MEDIA STATEMENT BY PATRICIA DE LILLE

5 APRIL 2018

A. INTRODUCTION

1. For the last 7 months I have been subjected to a deluge of allegations by the Democratic Alliance, with new accusations surfacing from all quarters on almost a daily basis. I took the principled decision to deal with these allegations head on in a bid to clear my name. Considering that my name has been smeared in public, it must be cleared in public. In the spirit of transparency, I wish to provide clarity regarding the current status of the DA’s disciplinary cases and charges against me.

B. WHERE ARE WE WITH THE PARTY’S DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES?

2. It is necessary to briefly recap the background:

2.1 The Party’s FedEx, in a resolution of June 2017, decided to appoint the Steenhuisen Committee to resolve tensions in the Party’s CoCT Caucus. That Committee however went beyond its mandate and deemed it appropriate to investigate me and in effect found me guilty of certain things set out in a document which became known as the “Steenhuisen Report”. This report was adopted by FedEx on 10 December 2017. I am challenging some of the findings in that report in Case No 797/18, which is pending before the High Court and now scheduled for hearing on 2 May 2018.

2.2 After considering my representations regarding the report, FedEx resolved on 14 January 2018: “Not to support any motion of no-confidence in the Mayor of Cape Town until the DA and City investigations have been concluded”.

2.3 Despite this the DA Caucus, instructed by the Federal Executive, later decided to first support the ANC a motion of no-confidence, which was withdrawn on 31 January 2018 and later to bring their own motion, on 15 February 2018, which failed. In that process I took the Party to Court in Case No: 2153/18 to ensure a secret vote. The Court found in my favour in the sense that it ruled that the Speaker should decide the matter and not the majority of the Councillors (as the Party wanted). The Court went further and ordered the Party to pay some of my legal costs. Ultimately the Speaker ruled that the vote should be open, but the motion nevertheless failed.

2.4 In the meantime, FedEx had referred certain aspects of the Steenhuisen Report to the FLC for disciplinary proceedings against me. The referral was on 14 January 2018, with the instruction that it be “disposed of” within 60 days. However, nothing much happened in the first 30 days. The reason for this can only be that the Party, including the FLC, was confident that the motion of no confidence against me would succeed. Within hours after the motion of no confidence failed, the disciplinary process was re-booted and the Party’s FLC was again in contact with my legal representatives.

2.5 The disciplinary process then became super urgent.

3. This resulted in short notice of the first disciplinary hearing, which is part of the reason why that hearing came unstuck on 22 March 2018. The Party’s notice was approximately three workings days short of the five working days that clause 3.3 of the Party’s Rules requires. This disciplinary is chaired by Mr Hans-Jurie Moolman, a Councillor for the Party in the JB Marks Municipality. The short notice was just one of the problems. The Moolman Disciplinary Committee (DC) unravelled on day three, when one of the panel members, Mr Pogiso Monchusi (Monchusi) “decided” to recuse himself. Unlike what has been portrayed in the press, Mr Monchusi had no choice to recuse himself as some very damaging information regarding his fitness to be a panel member emerged during the course of the hearing. Basic checks would have revealed that, given his situation, he should never have been asked to serve on a FLC panel.

4. However, during the argument Mr Monchusi militantly defended himself despite the overwhelming case made against him. However, at the end of the hearing, committee assistant [and FLC chair] Ms Glynnis Breytenbach requested an adjournment for five minutes, which lasted for about ½ hour. When the hearing recommenced Mr Monchusi suddenly announced that he wanted to recuse himself. His sudden change of mind has never been explained. We still await a response regarding the request for the recusal of Ms Sheila Camerer.

5. After Mr Monchusi recused himself, there followed a discussion by all the parties regarding some kind of arrangements for the further conduct of proceedings. It was inter alia agreed that the parties will endeavour to select a date for the hearing which will suit all the legal representatives. It was further agreed that some procedural issues, such as access to the hearing by the public / media, could be decided by the Chairperson before a new hearing is convened.

6. After this, and without mentioning a word about it during the hearing, the FLC’s manager then handed my attorney a notice to attend a separate disciplinary hearing on Tuesday, 3 April 2018 in respect of totally new charges. This was bizarre in light of the fact that committee assistant Breytenbach had requested an amendment to the charge sheet before the Moolman DC probably less than an hour earlier.

