Tourism Minister Patricia de Lille defended the decision to keep SA Tourism (SAT) CEO Nombulelo Guliwe under suspension pending a report that will be presented to her by the incoming board.
De Lille appeared before the Parliamentary portfolio committee on Tourism to account for the disbandment of the tourism board.
Throughout the proceedings, De Lille was accused of protecting Guliwe after insisting that the legal advice she received said the decision was unlawful, as the board had no chairperson following the resignation of Gregory Davids on July 31.
Interim board
“The process and the procedure to deal with the suspension or discipline of the CEO is with the board. They will make a recommendation to the minister to concur or not to concur. In this instance, again, the new board that is being appointed now in the interim will deal with that matter.
“It is with them; it is on their desks as one of the items that they have to deal with. I am not getting involved in disciplinary procedures,” said De Lille.
She further denied blocking the board from acting on Guliwe in relation to the Ngubane report.
Despite the turmoil, De Lille insisted there was no crisis. She said six individuals have been appointed to manage the SAT affairs until a permanent board is in place.
“Just last week, I met with the industry, who continued to show their support for the Tourism Growth Partnership Plan. An execution lab has now been established to ensure the monitoring and implementation of the 5 pillars in the Tourism Growth Partnership Plan,” said De Lille.
De Lille insisted that her decision to dissolve the board was necessary. This was to protect public funds and restore governance in the entity.
Tottenham Hotspurs saga
She said the controversy on dissolving boards began with the proposed sponsorship of English football club Tottenham Hotspurs. She had dissolved the board on April 19, 2023, citing irregular expenditure. And she insisted that she saved the country R1-billion.
She confirmed that she has since written to the president to request a proclamation for prosecutions and the recovery of funds. Two SAT employees implicated in the SIU report have been suspended.
She explained that she initially appointed three interim members to oversee SAT. This is until a full-time board could be named.
A new board was appointed in February 2024. It is led by chairperson Makhosazana Khanyile and deputy chairperson Lizelle Dominique Jordaan.
However, the pair were later removed from their positions. This happened after what De Lille described as excessive meetings that drained SAT’s budget.
“Within six months, R900, 000 of the R1.44-million budgeted for board meetings was used up. They were removed from their positions. I did not fire them, nor did I dissolve the board,” she said.
Vacant leadership posts
Both Khanyile and Jordaan resigned and have taken the matter to court.
She also raised concerns about leadership posts at SAT remaining vacant. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) resigned in August 2024. No permanent replacement has been made.
“Even though the Auditor General has flagged the appointment of the CFO as critical, to date South African Tourism still doesn’t have a permanent CFO,” De Lille said.
She added that the post of Head of Internal Audit was also unfilled. This is despite repeated reminders to the board.
De Lille also highlighted unprocedural and irregular board meetings. She criticised the appointment of board member Lawson Naidoo as a board representative with chairperson-like powers.
Board member acted outside his mandate
She said legal advice to her confirmed this move was “unlawful and ultra vires”.
“The board is a creature of statute. And is only limited to the exercise [of] the powers conferred to it by the Tourism Act of 2014. The board acted unlawfully and exceeded its powers,” said de Lille.
According to De Lille, Naidoo went on to act beyond his authority. He was extending contracts, approving invoices over R120, 000, and engaging law firms without valid agreements.
“This amounts to authorising payments for services outside the ambit of a valid contract. A clear contravention of procurement and financial governance prescripts. In doing so, he placed the entire board at risk, as he was purportedly acting on their behalf,” she said.
