The controversial spin doctor of Free State Premier Maqueen Letsoha-Mathae’s ghosts have come back to haunt her.
This after Matshediso “Tshidi” Setai was paid a questionable R4.3-million by the Department of Transport (DOT) in 2012 as a settlement after she was fired.
At the time of her dismissal, Setai was chief director of communications in the department under the leadership of then minister Sbu Ndebele, and the payout was kept so hush-hush that even the department’s legal division was kept in the dark.
The new leadership at the department, under minister Barbara Creecy, became aware of the R4.3-million payout when Setai came back for more, demanding an additional R12-million in 2022 for “damages emanating from the settlement agreement”.
And with the cat out of the bag on this golden handshake, the department decided to go to court to force her to pay back the millions she was paid for working for the department for only six months.
In the court papers the department filed, it asked the Pretoria High Court to review, declare the settlement invalid and set it aside.
The department insisted Setai must be forced to pay back the money.
In his founding affidavit, the department’s director-general, James Mlawu, declared: “As the accounting officer, I have a duty to protect the interests of the DOT and to recover all monies that were unlawfully and/or fraudulently paid by the DOT to any person/s. The respondent was charged with 14 charges of financial misconduct. A pre-dismissal arbitration was established in terms of section 188A of the Labour Relations Act. Advocate (Denga) Mulima was appointed as the arbitrator of the pre-dismissal arbitration. On February 12 2010, Adv Mulima issued a ruling dismissing the respondent from the
employment of the DOT.”
According to the department, Setai launched a review of Mulima’s decision but failed to see it through.
“The DOT and the respondent entered into a settlement agreement on May 4, 2012… to part ways amicably and pay her an amount of R4.3-million. However, the DOT had no legal power to reinstate the respondent or to compensate the respondent in lieu of reinstatement. The employment relationship between the DOT and the respondent was terminated on February 12, 2010 when the respondent was dismissed by the ruling of Adv Mulima. Alternatively, the employment relationship was terminated in June 2010 when the DOT informed the respondent of the ruling of the pre-dismissal arbitration chaired by Adv Mulima,” said Mlawu, who
added that Mulima’s decision was never set aside.
He said that the settlement was a violation of the Constitution and the rule of law, and therefore unconstitutional.
Setai, who joined the DOT in 2008, was axed from her cushy job after she was charged with multiple procurement irregularities, gross dishonesty, gross negligence, etc. But just six months into the job, she was suspended after a forensic investigation by KPMG flagged major problems in her handling of contracts and funds.
Spokesperson of DOT, Collen Msibi, said: “The department sought legal advice when it received a R12-million litigation based on the fact that the official was blocked on Persal (personal and salary system) and could not find meaningful employment to earn a living; yet the official had a settlement agreement with the department.
“The legal advice was scathing and unambiguous regarding the fact that the R12-million litigation on its own had no legal grounds, let alone the initial R4.3-million settlement agreement, which the advice found to be unlawful because the official was dismissed.
“Had it not been for the risk the official took with the R12-million litigation against the department, the sleeping dogs would have continued to lie and not awaken to the initial R4.3-million settlement agreement, let alone its unlawfulness.
“When transport history books are written, this case shall go down as one of the unique and bizarre cases in the department where an official got dismissed and allegedly got paid for it a mouthwatering golden handshake of R4.3-million – without any labour court order or CCMA ruling setting aside the dismissal.”
Setai did not respond to a request for comment.