7. There was (and is) no reason why the new charges could not be added to the charge sheet in the Moolman DC. The Party does not have an appreciable or legitimate interest in running two separate disciplinary processes against me. I have asked the Party to explain why it is doing this but it has refused to do so. I am saying that the only reason why the Party is running multiple processes against me is to harass and financially ruin me.

8. The second disciplinary process is chaired by Dr Len Joubert. It commenced on 3 April 2018. This process concerns one single charge relating to the manner in which posts for area-based directors were advertised by the City. I deal with this below. The second disciplinary process has subsequently been postponed indefinitely because the Joubert Panel must now consider and decide all the same issues which were already argued before the first one, such as whether the hearing must be public etc. The Joubert Panel must also consider my argument that the Party is abusing their rights by running multiple processes against me.

C. WHAT DO I SAY ABOUT THE CHARGES?

(i) Bowmans

9. These charges are so named because they relate to matters being investigated for the City by Attorneys Bowman & Gilfillan. The background to these charges is the report compiled by the Executive Director in my office, Mr Craig Kesson containing allegations against the then City Manager (Mr Achmat Ebrahim) and the Commissioner for Transport, Ms Melissa Whitehead on 1 November 2017. Council authorised attorneys Bowman & Gilfillan to prepare a report on these allegations.

10. In the media it is often reported that I stand accused of covering up “corruption” perpetrated by City officials, more particularly Ms Whitehead. This is not the case.

11. The Bowmans investigation, in respect of me, concerns the allegation that I supposedly exerted influence on the former City Manager not to refer allegations of misconduct against Whitehead to the Council. I did not do so. But what are the “allegations of misconduct” that had to be referred?

12. The first issue is that the City agreed with the supplier of Volvo busses to pay for the bus chassis before delivery of the busses. The early payment suited both parties. No law was contravened in doing so. No extra money was paid. Neither my lawyers nor me understand why this was wrong nor could the Bowmans investigators explain this to us. Why is it wrong (not that I was involved in this at all)?

13. The second issue concerns a statement made by Ms Whitehead during the evaluation of bids for the Foreshore Freeway project to the effect that I would not approve the affordable housing to be situated under the foreshore bridges. This statement was made in the context of a debate on the merits of development options on which members of the committee has strong beliefs and it ended in a deadlock. The matter was resolved, after receiving advice from senior counsel, and the evaluation commenced afresh before a new committee. Again, neither me nor my lawyers understand what the allegation of “misconduct” is.

14. The debate about the so-called Bowmans charges are really about whether any allegation against a senior manager should be referred to Council regardless of how ridiculous or plainly meritless the allegation is. As my lawyers have told the investigators, it appears to be suggested that even if the allegation is that Ms Whitehead stole the City’s sheep, the City Manager should have referred the charges to Council despite knowing that the City owns no sheep. That cannot be right and I received legal advice which supports me. The allegations must at least make out a prima facie case of misconduct.

15. But as I stated above, it was in any event not my job to refer the allegations against Ms Whitehead to the Council. The former City Manager has the legal duty to do so and I could not (and did not) stop him from doing so, even though I have grave reservations about whether these allegations against her reveal a prima facie case of misconduct.

(ii) Anthony Faul

16. I have submitted a full press release with annexures about this charge on 7 February 2018, which contains a full response. Basically, what happened is that:

16.1 Mr Faul and the company Auto Fire Off South Africa (Pty) Ltd (AFO) held the rights to a product known as the AFO Fire Ball, which is an automatic fire extinguisher which Mr Faul claimed was ideally suited to curb the spread of fires in informal settlements.

16.2 On 14 November 2012, Mr Faul made a presentation to me and others regarding the product, including Alderman Smith JP and other Disaster Risk Management officials. His proposal was that he would raise the funding for the fire balls but he needed a letter of support / intent for the project from the City.

16.3 It is in this context that I signed the letter of intent dated 13 December 2012, which he drafted. The idea was that the City would obtain 250 000 Fire Balls for free as Mr Faul would find the funding for the project.

