De Lille says law firm has found her guilty and not guilty in different reports

Cape Town mayor Patricia de Lille, in the wake of speculation that she may be trying to withdraw her resignation amid statements from the DA that she has been implicated in corruption in two reports on her, has come out swinging once again.

She said in a statement on Wednesday that investigative reports into her conduct had been “leaked maliciously by faceless, nameless and useless people, to injure my good name”.

She hit out at law firm Bowman Gilfillan, which she accused of having a “forked tongue”.

“I have repeatedly taken issue with the credibility of Bowmans, ever since the inception of this investigation.

“The initial report issued by Bowmans, on 29 December 2017, made a number of ‘factual findings’ which were inaccurate or simply baseless. I wrote to them on 3 January 2018 requesting them to retract a number ‘recommendations’ made by themselves on issues which they had not even questioned me on.”

She said Bowmans then rejected this. At the start of the year the city council adopted the unedited report “even though I went on the record to say that there were allegedly a number of material factual errors in the report”.

“One such ‘factual finding’,” she said, “was that I had provided the Democratic Alliance Leader, Mr Mmusi Maimane, with a copy of forensic reports. Mr Maimane later confirmed in writing that I had not given him any documents.

“I was defamed. I was embarrassed by the false accusations, but I still welcomed the investigation, and actively participated when my turn came.

“I was therefore shocked when, almost six months later, on 1 June 2018 at around 6am on Radio 786, Alderman JP Smith was recorded saying the following about my alleged conduct: ‘The Bowman Gillfillan report has multiple findings, prima facie findings, that says she misled Council. To the point that Full Council voted to take the investigation against her further. And those findings will be out in due course, and I can’t wait for them to be out.'”

De Lille says she then wrote to Bowmans on the same day to say “my understanding was that the investigation was still ongoing, and I was therefore perturbed about what Alderman JP Smith was basing his excitement on, because he clearly had access to information I was not privy to”.

The mayor explained that the report could not have included her version of the alleged events, because she had not yet provided her written responses.

“Once again, Bowmans vehemently denied that they had shared any information, despite evidence to the contrary.

“Similarly, on Sunday 12 August, Deputy Mayor Alderman Ian Neilson was quoted in the Sunday Times, having said the following: ‘I think they were due to report to us this month but the latest information is that it has been delayed.'”

She said she again wrote to Bowmans to ask whether someone from the firm was in contact with the deputy mayor, because he “clearly has an expectation to receive information”.

“Bowmans once again denied the confidentiality breach despite evidence to the contrary.”

She said she was therefore not surprised that there had again been “a very strategic leak of information whilst I was away on official business for three days”.

“This is consistent with the smear campaign that I have been the subject of since in the inception of this investigation last year.

“It is very convenient for all my adversaries to accept whatever ‘recommendations’ are, because it suits their agenda to malign me. It is in this context that I wish to reserve my rights in terms of the ‘findings’, ‘conclusions’ and ‘recommendations’ in both reports.

“I will subject myself to all the necessary processes to have my name cleared.”

She said she had received two different Bowmans reports on the “same subject matter”.

“Bowmans Report Number 1 does NOT find me guilty of not taking a report to council, because in law the onus would be on the City Manager to take reports on Executive Directors to Council. Nothing in law prevented the City Manager from tabling the matter.

“Bowmans Report Number 2 does find me guilty on the basis that I allegedly tried to influence the City Manager in him trying to fulfil his duties.

“I cannot understand how the same company conducting the same investigation, on the same charge can come to two different conclusions.”

She said her lawyers had written to Bowmans to seek clarity and wanted a response by end of Wednesday.

“Once I receive their response, discuss it with my lawyers and pending the decision of Council tomorrow regarding which of the two reports they will adopt, I will then be in the position to announce what my next steps will be.

“Extreme caution should therefore be exercised in slavishly relying on the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in the reports, particularly considering that the reports appear to be in conflict with each other.”

De Lille resigned earlier this year in a deal with the DA and was meant to leave office at the end of October.

Prior to this she had vowed to stay on in a bid to clear her name.

(Compiled by Charles Cilliers)

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.