The Construction Education and Training Authority (CETA) takes note of the latest article on the authority by the Sunday Times (Construction Ceta’s R49 million Building Buy flagged as irregular).
CETA is quite dismayed but not surprised at the Sunday Times latest attempt to tarnish its name and that of its CEO.
The article fits into a pattern of reporting that listens to the side of disgruntled employees, opposed to CETA’s management attempt to fight corruption and clean governance, then proceed to either disregard principles or ignore any response or explanation to drive a malicious narrative.
This report fits into that pattern.
The report states as a fact that the purchase has been flagged as irregular when no such finding has been made and the AG had told the journalist there was no such report.
The Sunday Times relies on a leaked document, not a final AG’s report to write the misleading article about the CETA. For that matter, the CETA nor the AG did not even have a draft audit report, but Sunday Times claims to have it. An utter disrespect of the work of a Chapter 9 institution, and an attempt to influence the objectivity of the auditors is clear on that article.
The least the Sunday Times could have done was to verify it’s status and legal standing. Had the newspaper done so, it would have found that a communication of finding is not a public document but correspondence between the auditor and auditee and does not represent a final opinion or a conclusion by the AG.
To state it as a fact in the headline is not only mischievous, given the seriousness of the matter, but is malicious. More so that the Sunday Times claims the CEO lied to MPs, yet the newspaper sees nothing wrong in publishing misinformation and untruths to the South African public.
The AG’s audits are only due to be finalised by the end of July 2025. The issue that the Sunday Times is reporting on, the acquisition of its head office building for R49m, is merely the latest in a series of issues that are being used to beat CETA over the head and paint the organisation as corrupt when it is doing well to save and create value for the State.
A careful assessment of the facts, and an accurate presentation to the reader, would illustrate otherwise. As noted to the Sunday Times and platforms including parliament, the purchase of the building was informed by a directive from the minister for SETAs to look for ways to save costs, including rental costs.
CETA was midway through a 5-year lease that cost R6,7m per annum or just over R30m for the duration of the 5-year lease, allowing for inflation and rental escalations. CETA was then approached by the owner of the building and given an exclusive period to negotiate its purchase as the owner was emigrating. That presented no option for CETA to embark on an open or competitive bid but to deviate on approval of the request to purchase the building on that exclusive offer.
CETA then presented the request for deviation to its board and the Section 54 of the PFMA to the Department and Minister of Higher Education. On the minister granting the Section 54 of the PFMA approval, the CETA duly informed National Treasury as per the prescriptions of the TR16A6.4 and SCM Instruction Note 03 of 2021/22. The National Treasury noted that CETA does not require its approval for deviation, on the basis that the board and shareholder ministry were provided with the reasons for deviation which are recorded and were approved as per SCM Instruction Note 03 of 2021/22. The legislative requirement were fully met, and hence the transaction is not irregular as claimed by the Sunday Times.
The offer gave CETA an opportunity to save money over time and recoup some of it through sub-letting a separate section of the building. How such an opportunity can be dismissed is a mystery.
The Sunday Times article then cites the building valuation by the City of Johannesburg for R52m. But a cursory glance on property listings, or an enquiry to their journalists who cover the property sectors would have revealed that no one, including banks, investors, buyers and sellers, rely on valuations by the municipality for transactions. Independent valuations, which is what CETA used, are required. Even the same AG that Sunday Times claimed is their source, did not use municipal valuation but an expert. Experts used by the CETA and the AG are professionals, registered with the South African Council for Property Valuers Professions (SACPVP).
CETA received an independent valuation of R78m. In any case, even with the CoJ valuation, the purchase price still represented value for money as, at R43m excluding VAT and transfer duties, the transaction was R10m below the city’s valuation.
The only person who cannot see value in this transaction is one who is bent on destroying the credibility of CETA. CETA remains of the view that the transaction was good for CETA, the Department of Higher Education and Training and for broader Government of the Republic of South Africa. This is demonstrated by the fact that CETA has since saved almost R3,8m per annum on rental costs alone, which can be directed towards skilling more beneficiaries post this transaction.
Another matter we must question is the undue focus on the CETA CEO. If, as the report states, the correspondence is between the AG and the board, who would have granted the deviation or could act if any wrong had taken place. Why is the focus of enquiry not on the board?
The CEO, reports to the board but is certainly not the board and submits to its authority. In a public entity like CETA, the board (AA) is the ultimate authority to the PFMA and the CEO is not an accounting officer (AO) like in a department or a constitutional entity. You can never have the AO and the AA in the same entity in terms of the law. It is clear the Sunday Times has a vendetta and personal agenda to tarnish the CEO’s name. This is despite the fact that the CEO was guided by the principles of clean governance on the matter reported and approved by the board, the AA.
The Sunday Times conduct and reporting leaves the impression of an organisation that has made a predetermination in reporting on this matter and chooses to drive a narrative and a malicious agenda. This does no service to the public and CETA stakeholders.
