This follows after De Lille assumed the position as Minister of Tourism and sought legal advice from senior counsel about the deal, who have deemed it to be unlawful and invalid. 

The chairperson of the Board of SA Tourism, Dr Thozamile Botha, has replied in writing to the minister, stating that there is currently no “unlawful and invalid” transaction, as the transaction does not exist. “There is no Tottenham transaction to be cancelled as none has been concluded. What exists is an in-principle decision to commence the required processes towards the conclusion of the transaction,” reads the letter.

ALSO READ: SA-Tottenham-ooreenkoms ‘moet gekanselleer word’

De Lille said the deal is viewed to be unlawful and invalid because of the following reasons:

1. That the sponsorship is, in fact, a procurement event which does not comply with Section 217 of the Constitution, the Treasury instructions issued in terms of the Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999 (PFMA), and SA Tourism’s own Supply Chain Management Policy. It appears that the sponsorship is a service which was proposed to be acquired by procurement through “sole source”. Sole source procurement is, however, only allowed where there is no competition in the market and only one supplier is able to provide the goods or services, which does not appear to be the case here.

2. That the sponsorship has not been budgeted for as required by section 53 of the PFMA and that the expenditure thereon would be irregular or unauthorised within the meaning of those terms in the PFMA.

3. That the deal amounts to a “significant partnership transaction” which required my prior approval in terms of Section 54 (2) of the PFMA.

ALSO READ: Spurgate: Parties slam sponsorship of Tottenham Hotspur

Botha has noted that De Lille requires the Board to address the procurement prescripts which were followed, as well as the PFMA prescripts – with specific reference to sections 53 and 54 thereof and whether the transaction amounts to unauthorised or irregular expenditure as defined in the PFMA. He has given his word that the Minister will have a detailed response by Wednesday, 29 March 2023. In his reply, he mentioned that the information about the partnership was leaked to the media before the two signed any legally binding document.

South Africa Tourism deal with Tottenham Hotspur embroiled in sponsorship row https://t.co/H3j0iUmbUv

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) March 24, 2023

De Lille’s letter to the Board was an attempt to understand the below issues;

1. Has the Tottenham deal been formally cancelled? If so, I have asked for proof of this.

2. Does the Board regard the Tottenham deal as a form of sole-source procurement? If so, the Board has been asked to explain how the requirements for such a form of procurement have been met.

3. Does the Board regard the Tottenham deal to be a significant transaction which triggers the need for my prior approval? If so, will the board request my approval and when?

4. Has the Tottenham deal been budgeted for in the 2022/23 budget? If not, why is the expenditure on the deal not unauthorised or irregular within the meaning of those terms in the PFMA?

While waiting for a detailed response from Botha, De Lille has advised the Board that the proposal must be stopped completely.

The proposal in question was set to cost nearly a billion rand. The news about it came to light when Lindiwe Sisulu was the Minister of Tourism. The Democratic Alliance’s Shadow Minister of Tourism, Manny de Freitas, expressed his views at the time that should the plan see the light of day, it would be a slap in the face of taxpaying citizens and the local sports fraternity, particularly the soccer sector, which does not receive much-needed funds. De Freitas said that the government, through its marketing agency, SA Tourism, hopes their plan with Tottenham Hotspur will attract tourists to the country. He added that the money could instead be spent locally to improve the tourism sector and create jobs that will contribute to the growth of the country’s economy.

OFM News