Redisa di­rec­tor re­futes the al­le­ga­tions of Edna Molewa

The Star Early Edition - - OPINION & ANALYSIS - Roy Cokayne

THE AP­PLI­CA­TION for the liq­ui­da­tion of the Re­cy­cling and Eco­nomic De­vel­op­ment Ini­tia­tive of South Africa (Redisa) by en­vi­ron­men­tal af­fairs min­is­ter Edna Molewa was “noth­ing but a hos­tile takeover”, a di­rec­tor of the waste tyre com­pany has claimed.

In an ex­clu­sive in­ter­view with Busi­ness Re­port, Redisa di­rec­tor Stacey David­son on Fri­day de­nied there had been any de­vi­a­tion from the plan and all the al­le­ga­tions made by Molewa in sup­port of the liq­ui­da­tion ap­pli­ca­tion and they were shocked by the “gross mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tions” made by Molewa and her de­part­ment.

David­son also con­firmed Redisa was in the process of draft­ing pa­pers to chal­lenge the va­lid­ity of liq­ui­da­tion ap­pli­ca­tion and the pro­vi­sional liq­ui­da­tion or­der that had been is­sued.

“The ap­pli­ca­tion she has made to have us placed un­der liq­ui­da­tion is un­law­ful.

“The min­is­ter cites two clauses of the Com­pa­nies Act. But she is not a cred­i­tor, she is not a di­rec­tor and nei­ther is she a share­holder of this com­pany.

“Redisa is not an or­gan of state. It’s a pri­vate com­pany sub­ject to the obli­ga­tions of the Com­pa­nies Act,” she said.

Redisa was placed in pro­vi­sional liq­ui­da­tion on June 1. The re­turn date for the ap­pli­ca­tion is July 25.

Molewa said in an al­most 200-page af­fi­davit in sup­port of the liq­ui­da­tion ap­pli­ca­tion that she sus­pected Redisa had suc­ceeded in trans­fer­ring al­most R30 mil­lion of pub­lic funds that were in­tended for the im­ple­men­ta­tion of the Redisa waste tyre plan out of the coun­try.

She fur­ther claimed the pay­ment of “stag­ger­ing amounts” were chan­nelled as man­age­ment fees to a host of com­pa­nies in which the ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tors of Redisa had a fi­nan­cial in­ter­est; the com­bined ex­pen­di­ture by Redisa on the fees of ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tors and staff of Redisa, com­pris­ing about seven peo­ple, was a to­tal of R1.7m a month; and di­rec­tors were paid R1.297m as fees for the mere ac­cep­tance of a di­rec­tor­ship in Redisa.

Molewa said Redisa had, among other things, also pur­chased a free­hold prop­erty for R18.7m, which falls com­pletely out­side the man­date of Redisa as set out in its plan; owned mo­tor ve­hi­cles to the de­pre­ci­ated value of R4.14m; and em­ployed a se­cu­rity com­pany to se­cure the pri­vate res­i­dences of the di­rec­tors at R63 933 a month.

But David­son said she was “com­pletely dumb­founded” by the as­ser­tions made in the af­fi­davit and claimed Molewa’s de­part­ment had all the doc­u­men­ta­tion that clearly showed how the funds were flow­ing and the com­pany was man­aged.

“The de­part­ment is not ap­ply­ing it­self to the sub­mis­sions made by Redisa. If it had, they would have un­der­stood ex­actly where the money is go­ing.”

David­son de­scribed as “rub­bish” Molewa’s claim that Redisa had de­layed or failed to pro­vide the de­part­ment with doc­u­men­ta­tion that was re­quested or pro­vide the in­cor­rect in­for­ma­tion.

“There is noth­ing that has been re­quested by the de­part­ment that is out­stand­ing,” she said.

David­son added that ev­ery­thing Redisa had done had al­ways been dis­cussed with the de­part­ment and tabled with the de­part­ment and de­nied Redisa had en­gaged in unau­tho­rised ex­pen­di­ture and had be­come a ve­hi­cle for self en­rich­ment of the di­rec­tors.

She dis­puted claims that Redisa had failed to meet its col­lec­tion tar­gets.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.