16.4 Mr Faul later confirmed that the letter had been forwarded to the funders and that they would decide on the roll-out of the programme.

16.5 However, by early January 2013 it transpired that Mr Faul wanted the City to buy 1 000 Fire Balls from his company.

16.6 This made me furious as it seemed that the City had been taken for a ride and that Mr Faul never seriously intended to carry out the project on the basis initially proposed. The letter of endorsement was then withdrawn.

16.7 It is a pity that this well-intentioned project was jettisoned. But needless to say, the allegation he makes that I tried to make him pay me R5 million is utter nonsense. The correspondence shows that this could never have happened. How could I demand payment from someone who was to fund his own project?

16.8 There was no tender and AFO was never to be paid by the City. The fact of the matter is that I terminated this project when it became clear that Mr Faul did not want to secure the funding for the fire balls as initially promised, but wanted the City to pay for them.

17. At the time that I made the press statement, I did not know that Mr Faul is someone who was struck off the roll of attorneys. He has given some muddled explanation for this but he was clearly guilty of misconduct.

18. This morning I made enquiries at SAPS. It appears that they are still waiting for further information from Mr Faul.

19. What is most worrying to me about this charge is that the Party laid a complaint against me at the police and immediately thereafter went on a concerted campaign of distributing the details about the allegation to the media. It is an abuse of the criminal justice system to do this. It was also done shortly before the motion of no-confidence against me on Thursday, 15 February 2018.

(iii) Security measures

20. The second charge relates to security measures at my house, which I have already dealt with on numerous occasions publicly.

21. I am entitled to an official residence but since I became Mayor in June 2011, I have refused to take up this benefit and continue to live in my own house in Pinelands. I did not use City money to “renovate” my house there. After the renovations that I paid for, certain additional security upgrades had to be effected due to the position I hold. These were to be installed at City expense. They include two windows and two doors and upgrading cameras. I invited the media into my house in the beginning of the year to show them what they are.

22. The Auditor-General eventually found that the security measures should not have been done based on a 2014 SAPS report as it was outdated. Also, a deviation from procurement procedures was approved to use the same supplier (Trellidor) for the security gates so as to match the existing gates. But none of this was my responsibility to check. There are no allegations that I benefitted improperly or anything like that.

(iv) The sms

23. I am charged with sending an sms in 2016 asking a member of the panel responsible for evaluation candidates for the position of City Manager to score Mr Achmat Ebrahim high.

24. I cannot find such a sms on my phone. My lawyers have repeatedly asked the Party to produce the sms but nothing has been forthcoming.

(v) The appointment of Limia Essop

25. I am charged with exerting influence regarding the appointment of Ms Essop to the Board of the Cape Town Stadium Municipal Entity, while being friends with her father.

26. I was indeed in school with her father. Others involved in the appointment process also knows him. The fact of the matter is that I did not influence her appointment – she was given a chance, along with others to be interviewed. Others involved in the process also added names of candidates that they wanted to be interviewed. At the interviews Ms Essop fared well enough to justify her appointment but was then removed from the list of recommended candidates. With the concurrence of legal, the ED: Finance and the Mayco member, she was then put back on the recommended list.

(vi) Years of experience for area-based directors

27. The single charge before the Joubert Panel relates to the appointment of area-based directors. It is suggested that I failed to ensure that the advertisement included a requirement that a minimum number of years’ experience is required for the job. Needless to say I have nothing to do with the compilation of advertisement for jobs. My lawyers say they don’t understand why a minimum number of years of experience should form part of an advertisement.

D. OPEN HEARING

28. The Moolman DC has already prepared a ruling on access to the hearing by the public. A copy of that ruling is annexed hereto. On the issue of access to the hearing by the media, no ruling has been prepared. On this issue, Media24 has made certain submissions for access contained in a letter to the Moolman Panel.

29. The same issue must also be considered by the Joubert Panel.

30. I really fear a situation where these rulings are being withheld or delayed until shortly before the hearings are to recommence, which will make it impossible for me to review them in court. This was conveyed to the two panels.

31. I read the ruling of the Moolman Panel on access to the hearings by the public. My lawyers do not believe that any meaningful distinction can be drawn between the public and the media when it comes to access to the hearing. They say this because:

31.1 In the context of criminal trials, access by the public was always a given but access by the media and television in particular remained controversial until the Oscar Pistorius trial and the adoption of “open justice” as the default position in such trials.

