Adjudicating the adjudicator

Another day, another example of cronyism.

This is truly disgusting. There was an excellent pensions funds adjudicator in Vuyani Ngalwana.
It appears that the government could not hold onto him, or he was a threat to the thieving insurance and pension fund industry (I worked there).

Devi: 'It's been argued though that you became the first regulatory official in South Africa to achieve celebrity status. How did that sit with you? '

Vuyani: 'Well, firstly I don't consider myself as a celebrity at all. The one passion I have is skills development among the black youth and that is what I want to continue doing. I have set up a partnership with township organisation here in Guguletu. I will be working with them on the mentoring side and also organising business corporations to come to the party and organising bursaries and so on. So that is what I see myself as: a role model, not a celebrity, please.'
Click to expand...

That was sad. It appears that we did not have meritocracy under apartheid nor do we have it in the new South Africa.

This is what happens when there is no rotation of power. SA has been and is again a one party government, patronage is more important than doing the right thing. The party of liberation has run out of ideas. The gains are privatized by the corrupt and the losses and socialised by the masses. This is a win for the corrupt and incompetent and a loss to the taxpayers. It is actually lose-lose to SA at large.

Why is the ANC allowing this appointment to proceed? It is their own constituents that are being robbed of goods at competitive prices!
 
This is a classic hit piece. It contains nothing but speculation and innuendo.
How come there is no review of actual performance in her current job?
Where is the "insider" telling us that things at the Consumer Commission are already a mess?
It's no wonder the author did not get a response.
 
BobJones said:
This is a classic hit piece. It contains nothing but speculation and innuendo.
How come there is no review of actual performance in her current job?
Where is the "insider" telling us that things at the Consumer Commission are already a mess?
It's no wonder the author did not get a response.
Click to expand...

It refers to an AG report?
Mohlala’s resignation as adjudicator – a job paying around R1.7m a year — was effective at end-September 2009. Thus the “fruitless and wasteful expenditure”, found by the Auditor General, took place under her watch.

Specifically, there was R3.2m spent on leasing a building that the OFPA didn’t occupy. There were also “irregular expenses” of R476 500 that she’d authorised after she’d left office.

The Auditor General is scathing in his observations about how the OPFA was run:

The accounting authority did not exercise oversight responsibility over reporting and compliance with laws, regulations and internal control;
The commitment to quality was not communicated;
Management’s philosophy and operating style did not promote effective control over reporting. They did not lead by example;
The risk of material misstatement due to fraud was not considered.
Click to expand...
 
A mini lesson in history for those that have forgotten the tyrant Mamodupi Mohlala

BobJones said:
This is a classic hit piece. It contains nothing but speculation and innuendo.
[highlight]How come there is no review of actual performance in her current job?[/highlight]
Where is the "insider" telling us that things at the Consumer Commission are already a mess?
It's no wonder the author did not get a response.
Click to expand...
Considering that she who is responsible for having ICASA's draft ADSL regulations changed to predominantly favour Telkom when she was an ICASA councillor, and that her current job is to protect consumers from the likes of Telkom (big business), I think her history is far more relevant than a performance appraisal for a job that she has only just started.

She got given her jobs at ICASA and the DoC by dear old (and thankfully departed ANC-wart) Ivy Matsepe-Cassaburri.
 
Well, she did at least stop the good General in his tracks when she refused to rubber-stamp his shady DoC deals. If she can show the same backbone fighting for the consumer then she should be given a chance.
 
VJB 449 said:
It refers to an AG report?
Click to expand...
No, it seems it refers to an unpublished FSB commissioned report that magically morphs into a AG report.
Notice also how the unpublished report contents are transformed from unproved inferences to fact during the course of the article.
A year ago the Financial Services Board awarded a tender to Gobodo Forensic & Investigative Accounting for a “forensic investigation into possible fruitless and wasteful expenditure incurred by the OPFA in terms of the Public Finance Management Act…as well as Treasury Regulations”.

The outcome of this investigation has not been made public. So it isn’t known what was detected or whether recourse has been recommended against those responsible for the contraventions that might have been found.
Click to expand...
It is not clear how "possible fruitless and wasteful expenditure" transformed into an "ungodly mess" considering that it sounds like she may only have been around for half of the reporting period which appears to be the scope of the annual report.
 
Reading the Annual Report of the PFA paints quite a different picture than that created by the writer of the article.
http://www.pfa.org.za/sitesmart/uploads/files/701E136E-3373-4547-9E74-18261FC53B47.pdf
The "wasteful expenditure" reported relates exclusively to dealings around the relocation of the PFA office, which happened in December 2009, months after Mohala left.
The authorization of expenditure issue relates to the period after she had left, but before the acting adjudicator had taken office. I don't know why they couldn't wait a few days to approve the payments, but there is no mention that there steps to reverse them.
 
Ripped off by the Pension Funds Adjudicator

Some time ago I was provide relief by the OPFA (via a determination issued as a result of a complaint submitted to the adjudicator) that would have prevented the administration company from stealing the proceeds of a Provident Fund payout. Unfortunately, the adjudicator refuses to enforce the determination which, in effect, facilitates the theft that is being perpetrated by the administration company. Ant advice will be most welcome

Ken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X