Dismissed Roads Authority executives Sidney Boois and Richard Milinga have filed an appeal against findings of guilt after an internal disciplinary process.
In a notice of appeal, the two argue that the process was flawed and that the outcome should be set aside.
Boois and Milinga state that the employer interfered in the proceedings by directing the disciplinary chairperson to conclude the hearing within deadlines set by the Board and its Human Capital Committee.
They also point to what they describe as inconsistencies in the findings, including a charge where the chairperson allegedly stated during mitigation that he had not found an employee guilty, while the written findings reflected a guilty verdict.
They further argue that the chairperson ignored testimony obtained during cross-examination and failed to consider documents submitted in their defence.
According to the appeal, the chairperson stated that because they did not testify, they did not participate in the proceedings, and that evidence raised under cross-examination did not count as evidence.
The two claim that the internal audit unit acted on instructions from the Chief Executive Officer instead of reporting functionally to the Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee, as required by policy.
They also allege that members of the Board and its committees issued directions during the process.
In relation to specific charges, Boois and Milinga challenge findings linked to the acquisition of law enforcement vehicles through a company identified as SASCO. They argue that the direct appointment of SASCO was broader than a service level agreement and that references to the service level agreement in submissions were mistakes.
They deny that they sought approval for unreasonable amounts, stating that the Procurement Committee was responsible for assessing pricing. They also dispute findings that the vehicles were delivered to create a financial obligation before approval.
On a separate charge, Boois disputes a finding that he misrepresented approval from the Road Fund Administration for the use of funds. He states that savings could only be used with the Road Fund Administration’s consent and that meetings were held where such approval was granted.
Boois also challenges a charge relating to the use of Roads Authority property, arguing that the matter had already been dealt with by the Chief Executive Officer and should not have formed part of the disciplinary case.
Milinga disputes a finding that he instructed staff to receive vehicles and gift packs. He states that testimony on this issue was inconsistent and that there was no intention to transfer ownership before payment.
The two are asking that the findings of guilt be set aside and replaced with findings of not guilty.