The Soutpansberg Ratepayers Association is looking at the possibility of lodging criminal charges against the accounting officer of the Makhado Municipality. The accounting officer of a municipality is the municipal manager.

A letter from the attorneys of the SRPA, dated November 18, was delivered to the municipal manager. The municipal manager has 30 days to indicate “why criminal complaints to be investigated should not be filed against yourself as accounting officer of the Makhado Municipality, with the Prosecuting Authority.

“The heading of the letter reads “Criminal charges against the accounting officer of the Makhado Municipality for the financial year ended June 30, 2009”.

“The possible criminal charges that will be brought against the municipal manager – as accounting officer – are based on Section 173 of the Municipal Finance Management Act. The criminal charges that might be considered are based on alleged criminal offences based on Articles 62, 63, 64, 65, as well as possible charges based on the unauthorized, irregular or fruitless and wasteful expenditure,” Mr Frans Prinsloo, the SRPA chairperson, said on November 29. These matters were also reflected in the auditor general’s report for the financial year ended June 30, 2009.

The municipal manager, Mr Shadrack Tshikalange, while occupied in a meeting on November 30, said per SMS that he was still studying the document and that he would comment at a later stage.

Prinsloo said that with this letter it was hoped that the municipal manager would make an effort to communicate with the SRPA.

“It has been put on record that concrete action is now required. The SRPA will not stand for another meeting followed by another and another. The municipal manager now has the final opportunity to prove his competence and his willingness to choose good corporate governance,” Prinsloo said.

The SPRA stated that they had already written a letter to the Makhado Municipality as far back as February 2009 to point out the duties of the accounting officer specified by the MFMA . That was after the auditor general’s report for the year ending June 2008 became known. The serious penalties if the accounting officer of a municipality was guilty of an offence, by deliberately or in a grossly negligent way contravening the act or failing to comply with its provisions, had been pointed out.

“So this is not something new. We have been engaging on these matters for a long time. We received no response to our letter of February 2009 and when the next auditor general’s report came, it was even worse,” Prinsloo said.

The AG said in his report on the financial year ending in June 2009 that the matters that he had referred to in the previous report had not been resolved. On financial management matters, the latest report showed no clear trail of supporting documentation that was easily available and provided in a timely manner. Concerning the revenue management of the municipality, a difference of R24.1million existed between the annual financial statements and cash received from customers. Management could not provide the AG with reasons for the difference. Regarding the expenditure management, the AG could not obtain sufficient evidence that all the projects were accounted for.

The SRPA said in a media statement that it must be made clear that the efforts from the SRPA are based on an expectation of good service delivery as is the responsibility of local government according to the Constitution of South Africa.

“It is put on record that the SRPA will not and cannot stop the actions unless the municipality complies fully with its constitutional responsibilities – the future of this once beautiful town …depends on it,” reads the statement.