes, thank you. Sorry about that.

MS EDMONDS You are finished?

MS SNELL Yes, thanks. I am finished.

MS EDMONDS On page 1 there is something that is called 20

a comment. Do you see that? Yes? Called

comment.

MS SNELL Ma'am, I cannot take this document to

Council like this. I said please do not

416

edit my document. Please provide me with

your written comments. Do not fidget with

my document. Then I will include your

comments under the comments section for

inclusion. And I repeated this. This is 5

not the first request. The document came

with the covering email. The second

request, I elevated it to Mr John White. I

cannot take a document like this to Council.

MS EDMONDS Is anybody asking you to take this document 10

anywhere? You asked for comment, Mr Adie

Gerber in the column set aside on that

particular program makes a comment. You do

not have to accept it but it would have been

nice if you had looked at it and recognised 15

it as a comment. I cannot see what is

offensive by that.

MS SNELL Ma'am, I’m going to repeat, if you look at

the covering email to my document, and

perhaps maybe everyone should, I don’t know 20

if it’s in, perhaps should look at it. I

made quite a clear request. This is a

formal document that is going to INSETA

Council. I do not want you to fidget. I

417

cannot take this document and everybody

else’s things and start mixing and matching

or whatever. This is my document going to

Council. Give me your comments so that I

can include it under the comments section. 5

This is a formal document, you know, it’s

not for editing. I’ve already drafted the

document. I’ve consulted with everybody.

And when this came, I then raised it with Mr

John White so that he could provide 10

assistance to Mr Adie Gerber.

MS EDMONDS I’m not moving away from Gerber.

MS SNELL And I was quite satisfied that he did

provide the necessary assistance to him. So

when you telling me to submit this to 15

Council and everybody else’s version of

comments, no. And Adie was the only person

---

MS EDMONDS ... (inaudible) ... do anything.

MR PRETORIUS Let her finish. 20

MS SNELL Adie Gerber was the only person that did

this. And I’m not saying that’s something

bad about him or anything. It’s just that

he didn’t read my email and I requested him

418

to please attend to this properly. And I

was quite satisfied that

PriceWaterhouseCoopers had dealt with it.

So to say to me, no, this is a comment, why

didn’t I look at it? That’s my explanation 5

for it Ruth.

MS EDMONDS Yes, because it didn’t appear in the form

that you wanted it so you could then just

disregard it. Is that correct?

MS SNELL No. The second, the latter part is 10

incorrect. The first part is right. It

wasn’t in the form that I required and Mr

John White’s comments did come in the

necessary format.

MS EDMONDS We’ll get to Mr White. 15

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS The comment here is in regard to background

discussion ---

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS This paragraph should contain reference to 20

the budget remaining from year 5 and year 8

approvals. It might also be beneficial to

include reference to the financial

procedures related to transferring of funds

419

as used by Deloitte. Where in your final

document did you take that comment into

account? Or indeed where did you append it

on to a comment page for the purposes of the

Council having a full understanding of what 5

PWC’s comments were on your document?

MS SNELL This particular comments, I did not append

to any page. I, however, had mentioned

where the particular invoices were debited

after year 5 and the year 8 budget. 10

MS EDMONDS Sorry, you done what?

MS SNELL In my report ---

MS EDMONDS Yes.

MS SNELL It is already providing which particular

invoice was wrongly debited to the year 5 15

and the year 8 project.

MS EDMONDS Where does Mr Gerber say anything was

wrongly debited? In fact it says quite the

opposite, does it not?

MS SNELL Ok, when I discussed with Mr Gerber about 20

those debits and Mr Gerber explained to me

how he understood the situation. He said

that he was not aware that Mike did not have

authority to transfer funds from one project

420

to another. He was at all times under the

impression that that was, that could

actually be done.

MS EDMONDS Ok. This authority that he was unaware of -

-- 5

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS Where’s this authority? Which authority is

it that you’re, in fact, let’s have a look

at the charge. Without authority you

approved a maximum transfer of 2 million 10

from the bursary fund to the FAIS project.

Is that the authority you talking about?

MS SNELL It’s a vein that runs through because

specifically this comment is relating to

year 5 and year 8 approvals. 15

MS EDMONDS Yes.

MS SNELL And it’s not relating to bursary funds. If

you do speak to bursary funds and the

transfer of 2 million Rand from the bursary

project to another project, I’m going to say 20

yes, Mike does not have any authority in

terms of the delegations to do that. In

terms of the delegations the INSETA Council,

discretionary grant funding is governed by

421

the regulations and the INSETA Council can

award funding. And when the INSETA Council

awards funding they do so in terms of the

project. Within a project, INSETA Council

has given Mike the authority if, for 5

example, one particular deliverable is a bit

over exceeded they have, there’s a clause in

each project that says Mike can within that

then just use the funds provided that the

funds are not over budget. So the moment, 10

whatever you allocated for a particular

project is exceeded, you need to go back to

Council. And once you’ve got the authority,

in terms of each particular project from

Council, you have money dedicated to that 15

project and it has clear deliverables on

what you supposed to do with that. That is

what you do. You cannot then take money for

bursary and then transfer 2 million to some

other project. 20

MS EDMONDS We’ll debate that in a minute. We won't

even debate that because in fact no such

transfer ever took place. But you may not

be aware of that. In regard to the monies

422

outstanding for year 5 and year 8, the

approvals, those were both FAIS projects

were they not?

MS SNELL Yes. That’s year 5 FAIS and year 8 FAIS

project. 5

MS EDMONDS Yes. And when we talk about approvals, we

talk about monies that had already been

approved by Council for those projects. Do

we not?

MS SNELL Yes, for the deliverables in terms of those 10

projects.

MS EDMONDS They’d been under spent, the monies remained

after the deliverables had been delivered

and there were monies remaining which had

been approved by the Council, had they not? 15

MS SNELL For certain deliverables.

MS EDMONDS So are you suggesting that the monies that

had already been approved for the same

projects, FAIS 5, FAIS 8 and FAIS 9, had all

the same deliverables, did they not? 20

MS SNELL No.

MS EDMONDS They did. What was different?

MS SNELL It was different deliverables, it was

different project chairs, it was different

423

items that were on it, it was printing, it

was all sorts of things.

MS EDMONDS The purposes of the project were the same,

were they not?

MS SNELL The intention of the project was the same 5

Ruth, Ms Edmonds, but the deliverables were

not the same.

MS EDMONDS So the Council approves monies for a project

in year 5 and year 8. There’s monies left

over, you are saying that those monies 10

cannot be rolled over into year 9.

MS SNELL No they can't, unless you get Council’s

permission for that.

MS EDMONDS Why? Council has already approved it. Why?

MS SNELL Because each particular project has certain 15

deliverables and Council authorised certain

monies. So if Council authorised to a

specific provider, this is what you can pay

them for that deliverable. And you decide,

I’m going to take all your printing costs 20

from the other project and move it over,

that, there’s no such authority to do that.

You have to close a project, transfer the

funds into surplus discretionary grant pot

424

and have Council then authorise the release

of that. If you need money ---

MS EDMONDS Where does it say that?

MS SNELL If you need more money for a project you

have to go up for top up funding. Council 5

was approached for top up funding in respect

of FAIS in November. And Council said no,

we will not consider this and therefore that

is how this whole thing came about and the

monies were taken from other places. 10

Council said no, they will not consider any

further top up funding after the top up

funding that was allocated in September.

They refused to consider a second bid for

top up funding. 15

MS EDMONDS Mr Gerber will say that it is perfectly

acceptable to take monies that are unused

from the same project in one year and put

them into the same project in a later year

and utilise those monies for that project. 20

And that has been accepted by the INSETA and

by Deloittes and there is no policy to the

contrary. And that you are the first person

to ever come up with the idea that it

425

conflicts with any policy or any authority.

MS SNELL There is no such delegation given to anybody

by Council. So when a project has any

savings on it, the project must be closed,

that’s the policy, and the funds moved to 5

surplus.

MS EDMONDS Where’s the policy?

MS SNELL There is no inter, when a project is closed

at INSETA at the deliverables have been met,

if any particular money is left over, that 10

money must then be moved to surplus.

MS EDMONDS Where will I find that policy? Because I’ve

looked everywhere for it, as has Mr Gerber,

as has Mr Able, as has Ms Steenekamp. Where

do I find that policy? 15

MS SNELL The policy that you must not take monies

between each project?

MS EDMONDS That the project must be closed and that ---

MS SNELL No, it’s not ---

MS EDMONDS Monies can't be rolled over. No what? 20

MS SNELL It’s not placed in a negative in that

manner. You are not allowed to role funds.

Because in the delegations you have to spend

Council money in terms of the project and in

426

terms of the authorised deliverables.

Council has made one consent where they

provide Mr Abel, as the CEO, or myself as

acting CEO, with an actual project. If for

example one deliverable is more expensive 5

than the other, or you need to move monies

within a project, you do not have to revert

to Council. Unless of course it goes,

exceeds the budget.

MS EDMONDS Yes. 10

MS SNELL So that proviso is within the project.

There is no authority for anyone to move any

monies from projects to another project.

Council would approve a specific project.

If you finished with the project, you close 15

it up, wind it up and monies back to the

surplus pot.

MS EDMONDS And there’s no document to this effect that

you know of, but you’ve decided contrary to

everything that’s happened in the INSETA. 20

for all the years before your arrival there,

that this is the way that it must be done.

MS SNELL I don’t know what you talking about when you

say contrary to everything that’s happened

427

to INSETA for all the years that, that

monies been moved from one project to

another. I know there has been invoices

incorrectly debited off other projects which

they have cleaned up and 5

PriceWaterhouseCoopers are managing that

process of cleaning up where invoices

wrongly went off the project. But it

doesn’t mean somebody’s transferred

particular money from one project to 10

another.

MS EDMONDS That’s not what I’m saying.

