I was sent an email by Louis McLaren telling me that the certificate I issued might not be accepted. I sent him a mail back telling him that it was perfectly legal in terms of notice 32467. I then got a response from him telling me that a VA would not accept it because ABVA says it won't. I then mentioned that the VA is not in a position to decide who are what certificates are acceptable. I have blogged about this in a great amount of detail before.
I need to stress that Louis is a highly respected man in this industry - he is not part of this tirade. At all times he kept the name of the VA away from me.
This dimwit (who is nameless to me) has a similar intelligence level to Bright Matonga - in fact I'll call him/her that name. This is Bright's response (peppered with my comments.
"His statement that no verification agency may decide what to accept or not clearly shows ignorance on the side of the individual in question.
Really?
It is the precise function of a verification agency to decide on the validity of evidence presented to it by a measured entity. The procurement official of that measured entity may have decided what to accept as sufficient proof for its procurement purposes but for verification purposes verification agencies have to make their decisions within the context of a legislated regime which prescribes what is acceptable evidence or not.
Questionable legislation. Tell me Bright have you actually read the verification manual? It is a document drafted by someone who might be marginally cleverer than you. The English and exemplary BEE knowledge of the drafter/s make for comedic reading indeed. Here are but two examples
- Establish the existence (?) proof through the AMP201 (page 64). What the hell is an AMP201? It doesn't exist in a South African legislative context. I somehow think they are referring to an EMP 201. If Bright's drafter friends don't even know this then what are they doing drafting this riveting document?
- There are no local production (5.4.6.1 - page 69). Lovely stuff - something my corporal might have uttered and he made no bones about the fact that he spoke English very reluctantly. Bright, could you be my old corporal?
Whilst it might be regarded as "law" for now - everyone knows that this document would be thrown out of a court of law.
The decision of the verification agency can therefore not be arbitrary but must have a sound legal basis. The interpretation of ABVA on the particular matter is based on the current legislation issued on the matter. Although controversial, it is the only interpretation that stands the test of legality. I would love to hear the legal - not policy or emotional argument, for the view adopted by this individual.
Yes Bright this is ABVA's interpretation. Confirmed to me by Andile (is BEE really my strongpoint?) Tlhoaéle. And this is the most important point - it is not a point endorsed by the DTI or SANAS. Whilst Andile avers that it has some legal backing because of the definition of a verification agency in R47-02 it still lacks legitimacy. And this is another perfect example of ABVAndalism and ABVAingloriousness.
I suggest he starts off by providing me with the legal definition of the term "unaccredited verification agency" that does not result in an absurdity"
I just did you knucklehead. And I have a little news for you I have heard the Sipho Zikode asked the question why your little association should be the only one that gets to play BEE god. He suggested at a recent meeting that SAICA, ACCA or any other association should also represent their members who are VAs.
My advice to you Bright is wake up, read the gazetted legislation and then work your pathetic little backside off from the 1st of February next year, because you are going to have to do about 50 verifications a day. In the meantime stop hiding behind ABVA's skirt tails and service your clients not your immature ego.
Comments