Today's convoluted Independent Newspapers report appears to claim that ratepayers have paid for a DA investigation into the activities of Councillor Badih Chaaban.

Any allegation of this kind is devoid of truth.

The investigation into Councillor Chaaban was legitimately carried out by the City of Cape Town.

The background is as follows.

An investigation into Chaaban's activities was launched by the Speaker following initial complaints laid by the ID's Cllr Simon Grindrod and other ID councillors that they had received threats from Chaaban.

Further complaints came from councillors that Chaaban had offered bribes to secure their seats in the floor-crossing. The speaker was also asked to authorise protection for councillors, and agreed to this request.

The Speaker had a legal obligation to investigate these serious and potentially criminal allegations.

Item 13, Schedule 1 of the Municipal Systems Act (the Councillor's Code of Conduct) states that if a "Chairperson (the Speaker) is of the opinion that the Code of Conduct has been breached, then he must authorise an investigation of the facts and the circumstances of such an alleged breach".

The Speaker, realising the serious nature of the threats, proposed the procurement of a reputable outside company (George Fivaz and Associates, a company on the City's vendor database), who were then contracted according to the City's supply chain management system.

In terms of the Municipal Systems Act, the Speaker will present the full findings of this investigation to an open Council meeting and to the MEC for Local Government.

The findings were used in the City's internal disciplinary committee hearings against Chaaban, where he was found guilty on various counts of breaching the Code of Conduct.

Questions are also raised in the Independent Newspaper reports regarding payments made to Fivaz and Associates.

The report is factually incorrect to state that 'more than R80 000 in payments by the City to George Fivaz and Associates pre-date a June 1 quote requested by the Council Speaker'. No payments were made by the City before June 1.

It is also incorrect to state that the payments were split up to avoid going through council tender processes.

All payments were authorised by the City manager in terms of the City's supply chain management policy and Section 36 of the Municipal Finance Management Act, which states that "A supply chain management policy may allow the accounting officer (a) to dispense with the official procurement process...(i) in an emergency ...(ii)in any other exceptional case where it is impractical or impossible to follow the official procurement processes".

The City Manager regarded the contract as an emergency dispensation due to "the possibility of human injury or death" and the "possibility that the security of the City could be compromised".

To ensure that all procedures have been lawfully followed, I will ask a retired judge or senior counsel to investigate if there has been any misuse of council funds in the investigation into Cllr Chaaban's threats and bribes to councillors. I will ask that the findings of this investigation be presented to full council.

As recently as yesterday, threats have been made by Cllr Chaaban to ID Councillor Charlotte Williams, and she has asked for immediate protection before returning to her office. Cllr Grindrod and others still have protection. Ratepayers' money is being spent on this protection, because the police are not doing their job in investigating charges of corruption and intimidation laid by the City against Chaaban.
The real question is: why are the police not continuing to pursue these charges, which were laid in early August? If Premier Rasool wants to raise anything with Commissioner Petros, it should be this.

The allegation that the City paid a DA account is both wrong and a red herring to draw attention away from the real criminals in this case.

The DA never contracted George Fivaz and Associates, so could not have any account due.

This case falls into the same category as current police investigations into the Sunday Times to avoid dealing with the substance of the expose.

This is a trend we are seeing throughout our society, and it is sinister indeed.

October 24 2007