MS SNELL Ok.

MS EDMONDS I’m saying that historically, long

predating your arrival at the INSETA, monies 15

have been rolled over if they relate to the

same project. If the project continues year

after year after year, the deliverables are

no different. The purpose of the project is

no different. There are monies that remain 20

unspent from previous years. They get

rolled over into the next year or the next

project.

MS SNELL Ma'am, if I can by way of example illustrate

428

to you where I agree with you. For example,

if there’s printing costs in the year 8

project and we’ve got 60 000 left over in

printing, and then when we doing year 9, we

also look for printing. But you can still 5

spend the printing budget on that. It

doesn’t mean that if my provider cost in

this particular project is exceeding 1

million or I need to do some other

deliverable, I’m going to pull all the spare 10

monies off the other project into this

particular project. Because that’s not what

the intention of the project money was for.

MS EDMONDS Alright, Mr Gerber will testify in that

regard. Page 2, there’s another comment, 15

this paragraph needs to include reference to

other FAIS related approvals that should be

taken into account as well. See that?

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS That comment you didn’t extract and attach 20

to the report that you put before Council,

did you?

MS SNELL The year 9 FAIS related approvals I’ve

included including the top up funding.

429

MS EDMONDS Now that ---

MS SNELL So that all the monies for FAIS that was

approved for Council, I’ve included it here,

including the top up funding.

MS EDMONDS But the previous years, what I’ve just been 5

talking about, you havent included. You

havent included the year 5 and year 8

monies.

MS SNELL I’ve made reference to that, the invoice was

deducted off the year 5 and year, but I’m 10

not going to calculate all the monies

together because it’s not the same amount of

monies. It’s not by approval.

MS EDMONDS Ok.

MS SNELL They have gone to deliverables. The way the 15

report is structured is that the

deliverables here are included as to what

Council authorised off the set of monies.

MS EDMONDS Page 3 there’s another comment. The

funding, sorry, it’s in regard to your 20

statement, your commentary on the side, that

bursary project to fund FAIS projects.

Monies, 2 million to be transferred from

bursary project to fund FAIS project. And

430

we’ll deal with that in more detail and the

incorrect statement that you’ve made there

as well. The comment is, the funding was

used to provide learner assessment support

and not to fund project deliverables as 5

implied. Did you append that comment to the

report that you placed before Council?

MS SNELL The learner assessment support was a project

deliverable. If you look at it here, 1.5

million, support for learners in the form of 10

payment of exam fees, 1 500 at 1 000

assessment fees. It was a project

deliverable.

MS EDMONDS Did you put that comment made by the project

manager on your report to Council? Did you 15

put the comment there? That’s a yes or a no

answer. You can answer in fourteen

sentences again if you want to. Did you

append the comment whether you agreed with

it or not? 20

MS SNELL No. I did not append this comment to

Council because this comment was incorrect

and I sent it to John White and he provided

me with more details.

431

MS EDMONDS Comment 4, there was no transfer of, sorry,

in regard to your comment, no INSETA Council

or FINCO approval for the transfer of these

funds. Comment, there were no transfer of

funds therefore no approval was sourced from 5

either Council or FINCO. Mike agreed to

provide the additional 973k needed for

learner support from the bursary pot and the

invoice was processed accordingly. Did you

append that comment to your report to 10

Council?

MS SNELL The document that is being referred to

there, the wording is taken verbatim off the

document. So we cannot change the wording

of the document. The document where Mike 15

approved the transfer of funds, that is what

I’m quoting. I’m not going to change the

wording of a signed document. So yes,

eventually what the outcome of, it may agree

to the transfer of the funds. That was what 20

the document states. What Adie is stating,

and I understand what he’s stating is, in

reality when the invoice came, we didn’t

transfer the funds. We just debited the

432

invoice straight off the bursary project and

that’s what he’s saying.

MS EDMONDS And, but there’s ---

MS SNELL But this does not change the wording of

what’s been --- 5

MS EDMONDS Did he ask you to change the wording? You

asked him for comments, he made a comment.

Did you place that comment before Council?

The project manager’s comment from whom you

had solicited comments. 10

MS SNELL That’s what it says here. That’s what,

where it’s showing that the invoice was

paid. It’s included in there. It was paid

off the bursary project.

MS EDMONDS Adie Gerber’s comment, did you place that 15

before Council?

MS SNELL It’s already embodied in the document Ma'am.

If you, it’s just you don’t understand the

codes. The invoice did go off the bursary

fund project, but the document Mike signed 20

authorised the transfer. Although, in

actual fact, a transfer didn’t take place, a

direct invoice was debited off the project.

So they didn’t move the money to FAIS, pay

433

the invoice off FAIS, they paid the invoice

directly off the project. And that is

included in here.

MS EDMONDS Ms Snell, he’s commenting on your comment

that no INSETA Council or FINCO approval for 5

the transfer of these funds.

MS SNELL Then maybe we should go back to my initial

comment whereby I said all these things that

are here I did not include to Council.

Because you re-asking the same thing and I 10

already said I did not include it into

Council.

MS EDMONDS Now why on earth solicit comments from the

project manager who has been dealing with

these INSETA projects long before your 15

arrival there, why solicit the comments and

once they arrive you don’t bother to utilise

them at all, even just as an annexure to

your report to Council?

MS SNELL For example you’ve mentioned the last one 20

now. Where do you see it not included?

Because I’ve already included where it was

paid off. It’s paid off the bursary

project. There’s the bursary project code.

434

What I quoted on the side was simply the

document where Mike’s authorised the

transfer. Now I can't then change the

wording and say it was meant to say this or

this is what subsequently happened. It was 5

quite clearly what happened. There was an

invoice paid off the bursary project, the

supporting document said that it was

supposed to be a transfer.

MS EDMONDS Right. Have a look at this document please, 10

that will then be, Mr Chairperson, C32.

MR PRETORIUS C33.

MS EDMONDS Sorry, 30?

MR PRETORIUS 3. What document is that?

MS EDMONDS Is the last one C32? Sorry. You have a 15

document headed comments.

MR PRETORIUS I’ve got one ... (inaudible) ... and one

Sharon Snell.

MS EDMONDS Please note I ask for comments.

MR PRETORIUS Which one? 20

MS EDMONDS That one, Sharon Snell.

MR PRETORIUS Sharon Snell.

MS EDMONDS So that’s C33.

MR PRETORIUS 33.

435

MS EDMONDS That is your response to Mr Gerber’s

comments is it not?

MS SNELL That’s quite correct.

MS EDMONDS And, lets just read that into the record

will you? 5

MS SNELL Please note I asked for comments to the

report in writing and specifically requested

that nobody adjust my report. This report

is not being circulated for editing. Also

please note most of the wording that’s taken 10

on the table is taken straight out of the

Council approvals, invoice detail submitted

by the provider and other supporting

documentation attached to the

recommendations provided by 15

PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Where your

comments differ please scan and attach the

document to the contrary. Don’t worry about

the font settings. Please give me your

written comments as a project officer so I 20

can insert into the report.

MS EDMONDS Mr Gerber will testify that he was a little

perturbed by your response and that he

escalated it, he then escalated it to Mr

436

White.

MS SNELL I also sent Mr White an escalation letter to

oversee the project. It’s not included in

this document. But I have no problem with

what you saying because it may well be that 5

Mr Gerber also escalated it. It’s just that

I don’t have sight of any of that. Neither

did he mention it to me.

MS EDMONDS And that Mr White then sent you the, sorry

let me give you that, that’s on the third 10

document, that will be C34. Look at the

third page of that document in which Mr

White then addresses you and he makes a

number of comments virtually identical to

those made by Mr Gerber. Certainly the 15

intention behind them is the same.

Basically he’s saying to you, you don’t

understand what happens Ms Snell.

MS SNELL Where do you see that Ma'am?

MS EDMONDS Just have a look, I said basically he’s 20

saying to you. It’s not the wording. Read

the whole thing. Read it. You’ve seen it

before havent you?

MS SNELL Yes. And he sent me another document as

437

well.

MS EDMONDS I’m asking you to look at this document

please.

MS SNELL Ok. This document is, from the top,

“Morning Sharon. Please see Adie’s note and 5

attached spread sheet which ---

MS EDMONDS The third page Ms Snell. Email dated the

12th of February addressed to you by John

White.

MS SNELL Oh, thank you. “Dear Sharon. We 10

acknowledge your request for comment on the

report prepared by yourself for submission

to Council to obtain the approval and

ratification for all funds spent to date on

the FAIS project. We trust that this email 15

response will suffice with expediency.

Should you require the response to be

provided formally on a PWC letterhead,

please advise and we’ll do so as soon as

possible. Firstly we propose that you 20

slightly amend the purpose of the report to

be seeking ratification from Council of

decisions taken by the CEO to utilise

unspent approved funds on previous FAIS

438

projects and the bursary fund to fund

additional outputs on the year 9 FAIS

project and additional learner support so

that you as acting CEO can effect payment of

outstanding invoices in this regard. We 5

believe that the key issue that requires

elaboration in this regard ---

MS EDMONDS Did you, sorry, stop there please. Did you

do so?

MS SNELL To change my purpose? 10

MS EDMONDS Yes.

MS SNELL I had a look at it. He’s taking it one step

further. I started at the beginning. He

wants me to seek ratification from Council

for the CEO to utilise unspent approved 15

funds from previous FAIS projects and the

bursary fund to fund additional output. Now

if I did that, what it would mean is that

there would be certain problems within the

other projects. Because not all the monies 20

are covered by those particular things. So

I asked Council for funding for everything.

All the invoices on here. For all the

unspent allocations. Not just monies that

439

could be possibly taken from the project.

So I actually asked Council to take it

straight from the discretionary grant pot.

