The Corruption Watch board is accused of protecting and failing to act against its executive director Karam Singh, who has been the subject of two internal investigations into suspected wrongdoing.
Sunday World has learnt that Singh was investigated after a friend of his was hired by the organisation, after sending her resume directly to him and not to the human resources department.
Another independent investigation concluded that Singh personally sought the services of two companies that provided services to Corruption Watch. Although Singh was cleared in both probes, insiders at the watchdog want the board to act against him, citing
dissatisfaction with the two investigations.
Singh was investigated twice “for questionable behaviour” and has never faced any disciplinary hearing, even when the second investigation established that there was “an inadvertent transgression” on his part.
Singh has failed to explain how his friend, Anu Nepal, who twice forwarded her resume directly to him, ended up being employed by the organisation.
“I declared my relationship with Ms Nepal to the then executive director and HR on a number of occasions and recused myself from the recruitment and appointment process for that very reason. I was not part of the interview panel, nor was I part of the decision-making process that found her to be a qualified and suitable appointment for the position,” he said.
“I cannot explain why Anu Nepal sent her CV directly to me, but upon receipt of her e-mail, I forwarded it to HR.”
After one of the staff members blew the whistle on Nepal’s “questionable appointment” and Singh’s role, Corruption Watch hired Ahmed Cachalia, whose second cousin, Professor Firoz Cachalia, was a board member at the time, to investigate the matter. In his report, seen by Sunday World, Ahmed Cachalia said he didn’t “recommend any disciplinary action be taken against any staff member”.
Singh confirmed that Corruption Watch had appointed a firm called Tokiso to investigate him.
“My understanding later was that the investigator was apparently a second cousin of a board member at that time, which he discovered during the investigation, and he immediately informed Tokiso and sought legal advice.
The board member in question was not involved in the appointment or in the investigation. The matter was disclosed to the rest of the board, and the outcome was that it was not deemed to be a conflict of interest,” he said.
Sunday World can confirm that when the post was first advertised, Nepal sent her resume to Singh, and the watchdog couldn’t find suitable candidates. When the post was advertised for a second time, Nepal again sent her CV to her friend, Singh. More than 40 candidates applied for the post but only Nepal was interviewed and got the job.
Singh is also accused of awarding a strategic contract to a company linked to his former life coach without following Corruption Watch’s procurement procedures. An independent investigation concluded that Singh personally sought the services of Dinaledi Educational Coaching NPC and The Caerus Effect and approved their contract.
Corruption Watch’s procurement policy stipulates that it requires a three-quote process to procure goods or services valued between R50 000 and R250 000. And goods and services below R50 000 have no such requirement. Singh first hired Dinaledi and paid them R41 400 on May 13, 2022, then again paid them R30 000 on June 24 of the same year. He later gave the same contract to Caerus and paid them R49 107 in October 2022.
The independent investigation established that “while Dinaledi and Caerus Effect have different names, they should be viewed as akin to the same entity (having the same address, personnel, and charge-out rate)”.
Singh admitted that he “met them in a professional capacity as service providers on a training course I participated in, called Leading for Healing.”
Sources within Corruption Watch claim Singh admitted when he was grilled that one of the company’s directors used to be his life coach. The investigation didn’t find any corrupt relationships between Singh and the service provider.
Several Corruption Watch employees claim the board is protecting Singh..
Another insider said Singh’s protection was “hypocrisy of the highest order”.
Corruption Watch spokesperson Oteng Makgotlwe did not respond to a Sunday World enquiry on why the board hasn’t acted against Singh.
