PFMA
Geo Paul, former Acting Head and Accounting Officer of the North West Department of Finance, has been acquitted of PFMA charges relating to R15 million. His defence argued he was wrongly charged and should have been a state witness, as alleged irregularities predated his tenure.
Geo Paul, who served as Acting Head and Accounting Officer of the North West Department of Finance, has been acquitted of charges under the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) relating to nearly R15 million in alleged irregular expenditure. The Regional Magistrate’s Court in North West found that the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Paul was represented by LS Mashifane Attorneys, with Advocate Smanga Sethene as counsel. The defence argued that Paul had been wrongly charged, and that he should in fact have been used as a state witness in the prosecution of former MEC Lorato Louisa Mabe and attorney Lucky Morake of Morake Inc.
The defence highlighted that Paul’s tenure as Acting Head of the Department of Finance began well after Morake Inc had been appointed through what was later considered an irregular process. The charges against Paul related to allegations that he had authorised a request for deviation, which led to Morake Inc being appointed to provide legal services to the department. He was also accused of failing to advertise a tender for the appointment of a panel of legal advisors, thus Morake Inc was appointed irregularly. The State claimed that Morake Inc submitted irregular invoices and claims for services amounting to approximately R15 million.
Paul’s defence emphasised that these alleged irregularities predated his leadership and were the responsibility of other officials. The legal team argued that he had no role in creating the conditions for irregular appointments and transactions and that his involvement had been misinterpreted by investigators. According to the defence, Paul was being unfairly held accountable for actions that occurred before his tenure and should instead have been called as a witness against those directly responsible.
In its ruling, the court agreed that the prosecution failed to establish a direct link between Paul’s actions and any financial loss to the State. The magistrate noted that the evidence presented was inconsistent and insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Paul had intentionally or negligently contravened the PFMA. The acquittal thus reflects the court’s finding that Paul was not the correct person to be held criminally liable for the irregularities.