MS EDMONDS What Mr White was saying to you, and you

know that that’s what he was saying to you, 5

was you must ask for ratification of monies

already allocated because there is already

approval because there is year 5 and year 8

monies that have yet to be used for the same

project. That’s what he’s saying to you 10

isn’t he?

MS SNELL Yes. But the deliverables are different. I

would also have to ask Council to authorise

us to spend monies out of other projects

where the deliverables weren’t the same 15

which would require scope changes. The

easiest thing I thought we could do is to

get ratification for all over expenditure

and just get Council to give us funds for

this. 20

MS EDMONDS But Mr White does not agree with you that it

was over expenditure. Was he? Even Adie

Gerber agreed with you that it was over

expenditure. He said the funds had already

440

been allocated. The fact that you elected

to look at it as funds that were dedicated

only to certain deliverables and therefore

incapable of use for any other deliverable

within the same project was not the view 5

that was held by Mr Gerber and by Mr White,

was it?

MS SNELL I don’t read it quite that way Ma'am.

MS EDMONDS Right, the comment that Mr White made,

bearing in mind that he was of the belief 10

that all the monies were already there and

there was no need for further monies to be

allocated, where did you append that to the

report that you put before Council?

MS SNELL Ma'am, I was seeking ratification. What he 15

was isolating is, you just seek ratification

for the unspent approved funds from previous

FAIS and the bursary projects. That’s what

he was saying. It’s still debited off those

projects. 20

MS EDMONDS Where did you tell Council that Mr White and

Mr Gerber are both of the view that there

wasn’t over expenditure? That there are

already monies sufficient to cover the

441

expenditure.

MS SNELL I did not see a comment where they saying

that the report is wrong, that there isn’t

over expenditure. There certainly was over

expenditure on the FAIS year 9 project. 5

CHAIRMAN But for the purposes of the dispute before

me ---

MS SNELL Yes.

CHAIRMAN As I understand it, Mr Abel’s view is that

he was entitled to do so. Your view is he 10

was not entitled to do so. I see what Mr

Gerber says and Mr White says. And

ultimately I must take a decision whether he

was entitled to do so or not.

MS SNELL Yes. 15

CHAIRMAN It may well be that he may not have been

entitled to do, but he reasonably believed

he could do so. In which case I’ll find

accordingly.

MS SNELL Yes. 20

CHAIRMAN That’s the issue before me. Mr Pretorius is

there anything else?

MR PRETORIUS There’s nothing else.

CHAIRMAN I mean really Ms Edmonds, aren’t you taking

442

this point beyond belief?

MS EDMONDS Well no, because it’s this kind of attitude

throughout all of these charges that is

displayed by the INSETA.

CHAIRMAN But then just, you know, put it to the 5

witness and let me take a decision.

MS EDMONDS The project summary which is attached to

this document ---

CHAIRMAN But you understand this particular point?

Mr Abel’s argument is that the monies were 10

already allocated, all I did is transfer.

MS SNELL Yes.

CHAIRMAN In the same line of activity. And if I made

a mistake then I made a mistake. I thought

I had the power. It was no prejudice to 15

anybody. That’s his position. Whether

technically I find if you do it or not, he’s

saying there was no untoward event. I’ve

got an unhappy feeling, I must tell you

upfront, the fact that ADVTECH gets paid and 20

his son had some dealing, he’d obviously

explained to me. But other than that it

happens every day in business that he says

look, monies have been allocated, there’s a

443

shortfall, I’m allocating it. And Ms

Edmonds’s criticism against you is that you

should have put that also to the Council.

In other words, when the Council got the

report they should have seen that what he 5

was doing is in fact he was taking monies

allocated for the same project but in a

different category. Your view is but you

did say that to Council. It’s quite

apparent. 10

MS SNELL Yes, for the invoices that were already

debited and already paid.

CHAIRMAN Yes, yes.

MS SNELL I indicated it to them.

CHAIRMAN Yes, obviously once you look at ratification 15

it’s obvious that that’s what you telling

them. That’s your case before me.

MS SNELL Maybe then I can explain it this way. When

there’s an invoice payment and it goes

through a process of almost approval, that’s 20

where I ended up with the documents. So it

had all the supporting document attached to

it. And that’s what I tried to do here, is

to include all the supporting documents

444

attached. Where it was intended to go off,

which budget etc, so they could quite

clearly see what the intention was. The

only project that doesn’t, sorry, the only

payment that doesn’t have that relevant 5

detail would be the payment that wasn’t

recommended by PriceWaterhouseCoopers

because it wasn’t ripe for payment yet. So

that relevant detail wasn’t there. Although

--- 10

CHAIRMAN But just, sorry, to come back to my query,

just to see if there’s any major

irregularity, the contract was already given

to ADVTECH.

MS SNELL Yes. 15

CHAIRMAN ADVTECH gives an invoice that must be paid

because they’ve already rendered service.

MS SNELL Yes.

CHAIRMAN INSETA is liable for the payment.

MS SNELL Yes, in terms of all the documents that have 20

been signed, INSETA is liable for them.

CHAIRMAN They havent been paid. The CEO doesn’t want

the embarrassing situation where they must

be sued for the money so the CEO wants to

445

find money.

MS SNELL Yes.

CHAIRMAN So there’s two ways he could have done it.

He could have gone to Council and say I’m

now taking money from this pot of money and 5

paying it, or he could have exercised his

discretion and simply do it. That’s what he

did. He followed the latter.

MS SNELL Yes. I agree exactly what you saying with

one slight little addition to that. 10

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MS SNELL The contract documents that were signed

already exceeded, and the additional little

contract notes that were signed, already

exceeded what Council had set aside. 15

CHAIRMAN Yes. That’s why you saying he should have

sought approval.

MS SNELL Yes.

CHAIRMAN He should have been extra prudent in seeking

approval. It’s put to you but at the end of 20

it he just took money that was already

allocated for the projects but he

transferred it for other use.

MS SNELL And some bursary projects, yes. That’s in

446

essence ---

MS EDMONDS Let’s go to the complaint number 5 where the

charge is that Mr Abel without proper

authority concluded two contract change

notes updating Annexures A and B of the 5

contract between INSETA and ADVTECH

Resourcing trading as IMFUNDO for the

conduct of the FAIS fit and proper project.

In fact let’s just, before we do that let’s

just deal with what the Chairperson raised 10

about his difficulties or what alarms might

be ringing in regard to ADVTECH. Mr Gerber

will say that to his knowledge there was no

involvement of Mr Abel’s son in this project

at all. Certainly no payments were ever 15

made to him or to any company with which he

was involved. Are you able to deny that?

MS SNELL I’ve never made such an allegation and I’m

not able to deny it. Sorry, I, yes.

MS EDMONDS And that was not your concern in regard to 20

the movement of funds from year 5 and year 8

into year 9. It wasn’t ADVTECH being the

recipient wasn’t the issue. The issue was

that you were concerned that Mr Abel didn’t

447

have the authority to do so.

MS SNELL Yes. So my involvement really came at the

beginning when the contracts were being

signed with ADVTECH where I’d given advice

on those annexures. So that’s where I 5

started coming into the project. Not from a

point of view of anybody’s son being

involved in the project. Because I gave

legal advice right at the beginning when the

contract came to me that this contract is 10

not in accordance with the deliverables set

out in the project. And that, I think, was

very early in the year.

MS EDMONDS Was that the change note or the contract?

What are you talking about? 15

MS SNELL Before the change notes were signed, they

came to me for legal advice to match up the

deliverables to what Council had approved.

And I said we cannot sign this document.

It’s not in line --- 20

MS EDMONDS Are you talking about the change notes now?

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS Thank you.

MS SNELL Yes.

448

MS EDMONDS Not the original contract? So we not

talking about a new contract, we simply

talking about an amendment to an existing

contract.

MS SNELL Yes. Because the contract --- 5

MS EDMONDS Alright. Let’s be clear in our terms

please.

MS SNELL Ok.

MS EDMONDS You had no difficulty with the original

contract and the annexures thereto? 10

MS SNELL Ms Edmonds, I was not involved with that. I

only became involved when the year 9 funds

were approved and the relevant specific

contract annexures needed to be done to take

into account what Council had approved. And 15

I was requested to match up this with the

original contract and all the annexures

thereto and what Council had approved for

funding and to give advice on that. And

that’s the advice where I provided and I 20

said we cannot sign this contract. It’s not

in line with the project.

MS EDMONDS No, no, no. Please, let’s get our terms

correct.

449

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS You are talking about a change note. Not a

contract.

MS SNELL There’s contract change notes and there’s

annexures to it. But the original contract 5

was signed round about 2007.

MS EDMONDS And we’re not talking about that are we? We

talking about, there’s a difference between

a contract and a change note isn’t there?

The change note is not in itself the 10

contract. It is an amendment to an existing

contract. Is it not?

MS SNELL Yes. And an annexure would detail the

deliverables that have not been specifically

agreed to in the original contract. 15

MS EDMONDS Yes.

MS SNELL So that’s a ---

MS EDMONDS Ok, so please talk about annexures or change

notes if that’s what you talking about. Do

not talk about the contract. The contract 20

was signed ---

MS SNELL I had to look at the contract in order to

give advice.

MS EDMONDS When you are talking about change notes talk

450

about change notes, not contracts. The

original contract was signed by Mr Abel

prior to your ever arriving at the SETA.

MS SNELL That would be correct Ms Edmonds.

MS EDMONDS And it was signed in his capacity as CEO and 5

you do not have any difficulty with his

authority to do as such.

MS SNELL Yes. He’s the actual awards authority so I

have no difficulty with that.

MS EDMONDS Then in the course of that contract being 10

put into operation there are changes in the

deliverables as there inevitably are with

any project of this nature. Do you agree?

