Thread by @brettherron

My statement on #Bowmans Reports

I’m shocked by the so-called findings of the Bowmans Report and reject their conclusions

Bowman Gilfillan, attorneys, were appointed to conduct an investigation into a number of alleged irregularities within the City of Cape Town. #CTCouncil

Those alleged irregularities included the process surrounding the procurement of electric buses.

Inexplicably, there are two conflicting Bowmans reports. Only one of them attempts to implicate me in wrong doing – and not with direct or prima facie evidence, as one would expect from an investigation conducted by a lawyer, but based on nothing.

The one Bowmans report states that my involvement in the procurement process “has not been sufficiently established”.

This is a flagrant misrepresentation of the indisputable facts contained in their own report, and is therefore a false conclusion. #CTCouncil

The report contains NO allegation, NO prima facie evidence, NO direct evidence, NO inference nor any suggestion by any person or document that I was involved in the procurement process at all. #CTCouncil

The conclusion that my involvement has not been “sufficiently established” and their recommendation that my involvement be investigated is irrational and a non sequitur. #CTCouncil

As a result I can only surmise that it is based on their own unchecked bias, alternatively it is based on external influences that are not disclosed in the report. #CTCouncil

I wish to state that I have nothing to hide and that my conduct at all times has been beyond reproach. When these allegations of an improper procurement process first emerged in November 2017, I wrote to the Speaker of Council requesting that the allegations be investigated.

Now that an investigation has taken place, at great expense to our ratepayers, the investigators are not satisfied with their inability to find any proof of wrong-doing on my part so they recommend another investigation. This was their task in the first place.

Much is made of a train trip I made whilst a city delegation was in China exploring electric buses. The train trip was always part of the itinerary and should have been paid for by the City. The City’s Travel Office makes travel arrangements once a trip is approved, not me.

It seems that the Travel Office did not book or pay for the train trip – which was meant to be a day trip. This is inexplicable.
Bowmans did not bother to enquire from the Travel Office why the train trip was not booked and paid by the City. They do no explain this.

I was unaware that the itinerary changed at the last minute and the trip, by train, to Changsa would no longer be a day trip but would involve spending the night in Changsa. It is alleged that BYD paid for the hotel and train and Bowmans concludes that this is a personal benefit.

However, Bowmans claim they are unable to determine the value of the benefit or gift. A simple on-line booking search for the hotel we stayed in, reveals the current rate is $35 per night. The accommodation could hardly be considered a benefit or a gift.

Bowmans concludes that the train trip and overnight stay in Changsa resulted in “fruitless and wasteful expenditure” in that we did not use the hotel room in Shenzhen booked and paid for by the City for that one night, and, so they conclude, the tdelegation need to repay R6600.

It is not clear how they arrive at that figure. It is clearly arbitrary, as the trip report indicates that the room rate at the Shenzhen hotel was R2800 per room per night. #CTCouncil

I vehemently deny that I am responsible to repay this sum or any sum at all as I was in no way responsible for the last minute changes which resulted in the change to the itinerary and the wasted hotel cost.

Bowmans do not address the question as to whether the night booked at the Shenzhen hotel could have been cancelled, once the itinerary had changed, at no penalty. Again, this is a simple question that the Travel Office could have answered had they been asked.

I am shocked by the Bowmans report. It is irrational and makes adverse findings without proper consideration of the evidence, and without giving me the opportunity to address questions they conclude are “inexplicable”. #CTCouncil

I attended two interviews with them. I would have attended a dozen more if they had asked. Given my availability to meet with them it is unacceptable to conclude that in some respects I have failed to adequately explain myself – when they haven’t asked me to do so.

I totally reject the conclusions reached by Bowmans as irrational, baseless and unsubstantiated by their own findings of fact and I am left with no option but to conclude that there is something deeply flawed and suspicious about this investigation and the concluding reports.

Ironically, the appointment of Bowman’s for this investigation did not itself follow usual procurement processes, but that these were instead “dispensed with" according to a report submitted to the City’s Supply Chain Management.

I have handed the report to my lawyers and I intend to take whatever steps are deemed necessary to clear my good name. I shall pursue a claim for damages against those who have sought to unlawfully and without just cause insult and defame me and damage my reputation. #CTCouncil