- The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development was unable to overturn a disciplinary decision that cleared project officer Walter Ngema of five misconduct charges.
- The department alleged that Ngema was responsible for irregularities in the allocation of Rooipoort Farm to the Masango brothers, as well as for financial losses, including unpaid rent.
- Acting Judge C Mogane found that the disciplinary chairperson had properly assessed the evidence and dismissed the department’s review application.
The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development failed to overturn a disciplinary decision that cleared project officer Walter Ngema of five misconduct charges related to the allocation of a state farm to the Masango brothers and alleged financial losses.
Acting Judge C Mogane dismissed the department’s application, finding that it had not proved Ngema was responsible for the disputed farm allocation or the failure to collect rent. The judge found that the disciplinary chairperson had properly considered the evidence, and there were no grounds to set aside the outcome.
Department alleges irregularities in farm allocation
Ngema, who has worked in the department’s Land Acquisition unit since 2008, faced five charges related to the allocation of Rooipoort Farm, protection of state assets, rental collection and compliance with public finance legislation.
The department alleged that Ngema failed to exercise due diligence when the farm was allocated to the Masango brothers in 2013. It said the brothers lacked commercial farming experience and had not submitted the required business plan. The department also accused Ngema of failing to report irregular expenditure and make sure rent was collected.
Investigator Robert Forfar testified during the disciplinary proceedings that Ngema was involved in the farm allocation process and that the selection committee should have picked up on the shortcomings in the brothers’ application. He also said that the brothers’ occupation of the farm without paying rent contributed to losses of about R2.24 million.
Ngema was found not guilty of all five charges by the disciplinary chairperson, Musa Makhubele. The department then approached the Labour Court to have the outcome reviewed and set aside, arguing that the chairperson had ignored important evidence and reached an unreasonable conclusion.
Ngema denies responsibility
Ngema disputed the allegations, saying he did not have the authority to select or approve beneficiaries. He said his role at a District Selection Committee meeting on 13 June 2013 was limited to serving as a scribe responsible for preparing and circulating minutes and a memorandum.
He also denied responsibility for rental collection, saying that this function fell under Property Management. He explained that the department had changed its lease arrangements and that, for a while, beneficiaries occupied farms under caretaker agreements until longer-term leases were arranged.
Departmental director Madietja Angelina Mametja backed up parts of Ngema’s evidence. She said several committees were involved in the process and that the final decision on beneficiary selection rested with the relevant provincial and national offices. She also confirmed that Property Management was responsible for preparing lease agreements and making sure payments were collected.
Judge finds no grounds to overturn disciplinary outcome
Judge Mogane considered whether the disciplinary chairperson had made an error or reached a decision so unreasonable that the court should intervene. The judge rejected the department’s argument that the chairperson had used the wrong standard of proof, making it clear that disciplinary cases require a balance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The judge noted that the disciplinary outcome specifically stated that the employer had to prove its case on a balance of probabilities. The chairperson considered the different versions of events and explained why certain witnesses’ evidence was preferred.
On the farm allocation, Judge Mogane found that the department had not shown how Ngema’s presence at a committee meeting proved he influenced the decision to allocate the farm. The judge also questioned why the alleged irregularities were not picked up by the other committees and offices responsible for oversight.
The judge also found that the department had not proved Ngema was personally responsible for the failure to collect rent. The department’s own evidence showed that rental collection was a shared responsibility involving Land Acquisition and Property Management, with lease administration and payment collection assigned to Property Management.
The department also claimed that Abram Masango, an Eskom employee who first brought the farm to the department’s attention, had influenced the allocation to his brothers. But Judge Mogane found there was not enough evidence linking Ngema to any improper influence by Abram Masango, pointing out that allegations need evidence, not speculation.
The judge concluded that the disciplinary chairperson had looked at the evidence and applied the right legal principles. Simply disagreeing with the outcome, the judge said, was not a reason to set aside the decision.
The Labour Court dismissed the department’s application to review and set aside the disciplinary outcome. Judge Mogane said there would be no order as to costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
