Mapetla: Report defames me

Ousted CEO of the Estate Agency Affairs (EAAB) Board Nomonde Mapetla has taken issue with an article published by Fin24 on 4 September 2011 (EAAB's shocking maladministration). The article was based on a report compiled after a forensic investigation by Deloitte Risk Advisory.

This is an edited version of Mapetla's rebuttal of some of the allegations made against her in the report.

The articles in the City Press and Fin24 dated 4 September 2011 projects me as not only corrupt but also as a fraudster. The City Press and Fin24 published these defamatory articles about me without bothering to contact me to get my side of the story.

• The article was based on a purported EAAB forensic report prepared by Deloitte and Touche. In the first instance, my suspension letter from the EAAB clearly stated that I would be given a copy of any report once an investigation was concluded against me. This was seven months ago, as against the four weeks promised by the then Chairman of the EAAB. To date I have not been given any report nor have I been questioned by any investigator to state my side of the story during the said Deloitte & Touche investigation process. Instead I have had to learn of the existence of a report and its contents in the media. In response to letters from my attorneys, the EAAB has categorically denied having released any such report to the media.
  

• For the record, it should be noted that the forensic audit was commissioned after my unlawful dismissal from the EAAB, contrary to the dictates of labour legislation which requires that the investigation precede the dismissal, which dismissal should also be the result of a disciplinary hearing. In my case this did not happen. The report falsely states that I was dismissed for mismanagement and financial irregularities. My letter of dismissal stated that I was being dismissed due to an irretrievable breakdown in relations between the Board and I as CEO.
  

• Without the benefit of seeing the report, I refute the purported findings of the Deloitte report. In the first instance, I did not refuse to cooperate with Deloitte, I merely asked for written questions, access to their preliminary findings and supporting documentation to enable me to respond, which was refused by Deloitte. It will be recalled that even in my letter to the ANC, I had expressed misgivings about the objectivity of Deloitte.
  

• The defamatory article calls my academic qualifications into question as part of this orchestrated campaign to vilify and discredit me. Like other employees, certified copies of my academic certificates are in my HR file at the EAAB and these should have been easy to access. The normal protocol for forensic investigators into academic qualifications is to call or contact the indicated universities to verify or confirm their suspicions. Obviously no one deemed it fit or necessary to do so in my case, because they had one mission in mind, and that was to find me guilty of something which would post facto justify my unfair dismissal from the EAAB.
  

• The most obvious question is how external auditors gave the EAAB books, under my stewardship, successive clean audits for six years. How did highly qualified auditors miss this alleged general mismanagement of the EAAB and its finances? How did the Board which sat countless times during the six years of my stewardship of the EAAB not raise a single issue about the alleged mismanagement of the finances of the organisation?               

• Concerning the issue of travel, the simple fact is that any travel that I did on behalf of EAAB was paid for through the travel agencies by the Accounts Department, and not by any credit card in my possession. This can easily be confirmed with the Procurement and Finance Departments of the EAAB, and indeed the travel agencies. A further falsehood is that I incurred travel costs that were outside of policy provisions. All travel was budgeted for and duly approved by the Chairman and Board and the Board Minutes would reflect this.
  

• It is important to reiterate the point that when I joined the EAAB, 28 years after its establishment, it was financially insolvent, with no structures, systems, policies or procedures and with recurring qualified audits. Under my stewardship it has had six successive clean audits. Under my stewardship the EAAB moved from an insolvent entity to a robust regulator with clean audits, proper structures, and policies and procedures that are compliant with the PFMA. I call upon the EAAB to release this purported report to the public so that its contents can be interrogated and I can be afforded an opportunity to take appropriate steps to defend my good name and reputation.