Fraud whistle-blower takes MTN to court
MTN SA, still reeling from the Iran cellphone scandal, is embroiled in a new bruising battle - this time involving its legal department and a retrenched whistle-blower.
The dispute between MTN and its former senior legal adviser, Violet Magagane, had been kept under wraps until this week, when the Johannesburg Labour Court heard claims of large-scale fraud involving more than R12-million.
Central to the dispute is Magagane's claim that she was victimised and retrenched for blowing the whistle on alleged fraudulent transactions involving MTN's chief corporate services officer, Robert Madzonga.
The details of the alleged fraud are contained in an explosive forensic audit by PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
Magagane's employment at MTN came to an abrupt halt last year after she raised the alarm about Madzonga's alleged signing of 78 invoices from consultancy Nozuko Nxusani Attorneys.
The law firm was hired for work apparently done by the MTN legal department.
In court yesterday, Magagane described her retrenchment as a "sham" and "camouflage" for getting rid of her for "spilling the beans".
MTN's advocate, Martin Brassey, dismissed her claims.
"Your motive is questionable. You heard about the retrenchments and proceeded with these actions," he challenged.
"You claim there was no proper consultation but you cannot deny that, whether the correct procedures were followed or not, you would have been retrenched."
Instead of following proper grievance channels, including blowing the whistle to MTN's external auditors, Deloitte and Touche, Magagane had spoken to a senior staff member, Brassey said.
"The person you reported this to has friends in PriceWaterhouseCoopers. He wanted you to go this route because he was pursuing political battles within MTN."
Brassey said Magagane had not gone to MTN business risk management group executive Shauket Faki, to whom the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report was addressed and who is responsible for the company's whistle-blowing system.
"The only sham is what you have done," he said.
Magagane countered by saying that Faki had sat on the audit report.
"It was not in his interest to help," she said.
The draft audit report - compiled in August last year, after Magagane had lifted the lid on the alleged fraud - lists dozens of allegedly dubious invoices signed by Madzonga.
The report says that the invoices were mainly for drafting agreements, which Nozuko Nxusani was allegedly not contracted to do.
It says Madzonga was not involved in day-to-day legal matters and had no reason to appoint external attorneys for work usually done by internal legal advisers. There was no evidence of work done by the firm and there should have been more than one signature on the invoices, PriceWaterhouseCoopers said.
The document shows that MTN paid R12.2-million to Nozuko Nxusani Attorneys between March 2010 and March 2011.
"The description of the services rendered is vague and lacks details . the date of the services rendered and the time frame in which it was completed is unrealistic; the date the work was performed was the same date the invoices were submitted and some invoices totalling R975840 were possibly duplicated," the report says.
According to PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Madzonga flouted MTN procurement policy by failing to say why consultants were needed.
The report raises concerns about Nxusani having been the only person in her firm who did any work for MTN, that invoices were issued before work was done, and that the hourly rate Nxusani charged varied from R6246 to R168358.
"Clearly Ms Nxusani needs to explain the lack of detail contained in the invoices."
The report found that Madzonga:
- Knew Nxusani from university;
- Introduced her to MTN in 2001 with the intention of developing a black-owned law firm;
- Referred 62% of work to her despite his department having the capacity to deal with it;
- Did not thoroughly check the accuracy of invoices;
- Approved invoices based on trust;
- Acknowledged that the hours billed were incorrect; and
- Did not notify MTN legal advisers about outsourcing their work because he did not want to "hurt their feelings".
The report is a damning indictment of the lack of oversight in the MTN legal department.
The auditors, having interviewed Nxusani, found that she had memorised invoice details and relied on memory when submitting invoices.
It also found that the processes followed to appoint Nozuko Nxusani were different to those used to appoint other legal firms.
Brassey challenged the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report, saying it was only a draft, had not been properly investigated and "was not worth the paper it was written on".
MTN SA spokesman Bridget Bhengu said yesterday that the signatory specific to the invoices was authorised to sign them by internal policies.
"On receiving the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report, MTN implemented its [recommendations] . establishing an internal inquiry to test the allegations.
"The individuals were called to appear before the inquiry and presented evidence to refute the allegations.
"Disciplinary action was taken against the individuals concerned. As per standard practice, MTN reviewed the services and did not renew the contract."
Bhengu said Nxusani's services included legal advice, vetting of contracts and writing opinions.
On Magagane's allegation that she was retrenched because she blew the whistle, Bhengu said: "In line with MTN's continued efforts to maximise efficiencies, MTN retrenched more than 700 employees during 2011, including the individual who reported the alleged misconduct."



