Mpumalanga’s under-fire MK Party leader, Mary Phadi, says she will only respond in court to the allegations that she had misappropriated the party’s constituency funds.
“I will only answer in court,” Phadi said. This relates to the details of transactions her critics had flagged, as well as the criminal case that the Witbank Police Station had registered against her on November 20.
Mpumalanga police spokesperson Donald Mdhuli said the docket was already with the director of public prosecutions following an investigation.
Criminal case about misappropriation of funds
Sunday World saw transactions attributed to Phadi, including an amount of R400, 000 paid to a promotions company. It has been claimed, in Phadi’s defence, that this amount was payment for MK Party T-shirts. However, her critics alleged that the recipient company was not involved in T-shirt production.
Additionally, Phadi’s critics assert that this was an inappropriate use of constituency funds. A source stated: “We shouldn’t use constituency funds for items like T-shirts.”
According to rules governing constituency allowances, the money may only be used to defray expenditure with regard to items like “payment of remuneration and benefits to staff, including UIF contributions; and payment of costs arising from staff training, including travel and accommodation expenditure arising from a training exercise”.
Other expenses include office furniture and equipment, refurbishment, office supplies, communication expenses, non-alcoholic catering, advertising, printing, and postage.
Additionally, funds can cover bulletins on parliamentary matters, subscriptions, travel and parking (excluding MPs). Also office space rental, municipal services, as well as bank and audit fees.
Accused of using party funds to fly friends to Cape Town
Allowances may also be used for other necessary items for normal office administration. That is to ensure that expenses are associated with the member or constituency rather than the political party. This according to records at the Parliamentary Monitoring Group.
A second set of transactions that Sunday World saw involved flight bookings for R90,000 and hotel bookings for R75,000. Allegations suggest that Phadi spent these amounts on a trip to Cape Town for the opening of parliament in July. Her entourage consisted of her “friends” rather than card-carrying MK Party members. Phadi denied the claims, saying: “I don’t have friends.”
Last week, the Mbombela High Court delivered a dramatic verdict in favour of Phadi, a businesswoman-turned-politician. The court immediately reinstated her as provincial convener of the MK Party, member of the Provincial Legislature (MPL), and leader of the party in the legislature.
High Court reinstated Phadi last week
Surrounded by scores of MK Party members outside court, Phadi addressed the media. She revealed that the ruling coincided with her birthday, making the victory even more symbolic. “Today is my birthday. This is a birthday present,” said Phadi. She labelled the victory as a win against internal party propaganda.
However, the following day the party announced its intention to appeal the court ruling. In a statement, MK Party national spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndlela stated that the party was not served with legal papers regarding Phadi’s review application. MK Party therefore did not file any opposing affidavits or representations.
“We were never served with legal papers. And as a result, we filed no opposing affidavit nor made representations,” Ndlela said.
MK Party to appeal the High Court’s decision
“Therefore, it is the MK Party’s view that what transpired is a gross miscarriage of justice.” The party has expressed confidence in its legal position and revealed its decision to challenge the ruling.
“After retrieving the legal papers and consulting with our legal team, we have come to the decision that we will be appealing the decision of the Mpumalanga High Court,” Ndlela continued.
“We believe and anticipate that once our case is presented against the applicant, the judges will find that the interim order in favour of Mary Phadi was based on a misrepresentation of facts.”
