Water board accused of meddling after rehiring fired employee

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 was dismissed for financial misconduct. Internal sources claim this was despite an ongoing public protector investigation stemming from the same allegations and that the decision triggered serious governance questions over whether the board illegally interfered in the running of the state entity. At the heart of the saga is formerWRCevents officer Thobile Gebashe, who was dismissed following an internal disciplinary process that found her guilty of several acts of misconduct relating to procurement and expenditure.

Her dismissal followed findings that she had, among other things, authorised alcohol purchases worth about R50 000 for a middle-management strategy session, despite a ban on the provision of alcohol. The disciplinary process also found that she booked accommodation for an executive who was not authorised to attend the event. The allegations were not uncovered through routine internal controls.

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 service provider subsequently alerted the organisation and provided documentation, including receipts allegedly signed by Gebashe, forming part of the evidence used during the disciplinary proceedings. The same allegations are now the subject of an investigation by Kholeka Gcaleka.

[paywall]

Despite the pending investigation, sources familiar with developments at the council allege that WRC board chair Rethabile Melamu instructed that Gebashe be reinstated, bypassing executive management and the disciplinary outcome. The move has triggered concerns that reinstating an employee dismissed for financial misconduct, while the underlying allegations remain under investigation, risks undermining accountability in the public institution. “It also raises questions about whether the board acted within the limits of its governance mandate.

[/paywall]