Redisa director refutes the allegations of Edna Molewa

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.