Johannesburg - Gauteng Economic Development MEC Tasneem Motara has been dragged to court over her suspicious decision to dissolve the board of the Gauteng Growth and Development Agency (GGDA).
Motara last month dissolved the board of the agency that is responsible for multi-billion infrastructure projects. The former board members said she dissolved the board out of ulterior motives, adding that she wanted to get rid of the board to pave the way to start afresh the recruitment process for the appointment of the chief executive of the agency.
They said this is because Motara wanted to open an opportunity for her preferred candidate who was not among those interviewed and shortlisted for the position.
The position has been vacant since former chief executive Mosa Tshabalala was fired a year ago.
The former members, who filed the court papers in the Gauteng North High Court, Pretoria, last week, said Motara dissolved the board after they opposed her idea to start the recruitment process from scratch. They said as a result, she abused her powers and acted unlawfully to disband the board.
Asked if she was aware of the case, Motara’s spokesperson Bongiwe Gambu said Motara is defending the matter in court. The board was appointed in October 2021 and was expected to serve until September 31, 2024.
The former members said this started after Motara was appointed MEC for Gauteng Economic Development in October 2022, replacing Parks Tau who is now the Deputy Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs.
In the affidavit, signed by former chairperson Dr Sibongile Vilakazi, the group of five, said when Motara was appointed, the recruitment for the position of a chief executive was done and overseen by Tau.
They said the process of recruitment was undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Transversal Policy on Recruitment and Secondment.
Vilakazi said she became aware of Motara’s motives after they met at Saxon Hotel on November 10, 2022.
She said Motara indicated she had another person in mind who she thought she could rely on to assist in areas where she felt challenged, “such as knowing people in the investment community”.
Vilakazi said Motara preferred that such a person be the one who should be employed as the chief executive.
“I must indicate though that the person she preferred for that position was not among those who had been recommended for the concurrence of the provincial executive,” read the affidavits.
Vilakazi said Motara then forwarded her the profile of the preferred candidate via WhatsApp. She said she indicated that the person was not suitable for the position based on her skills and experience.
“She did not meet the minimum requirements for the role based on the strategy adopted for the organisation. The first respondent (Motara) said she heard my argument but she wanted me to meet this individual and determine the way forward,” said Vilakazi.
Vilakazi said Motara promised to organise the meeting with the candidate but it never materialised, instead, she met the acting chief executive Simphiwe Hamilton at her home where she indicated that the board recommended him for the position but he was not her preferred candidate.
She said Motara then indicated to Hamilton that she had two other preferred candidates and that she wanted the recruitment process to start afresh and he was welcome to apply if he wanted to.
“As a chairperson of the board, I was alarmed by this report because it was a governance protocol violation. The recruitment and appointment of the chief executive are between the board and Motara, and the latter was not supposed to have such a conversation with Hamilton."
Vilakazi said this triggered the board to write to Motara on January 18 and enquire about where the concurrence process was.
She said Motara contended that the submission was incomplete and did not include information about the risk presented by the fact that Tshabalala was challenging the dismissal at the CCMA.
She said the board then responded to Motara and highlighted that there was no risk to the organisation because the position was vacant and needed to be filled for the stability of the GGDA.
“She responded per a letter, dated February 22, accusing the board of acting outside of its mandate by undertaking the recruitment process because Blue IQ Act 05 of 2003 that governs the GGDA states that the MEC appoints the chief executive.
She also informed the board that she was starting the recruitment process from the beginning and she would manage it herself.
She called on the board to nominate a board member to represent it in the interview panel that she would set up, unless the board could prove that former MEC Parks Tau had instructed the board to follow the recruitment process followed,” Vilakazi said.
She said the board meeting with Motara was to understand what informed her approach, and it also served as an opportunity for the board to state the decision-making processes followed up to the final stage, including the fact that Tau was at all times part of the recruitment process. But Motara said this was an act of defiance as her instruction was simple.
Vilakazi said upon realising the matter between Motara and the board had gotten serious and it was a dispute, the board invoked the dispute resolution mechanism in the Shareholder Compact.
Motara acknowledged the dispute and started the resolution mechanism process on March 16. She set up a meeting with the board scheduled for March 24.
But the board said the meeting did not take place because they received a letter from Motara on March 22, indicating that she had received a legal opinion to the effect that the dispute resolution process was not applicable in this matter. She thus withdrew the letter where she indicated that she was starting the resolution process.
Vilakazi said, instead, Motara wanted board members to respond to her “individually” stating why they should remain as board directors.
She said four of the applicants were served with letters in which Motara communicated her decision to dissolve the board and terminate their membership.