RUSTENBURG HERALD - RUSTENBURG - Over the course of the last two weeks, Rustenburg Herald has received numerous complaints from business owners in regard to business compliance inspections that are taking place (without prior notice), conducted by law enforcement authorities from Public Safety, Rustenburg Local Municipality (RLM) and in some instances, even the fire brigade.
On Tuesday, 3 February, this journalist was present during one of these inspections at the Kloof Centre in Kock Street and through firsthand experience saw the intimidation tactics used by these officials.
In a local food shop, no bigger than 4m x 4m, up to ten officials filled up the entire customer serving space and proceeded to video the Rustenburg Herald journalist, as she posed questions such as: "Which bylaws are you enforcing?", "Do you have any official paperwork to show me?", "Was there any prior notice of the inspection?". During the course of the inspection, the officials (who mostly stood in the shop for no apparent reason), proceeded to take off their name badges to hide their identity and claimed that Rustenburg Herald was interfering with their inspection.
The officials kept on hammering on the fact that they were looking for transgressions of health and safety regulations, but through communication received by other business owners, they claim that the officials requested a display on their walls of the following: Reg. Cor 14.3 (first page), Director’s info (part of CIPC doc), Tax Certificate, Cor 18.3 Registration Certificate, proof of banking details, Letter of Good standing and BBEE Certificate.
When queried on the display of these documents the officials denied that (all) these documents had to be displayed on business walls. Many businesses have, to date, been issued with fines of R2 500 (which had to be paid on the spot) after non-compliance with these said bylaws. In earlier inspections, no paperwork was issued and no receipts given (apart from Speed point slips), but after numerous complaints businesses are now being issued with documents stipulating the fines and receipts.
Rustenburg Herald wrote to RLM's communication department on more than one occasion in order to obtain clarity on the purpose of the inspections, the bylaws that were being enforced and the regulations surrounding these inspections - but to no avail.
Many business owners have, since the incidents, contacted their accountants and lawyers for advice, getting replies such as: “My lawyer friend can’t find any bylaws or laws to that effect. RLM finance department doesn’t know about it. None of the councillors know about it. I checked with someone from SARS and it is definitely not a SARS requirement."
Upon further investigation, Rustenburg Herald could not find any current bylaws posted on the RLM website and we were told to "go to the court" to ask for copies of the bylaws.
Business owners are quite distraught as many of them feel ambushed and intimated by the scale of the inspections. "I have been working here for 11 years and this has never happened before," a manager in one food outlet commented. Business owners also verified that they are not unwilling to comply with the bylaw and inspection requirements, but they would first like clarification on their rights in situations like these.
Business owners also contact Ward Councillors for help, advice and explanation of the situation, but even they are unsure of the circumstances surrounding the inspections. One Councillor confirmed that she is seeking clarity from the Director of Public Safety, but "waiting for an appointment" to discuss the matter with him. "I did speak to someone at SARS and they have no record of any of their staff going out to do inspections."
It is difficult to give Public Safety the benefit of the doubt, when they are unwilling to engage with the public, the media and even councillors - all citizens who are only looking for information. As such, Rustenburg Herald is forced to publish a one-sided story, that most definitely puts local authorities in a bad light.
* Rustenburg Herald has photographic evidence and witness accounts to support business owners' claims, but they declined to be named, for fear of further intimidation and/or persecution.