Join the discussion & Debate
Fraud whistle-blower takes MTN to court
For Commenters Consideration | Please stick to the subject matterCOMMENTS [18]
Mike123
Posted 268 days agoGweez
SindiM
MSMG
Wait a minute, I could play like you, without any basis whatsoever, I could claim that you are a disgruntled ex-right-winger.
ByronSmit
KoosVan_der_Merwe
ppss
Posted 268 days agoMicaParis
Posted 268 days agoIt was just a pure issue of exposing the MTN for ''firing her'' and nothing else! As for taking the MTN to court, well everybody has 'access to courts' in terms of section 34 of the constitution.
The retrenchment procedure as laid down in the Labour Relations Act (LRA) must be followed properly and in good faith by MTN. MTN must prove that they shared with the targeted employees (or their representatives) all documentary and other information pertinent to the retrenchment.
MTN might still be caught out in the Labour Court for failing to follow procedure. In the case of Numsa and Others v Dorbyl Ltd and Another (2004, 9 BLLR 914) 176 employees embarked on a protected strike. The plant at which they worked was closed down and 122 employees were retrenched, without any ‘’fair consultation’’. The employer was required to pay each of the 122 retrenched staff two months' remuneration in compensation.
As a good-faith consultation is the core requirement of retrenchment procedure, if MTN retrenchment was procedurally unfair on their contract or LRA the company might be compelled to re-instate Magagane or pay her out / ‘’buy’’ her out of the remaining duration of the contract.
In Nkopane and Others v The Independent Electoral Commission (2007, 2 BLLR 146) the employees were employed on the basis of fixed-term contracts. Prior to the natural expiry date of the contracts, the employees were retrenched. The Labour Court found that it was a breach of contract for the employer to terminate the contracts prior to the expiry date unless the employees had been in breach themselves and the employer was ordered to pay all the employees out up to the date of the expiry of their contracts.
KoosVan_der_Merwe
Why was it not picked up by Toilet and Tooch? Corruption on their part?
What charges are laid against these white coller criminals?
DuaneHamann
Wiseguy
Posted 268 days agoI have a query which I would like Timeslive to investigate and perhaps other commentators(MicaParis) with a legal background could assist.
The background to this is the RSA and its peoples fight aginst crime !
How is it possible for these cellphone tech companies(MTN, VODACOM, CEll C) ect to NOT assist in apprehending crimals who steal cell phones. Cell phone theft is likely one of the more common crimes in this country to date. We ALL know any GPS enabled cell phone should be able to be traced within minutes of the company being notified.....but do they or will they assist...NO!!!! They could with the help of SAPS and the GPS co-ordinates, have the thieves or their co-criminals caught within hours of the theft.
It has been demonstarted the world over that a ZERO tolerance approach to crime, that being IF you catch the small "petite" thieves the major crimes like murder and rape come down too !!
So how is it acceptable to the Minister of Police, the Minister of Telecommunications and the CEO's of these companies that this quick and easy way of apprehending criminals is NOT being used liberally and on a daily basis ????
Perhaps Timeslive could ask the CEO's and ministers in question?
The ONLY conclusion I can come up with is these companies put their selfish commercial interests before those of their customers, their country and its peoples fight against crime! For every cell phone stolen, someone has to buy a new one.....hence more money for the company, and secondly a potential new customer for the cell phone industry(albeit a thief).... so what or why should/do they care !!!
Well because we are fighting a WAR against criminals and not doing very well either....perhaps that is why!
MicaParis
There is the RICA which is not doing enough as it serves a lame Government purpose of registering cell phones for the sole purpose of stalking or managing the information inflow against perhaps the ruling party or rich business mafias who are controlling the ANC by radar.
The RICA (Act) requires compulsory registration of all SIM cards in use. I suggest that RICA should be amended as part of necessary improvement to include a clause against the ‘’cell phone theft’’ to protect the companies to release information as they currently rely too much on criminal law prescripts and Promotion of Information Act for that purpose.
But unfortunately we have invasion of privacy clause on section 14(d) of the constitution which initiates reluctance to give out the information in fear of being suit or wasting money on unnecessary legal fees.
We cannot allow privacy protections to be swept aside with the sweeping nature of these information requests, especially for innocent consumers. Law enforcement agencies are looking for needle, as far as cell phone theft is concerned but what are they doing with a haystack?
We need to know how law enforcement differentiates between records of innocent people, and those that are subject of investigation, as well as how it handles, administers, and disposes of this information, Government and cell phone companies might come in handy in solving this problem as they relatively have all the information that we might need to crack the crime wide open.
The main mobile network companies must collaborate with the governments in initiatives designed to reduce mobile phone theft and related crime. This initiative will allow the sharing of stolen mobile device information in order to block stolen devices and make their trafficking and reuse across the region more difficult that will even help if RICA can be amended within this prescript.
