Holomisa hopes IEC boss learns from predecessor
UDM leader Bantu Holomisa hopes the new chief electoral officer Sy Mamabolo has learnt from his predecessor Mosotho Moepya‚ who chose not to renew his contract in March this year.
In 2013‚ then-Public Protector Thuli Madonsela recommended disciplinary action against Moepya and two other senior officials for failing to provide her with the budget‚ full sets of minutes of the executive committee and Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) meetings in which the R320-million leasing of its head office was discussed.
Yesterday‚ Holomisa‚ who was the complainant in the matter‚ told Sowetan that although he welcomed Mamabolo’s appointment he also hoped he had learnt from Moepya’s troubles. “He must uphold the values of that office. We wish him well‚” he said.
IEC chairman Glen Mashinini announced on Tuesday the permanent appointment of Mamabolo‚ who had been acting in the position since April. Mamabolo’s permanent appointment is from this month and he has signed a five-year contract. IEC staff were informed on Tuesday‚ according to Mashinini.
“The Electoral Commission is confident Mamabolo’s extensive electoral management experience and his strong working relationship with all key stakeholders will ensure the necessary vision‚ leadership and continuity in meeting the objectives and mandates of the Electoral Commission‚” Mashinini said.
Mamabolo said he was honoured to lead an institution with a humbling legacy and vital role in building South Africa.
“This is not a role one person can do alone. It will require the collaboration and support of a great many stakeholders – not least of which is the Electoral Commission management and staff‚” he said.
Mamabolo added that he also needed the support and help of political parties‚ the government‚ traditional leaders‚ labour and other stakeholders to cement the democratic gains and build new achievements.
A year ago‚ Sowetan reported that the disciplinary action recommended by Madonsela had been delayed because some technical issues were challenged at the Labour Court. The court ruled in the commission’s favour in 2015 but the officials referred the matter to the Labour Appeal Court.