Opposition parties in Nelson Mandela Bay have slammed deputy mayor Gary van Niekerk for leaving SA, accusing him of undermining municipal processes and deliberately dodging court proceedings.
Van Niekerk skipped his fraud trial on Wednesday and jetted off to Germany.
He faces charges of cyber fraud and contravention of the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA).
DA councillor Rano Kayser said the party would submit a motion of public importance and consider a motion of no confidence over Van Niekerk’s action.
“Again, it’s proven that the deputy mayor is a habitual transgressor and has no regard for the law and the institutions of our country,” Kayser said.
“The fact that he could leave the country without the approval of the mayor is a clear indication he has no respect for the processes, institutions and authority that he is supposed to lead.
“The desperation and the timing for him to leave the country, knowing very well that his trial date was set, clearly prove that he intended to avoid the court proceedings, as well as playing delaying tactics with the court.”
GOOD councillor Lawrence Troon said the time for consequences for Van Niekerk was long overdue.
“This latest incident reinforces everything the GOOD party has said during Van Niekerk’s tenure.
“Van Niekerk has no respect for the law, no commitment to ethical public service, and no business occupying any position of leadership in Nelson Mandela Bay.
“The people of Nelson Mandela Bay deserve better than a deputy mayor who flees the country to dodge justice.”
In a letter to acting city manager Ted Pillay, ACDP councillor Lance Grootboom said the sequence of events leading up to the trip raised serious governance and accountability concerns.
He said approval was only granted a day after Van Niekerk had left for Germany.
“It appears to suggest that official authorisation was given after the fact, thereby undermining proper processes and exposing the municipality to potential irregular or unauthorised expenditure.
“The fact that the mayor herself admitted approving because travel had already taken place, while pointing to ‘too much abnormality about this trip’, makes this issue even more troubling.
“It suggests that decisions are being formalised after the fact to legitimise expenses already incurred, rather than through proper due process.”
The Herald
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.