MS SNELL There are changes and also some of the

deliverables, they were very generic because 15

they still needed to be refined in that

previous year. So you’d have deliverables

over a number of years and you’d need to get

annexures to the contract which would then

specify that deliverable for that month. So 20

initially some deliverables were not

included in the contract because there were

no funding approved by Council. So when the

funding got approved for Council, then the

451

document that would detail the deliverables

in that particular year would need to be

dealt with by agreement between IMFUNDO and

INSETA. And that is a document that was

circulated to me to see that it was all in 5

order. And that’s the document I commented

and said it’s not all in order in terms of

the deliverables. It did subsequently get

signed, I was not aware of it, I only became

aware that it had been signed in that format 10

when I started looking into this matter.

And that’s when I pulled out all the

necessary records.

MS EDMONDS 13Who would have drafted the change note?

MS SNELL The change note came to me through Mike 15

Abel. I would imagine that it would have

been dealt with together with the project

sponsor, Adie Gerber and IMFUNDO because

that would be the normal process.

MS EDMONDS And if I tell you that that is exactly what 20

happened and that it was signed by Mr Abel

as the CEO with due authority to do so in

terms of his delegated authority, what

13 Tape 2 – Side 2 – 3 June 2009

452

quarrel can you have with that?

MS SNELL I have a lot of quarrels with the annexures

and change note because there was no such

approved funding by Council for that

project. It all was not in line with the 5

funding that was approved from Council. And

I indicated right at the beginning, months

before this became an issue, what I was not

aware was how it had been signed. That only

came to my knowledge when I was 10

investigating ---

MS EDMONDS Ms Snell you believed that there wasn’t

funds approved because you were not taking

into account year 5 and year 8. Is that not

correct? 15

MS SNELL Ma'am, the deliverables in terms of the

contract, I matched it up with all the

particular FAIS contracts, sorry, all the

FAIS projects. And I matched it up with the

initial contract that had been signed by 20

them. And I looked at what money had been

set aside by Council for that particular

deliverable.

MS EDMONDS Ms Snell, the reason why you are saying that

453

there weren’t funds is because you declined

to take into account the funds that were

available from year 5 and year 8. Could you

please answer that question? Is that

correct? 5

MS SNELL That is correct because I was looking at

what the deliverables for those particulars

funds were.

MS EDMONDS There’s issues in the Konar report where

it’s quite clear that he hadnt got a clue 10

what was going on but unfortunately it

doesn’t matter particular in regard to this

charge. 5.2, without authority you approved

a maximum transfer of 2 million from the

bursary fund to the FAIS project. There was 15

a meeting of the project team in which a

request was made for further funds for the

project. You aware of that?

MS SNELL Which meeting you referring to Ma'am?

MS EDMONDS I’ll find it for you. 20

MS SNELL I was not present at that meeting.

MS EDMONDS You know where this charge arose from, do

you?

MS SNELL Yes. From my report.

454

MS EDMONDS And what does your report say? Why does

your report find that he didn’t have the

authority?

MS SNELL The bursary fund is managed by a bursary

policy. And at that particular time, aside 5

from being project managers of INSETA,

PriceWaterhouseCoopers had been appointed by

Mike Abel to also be the provider in terms

of the bursary management. So they were

also doing bursary management. There was 10

approved policy by Council as to how

bursaries should be paid and I saw that

policy also in the documents that you’ve

attached here. So when there was a document

signed to transfer monies from the bursary 15

project to the FAIS project, although

subsequently it didn’t get transferred, the

invoice went straight off. That is why I’m

saying that there was no authority to do so.

MS EDMONDS But nothing happened. Whether there was 20

authority or not, and I think we have

established that there was authority,

certainly I will argue that we have, no

transfer ever took place.

455

MS SNELL Yes. It was debited directly off the

bursary project.

MS EDMONDS So what’s the purpose of this complaint?

MS SNELL The purpose ---

MS EDMONDS You approve the maximum transfer of 2 5

million from the bursary bund. No transfer

ever took place.

MS SNELL Ma'am, the documents that were provided in

support of the invoice was a document signed

by Mike approving the transfer. Not that 10

committed INSETA to pay IMFUNDO that amount

of money. There was no authority from

Council. That’s why, when I took the report

to Council, I got the relevant funds from

Council. And that is why all the amounts 15

that have been paid, all the amounts are now

paid, accept the one invoice which IPO had

not recommended. And they all had been paid

against additional monies which we obtained

for Council and we had put into the year 9 20

project. So that is why I didn’t go off the

bursary fund. But it doesn’t mean that now

because we have resolved this issue by

ratification, that having signed such an

456

agreement in the first place is corrected or

it becomes meaningless. So I’m not sure

where you going with it.

MS EDMONDS Well where I’m going with it is one, is

saying you didn’t have to go anywhere near 5

Council let alone blemish other people’s,

tarnish other people’s names. But have a

look at page 599, that’s of the Mike Abel

file 2. Do you see it?

MS SNELL Yes, 599. 10

MS EDMONDS Do you see that that’s an internal meeting

between ---

MS SNELL Yes, that’s right.

MS EDMONDS The team involved in the project.

MS SNELL Yes. 15

MS EDMONDS The FAIS project. See that?

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS And Mike Abel is present in that meeting.

MS SNELL That’s quite correct.

MS EDMONDS Ok. So it’s no, there’s no official meeting 20

here at all. It’s just an internal team

meeting.

MS SNELL Yes.

MS EDMONDS It happens to be minuted, isn’t that nice?

457

MS SNELL Yes, that’s great.

MS EDMONDS Ok. The background is, meeting considered

the large and unexpected volume of

candidates predominantly black for the FAIS

assessments which impacts directly on 5

development etc etc. There is a discussion

about the fact that there are insufficient

funds because there was a large and

unexpected volume of candidates.

MS SNELL Yes. 10

MS EDMONDS Do you see that?

MS SNELL Yes Ma'am.

MS EDMONDS FAIS project is reliant on and funded by the

medium of vouchers and therefore the

transfer of the available surpluses in the 15

bursary voucher fund were approved by the

CEO of INSETA, Mr Mike Abel, upon

recommendation by senior manager, quality

assurance and learnerships, Shirley

Steenekamp and a manager responsible for the 20

FAIS project, Mr Glen Edwards. The CEO of

INSETA approved the maximum transfer of FAIS

project from the bursary fund of 2 million.

MS SNELL Yes.

458

MS EDMONDS Now one, that never took place. Two, this

is not a formal meeting in which anything

actually ever happened.

MS SNELL I’m not sure I’m following you.

MS EDMONDS Is this a FINCO meeting? Is this a STEERCO 5

meeting? Is it a meeting with authority to

do anything at all?

MS SNELL Ma'am, I’m not sure what you saying. You

referring me to a meeting asking me does the

meeting have authority. 10

MS EDMONDS It’s a record of a discussion where an in

principal agreement is arrived at with the

CEO about where funds will be accesses from.

MS SNELL I agree with you, yes.

MS EDMONDS Well, that’s the end of that charge isn’t 15

it.

MS SNELL Well not really. If you look at the fact

there was authority given to IMFUNDO based

on this document. It didn’t just end here.

There’s another issue. I am the bursary 20

project manager. Monies cannot be moved out

of the project without me knowing about it.

I did not ---

MS EDMONDS But no monies were moved.

459

MS SNELL Well an agreement had been reached which had

been translated into an agreement with the

service provider which was legally binding

on the INSETA.

MS EDMONDS Let me take, the funds were all there, 5

already there Ms Snell. And we know that

whether you perceive it that way or not, I

will argue that, Mr Gerber will give, the

CEO never needed to make this commitment,

this in principle commitment. 10

MS SNELL Yes. I think it is a matter for argument.

MS EDMONDS Thank you very much for your assistance in

that regard. Besides that, having looked at

the delegation that Mr Abel has in terms of

the constitution and the Act, having looked 15

at what payments he is able to make,

payments of monies that go out of the SETA,

there is nothing in any of the documents

which says he may not transfer from one pot

to another. That even if this money had 20

been transferred, he was authorised to do

so.

MS SNELL Ma'am you’ve left out a very important

document.

460

MS EDMONDS What have I left out?

MS SNELL When we talk about INSETA funds ---

MS EDMONDS Show it to me.

MR PRETORIUS Let her finish.

MS EDMONDS I’m being referred to a document. 5

MR PRETORIUS No, but let ---

MS EDMONDS I, like your witness, would like to see the

document to which I’m being referred. Which

document is it?

MR PRETORIUS Mr Chairman please, I havent, Ms Edmonds has 10

a tendency of interrupting the witness and

its unfair. And I’m going to argue that she

does it deliberately because every time the

witness wants to do it, she interrupts it,

she does it unfairly. 15

CHAIRMAN Can you please give your answer?

MS SNELL Yes, thank you. There was quotes made out

of the Skills Development Act which was

applicable up until the last day of November

last year. Obviously it’s now being amended 20

as of the 1st of December. But when you look

at that clause it’s dealing with grant

payments which is a mandatory grant

payments. There’s also grant regulations.

461

When it comes to discretionary grants,

discretionary funds, it is only the INSETA

Council that has authority to move that. So

Section 10 does not deal with it. It’s

dealt with in the regulations for the skills 5

levies regulations. So we are specifically

talking now to discretionary grants.

Mandatory grant payments, Mr Abel and myself

approved those. We don’t take it to

Council. And that’s the grant payments to 10

employ a company. It’s the mandatory grant

payments that you referring to in Section

10. Discretionary grant payments are dealt

with very differently and they are dealt

with by the INSETA Council. It is stated in 15

the regulations, they are given the

authority. And nowhere do I see where Mike

Abel, or let’s just not make it personal to

Mike Abel, where myself as CEO, would be

able to take discretionary grant funds and 20

do with it whatever I can. It is only

INSETA Council that has that authority to

deal with. So you’ve got it extensively in

relation to Section 10 and I’ve seen that

462

position regarding mandatory grant payments

and that’s how we deal with it internally.

But certainly not discretionary grant

payments.

