MD accused of issuing loans from company funds
MBABANE – The Managing Director of Multichoice Eswatini, Phumzile Drummond, has been accused of issuing loans to staff from subscription payments made by customers who pay in advance.
It has been alleged that from the bulk payments, the company would at times credit a customer’s account for fewer months and the balance was reportedly loaned to staff with the hope that it would be repaid before the customer’s account reflected arrears.
This is according to a former employee of Security Shoppe ( Pty) Ltd, trading as Multichoice Eswatini, Hloniphile Sithole, who was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing after being found guilty of theft and misappropriation of a sum of E8 500.
Arrangement
The alleged arrangement to loan staff customers’ subscriptions, according to Sithole, was a side arrangement between staff and Drummond, and it was not sanctioned by the head office.
Drummond is alleged to have utilised monies received under Sithole’s portfolio for her personal needs and would replace it, but at times would not.
These allegations are contained in Sithole’s affidavit in which she is resisting default judgment for the payment of E40 000, she allegedly stole or misappropriated, to the company.
Sithole was employed by Multichoice Eswatini in June 2014 and her services were terminated in October 2020.
In her papers, Sithole of Mpolonjeni informed the court that it was an established practice of convenience, although not officially endorsed by the company, between staff and Drummond to give soft loans and advances to employees that were payable at the end of the month, in which they were taken.
Advance
“Such advance amounts were taken and/ or sourced from payments made by customers who mostly made bulk payments on subscriptions,” alleged Sithole.
The understanding and justification for sourcing loans from such amounts was that same was always safe and the money would be replaced before t h e c u s t o mer ’s a c c o u n t r e f l e c t e d arrears or was due as the customer would have paid for many months in advance, alleged Sithole.
“Noteworthy is that Ms Drummond also utilised such monies received under my portfolio for her personal needs and would replace it, at times did not,” Sithole submitted.
The veracity of these allegations is yet to be tested in court.
S i t h o l e i s r e p r e s e n t e d b y DEM Hleta Legal.
Sithole also alleged that Drummond always insisted that she be the only p e r s o n i n manag e ment t o b e a p - proached if a loan was being solicited.
Varying
She s ai d s he approached Drummond ar ound J une and J ul y 2020 requesting loans amounting to around E8 500 at varying intervals and she allegedly agreed.
Sithole informed the court that she failed to settle the loan within two months, but undertook, orally, to repay it in August 2020. She stated that the repayments were always made t hr ough c r e di t i ng t he c us t omer ’s account from whom the money was sourced ‘ under the watchful eye of Drummond’.
She said in the same month, news of an intended audit filtered through the workplace and this was said to have sent owing staff members, as well as Drummond, into panic as the unauthorised arrangement would be discovered.
Sithole alleged that Drummond demanded that she immediately settled the amount of E8 500, ‘ to which I protested on grounds of being financially handicapped at that time’.
“In a bid to insulate herself from potential disciplinary action and exposure of sanctioning such practice, Ms Drummond caused me to sign a consent audit form which to date is within t he custody of t he plaintiff ( Multichoice Eswatini).”
S i t h o l e s a i d t h e d o c u me n t s h e signed had an official company letterheads, which all members of staff signed and returned to the company and the document that she signed was not an acknowledgment of debt.
She said she rejected the proposal to have it prepared and signed in respect of the E8 500 advance, making an oral arrangement in August 2020 to pay in a few days.
Sithole all eged money as agreed. t hat she paid
Proof
t he
Regarding why there was no receipt as proof of the payment, Sithole said this was due to the fact that repayment was allegedly made by creating the customer’s account and the company was content with t he absence of a receipt, which would likely expose Drummond for the arrangement.
She submitted that when the issue of the audit intensified, Drummond, ‘ in a bid to cushion herself against disciplinary action’, allegedly hurriedly caused a letter of suspension against her to be issued on September 9, 2020.
She told the court that Drummond also furnished her with an invitation to a disciplinary hearing on September 23, 2020, on a charge of theft/ fraud and misappropriation of funds.
“Bizarrely, this document was issued after the purported signature of the alleged acknowledgment of debt. I state t hat had t he amount of E40 000 been acknowledged as alleged, it would have formed the basis of such charge in the disciplinary hearing, especially since the charge includes the period which the purported acknowledgment covers.”
Sithole alleged that the document purported to be an acknowledgment of debt signed by her did not have the company letterheads and the signature did not belong to her as well as the signatories’ capacities were not mentioned.
She submitted that Drummond or any person of like authority would have signed the document.
Settled
“I further add and reiterate that all t hat was due t o t he plaintiff ( Multichoice Eswatini) was settled by me on August 27, 2020, in the sum of E8 500 as acknowledged by the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing in his ruling.
“Had I owed s uch an amount of E40 000 as alleged by the plaintiff, same would have been embodied in the charge sheet of the disciplinary hearing which is, however, not the case. The plaintiff further failed to lay criminal charges against myself which demonstrates that I complied with my obligation in repaying monies owed to the plaintiff,” she added.
Sithole pointed out that there was no evidence of Drummond’s signature on the purported acknowledgment of debt, which allegedly signified that she was not a party to it and that she was disqualified from testifying on the issue.
The matter is pending in court. tail highlighted the discrepancies that were allegedly caused by the defendant when she was purportedly stealing. Drummond said the company was still gathering enough evidence to avoid wasting the court’s time. She alleged that the total amount found to have been stolen was E124 518.
She alleged that Sithole was aware of the investigation against her and that the E40 000 was discovered apart from E8 545.
The MD submitted that the signature on the agreement belonged to the defendant and the fact that the d o c u ment was n o t o n l e t t e r h e a d did not mean that it should be dismissed. She further submitted that t he company r eported a cri minal case against Sithole.