MEC stalls over high school funds
Parents claim Panyaza Lesufi is ignoring some of the findings of two damning auditors’ reports
Conflict over the squand e r i n g o f mi l l i o n s o f rands at Johannesburg’s Glenvista High School continues to smoulder, as some parents allege that, despite several damning audits, Gauteng’s education MEC, Panyaza Lesufi, is protecting people who have been incriminated in the reports.
“The MEC is making it seem as if he has taken action against the perpetrators, but some of the people who knew about these dodgy dealings are still on the school governing body (SGB),” one parent, who sat on the SGB from 2012 to 2014, said last week.
The parent, who asked to remain anonymous, said the current chairperson, Prince Maluleke, and another current member, who had both been on the SGB since 2012, knew about the financial irregularities and did not do enough to stop them.
But both men have denied what Maluleke, who is sheriff of Boksburg and a part-time adviser to the justice minister, labelled “baseless allegations”.
Lesufi announced last month at a press briefing that a forensic investigation into the school by the auditors KPMG revealed it to be the “worst, corrupt school I have ever come across”.
The investigation covered the years 2012 to 2014 and said funds from the school’s staff loan account had been used for payments for the levies of an individual’s holiday home, installation of a carport and hunting fees, and air travel tickets for an individual’s private use had been paid for from school funds, which Lesufi said amounted to “millions”.
He told the media that he would be opening a criminal and civil case against the former principal and former SGB.
The Mail & Guardian has also seen a notice to parents dated September 11 saying the “[department] has placed the school principal Mrs De Jongh on precautionary suspension effective from 14 September 2015”.
“The suspension is as a result of the findings and recommendations of the KPMG report,” the notice said.
According to the report, “the principal received payments for accounting classes that she did not provide which was in contravention of her employment contact”.
Yolinda de Jongh’s former office said only Maluleke, as SGB chairperson, could respond to questions about this decision.
Maluleke told the M&G that De Jongh was “put on precautionary transfer to the district office for a period of 90 days pending a disciplinary inquiry”.
The former model C school, in the south of Johannesburg, has about 1 350 pupils and an annual budget of about R24-million.
The whistle-blowing parent told the M&G that he was elected to the SGB at the beginning of 2012 and soon sensed there was “something seriously wrong with the financials”. He discovered “gross irregularities” including “illegal investments and unauthorised, multiple bank accounts”.
“I tried to raise it with the SGB but I was ignored, so in 2013 myself and another parent told the department what we had found … the department then instituted a forensic audit by law firm Bowman Gilfillan.”
Maluleke was elected SGB chairperson a few months l ater, i n February 2014.
The next month, the SGB discussed the report, which they had by then received from the department.
“At that meeting, only six findings, including illegal investment accounts and unauthorised bank accounts, were discussed, which was confusing because we reported many more issues than that,” the parent said.
Maluleke allegedly then misled parents in a school newsletter of July 2014, saying: “I am pleased to report that there was no finding made of any financial irregularity or impropriety against any individual, the SGB or school.”
The recent KPMG report described this incident as Maluleke “failing to provide correct and accurate information to the parents”.
But Maluleke said this week that he had only been given a summary of the report and the reason for his statement to parents was based on this limited information as well as his understanding of the law.
“If you read the report, you will notice that there is a finding against two former SGB members that they failed to recuse themselves when matters in which they had an interest were discussed. This, in my view, constitutes a breach of their fiduciary duties … and is treated differently under our law to someone who has defrauded or stolen money from the school. That is the context under which I made that statement and stand by it.”
He said the KPMG auditors “never gave me an opportunity to comment on the allegation and hear my side of the story. Accordingly, I have … chal- lenged KPMG on this specific finding [and] they have undertaken to meet with me to discuss my concern.”
Meanwhile, the parent applied under the Promotion of Access to Information Act, as an SGB member, to get the full Bowman Gilfillan report, and finally got it from the department in September 2014.
The report, which the parent sent to the M&G, says the department “should consider the removal of the SGB members” for, among other things, “inadequate management of financial affairs of the school” and that “the issue of cover quoting [relating to debt collection services] be referred to the [police]”.
During the period that was inves- tigated Maluleke was on the SGB’s executive and financial committee and the other current SGB member was an ordinary SGB member, the parent said. “They knew about these irregularities and didn’t report them to the department and today they are still on the SGB.
“Why is the department allowing this?”
Unsatisfied with the department’s “inaction” following the Bowman Gilfillan report, the parent said he then approached the presidency, the public protector and Corruption Watch for help. The department responded to this by launching the KPMG investigation at the end of 2014.
“The KPMG report confirmed that unauthorised payments were made to some educators and admin staff and the SA Schools Act says this money should be recovered from the SGB members who took that decision, not from the educators,” he said. “The estimated value [of these payments] alone is R3-million.”
“These kinds of payments contin-