Board accused of meddling after Water Research Commission rehired fired events officer

According to The Citizen, the Water Research Commission (WRC) board has been accused of meddling in the body’s operational affairs after its chair allegedly ordered the reinstatement of an employee who had been dismissed for financial misconduct.

What happened

According to The Citizen, former WRC events officer Thobile Gebashe was dismissed following an internal disciplinary process that found her guilty of several acts of misconduct relating to procurement and expenditure.

Allegations cited in disciplinary findings

According to The Citizen, the disciplinary process found that Gebashe had authorised alcohol purchases worth about R50 000 for a middle-management strategy session despite a ban on the provision of alcohol, and that she had booked accommodation for an executive who was not authorised to attend the event.

According to The Citizen, a supplier involved in the event reportedly became concerned after hearing officials announce at the strategy session that the WRC had not approved the provision of alcohol. The supplier then alerted the organisation and provided documentation, including receipts allegedly signed by Gebashe, which formed part of the evidence used during the disciplinary proceedings.

Reinstatement and reaction

According to The Citizen, the same allegations are now the subject of an investigation by Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka. Despite that pending investigation, sources familiar with developments at the council alleged that WRC board chair Rethabile Melamu instructed that Gebashe be reinstated, bypassing executive management and the disciplinary outcome.

“Gebashe was brought back by the board without informing anyone. She was just introduced to new colleagues who were told she will be working at facilities [division] where there’s currently no new position,” an official close to the process said.

According to The Citizen, officials quoted in the story said the reinstatement risks undermining accountability in the institution and raised questions about whether the board acted within its governance mandate under the Public Finance Management Act and the King IV Report on Corporate Governance.

According to The Citizen, another official said:

“The decision is likely to attract additional scrutiny because it comes while the public protector has yet to conclude its investigation into the allegations that led to Gebashe’s dismissal.”

According to The Citizen, an official quoted in the article said,

“The Constitutional Court has previously affirmed that public protector remedial action is binding unless reviewed and set aside by a court [of law], reinforcing the importance of allowing investigations to run their course…”

Outstanding points

According to The Citizen, questions remain about what new evidence, if any, justified reversing the dismissal before the public protector concluded the investigation and why management’s disciplinary decision was allegedly overturned. The Citizen reported that Gebashe had not replied to questions by the time of publishing.

The matter, as reported, centres on governance, accountability and whether board action amounted to operational interference while an oversight investigation remains under way.