HLATIKHULU – A report by the Commission of Inquiry into the operations of the Hlatikhulu Town Board has recommended that several employees and officials be reported to the Royal Eswatini Police Service for criminal investigation.
One employee who intimidates everyone, including investigators, has been singled out as the main-man or strongman running the show at Hlatikhulu Town Board.
He registers government assets under his name.
Names will not be mentioned to allow police to conduct their own investigations. However, the report of the Commission of Inquiry raises concern that the strongman has been privy to police’s confidential information.
The report, which details systemic governance failure, conflict of interest and alleged fraud, paints a grim picture of an administration where public land was allegedly sold for cash, procurement laws were flouted to benefit senior staff and intimidation was used to silence dissent.
According to the report, the commission recommends that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development refers all credible allegations, lists, letters and related testimony regarding the alleged sale of land for money to the REPS and any other relevant investigative authority like the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC).
It is stated in the report that the evidence demonstrates conduct that warrants urgent corrective administrative, disciplinary and investigative action. The inquiry, established pursuant to Legal Notice No. 113 of 2025, was tasked with investigating concerns relating to the administration and management of Hlatikhulu Town, including governance, compliance with legislation, land management and financial administration. The report states that the decision to appoint the commission followed formal complaints submitted to the principal secretary regarding the illegal disposal and sale of government land, governance lapses and the absence of timely intervention by the Board and its administrative leadership.
At the heart of the scandal is the alleged malpractice in the allocation and disposal of land, it must be said.
The report states that the commission finds that malpractice in the allocation and disposal of land occurred within Hlatikhulu outside the prescribed statutory framework for Crown Land disposal.
It is stated in the report that no residential allocations have been processed through the formal Crown Lands Disposal Committee (CLDC) mechanism in Hlatikhulu since 2016, notwithstanding increased land demand.
Despite the absence of a formal committee, the report states that the Town Clerk’s Office issued approximately 130 ‘temporary’ allocation/concession letters for unsurveyed land that are inconsistent with prescribed Crown Land Disposal procedures. The commission notes that these ‘temporary land concessions’ were issued by the town clerk, allocating unsurveyed land and permitting semi-permanent structures, notwithstanding that the town clerk is not the statutory allocating authority.
The report states that public testimony from multiple witnesses indicates that a practice of receiving money for plots outside formal channels existed, with alleged facilitation by persons perceived to have authority and with no receipts issued.
According to the report, the testimony of an accused employee corroborated public testimony regarding plot identification and alleged instruction by senior town figures to show sites to persons who had paid money.
*…
Board dogged by procurement irregularities
Hlatikhulu – Beyond the land scandals, the report details damning findings regarding procurement and supplier relationships.
An employee is specifically implicated as he is allegedly owning two of the supplier companies of the town Board. The report states that Board members testified they were not aware of these ownership interests and only learnt about them after auditors raised them. They described their reaction as shock and concern. According to the report, the chairperson testified that the Board then resolved to suspend procuring from the two suppliers. The commission noted that this was important evidence of management disclosure failure, demonstrating the Board was deprived of information needed to exercise oversight.
The report states that the commission subpoenaed one of the directors who happened to be a spouse of the employee. She testified under oath that she supplied protective clothing/uniforms to the Hlatikhulu Town Board. According to the report, she stated that she ‘tendered’ for the supply, but the commission did not receive documentary evidence demonstrating an open tender process.
It is stated in the report that she testified that the town clerk telephoned her to inform her she had obtained the contract.
This happened despite that there was no interview process, yet she had supplier contracts spanning 2018 to 2025. The report states that she indicated that orders were primarily placed by telephone and that there was no formal documentation process for tracking these orders.
Regarding the quality of goods, the report states that employees reported that the uniforms provided were occasionally ill-fitting and of inferior quality compared to those from the previous supplier.
*…
Irregularities in registering town Board assets
Hlatikhulu – The report highlights irregularities regarding the registration of town Board assets.
It is stated in the report that the commission heard from members of the public that the motor vehicle belonging to the town Board was registered in the strongman’s name.
When asked, the report states that he submitted that the car was registered in his name because the town Board was owing tax to the regulator and as such, could not buy the asset yet it was needed.
He claimed the previous Board had passed this resolution.
Similarly, the report states that a tractor and trailer were found in the name of another employee.
This employee testified that he was aware that the tractor was in his name, but not the trailer.
According to the report, he submitted that the then mayor, town clerk and strongman had asked him to get a tax clearance, but had not been forthcoming about what it was for.
He claimed he only realised that they had bought an asset in his name when he was made to sign an affidavit confirming that the tractor belonged to the town.
*Full article available on Pressreader*
