How crucial is the absence of a mystery Mr. Arendse’s participation in the National Arts Council Forensic Report findings’ integrity?
After several weeks of prevarication the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture and the National Arts Council on Saturday eventually released the Forensic report into the alleged maladministration that took place during the disbursement if the Presidential Economic Stimulus Package (PESP) fund meant to kick-start the creative economy after the disruption of the lock down as a result of Covid-19.
However there are questions that still need to be answered with regards to some aspects of the forensic report, particularly the absence of the participation of a mystery “Mr. Arendse” writes Ismail Mahomed in this edition of CITYLIFE/ARTS.
By Ismail Mahomed
Page 4 of the NAC Forensic Report provides a list of the various people mentioned in the report. Their names are accompanied by either their job titles that they hold or their relationship to the NAC.
On clause 1.3.13. The Mazars’s Forensic Report states, “We requested to conduct an interview with Mr Arendse, to discuss the roles and responsibilities he performed in respect of the PESP. Mr Arendse requested the following undertaking from Mazars, prior to meeting with him, “… I would need an undertaking that I will be able to see their report, or at least the section which pertains to me, before a final version is submitted to the NAC and DSAC …”. We could not agree to the conditions set by Mr Arendse, and therefore did not pursue our interview with him. The matter was also referred to Council for consideration.
Given the extremely high levels of distrust about the NAC and the DSAC it is not surprising that Mr Arendse made the request. He was acting within his rights.
Questions that follow for any external party now reading the Forensic Report however is:
1. Who is Mr Arendse and what is his role at / relationship with the NAC if he is not listed in the Dramatis Personnae on page 4 of the report.
2. What was the response of Council when the matter was referred to Council?
Even more vital questions that will now need interrogation are:
a. What is the reason for Mazars wanting to have interviewed MrArendse and what specific aspects of the investigation would the interview have assisted?
b. Could Mr Arendse be holding vital information that could have altered the outcomes / direction of the forensic report?
c. When disciplinary hearings and other consequent management processes take place could Mr Arendse be subpoenaed by one of the parties to testify in the hearings?
During the forensic investigation hearings at the Market Theatre Foundation the investigating company, Morar & Inc, did not conduct interviews with any of the council members other than the chairperson of the Market Theatre Foundation, Kwanele Gumbi, despite that the CFO Christine Smith McDonald and I providing them with tangible evidence that there were some Council members who had attempted to curb the levels of corruption in the Council when we had brought the matter to their attention.
In the Section 118A Protected Disclosures Hearing, Christine and I subpoenaed Market Theatre Foundation council member Shado Twala / Shado Twala to testify. Shado was a trump card in the hearing. Under oath she verified that Kwanele Gumbi had overstepped his role as Chairperson of Council, that there were irregularities in the Council’s operations, that the now dismissed audit committee was in cahoots with Gumbi, that Committee has attempted to form an irregular HR Committee that would assist him in his irregularities and that there were high levels of victimisation at the Market Theatre against individuals who stood up against corruption. By testifying under oath when subpoenaed Shado acted in the interests of justice and served to be accountable to the public mandate that was given to her when it became vitally necessary for her to stand up in the interests of the public good.
What truth does Mr Arendse hold that was so feared to grant him an interview under his conditions?