Documents requested by Advocate Nigel Riley at the 2024 National Horseracing Authority AGM and indicated to require a likely three week turnaround have never been provided.
The only questions are – why, and what does the racing regulator have to hide?
Steve Reid writes in the Sporting Post mailbag that on 4 January 2024 he submitted an article that was subsequently published on Sporting Post.
The main body of this article queried the legal fees spent by the NHA in their attempt to dismiss the Chief Stipe in PE, Lange Douse.
Steve Reid writes that the 2024 NHA AGM was held on 17 January 2024, and this questioning of monies spent on legal fees in the Douse case was raised by Advocate Nigel Riley.
Taken verbatim from the NHA website, the following is contained in the published minutes of that meeting:
Adv Riley then went to note 17 on page 74 of the Annual Report and questioned the legal fees of over R2.5 million.
The Chairman stated that it related to two employee issues that are currently pending in court and stated that one case involved the sexual harassment of an employee of the NHA by an outside party, and the other concerned the termination of employment of an NHA employee.
This is the NHA Head Office Boardroom where vigorous debate takes place, rules are made and enforced, appeals are heard, justice dispensed, and more than a few bloody noses occur. It’s probably the most important room in SA horseracing! (Pic – Supplied)
Mr Mogotsi stated that his understanding of the Douse matter, which is the termination of employment case, it has gone on appeal to the Labour Court and the amount of R1,5 million that is included in legal costs was deposited into the attorney’s trust account pending the outcome of the appeal.
Adv Riley then stated that the high legal costs is evidence of senior jobs at the NHA being held by unqualified individuals who ultimately cost the industry money. He enquired from the Chairman if the Board was informed of the actions taking place in connection with the Douse case, to which the Chairman replied that the Board was fully appraised and aware of the actions and litigation
Mr Mogotsi stated that additional affidavits, with the Board resolution, have been filed in the case to show that the individuals acting for the NHA had the necessary authority. Adv Riley thanked Mr Mogotsi for citing Rule 7 of the High Court Rules and requested the minutes of the meeting that dealt with this resolution, as well as the previous three years’ Board meeting minutes and the affidavits filed in the Douse matter.
The Chairman requested Adv Riley to submit a written request in respect of the documents he requires, to which Adv Riley replied that he is making the request in the AGM and therefore expects to be provided with the documents.
Adv Riley asked as to when he may expect to receive the documents to which the Chairman replied that it is a lot of information that is being requested, and the NHA shall try to get back to him within three weeks.
Three weeks is a long time when it comes to NHA promises it seems.
I can confirm that the good advocate has not received what he was promised, and it’s now over seven months after the promise was made.
I’m not surprised about these broken promises, as similar promises have been made previously and not honoured.
In particular I remember the late Brett Maselle asking for, and being promised the breakdown of NHA Travel and Expenses in an NHA AGM. This promise was never honoured.
The NHA clearly posture at their AGM and make promises that they have no intention to honour.
Their hope is clearly that it will all blow over in time. It’s the special brand of integrity they operate under when probably needing to hide the truth. There are just too many examples for this to be happenstance.
The NHA can clearly not release the minutes that Advocate Riley has called for and has been promised.
To do so they would possibly be exposed for misrepresenting the facts about a board resolution received in the Douse case.
I have a copy of the judgement and it’s embarrassing and brutal for the NHA. Millions have now been wasted on legal fees and the pay- back of Douse salary while he was justifiably fighting his case.
How is it possible that heads have not rolled for this clear case of abuse of power by those in charge?
I call on the NHA Board to fulfill their fudiciary duty in this regard and to take the only appropriate step against the transgressors.
Just to assist the board I add the following from the Grant Thornton website as a gentle prod as to what is expected from them.
When individuals agree to serve as board members, they take on fiduciary responsibilities that statutory and common law require. Specifically, they have to comply with three fiduciary duties: care, obedience and loyalty.
If board members understand and embrace these responsibilities, they can fulfill those duties and hold their fellow board members accountable to do the same. However, failure to comply could create serious and costly consequences for a board member, who could be held personally and financially liable for breach of duty, and the not-for-profit organization could face legal liability and have its future success stymied.
Directors should understand how these duties inform and shape their actions and expectations for performance.
If you are a director, especially a member of the audit or finance committee, are you able to read financial statements and investment market reports? If not, you may not be able to fully exercise your duty of care.
To fulfill the duty of obedience, all members of the board should understand the laws impacting the entity, so the board can remain compliant. It isn’t enough for members of the board to entrust compliance matters to third parties or rely solely on external advisers.
All members of the board should be familiar with the legal organizing documents of the organization (like articles, bylaws and applications for exemption) so that they can determine if the organization is following its bylaws and accomplishing its stated mission.
The rot needs to end.
- The Sporting Post encourages letters to our mailbag via [email protected] in the spirit of enlightening racing and breeding topics, to add opinions, or correct errors and apparent misconceptions. All letters are accepted on the condition that the Sporting Post can at any time edit the content thereof, and that all writers are required to publish under their actual name and surname. Please note that the views that are published are not necessarily those of the Sporting Post. We can confirm that the above letter was furnished to the NHA for comment late last week. No response was forthcoming. Advocate Riley also confirmed per 17h00 on 9 September 2024, that despite asking, no documents had so far been furnished to him.
