Johannesburg city manager Floyd Brink.
Gallo Images/Luba Lesolle
- Allegations that Johannesburg city manager Floyd Brink flouted procurement processes have been dismissed by the city council.
- A report found that Brink did not act when he discovered the R320-million transaction had been pushed through without following due process.
- The DA voted against the dismissal of the charges because the matter is still in court.
On Tuesday, the Johannesburg council voted to dismiss charges against the city manager Floyd Brink, after allegations that he flouted procurement processes in acquiring equipment worth R320 million.
In April 2022, Brink was placed on special leave after allegations of misconduct and that he flouted procurement processes in acquiring portable handheld communication devices and CCTV equipment for the Public Safety Department.
Group Forensics and Investigation Services (GFIS) commissioned the law firm ENSafrica to investigate irregularities related to approving a R320-million public safety transaction.
The ENSafrica report found Brink did not act when he discovered the multimillion-rand transaction had been pushed through without following due process.
When the DA coalition was voted out of power this year, the Government of Local Unity (GLU) – the name given to the ANC, EFF and PA pact – voted Brink back in as city manager in February.
In June, the council voted to defang GFIS, claiming it was used by the former leadership to spy on councillors and to even settle political scores with its investigations into councillors. Several cases involving council members and city leaders were dropped because of it.
READ | City of Joburg defends Floyd Brink’s appointment as city manager, says he exceeded requirements
There is an ongoing investigation into the claims that GFIS was used as a spy organisation.
Meanwhile, at Tuesday’s 22nd extraordinary sitting of council, the majority voted to dismiss what the office of the city manager is calling “false allegations that were manufactured” against Brink.
The office of the city manager said:
“For the longest time, we avoided addressing this matter and waited for the Council decision of [Tuesday]. We can now confirm that, on and around February 2022, some officials, a former executive mayor [Mpho Phalatse] and a law firm, manufactured false allegations against Mr Brink, who was the acting city manager at the time.
“They falsely claimed that in terms of the City’s Delegation of Authority, the power to approve and ratify the procurements above R50 million was delegated to the former executive mayor [Mpho Phalatse]. And through these allegations, the mayor clothed herself with the powers of Mr Brink and sought to have him charged as if he was not lawfully exercising the [his] powers.”
They list the powers as the following:
- Regulation 36 (1) (b) of the Supply Chain Management Regulations states that , “A supply chain management policy may allow an accounting officer to ratify any minor breaches of the procurement process by an official or committee acting in terms of delegated powers or duties which are pure of a technical nature”; and
- Sub-delegation 38.1 of the Delegation of Authority states that “to appoint any of the Municipality’s Municipal Entities to execute work or render services on behalf of the council up to an amount of R50 million per project and any amount above R50 million must be approved by the municipal manager”.
The report on Tuesday was one of the in-council meetings held behind closed doors because of their alleged “sensitive nature”.
The office of the city manager called Phalatse’s actions a “presumably unlawful smash-and-grab of the powers of the acting city manager”.
In response, the DA’s Belinda Kayser-Echeozonjoku said the party had voted against all the reports going to the council on Tuesday “because the report’s contents involve a court matter and is sub judice”.
READ | DA asks Gauteng High Court to remove Joburg city manager Floyd Brink
“The ANC, with the assistance of the city manager, was using incomplete urgency reports with minutes that involve these matters being deferred in an attempt to influence the outcome of a court matter,” she said.
“In all of these, we have stated on the record [that] we reserve our rights as the DA, and strongly object to the attempt by the ANC-EFF-PA doomsday coalition to interfere with the judiciary.
“The City of Joburg Council is not a court of law, and our standing rules and orders of Council state that matters in a court of law or Section 79 committee or any other sphere of government cannot be brought to Council.”
A Section 79 committee is a temporary structure appointed by the municipal executive as needed. They investigate a particular issue and do not have any decision-making powers.