MS EDMONDS I’ll argue that. Just one further aspect in 5

regards to Mr Abel, the two ADVTECH invoices

that were submitted towards the end of 2008

which were unpaid at that point, were not

paid immediately, do you recall that?

MS SNELL Can you refer me to the page? 10

MS EDMONDS It’s not a page that I’m looking at. It’s

my own notes.

MS SNELL So last year there were two unpaid invoices?

MS EDMONDS Did that have anything to do with the

charges brought against Mr Abel? 15

MS SNELL I would say if it’s part of my report, yes,

it’s a component of it. The unpaid

invoices. It’s also some of the paid ones

that went off from the Council as well.

MS EDMONDS You know that those unpaid invoices were not 20

paid at the time because it was at the end

of the year and that Mr Gerber spoke to Mr

Jan Van Greenan who was the FINCO chair and

he said that both those invoices were to be

463

parked for the time being.

MS SNELL In fact he refused to sign it. He was

extremely concerned about it and he wanted

me to have a look at it. I was instructed

by Council to have a look at that. Council 5

instructed me to look at it. They had a lot

of concerns relating to that.

MS EDMONDS Do we, is there something more you want to

make of that? Had they been paid?

MS SNELL They have since been paid with the funding 10

that Council authorised for the payment of

those invoices because of the commitments

that were made which we felt were legally

binding at the time.

MS EDMONDS Were the deliverables met? Was there any 15

problem with what had actually happened,

with what ADVTECH had done?

MS SNELL I did not say there’s any problem with what

ADVTECH had done. I do have concern as to

the amount of money we paid them for those 20

deliverables. And I have concern as to the

amount of people we freely funded in terms

of exam fees which was ridiculous.

MS EDMONDS Bear with me for one moment. If we can just

464

go back to Ms Steenekamp for a minute, where

you said that there is a document, an email

from Mr Abel in which he said that he had

not approved the position for Ms Pretorius.

Do you recall your evidence in that regard? 5

MS SNELL Yes. His words were certainly not.

MS EDMONDS Well we’ll see what his words actually were.

MS SNELL I did actually consult ---

MS EDMONDS I’m glad that you repeated them.

MS SNELL I did actually consult on my laptop and I 10

found the relevant emails.

MS EDMONDS Yes, well I’ve also found them. Shirley, do

you have that page number?

MS STEENEKAMP I’ll take you there now. It’s 933, 34, yes,

33 and 934. Actually from 931. 15

CHAIRMAN Is that your file?

MS EDMONDS File one, Shirley Steenekamp. Page 931 and

932, there is an email from Shirley

Steenekamp to Mike Abel talking about Kim

Pretorius’s performance appraisal. 20

MS SNELL Yes Ma'am, page 93?

MS EDMONDS 931 and 932.

MS SNELL Ok. Yes, yes I see that.

MS EDMONDS You see what she said? “Dear Mike, over the

465

past 4 months since the 6 monthly

performance appraisal process I have, as per

our discussion, I have been monitoring Kim

Pretorius’s performance in terms of the

increased roles and functions which she has 5

been required to perform as part of her new

KPAs.”

MS SNELL That’s correct.

MS EDMONDS And it ends, “I recommend that Kim is moved

to the ETQA division as junior consultant 10

with effect beginning March. That she has a

concomitant salary increase, that her KPAs

are then amended to reflect her new roles

and functions in the ETQA division. Your

kind approval of this proposal will be 15

appreciated.”

CHAIRMAN Then in 933?

MS EDMONDS And then, sorry, I havent got there yet.

We’re following one after the other. That

statement is there but it has to be placed 20

in context. 12th of March Mike Abel says to

Phakama Nkosi, cc Sharon Snell, please keep

hard copy in files.

MS SNELL Yes.

466

MS EDMONDS Then 931, Shirley where’s the rest of that?

MS SNELL It’s on the top there.

MS EDMONDS No, no, no.

MS STEENEKAMP Phakama Nkosi, I’ll find it. Yes, page 934

at the top. 5

MS EDMONDS 934 is the same as what’s on the top of 931.

Sorry, we’ve just gone a little bit

backwards to forwards because of the way

that they’ve been put in this file. Please

keep hard copy in files. In response Nkosi 10

writes to Mike Abel, cc Sharon Snell and

Dumisani Tayama. “Dear Mike. Has this been

now approved?” Because he’s obviously had

sight of the email requesting that she be

given the promotional position. “What 15

becomes of the work load needs that she has

been attending to in SD? I’m concerned with

this kind of decision in terms of how it

will effect the capacity of the current SD’s

division staff to cope with the work load. 20

To date we have decided not to fill the

specialist position that Tumi and Lynette

occupied within the division. Does this

mean that the administrator position that

467

Kim was occupying in the SD division is now

available to be filled?” And he says,

certainly not. Kim stays where she is. It

doesn’t say, certainly not. I didn’t have

an agreement with Shirley that she must 5

propose the movement to the ETQA division.

If it is read in context Ms Snell, do you

now see the correct context?

MS SNELL No, I don’t actually.

MS EDMONDS No, of course you don’t. 10

MR PRETORIUS Let her finish.

MS SNELL Phakama’s email is asking if it’s approved.

CHAIRMAN I really, this matter can be, this can be,

it’s there on words, it can be argued.

Really. Thank you. 15

MS EDMONDS I don’t have anything further.

CHAIRMAN Thank you.

MS SNELL And this was followed up with a verbal

discussion as well.

CHAIRMAN Yes, but you’ve already given evidence. 20

MS SNELL Yes.

CHAIRMAN Yes. Any re-examination?

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

MS EDMONDS Sorry, perhaps just before you go into that.

468

Ms Steenekamp will also say that whatever

discussions that were held around the

movement of her member of staff to a

different department were held after the

decision had already been made. When you 5

talked about Ms Steenekamp being present

when discussions were held with Mr Abel

about the movement of a junior member of her

staff to another department, and the timing

of that movement, there were such 10

discussions. They all happened after the

decision had already been made and not prior

to it, which is required by the human

resources policy.

MS SNELL She was a panel member? 15

MS STEENEKAMP No.

MR PRETORIUS No.

MS EDMONDS No, no ... (inaudible) ...

MR PRETORIUS No, but your ... (inaudible) ... is

interrupting. 20

MS SNELL No, she was consulted at the stage ---

MS EDMONDS No. Your witness addressed a question to my

client.

MR PRETORIUS She didn’t.

469

MS SNELL No, I see my error. I ... (inaudible) ...

looking at the Chairperson.

CHAIRMAN Yes, sure.

MS SNELL I can see how that came about. I apologise.

It was something that I caused. 5

CHAIRMAN What’s your answer?

MS SNELL Ms Steenekamp, when we finished with the

interviews, I approached Mr Abel with the

report to, which motivated what the panel

had decided because Mr Abel at that stage, 10

either I or Mr Abel had the authority to

appoint staff. And because I was a panel

member I then approached him, with being the

next level. And Ms Steenekamp was involved

in those discussions. 15

MS EDMONDS At that point. After she ---

MS SNELL Because she had personal knowledge of the

staff member and we had decided, we had

discussed whether or not that particular

staff member was going to be given the job. 20

So she was present when that staff member

was going to be, was authorised for the job

which Mike signed. She was in discussions

with the salaries. So she knew that staff

470

member was moving across and that staff

member was moving across on the first day of

that staff member starting ---

MS EDMONDS Correct Ms Snell. Ex post facto ---

MR PRETORIUS Let the witness finish. 5

MS EDMONDS The decision.

MR PRETORIUS Let the witness finish.

MS SNELL No, the decision was Mr Mike Abel’s

decision. It was not ---

MS EDMONDS After the --- 10

MS SNELL She was ... (inaudible) ... before he made

the decision.

MS EDMONDS After the decision had been made to appoint

her by the panel. Not before she was

interviewed. 15

MS SNELL Oh, I see what you saying. I don’t feel

that the panel needed to consult with,

because the panel was simply recommending to

Mr Abel. And Mr Abel had final say on who

got appointed. And she was there at that 20

point. She was involved in those

discussions.

MS EDMONDS I don’t know whether it’s deliberate or not,

but it was you who was obliged to have the

471

discussion with Ms Steenekamp before

inviting a member of her staff to make

herself available for another position.

MS SNELL I think we moved slightly off the point.

The point that was raised in the email was 5

slightly different in terms of consultation

on the starting date.

MS EDMONDS I have no further questions.

CHAIRMAN Thank you. Re-examination?

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Just a couple of questions Ms Snell. 10

If you go to this, it starts with C10, and

to the document C20 which is the

constitution. The Government Gazette, 8

September 2005.

CHAIRMAN C10 and C20? 15

MR PRETORIUS C20. It starts at C20 which is the ---

MS SNELL Yes, I’ve got C20.

MR PRETORIUS This constitution differs in significant

respects from the constitution on the SETA

website. Do you have an explanation for 20

that?

MS SNELL Yes, I noticed that and that’s why I had to

check it because it’s important that one

looks at the signed version of the

472

constitution. Because unfortunately at

INSETA they didn’t have proper document

control so you ended up with documents being

passed on to somebody which might not have

been the final document. So the gazetted 5

document is the most important one.

MR PRETORIUS Then on page 4 of C20, the Government

Gazette, at the top of the page, if you can

just turn to that. The definition of the

chief executive officer. 10

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS It defines chief executive officer as the

chief executive officer of INSETA duly

appointed by Council and responsible to

Council as per terms and conditions 15

stipulated in his or her employment contract

or any other written delegation or decision

by Council. Correct?

MS SNELL I see that.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Now Mr Abel’s contract of employment, 20

what’s the nature of it? Or is it a fixed

term contract?

MS SNELL I imagine it was a fixed term contract. But

the delegations are incorporated in the

473

delegation policy of 2005 approved by

Council.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Now on the basis you were cross

examined by the witness, that would mean on,

based on the question, said that Mr Abel was 5

a temporary employee so the fixed term

contract.