31.2 Nowadays it can never be contended that public or the media can totally prohibited from access to criminal trials. Reasonable conditions may however be imposed as is clear from the Van Breda judgment by the Supreme Court of Appeal.

31.3 The principles developed for criminal trials should also apply in disciplinary hearings.

31.4 In the present instance, one can imagine that the Panel may be concerned about my supporters or opponents disrupting the proceedings. Such a situation can however easily be avoided by way of the imposition of conditions to prevent same, such as limiting the number of supporters that may be present.

31.5 The bottom line is that a member of the public is entitled to see for him- or herself whether the proceedings are fair and should not have to rely on images or impressions by members of the media who attend.

31.6 I also need certain people to attend who have knowledge of the matters raised in the charges in order to assist me and my legal representatives to cross-examine witnesses or present my version of the events.

32. It is further difficult to understand why the Party wants to keep the proceedings secret. Others have agreed with me. See, in this regard, the editorial opinion expressed in the Cape Argus entitled “What’s the DA hiding?” https://www.iol.co.za/…/what-does-the-da-have-to-hide-by-ma…The Party’s argument that it wants to prevent “grandstanding by the accused and witnesses alike” is called “a lame excuse”. The editor correctly questions why the DA sees fit to conduct its business in the dark.

33. Similar views have been expressed by other leading commentators. Martin Welz of Noseweek stated the following in a tweet dated 19 March 2018: “DA Federal chair James Selfe says disciplinary hearing of C Town Mayor Patricia de Lille for ‘misconduct’ – contravening the Party’s constitution – is quite clearly an internal matter … of no interest to the general public. Surely he has to know how absurd that statement is!”

34. Dario Milo, a leading media lawyer, responded: “I agree – there is a strong case in my view for hearing to be open to media: first, allegations are in the public domain; second, De Lille (who has the privacy interest here) wants the hearing in public; third, public interest.”

35. It can never be contended that this particular hearing concerns purely internal Party matters, as Mr Selfe seems to suggest. I face possible expulsion and may accordingly lose my position as the Executive Mayor of Cape Town. It is accordingly undoubtedly in the public interest for the hearing to be open because:

35.1 Firstly, those people who voted for the DA because I was the mayoral candidate have a right to know why the Party now wants to remove her as Mayor.

35.2 Secondly, I have every right to insist on a public hearing in an attempt to restore the damage to my reputation and to ensure that the process is not only fair but that it is also seen to be fair by the public. The Party does not have the privacy interest here, as Mr Milo pointed out. It is me who is being accused of misconduct and it is my interests that should weigh and not the ill-defined interests of the Party to secrecy.

35.3 Thirdly, Mr Selfe, who appears to be the spokesperson of the Party on my matter, has not accurately reported to the media what happens in the DC proceedings. The situation is best addressed regarding the recusal application of Ms Sheila Camerer. It was contended on my behalf at the hearing that Ms Camerer and me have been lifelong political opponents. This is so in the first instance because Ms Camerer was the Deputy Minister of Justice during apartheid times whilst I was a leader in the liberation movement. But Mr Selfe has over and over tried to misrepresent the position by claiming that Ms Camerer was appointed as Deputy Minister of Justice by former President Mandela, even suggesting that I have a problem with the truth. This is despite the fact that all the websites indicate that Ms Camerer was a Deputy Minister of Justice in the apartheid time. At the hearing, Ms Camerer indeed immediately conceded that she was a Deputy Minister of Justice during Apartheid and indeed added something to the effect that “everyone knows this”. It is clear that the public cannot rely on the Party to convey what is happening at the hearing. This makes it imperative that the hearing be open to the public and the media so that the proceedings can be accurately reported.

35.4 Fourthly, the allegations are in any event in the public domain and any confidentiality which may have existed has long disappeared, primarily because my political opponents enthusiastically leak details of any charges, however ridiculous they may be.

36. For these reasons, I will continue to fight for an open hearing even if this means that I have to return to the Courts.

Issued by Patricia de Lille via Facebook, 5 April 2018