One of the owners of a materials supplier from which the department
sought to recover money told the Sunday Times that the department’s
legal bid was a ‘façade’ and a ‘smoke screen’. The R 1 -billion
expenditure drive had been marred by fraud, the businessman said.
According to him, the department had merely cited the 106
respondents to convince the SIU that it was doing something about the
looting. He lamented the fact that the department had chosen to try to
recover money from the materials suppliers only, seeing as some of
them had delivered the goods for which they had been paid.^20 ‘What
about those suppliers and contractors who were paid in advance but
are not listed as respondents? Why are they being protected?’ the
businessman wanted to know.
It sounded to me like the department’s selective legal bid to recover
some of the money was a cover-up. I obtained documents and records
pertaining to the department’s expenditure during that period and
proceeded to analyse them. It was a classic exercise in following the
money, and the results were frightening. I began to realise why
Magashule may have wanted to take control of the investigative
process.
There were several materials suppliers and contractors, who
collectively received a fortune as part of the R 1 -billion ERP, who were
seemingly overlooked in the department’s legal proceedings. Some of
them were closely linked to Magashule. We’ll start with a few materials
suppliers who managed to slip under the radar.
In 2011 , while human settlements agency NURCHA was probing the
matter, an email was sent to several companies that had received
advance payments for materials. The email, of which I obtained a copy,
contained the names of all 21 suppliers against whom the FSHS had
nora
(Nora)
#1