MS SNELL No, I disagreed with that.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

MS SNELL I mean --- 10

MR PRETORIUS No, I agree with you, you disagree. But

that’s the basis that you were cross

examined.

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Page, can you then please turn to file 2 of 15

Mr Abel to page 465.

MS SNELL Sorry, I’m there.

MR PRETORIUS That’s the contract between INSETA and

IMFUNDO, ADVTECH Resourcing trading as

IMFUNDO. 20

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Turn to page 466, that sets out the

deliverables and pricing, correct?

MS SNELL Yes.

474

MR PRETORIUS Now just look at an example to 4.1.3,

curriculum design. It says, the remaining

curriculum will be delivered in March 2008

will be separately quoted once the detailed

scoping process has been completed. See 5

that?

MS SNELL Sorry, which number were you on?

MR PRETORIUS 4.1.3, the last sentence.

MS SNELL Ok, yes.

MR PRETORIUS Deliverable 3, curriculum design. 10

MS SNELL Ok, yes I’m there.

MR PRETORIUS The remaining curricula will be delivered in

March 2008 and will be separately quoted

once the detailed scoping process has been

completed. 15

MS SNELL I see that.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then page 482, we dealt with that

in your evidence in chief. But just to try

it again. In respect of the RPL, page 482.

MS SNELL Yes. 20

MR PRETORIUS In respect of the RPL tool development, it’s

TBD, what does that stand for?

MS SNELL That is the annexure I referred to where

they had the to be determined prices which

475

would be concluded later.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Prices to be determined. And the same

with the learning material development from

2008.

MS SNELL That’s right. 5

MR PRETORIUS To be determined. Could you then please

turn to page 442? What is this document?

MS SNELL This is a FAIS fit and proper project

motivation.

MR PRETORIUS It says on page 442, program office. Where 10

would this originate from?

MS SNELL The program office is the IPO, the

PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

MS SNELL Your question where the document would 15

originate from ---

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

MS SNELL In terms of the compilation of the document?

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

MS SNELL As I said the document would be compiled 20

collectively and depending on the year I

would or would not be involved in it. But

it’s a collective exercise when we do our

strategic planning. The refinement thereof

476

would be the responsibility of the project

sponsor and IPO.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And page 444, project milestones and

delivery dates.

MS SNELL Yes. 5

MR PRETORIUS It says, the first bullet, the new funding

for the second phase of the project to be

approved and signed 1 June 2008. Approved

by who?

MS SNELL 1 June 2008, this would be approved by the 10

CEO, once Council has approved the funding.

And that’s what this project is about.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

MS SNELL So it’s a deliverable in terms of the

project. 15

MR PRETORIUS So Council approved the funding and then the

CEO, once the funding has been approved, can

approve it. Is that correct?

MS SNELL Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Thank you very much. That’s --- 20

CHAIRMAN Thank you very much. Thank you, you may be

excused. Your next witness Mr Pretorius.

MR PRETORIUS No, that’s it.

CHAIRMAN Is that your case?

477

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN Thank you. Ms Edmonds?

MS EDMONDS Thank you. The first witness for Mr Abel

specifically is Mr Gerber.

CHAIRMAN Yes. Thank you Mr Gerber. You will sit 5

where the witness sits.

MS SNELL Thank you very much.

MR PRETORIUS Thank you.

CHAIRMAN Your full names for the record please?

MR GERBER Full names is Johannes Adolph Gerber. The 10

acronym Adie is derived from the Adolph.

CHAIRMAN Do you have any objections to taking the

oath?

MR GERBER No. Sorry, I think Sharon’s left her laptop

here. 15

MR PRETORIUS Adolph with an f or p-h?

MR GERBER P-h.

CHAIRMAN Do you have any objections in taking the

oath?

MR GERBER No. 20

CHAIRMAN Do you swear the evidence you will give will

be the truth, nothing but the truth, so help

me God?

MR GERBER I do.

478

CHAIRMAN Thank you. Ms Edmonds?

MS EDMONDS Mr Gerber what is your capacity at PWC?

MR GERBER I’m a senior manager in the performance

improvement division. I am the project

competency leader for the advisory services 5

and I’m involved in the INSETA program

office since the 1st of January 07.

MS EDMONDS 07. And do you deal with anyone else’s

projects other than those of the INSETA?

MR GERBER My primary client dealings is INSETA. 10

MS EDMONDS Now I don’t want to take you in detail

through the evidence that I’ve already put

to Ms Snell. Perhaps for the purposes of

allowing us to complete sooner rather than

later, you heard all of the, you’ve heard 15

what I put to Ms Snell would be your

evidence?

MR GERBER That is correct.

MS EDMONDS Do you confirm that that is going to be your

evidence? That is your evidence now without 20

my having to lead you on it?

MR GERBER That is the just of what I have, yes.

MS EDMONDS Is there anything that I have not put to Ms

Snell that you would like to draw the

479

attention of this hearing to which relates

to the charges against Mr Abel and, insofar

as it’s relevant, Ms Steenekamp?

MR GERBER The only charges I have seen is the three

that you have shown me relating to the FAIS 5

projects specifically and the comments we

have were captured in those documents

relating to those three charges. So in

terms of that, that is what I would be

delivering. 10

MS EDMONDS And perhaps just the one other aspect in

regard to, are you aware whether Mr Abel’s

son was a beneficiary of any of the

expenditure of any of the projects with

which you were involved? 15

MR GERBER No, I’ve not seen any payment made to Greg

Abel or where he was involved as such. We

have not seen anything like that.

MS EDMONDS If you happy enough with that ---

CHAIRMAN Yes. 20

MS EDMONDS By way of, sorry, hold on. Just, sorry Mr

Pretorius, in relation to Ms Steenekamp’s

charges you are aware that she has been

charged with conflict of interest in that

480

she did not recuse herself, or sorry, she

did not, yes, recuse herself from the panel,

perhaps let me just find that charge so I

don’t mislead you. Perhaps I can just show

you that charge so that I don’t need to read 5

it out. It’s the first charge against Ms

Steenekamp.

MR GERBER Ok, that relates specifically to the NSF and

FAIS tenders. Yes.

MS EDMONDS That’s correct. 10

MR GERBER Ok, I see that.

MS EDMONDS And you see the last paragraph there in

regard to an interest ---

MR GERBER Yes.

MS EDMONDS Which a family member, are you aware of what 15

Ms Steenekamp disclosed in the course of

those meetings of the evaluation committee?

MR GERBER Yes. I was present at most of those

meetings. These was two statements made.

There is three document we have where 20

Shirley wrote on the physical declaration,

maybe just background, the IPO assists in

the facilitation of tender adjudicating

procedures. What we mean by that is that

481

we’ll schedule the sessions, we will prepare

the documentation, we will then also

facilitate to ensure that all the attendees

are present as and when required. So as

from that point of view I was present at 5

those meetings as the facilitator in that

process. One of the documents we compiled

for all parties present, either as a scorer

as Shirley was or evaluator, or even just

someone present is a declaration of interest 10

form which is a document that is defined in

the INSETA supply chain policy. On three

occasions related to these two tenders,

Shirley commented that her son Piers is

working for the ADVTECH group. Two of the 15

documents I know, she wrote it on the front

page, and one she wrote on the back page.

And then she also made a verbal statement in

the meeting where Margie Naidoo was present.

MS EDMONDS Margie Naidoo being? 20

MR GERBER She was a Council representative at some of

the tender evaluation processes. And Margie

then requested that Shirley not recuse

herself as her technical expertise was

482

needed for the benefit of INSETA.

MS EDMONDS Thank you. And perhaps just one further

aspect in regard to Mr Abel. Through your

dealings with the INSETA has there ever been

any suggestion of Mr Abel conducting himself 5

inappropriately in relation to his

obligations and duties as the CEO from PWC,

from Deloitte in regard to any payments, any

allocations, any requests for payments or

transfers or changing of change notes, 10

signing of change notes?

MR GERBER I can only comment on dealing I’ve been

involved with since January 2007. And in

all the cases that we’ve worked with we have

followed policy and procedure strictly. And 15

we have advised Mr Abel and INSETA how to

abide by those polices and procedures. So

we not aware of any transgression that we

have been part or privy to in terms of

information. 20

MS EDMONDS It was suggested by Dr Konar in his evidence

that the only reason that the INSETA had

been given a clean audit by the treasury was

because Mr Abel had been able in some way,

483

very able apparently, to persuade the

Auditor General that all of the complaints

against him were meaningless and that the

INSETA was entitled to a clean audit. Do

you want to comment on that possibility? 5

MR GERBER I cannot comment on that. I have not been

part of any such process. We also get

audited every year on behalf of INSETA by

the Auditor General. So they come visit us

looking for certain documentation. We then 10

provide it to them. But we are not privy to

what happens after that. So I cannot

comment on that.

MS EDMONDS But all the documentation which is before

this hearing today would have been available 15

for the Auditor General.

MR GERBER That is correct.

MS EDMONDS Thank you. Thank you Mr Pretorius.

MR PRETORIUS Mr Gerber will you please turn to file 1 of

Mike Abel. It should be a blue Deneys Reitz 20

file, file 1, Mr Abel. This section of,

sorry, to page 228 and 259. Just to give

you the context, this section relates to the

appointment of the University of the Western

484

Cape and Professor Gool, in particular, to

do an SSP report. You were involved in that

weren’t you?

MR GERBER The IPO wasn’t involved up until the point

that the initial evaluation document was 5

submitted to INSETA. And we were not part

of the process to take the evaluation

further that resulted in the appointment of

the UWC.

MR PRETORIUS Mr Abel should not have been involved in the 10

evaluation, correct? He’s the awarding

authority.

