[ad_1]
A general view of the border fence separating South Africa and Zimbabwe near the Beitbridge border post.
- The SIU’s request to freeze the bank accounts of two companies responsible for the construction of the Beitbridge border fence will be heard on Thursday.
- The government budgeted R40 million, of which R21 million has already been paid, for an ineffective border made of barbed wire.
- Those trying to escape economic hardship in neighboring ZimbabwWe could easily cut the cable and enter South Africa illegally.
Companies involved in “building” the Beitbridge Bridge border fence could soon be left with very little money to spend.
That’s if the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) has its way in Special Court Thursday when its offer to freeze Caledon River Properties CC’s bank accounts listed as Magwa Construction and Profteam CC is heard.
The companies are responsible for the construction of the porous rand 40 million border fence.
This came when SIU head Andy Mothibi met with Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) on Tuesday.
“As we speak, we are pursuing civil litigation to recover money that has been paid to service providers and any other related damages that have been caused to the department. In this regard, I inform that the process is underway, the case is on the list of the Special Court for October 8 and the request at this stage is to obtain a restraining order that freezes the accounts of the service providers.
The Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure, Patricia de Lille, and the Minister of Defense and Military Veterans, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, also attended Scopa’s meeting.
READ | The Special Court for Frozen Bank Accounts Linked to Gauteng’s Irregular PPE Tender to Begin
Mothibi said that part B (of the application) will deal with the exact amounts to be recovered “in particular the 21 million rand that has been paid.”
The department’s national bid award committee (NBAC) approved both bids for the project in March.
On March 18, the NBAC approved the appointment of Caledon River Properties’ CC company as Magwa Construction to provide contractor services in the amount of R37 million. The following day, the appointment of Profteam CC was approved to provide professional services at a cost of R3.2 million.
Mothibi said he was satisfied with the action the department had taken.
He said:
Outside of the investigation and now that we have the proclamation, we are addressing it in the context of legal expectation. We have referred four criminal cases to the National Prosecutor’s Office (NPA). [These include] two service providers and two department officials. We will work closely with our colleagues at the NPA to ensure that prosecution continues. We await convictions so that there is an adequate management of consequences for this.
He also said that the fence does not meet the prescribed requirements.
An investigation into the Beitbridge border fence project found that the government paid R17 million more than the market-related cost.
A further assessment using market related prices for materials actually used on site and revised rates for engineering services provides a total project cost of R23 388 023.97. This indicates that the project costs were exceeded by an amount of R17 047 891.01.
READ ALSO | ‘Stop being lazy,’ Lille tells DA that she wants her fired over the Beitbridge border fiasco
Investigators also found at least 115 violations.
Most notably, the fence design had a final height of 2.2m and the actual final height of the fence was no more than 1.8m on either side of the edge.
ANC MP Mervyn Dirks said the bidding process was flawed from the start.
READ ALSO | From Lille in another difficult week in Parliament as MPs deliberate on the Beitbridge border fiasco
“They had daily meetings to discuss the Beitbridge border. If there were daily discussions, how did this happen? But the real problem started with the minister’s directive. It was too direct interference and that’s where all the control was.” lost, “he said.
EFF MP Veronica Mente said: “Was due diligence done with service providers? Who pushed the button to pay these companies and can we get the money back? What else needs to happen here before Act?”
In response, De Lille said: “We will accept any additional questions addressed to DPWI. This was a joint effort to get to the bottom of the fence debacle. The fence is not fit for purpose.”
Do you want to know more about this topic? Sign up to receive one of 33 News24 newsletters to receive the information you want in your inbox. Special newsletters are available to subscribers.
