SITA sues task team member

By Martin Czernowalow for SITA
Johannesburg, 17 Apr 2009

A further twist has emerged in the State IT Agency's (SITA's) R5 million lawsuit against a business consultancy. It has come to light that the owner of the business is currently serving on the ministerial task team appointed to investigate SITA.

Teddy Daka, founder and head of Tedaka Business Consulting, was at the end of last year appointed by public service and administration minister Richard Baloyi to serve on a task team put in place to probe SITA's processes and functions.

At the time, Baloyi said there is an urgent need to reposition the ailing agency to be fully compliant with the SITA Act, in terms of its board constitution, governance, business model and procurement practices.

The agency has faced a string of embarrassments and accusations of misconduct in recent times. It has now emerged Daka - a well-known BEE management specialist - while advising SITA on matters of procurement and tender processes, is now also facing the agency in the Pretoria High Court.

Speaking to ITWeb earlier this year, Baloyi would not reveal the names of the nine task team members, saying it could detract from their work. It is known, however, that members include Mthunzi Mdwaba, chairman of the Black IT Forum; Michelle Williams, government CIO and SITA deputy chairperson; and Llewellyn Jones, former SITA CEO. The latter two also have a stormy relationship, with Jones quitting the agency last year amid talk of a rift between him and Williams.

Embarrassing

In light of the latest information, insiders have once again slammed SITA and the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), saying the situation is embarrassing and creates the impression that government has no idea about the issues and workings of state-owned entities.

In addition, sources close to SITA have suggested the latest debacle could bring the task team into disrepute. Not only does the situation suggest a conflict of interest, but Daka - tasked with investigating SITA's processes and tender irregularities - has himself admitted to obtaining work from SITA without following a proper tender process.

Sources have pointed out this has already potentially muddied SITA's case against Tedaka, as Daka earlier claimed his company was approached by SITA chairperson Zodwa Manase, towards the end of her first tenure, who invited him to take on the contract, side-stepping the proper channels.

The case against Daka stems back to 2005, when SITA was planning to establish the Office of the Ombudsman to probe allegations of fraud and corruption within the organisation and its tender processes. Tedaka was brought in to advise and was allegedly paid R5 million for its services.

However, in court papers filed at the Pretoria High Court in 2006, SITA alleged Tedaka Business Consulting did not provide the services it promised, while the consultancy argued it delivered consultancy work for the project and that the payments it received were above board.

Manase has already come under fire earlier this year, when sources within SITA questioned her suitability to lead an organisation in light of having been convicted of late payment of employee tax. She received a 12-year suspended sentence in 2004 for failing to comply with the Income Tax Act, Act 58 of 1962, as amended, in her capacity as CEO of Manase & Associates.

'Tasteless parody'

A SITA insider this morning launched a scathing attack on the organisation, saying: “SITA has descended into a tasteless parody of itself, to the extent that its leadership has become largely ineffectual and rudderless.”

He adds that the consequences for state entities relying on the services of SITA to deliver the best products, at the best prices, are increasingly devastating in the continued absence of decisive action and interventions.

He concludes that the fact these conflicts of interests and the “subsequent impugning of objectivity and erosion of independence have escaped the board leaves one incredulous and cold, to speak quite frankly”.

SITA has refused to comment on the case, saying the matter is sub judice, while DPSA spokesperson Ramona Baijnath was unable to respond by the time of publication.