MR GERBER He is the awarding authority. I’m not aware

that he was physically evaluating ---

MR PRETORIUS Well let’s go to page 228. You’ll see 15

that’s a document, site visits and

evaluation report, one of two versions of

that. It says present in the evaluation is

Mr Nkosi, Mr Abel, Ms Mthopa, Professor

Gool, Professor Mey. And you’ll see the 20

evaluation panel comprised of Mr Abel and Mr

Nkosi. You see that?

MR GERBER Yes.

MR PRETORIUS And if you see on the bottom of the page,

485

it’s dated the 6th of November 2007.

MR GERBER That’s on the next page.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And if you then go to page 259 you’ll

find there is a document again signed,

sorry, just to have that, the document on 5

page 228 and 229 is signed by Mr Abel dated

6 November 2007. Correct?

MR GERBER That’s right.

MR PRETORIUS How do you regular that Mr Abel as the

awarding authority is also on the evaluation 10

panel. Correct?

MR GERBER I wasn’t present at the meeting but the

notes would indicate that.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then on page 259 and 260 another

version of this document with two changes. 15

On page 259 the evaluation panel comprised

of Mr Nkosi and Mr Nkosi. See that?

MR GERBER Yes.

MR PRETORIUS And if you turn to page 260 it’s dated the

7th of November 2007. 20

CHAIRMAN 259 is Nkosi and Abel?

MR PRETORIUS No. 259 on the panel that says the, not the

present, the evaluation panel ---

CHAIRMAN I see.

486

MR PRETORIUS Comprised of Mr Nkosi and Mr Nkosi.

CHAIRMAN Yes, sorry. I didn’t see that. Sorry.

MR PRETORIUS And then ... (inaudible) ... identical. And

then if you look at page 260 you’ll see that

it’s signed the 7th of November 2007. 5

MR GERBER I see that.

MR PRETORIUS You recall that you sent an email and said

there was a problem because this evaluation

says it was the 7th of November but the

contract in fact was signed on the 6th of 10

November. Do you recall that?

MR GERBER That’s right.

MR PRETORIUS So the one thing we know is that you must

have had the evaluation report otherwise you

couldn’t have worked back on it. 15

MR GERBER The SSP tender for that specific year was

one of the outstanding projects under the

progress report for the IPO. And as we had

not received any feedback after our initial

submission of the tender report, we followed 20

up to find out what was the status of the

item. We were then provided, we were then

told that the contract has been agreed with

the University of the Western Cape. We then

487

requested the supporting documentation for

our file purposes as we would be expected at

some stage to be involved in processing of

the invoices. When we were provided with a

copy of the report and the contract we then 5

noticed the date discrepancy and we raised

it as we were not sure what was the origin

of the discrepancy.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Well what you in fact said in the

email is that the date must be changed 10

because the Auditor General might pick it up

and raise some queries.

MR GERBER Yes, the contract has to be post the

evaluation.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Which means that you must have had the 15

evaluation report with the date of the 7th of

November.

MR GERBER We can go look on the file. Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Which means that you must have seen as IPO

that Mr Abel, if on this evaluation report, 20

because you have two Mr Nkosi’s did not

participate, at least was present at the

site visit and evaluation.

MR GERBER Ok.

488

MR PRETORIUS And you didn’t raise anything on this

material irregularity.

MR GERBER The SSP evaluation and the appointment was

taken out of the IPOs control when the

evaluation report was taken over by INSETA. 5

We were not part of any of those processes

so we only saw the physical document for the

first time.

MR PRETORIUS And was that regular, that the tender would

be taken out of the IPO? Has it happened in 10

any other tenders?

MR GERBER In the 2 years that I’ve been involved with,

I’m just trying to thing, I can't remember

another case similar to this.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. 15

MR GERBER In the last 2 years. I can't speak of late.

CHAIRMAN So is the answer no?

MR GERBER Not in the 2 years that I’ve been involved.

MR PRETORIUS No, absolutely. And you can assume Mr

Gerber, I will only deal with the period 20

that you involved.

MR GERBER Ok, 100 percent.

MR PRETORIUS So you ... (inaudible) ... qualifies.

CHAIRMAN So if you knew there’s something irregular

489

why didn’t you comment?

MR GERBER We commented about the date issue because

that was the item that we picked up as it

didn’t make sense to us. But we were not

physically at the meeting so we can't 5

comment on ---

CHAIRMAN Why didn’t you comment that Mr Abel was

present at the meeting, he shouldn’t have

been there?

MR GERBER No, we didn’t comment on that. 10

MR PRETORIUS The question’s why not Mr Gerber? Was it

just an oversight? I mean you ---

MR GERBER I must have been. We picked up the date

issue and that was the thing that alarmed

us. 15

MR PRETORIUS Then Mr Colin Daries, Nu-Era, are you aware

of that entity?

MR GERBER That’s right.

MR PRETORIUS As I understand, let’s go to the particular

document, can you go to page 395? This is 20

an email dated the 11th of May 2007 which Mr

Colin Daries sends to Mr Abel and it says,

“Just a reminder on your FAB promises.” Do

you know what FAB, the acronym, stands for?

490

MR GERBER I think that’s a funeral brokers or

something.

MR PRETORIUS Funeral, yes.

MR GERBER Yes.

MR PRETORIUS As I understand it, Mr Daries first had 5

training done, and afterwards came for the

payment of that training which is totally

contrary to the very strict procedure laid

down. Were you aware of that?

MR GERBER This training I havent seen before so I 10

would have to go look at the bursary system

to see how and when this was applied to

understand the context of that to be honest.

I’m not sure, it doesn’t say who the

provider or who the lead employers are. 15

That would have helped a bit.

MR PRETORIUS But you do know that, as I understand it, my

instructions are and I looked at the policy,

we got the bursary policy in the documents,

that you first apply for the bursary, that 20

gets approved and then payment occurs.

MR GERBER That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS It is contrary to policy to do the training

and after training’s been done said well,

491

I’ve done this training, now I want payment.

MR GERBER Yes, that’s not normally how it’s handled.

MR PRETORIUS And that’s something which the IPO would

look askance at.

MR GERBER Yes. We would escalate it. 5

MR PRETORIUS To whom do you escalate it?

MR GERBER To the respective project sponsor at that

stage of the bursary system or the bursary

process.

MR PRETORIUS Did you escalate the case of Mr Daries? 10

MR GERBER Well the only one that we aware of relates

to ... (inaudible) ... training that

happened last year.

MR PRETORIUS Did you escalate it?

MR GERBER Yes. That went to Sharon Snell who was 15

doing the project sponsor.

MR PRETORIUS And what did she do about it?

MR GERBER There was a number of initial information

bits that she requested and ultimately she

... (inaudible) ... that application. 20

MR PRETORIUS So you unaware of the promises that Mr Abel

made to Mr Daries in respect of which

irregular payments were made?

MR GERBER This is, we’ve had previous cases where

492

someone would contact Mr Abel and say we are

interested in training. We would then

advise them to follow the process through us

and we will then process it according to the

policy in place. Either as bursaries or for 5

skills programs or for one of the learning

programs. It will then get processes,

evaluated, according to the policy.

MR PRETORIUS According to the policy.

MR GERBER Yes. 10

MR PRETORIUS And the policy is prior approval before

training.

MR GERBER That’s the rule, yes.

MR PRETORIUS On the charges about, relating to the FAIS

project, Dr Konar testified and was cross 15

examined on that basis and we might have to

recall him to deal with that, but the basis

of his criticism was that there needed to be

prior Council approval from Mr Konar to

conclude the change notes and there wasn’t 20

prior Council approval. That that is the

gist of the complaints.

MR GERBER Are you referring to the FAIS projects?

MR PRETORIUS The FAIS project. Yes, I’m dealing with the

493

FAIS project.

MR GERBER 100 percent.

MR PRETORIUS Dr Konar’s criticism is that at the time the

change notes were concluded, Council had not

approved the expenditure. 5

MR GERBER Based on my understanding, I havent seen the

report from Dr Konar, I’ve seen one or two

pages now in consultation with Ruth prior to

this meeting, and what I did pick up is that

he was taking things out of, he had a few 10

dates mixed up. He was taking change note

number 2, sorry number 1, which was signed

in first half of last year and he was

linking that to the 1.607 million which was

approved in October which is two separate 15

matters. The 1.607 was for learner support

while the change note he was referring to

was for deliverables that was approved

earlier that year in a separate motivation.

So that one I have seen. I’m not sure if 20

there’s another example that you refer to.

MR PRETORIUS 14If we can just look at that. The July

change note.

14 Tape 3 – Side 1 – 3 June 2009

494

CHAIRMAN Where do I see that?

MR PRETORIUS Page 487. It’s in various places but that’s

page 487, that’s the legible one.

CHAIRMAN 487, yes.

MR GERBER Is that file number? 5

MR PRETORIUS That’s file number 2, Mr Abel. Sorry. Mr

Gerber if you prepare your files, put them

in chronological sequence and then you can

find the documents.

MR GERBER 4? 10

MR PRETORIUS Page 487. That is the what’s called change

note A, or first change note signed on the

9th of July 2008 which is to update the

contract signed in 2007 according to the

deliverables due up to 31st March 2009. 15

MR GERBER That’s correct.

MR PRETORIUS And it’s not clear when IMFUNDO signed it or

did sign it. It’s been dated. And then on

page 490, that’s for 1.6 million.

MR GERBER That’s correct. 20

MR PRETORIUS And your comment on that? You say Dr Konar

misinterpreted this.

MR GERBER I think the reference I saw on the report is

he linked that change note to the Council

495

approval of 1.607 million which happened in

September 08 which was for learner support.

This should be linked to the funding that

was remaining from the year 8 project as

well as the funding approved as the year 9 5

project motivation.

MR PRETORIUS Ok, now ---

MR GERBER So that’s the comment ---

MR PRETORIUS Yes, so when was the funding for year 9

approved? 10

MR GERBER That was the Council motivation, that was I

think around March. I havent got the

physical date with me.

