-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Icasa chief leaves quietly, charges dropped
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
oldBastard
Expert Member
So what's the point of having Icasa then, if they can't fill the posts? Better yet, who has the balls to take up a position at Icasa and stand up against Telkom?
It even looks like if the State doesn't have the balls to stand up against Telkom. Right then who's turn it is to throw the dice in this game of Monopoly?
It even looks like if the State doesn't have the balls to stand up against Telkom. Right then who's turn it is to throw the dice in this game of Monopoly?
Resign, we cover it up and it all goes away it seems, and the public is left to conjure up even more horrific notions regarding the internal 'goings on' at ICASA due to their secrecy on the matter.
As this is a state funded orginisation is this information not in the public interest?
Parliamentary questions perhaps.
As this is a state funded orginisation is this information not in the public interest?
Parliamentary questions perhaps.
XCentricdave
Well-Known Member
Frightening... The regulator is not just toothless, but gumless, mouthless, headless, and becoming bodyless as well.
Who is really in control of the ICT regulation?
D
Who is really in control of the ICT regulation?
D
fivelza
Expert Member
This just sets a very bad precedent, if you have broken the law you should be prosecuted, not 'well if you resign everything goes away'.
We dont know if she did break the law though, ICASA has decided not to investigate further.
They obviously came to some kind of agreement where her name remains intact and they drop the case (whatever it was) if she buggers off quietly.
I think we should be entitled to more information though.
They obviously came to some kind of agreement where her name remains intact and they drop the case (whatever it was) if she buggers off quietly.
I think we should be entitled to more information though.
NewsFlash
Banned
Well with the precedent set with Yengeni and Zuma, All we can see is "Crime Pays", if you are family or friends of politicians
You forgot spineless.Frightening... The regulator is not just toothless, but gumless, mouthless, headless, and becoming bodyless as well.
Who is really in control of the ICT regulation?
D
fivelza
Expert Member
Fair enough, but the perception has been created that something untoward took place and that's where it is left.
Debbie
Banned
Here are the important bits-
Jackie Manche, CEO of ICASA, gets suspended fom her job after R100 000 goes missing from a safe at ICASA. For ten months it is you, the South African taxpayer, who continues to pay her over R50k a month for doing nothing.
Then, after 10 months of suspension, ICASA finally lays charges against Manche. On the day charges are laid, she returns to 'work' at ICASA. You continue to pay her her salary for a further two months. This brings us to the current point in time.
According to this article, charges against Manche have now been dropped, she has resigned, and she is reportedly taking up a position in the private sector.
As for the R100 000 of our money that got nicked from the safe.... well seems no one is going to be held accountable for that. Amusingly, this is but a fraction of Manche's annual salary.
ICASA, once again, is playing sneaky sneaky and trying to minimise communication on the issue. Seems the only 'communications' that ICASA attempts to regulate... are their own communications.
What is the exact nature of the charges, Mr Mashile? 'Violation of the PFMA' is a little vague, could you be more specific, perhaps? This is public information that you are tucking away, public information about public funds and public employees.
Mr Mashile, may I remind you that you and Miss Manche work for us, the public. We pay you your salaries, and this is our money that went missing, not yours. We have a right to know the specific nature of the charges, and furthermore we have a right to be properly informed about why the charges have been dropped.
So if it's too much time and effort to prosecute civil servants for mismanagement of public funds you're not going to do it? May I now remind the Council that you are both public servants and public representatives. You work for us. We deserve truth and justice, or at least efforts in this direction.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the Independent non-Communication Authority of South Africa.
Jackie Manche, CEO of ICASA, gets suspended fom her job after R100 000 goes missing from a safe at ICASA. For ten months it is you, the South African taxpayer, who continues to pay her over R50k a month for doing nothing.
Then, after 10 months of suspension, ICASA finally lays charges against Manche. On the day charges are laid, she returns to 'work' at ICASA. You continue to pay her her salary for a further two months. This brings us to the current point in time.
According to this article, charges against Manche have now been dropped, she has resigned, and she is reportedly taking up a position in the private sector.
As for the R100 000 of our money that got nicked from the safe.... well seems no one is going to be held accountable for that. Amusingly, this is but a fraction of Manche's annual salary.
ICASA, once again, is playing sneaky sneaky and trying to minimise communication on the issue. Seems the only 'communications' that ICASA attempts to regulate... are their own communications.