Never mind the companies will not worry so much about the whole situation as it is an advantage for them to make money and indeed their main aim is to make money not to prevent and manage crime statistics.
Wiseguy
While you mention the needle in the hay stack.....again I would direct your attention to the numeorus international studies that have shown without fail, that countries were they take a ZERO tolerance approach to "small/petite" crime......the major crimes(the hay stack) comes down significantly again and again and again!
You mention, "we have invasion of privacy clause on section 14(d) of the constitution which initiates reluctance to give out the information in fear of being suit or wasting money on unnecessary legal fees.".....I fail to see or understand how this might be any obstacle in the case of theft ! If someones phone is stolen and they report it to the police and cell phone company and urge them to help locate the criminals......how can there be any invasion of privacy ?
This is a quick and easy way in which we could reduce crime and the crime statistics overnight and the people would be so so much better off for it!
Wiseguy
Posted 268 days agoWhile you mention the needle in the hay stack.....again I would direct your attention to the numeorus international studies that have shown without fail, that countries were they take a ZERO tolerance approach to "small/petite" crime......the major crimes(the hay stack) comes down significantly again and again and again!
You mention, "we have invasion of privacy clause on section 14(d) of the constitution which initiates reluctance to give out the information in fear of being suit or wasting money on unnecessary legal fees.".....I fail to see or understand how this might be any obstacle in the case of theft ! If someones phone is stolen and they report it to the police and cell phone company and urge them to help locate the criminals......how can there be any invasion of privacy ?
MicaParis
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
That will precisely have very serious repercussions on issuing of information which by rule of law (section 14(d) and (PAIA) ''Information Act'') might be illegal and dependable through court action as that will afford criminals a leverage to attack ''procedural fairness'' instead of dealing with sole obvious criminal issue.
Lack of respect to privacy clause might render a simple criminal law issue a very serious constitutional issues which will divert lot of attention way from a relevant criminal action.
But Government is free to promulgate another legislation or amend the RICA in line with avoidance of risking privacy violation, in order to save the situation in which a criminal action might be excluded in prescripts of private information but that will open the floodgates in core criminal issues as the criminals might seize that opportunity for the opposite purpose.
But above all a clear unconstitutional legal solution might help or Parliament will risk having to get 75% majority in the National Assembly and six Provinces to amend section 14(d) of the constitution in terms of section 74(1) (a) and (b) of the constitution.(Bills amending the constitution).
We should avoid the issue of constitutional supremacy strategically protecting criminal activity through lack of following correct constitutional procedural fairness even though the crime itself might really be a crime in essence, something that our legal drafters overlook and criminals end up being protected because of that and other unnecessary complex procedures!
MicaParis
Posted 268 days ago''You mention, "we have invasion of privacy clause on section 14(d) of the constitution which initiates reluctance to give out the information in fear of being suit or wasting money on unnecessary legal fees."
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
That will precisely have very serious repercussions on issuing of information which by rule of law (section 14(d) and (PAIA) ''Information Act'') might be illegal and dependable through court action as that will afford criminals a leverage to attack ''procedural fairness'' instead of dealing with sole obvious criminal issue.
Lack of respect to privacy clause might render a simple criminal law issue a very serious constitutional issues which will divert lot of attention way from a relevant criminal action.
But Government is free to promulgate another legislation or amend the RICA in line with avoidance of risking privacy violation, in order to save the situation in which a criminal action might be excluded in prescripts of private information but that will open the floodgates in core criminal issues as the criminals might seize that opportunity for the opposite purpose.
But above all a clear unconstitutional legal solution might help or Parliament will risk having to get 75% majority in the National Assembly and six Provinces to amend section 14(d) of the constitution in terms of section 74(1) (a) and (b) of the constitution.(Bills amending the constitution).
We should avoid the issue of constitutional supremacy strategically protecting criminal activity through lack of following correct constitutional procedural fairness even though the crime itself might really be a crime in essence, something that our legal drafters overlook and criminals end up being protected because of that and other unnecessary complex procedures!
Wiseguy
If anyone has privacy issues, they have the choice not to report their cell phone theft!
Much like if anyone calls the police to their house because of a break-in or whatever, and they are found to be implicated in a criminal act as a result of the police visit......that cannot/should not be considered an invasion of privacy!
We cannot allow the cell phone companies to hold the country or the people to ransom, or any other real, honest and fair attempts to reduce crime to get caught up in "law-makers" beaurocracy!
It works well!
Its simple and reliable!
It should be done! No DOUBT!
It WILL bring down the crime stats tremendously.......both needles and hay stack!
Stirrer
Posted 268 days ago