MR PRETORIUS Well let’s find ---

MR GERBER It would have been the year 9 project 15

motivation. That was that 4.08 million.

MR PRETORIUS If I could just find, well I’d just like to

---

MS EDMONDS 5, sorry, 447, the motivation is ...

(inaudible) ... minute is 447. 20

MR PRETORIUS Thank you. 447. That’s the minute of the

Council meeting on the 8th of May 2008.

You’ll find that on 446. And for the FAIS

fit and proper there’s an approval of 4 080

496

620 million Rand.

MR GERBER That’s correct.

MR PRETORIUS Is the 1.6 million part of that 4 080?

MR GERBER Yes. As well as what was left over from the

year 8 project. We didn’t use all the money 5

in year 8 that was approved.

MR PRETORIUS How much was left over from year 8?

MR GERBER I’d have to get the Deloitte financial

document. There was quite a substantial

amount. I think the original contract was 10

only 800 000 and the Council amount was 1.3

million. Something like that.

MR PRETORIUS Sorry, I thought you were finding it. So

that’s approximately R500 000 then?

MR GERBER It was left from the previous year. 15

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

MR GERBER But I’ll have to, I can get those numbers

for you. It’s not a problem.

MR PRETORIUS If you, well, I’d like to get the precise

things. So how do we link the 1.6 to the 4 20

million that you link it to and the 500 000?

MR GERBER You would have to look at what was the

actual amounts left over on the year 8

project. That amounts I can get for you. I

497

don’t have it in front of me. And then also

what was left on, what was approved by

Council on this specific motivation for year

9. So you’d have to look at the two of them

together. 5

MR PRETORIUS Sorry, I thought that we have on page 447

year 9. Or is that year 8?

MR GERBER No, that’s year 9. But there was money left

from the year 8 one which was approved the

previous year. But that amount I don’t have 10

with me. I’ll have to get it from the

Deloitte financial documents that we’ve got

at the office.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. But what we have is 4 080 000. That

is ... (inaudible) ... 1.6. So it must 15

include that amount as well.

MR GERBER Yes. But if you go look at the physical

motivation, the 4 million is separate into

different components. So you can't take the

whole 4 million into context. 20

MR PRETORIUS Well you find that, the motivation you’ll

find is on page 442. Is that correct?

MR GERBER That’s the right one.

MR PRETORIUS And then for the project costs we can see

498

the breakdown, the item type. Assessment

set, well just for example we have the

breakdown of there for the 3.7 million.

Just link that to page 490.

MR GERBER You say 490? 5

MR PRETORIUS Yes, 490. That’s the 1.6 million. For

example, just take the ---

MR GERBER Ok, I’ve got it here, yes.

MR PRETORIUS The learning material development, where do

we find it in the motivation to the Council 10

on page 443?

MR GERBER Learning material?

MR PRETORIUS Yes, if you look on page 490, that’s the

last one. Learning material, development

2008. It’s to be determined. Where do we 15

find it on page 443?

MR GERBER The one that I’ve got has got amounts for

learning material. On page 490. Is that

one that you referring to?

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Well just as an example, we take the 20

last last one, learning material,

development 2008. 436 hours, 490 520.

MR GERBER Ok, yes.

MR PRETORIUS Where do we find that on page 443?

499

MR GERBER You would have to look at what was left on

the previous year because there was a pot of

money approved and what was in this pot

itself. So you can't link the two paragraph

by paragraph. 5

MR PRETORIUS Well that’s our point. What we know in the

contract to sign October 2007 Mr Gerber, you

can go to page, and it should be there on

page 482.

MR GERBER Got it. 10

MR PRETORIUS You see? That is to be determined. There’s

nothing left over from the previous year.

MR GERBER No. But there was Council money approved

that wasn’t used which will not show over

here. Because this contract was just signed, 15

the price was just fixed or confirmed for

the three deliverables that was due in this

period.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then a price had to be determined

for learning material development. 20

MR GERBER That’s correct.

MR PRETORIUS Who had to approve that?

MR GERBER How do you mean approve?

MR PRETORIUS Who had to determine that?

500

MR GERBER That was in consultation between INSETA, the

team that was responsible for it and the

provider, IMFUNDO.

MR PRETORIUS And Council had no function in that?

MR GERBER In determining the price? 5

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

MR GERBER No. It was part of the negotiations with

them to find the deliverables.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

MR GERBER Council only approved a pot of money. 10

MR PRETORIUS And we know the pot of money they approved

was 4 080 621 million.

MR GERBER In that year, yes.

MR PRETORIUS In that year, yes. Page 444, the first

bullet, the second part of the sentence 15

after the semi colon, the new funding for

the second phase of the project to be

approved and signed 1 June 2008. Approved

and signed by Council not so?

MR GERBER I just want to get the project, this is 20

which year? This is the year 8 one, ok.

MR PRETORIUS Year 8, yes. The new funding for the second

phase of the project to be approved and

signed 1 June 2008.

501

CHAIRMAN Where you reading from Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS Page 444, nine project milestones ---

CHAIRMAN Bullet 1, 444?

MR PRETORIUS 444, yes.

CHAIRMAN Yes. 5

MR PRETORIUS The first bullet, the second line after the

semi colon.

CHAIRMAN New funding for the second phase of the

project to be approved and signed 1st June.

MR PRETORIUS Yes, 2008. 10

MR GERBER That happened earlier than June. It didn’t

happen only ---

MR PRETORIUS Approved by whom?

MR GERBER The funding pot was approved by Council.

But the way our funding was applied for the 15

separate deliverables was done as part of

the contract negotiation. The reason for

that is when the funding pot was requested

from Council the contract negotiations hadnt

taken place. So you couldn’t do a detailed 20

estimate to say exactly what the numbers

were. So the number that went into the

motivation was based on information

available at that stage, which was prior to

502

the actual meetings.

CHAIRMAN But as I understand the complaint Mr

Pretorius, you saying that once he goes

beyond that pot he must go back to Council.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Council have to approve. 5

CHAIRMAN Yes.

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

CHAIRMAN What do you say to that Mr Gerber?

MR GERBER I would go back to the statement that we

noted in our comments in the report that you 10

have to take into context that there was

money remaining from year 8 as well as from

year 5.

CHAIRMAN Yes, but if he wants to use that money must

he go to Council or not? 15

MR GERBER They were all FAIS projects with similar

deliverables.

MR PRETORIUS Your view is that it doesn’t have to go to

Council?

MR GERBER No, because they were similar FAIS projects. 20

MR PRETORIUS And then change note B which you’ll find on

page 491 to 493, your criticism of Dr Konar

dealing with that? Because it’s the same

thing.

503

CHAIRMAN Sorry page?

MR PRETORIUS Page 491 to 493.

CHAIRMAN Thank you.

MR PRETORIUS Dr Konar’s criticism in respect of all three

of the instances he has is that the change 5

notes were agreed before Council approved

the funding. And I know that you said well,

you can take the previous year. What’s your

criticism about change note B which appears

on 491 to 493 and Dr Konar’s way of dealing 10

with that?

MR GERBER Ok. The change note should be linked to the

Council approval that was left over from

year 9, as well as year 8, as well as year

5. Because in this scenario we specifically 15

made use of surplus money left over from the

year 5 FAIS project. And there was an

amount of 1.3 million. And because the

project wasn’t closed, it was still an open

project, the funding was still lying as 20

available. Only once a project has

physically closed and signed off does the

money move to surplus and it then becomes

not usable.

504

MR PRETORIUS Why wasn’t that money dealt with before,

2008 is year 5. Year 5 would be 2005?

MR GERBER 2006.

MR PRETORIUS 2006. Not there’s money, 1.3 million lying

unspent in this project from 2006. How was 5

that dealt with?

MR GERBER I can give you the, I wasn’t involved when

that project started. It was long before I

joined. One of the challenges with that

project in 07 was that the provider who was 10

ICG down in Cape Town had an outstanding

issue with an invoice they claimed were

submitted to INSETA but was never paid.

Late in 2007 we visited ICG to follow up

what was the status of the matter and we 15

were then, based on that during the latter

half of 07 and beginning of 08, providing

with the requirement documents, those

invoices were then processed during the

course of 2008. And then the project came 20

to the point that all previous payments was

done and then they could then be determined

what money was still available on that code.

So that is why the project wasn’t closed

505

because there was an outstanding invoice

issue that was being carried to be resolved.

MR PRETORIUS And after ICG was paid there was 1.3 million

left.

MR GERBER That’s correct. 5

MR PRETORIUS Was it ever reported to Council that there’s

1.3 million that could be used for the next

year?

MR GERBER Not that I’m aware of.

MR PRETORIUS isn’t that something that Council when it 10

looks at the next year should know about?

MR GERBER This happened after the approval project

motivations for the year 9 was done. There

was no request for any information in that

regard that I’m aware of. 15

MR PRETORIUS No, but before the approval is made. If

there’s excess of 1.3 million after ICG’s

invoice is paid there must have been more

than 1.3 million lying unspent for 2006.

Year 2005 in 2006. 20

MR GERBER That’s correct. That is reflected on the

financial statements that is prepared by

Deloitte.

MR PRETORIUS Yes. Was it reported to Council?

506

MR GERBER They would have signed off the financial

statements.

MR PRETORIUS Would this have been reported as unspent

funds or surplus funds or what?

MR GERBER It would have been reported as committed but 5

unspent.

MR PRETORIUS Committed to what?

MR GERBER As a project motivation is signed off by

Council and it’s approved, the amount of

money involved in that project motivation is 10

then tracked as being committed in terms of

being allocated to a project. As the money

gets spent it then gets tracked and reported

until such time as the project is completed.

CHAIRMAN Mr Pretorius can I just see if my people 15

have not arrived then we’ll continue?

MR PRETORIUS Yes.

HEARING ADJOURNS