What is the exact nature of the charges, Mr Mashile? 'Violation of the PFMA' is a little vague, could you be more specific, perhaps? This is public information that you are tucking away, public information about public funds and public employees.
Mr Mashile, may I remind you that you and Miss Manche work for us, the public. We pay you your salaries, and this is our money that went missing, not yours. We have a right to know the specific nature of the charges, and furthermore we have a right to be properly informed about why the charges have been dropped.
So if it's too much time and effort to prosecute civil servants for mismanagement of public funds you're not going to do it? May I now remind the Council that you are both public servants and public representatives. You work for us. We deserve truth and justice, or at least efforts in this direction.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the Independent non-Communication Authority of South Africa.
Last edited:
fivelza
Expert Member
Scariest part of the article, hope it is not a bank
I just wonder when Icasa will start worrying about their reputation? There are some very fishy things happening over there and no decent explanations for it. Does Icasa even have a communications department or media liaison officer because there appears to be absolutely no effort to do some sort of crisis management here?
But I guess when things are so obviously mucked up the best idea is to put your head in the sand
But I guess when things are so obviously mucked up the best idea is to put your head in the sand
Debbie
Banned
I just got off the phone with ICASA. I spoke to Mr Sekgoela, who said he was appropriately positioned to respond to public questions about ICASA.
Mr Sekgoela informed me that an agreement had been reached between Manche and ICASA for her to "voluntarily resign".
On questioning Mr Sekgoela for more detailed information, he responded by asking "what right" I had to obtain further information. "Why do you want to know this?" he asked.
I repeated the argument as posted above- that this issue revolves around public money, a public institution, and public employees- ICASA is in principle accountable to the public... and the public has the right to know.
"I do not agree with anything you have said. What is public about this?" Mr Sekgoela replied, justifying why he would not comment further on the issue. He said there was nothing more he could say beyond the official statement, and that if I had questions I would need to address them to the Chairman's office.
I called the office of Mr Mashile, and, as usual, the phone was not answered.
It seems ICASA is indeed trying to keep this very quiet. That a deal was made between Manche and ICASA to not provide any further details on the matter reeks of arrogance and a staunch refusal to be held accountable.
Since when can public sevants make private little deals between themselves to keep things hush hush? Where is the democratic, legal or moral justification in this? There is none. Public servants such as the Council and Miss Manche have no authority to make private deals to suppress embarassing information about their mismanagment of a public institution.
Can ICASA please take some of these knives out of our backs.
Mr Sekgoela informed me that an agreement had been reached between Manche and ICASA for her to "voluntarily resign".
On questioning Mr Sekgoela for more detailed information, he responded by asking "what right" I had to obtain further information. "Why do you want to know this?" he asked.
I repeated the argument as posted above- that this issue revolves around public money, a public institution, and public employees- ICASA is in principle accountable to the public... and the public has the right to know.
"I do not agree with anything you have said. What is public about this?" Mr Sekgoela replied, justifying why he would not comment further on the issue. He said there was nothing more he could say beyond the official statement, and that if I had questions I would need to address them to the Chairman's office.
I called the office of Mr Mashile, and, as usual, the phone was not answered.
It seems ICASA is indeed trying to keep this very quiet. That a deal was made between Manche and ICASA to not provide any further details on the matter reeks of arrogance and a staunch refusal to be held accountable.
Since when can public sevants make private little deals between themselves to keep things hush hush? Where is the democratic, legal or moral justification in this? There is none. Public servants such as the Council and Miss Manche have no authority to make private deals to suppress embarassing information about their mismanagment of a public institution.
Can ICASA please take some of these knives out of our backs.
Last edited:
Gadget_guy
Active Member
I think this type of thing is becoming all to popular in our country, someone breaks the law and "quietly" everything is rectified. I believe there is a clear line between right and wrong, at the moment we don't have this clear line, but a grey area the size of the Drakensberg.
Until we use the law as it is intended, starting from basic road violations, white collar crime to rape and murder, we will never root out evil.
Until we use the law as it is intended, starting from basic road violations, white collar crime to rape and murder, we will never root out evil.
This just make me even warier about the popular notion of granting ICASA true independence thus making them accountable to nobody whatsoever.
Debbie
Banned
As opposed to who they are accountable to now?
chiskop
Executive Member
Well done Debbie2 for pushing for answers - thanks.
Well you did point out that they're supposed to be - entrenching the idea that they're not isnt such a good idea is it?