The Weekly Editorial

Every time millions of South Africans play the Lotto, they are pursuing the dream of becoming millionaires. Most of them are blue collar workers and the unemployed hoping to get out of poverty and live a better life. But most crucially, these millions of ordinary South Africans play the Lotto with the full knowledge that by purchasing a R3.50 ticket, they are making a contribution towards bettering the lives of millions of less fortunate fellow citizens. These include the disabled, orphans, HIV/Aids patients, and many vulnerable groups in our society.

The contribution aimed at social responsibility projects is paid to the National Lotteries Board (NLB), which then transfers those funds to the National Lotteries Distribution Trust Fund (NLDTF) whose duty it is to dispense the monies to non-profit organisations. They are responsible for assisting the vulnerable groups mentioned above.

And, therein lies the rub. The monies are not being distributed effectively to these institutions. If they are, they are distributed more to leisure activities such as sport and entertainment events.

If this is not shameful enough, information is now emerging that those charities that end up being funded are connected in one way or the other to NLB board members. This is absurd. It seems that for these board members, it is perfectly alright for a child to go hungry, for HIV/Aids patients to be denied care, or for a disabled person to make do without much needed mobility. Just as long as they can line their pockets.

The abhorrent behaviour of the NLB was recently exposed by several NPOs. They are now demanding that grants made by the Lotteries Board over the past three years be subjected to a forensic audit and that its board members be subjected to lifestyle audits.

Last year’s National Lotteries Board (NLB) annual report showed only R505-million was disbursed to charities by the NLDTF, leaving R257-million accruing interest in its bank accounts.

Figures published recently suggest a R10-million a month pay-out shortfall of payments to charities. This is R10-million a month that could have made a vast difference in the lives of the intended beneficiaries. To say the trust have been idle in dispersing funds to charities is an understatement. It has been pathetic. The only excuse the institution could muster was to blame a slow application and approval process. This is a pathetic excuse. We are not suggesting that it should dish out money willy-nilly, but we believe it can do better.

With regards to the maladministration of funds, the charities are asking in a memorandum that grants in excess of R5-million be fully disclosed to the public, and that applications for grants can be submitted all year round, instead of once a year. They are also calling on the NLB to reduce the turnaround time for applications, including grant payments, to a maximum of 120 days.

March organiser Sandra Millar, who also specialises in helping charities raise funds, said the frustration was not over the amount of money available, but rather over how it was distributed and, on occasion, to whom.

Millar argues, and we concur, that the allegations of corruption, nepotism, and questions regarding funding and the recipients should be investigated, and, if anyone is found guilty, action must be taken.

Some of the trust’s questionable disbursements so far include the R40-million allocated to the National Youth Development Agency for the World Youth Festival, which was subsequently labelled the “kissing fest”.

A public outcry followed the news that the trust had provided funding for the festival held in December 2010 within a very short time, while many charities wait for years for significantly less money.

There are also questions surrounding the R51-million in funding for an organisation called Makhaya – an events company which operates mainly in Eastern Europe. The fundraiser also happens to be the daughter of the chairman of the NLB.

There is also a perplexing R58-million grant given to an organisation called Impucuzeko to make a film called Iqili, which means The Crafty One.

The first problem that the board needs urgently to address is that of capacity. They must appoint skilled people who can competently and timeously assess applications for funding by charities. This will lead to quicker approval or disapproval, as well as disbursement. It is unacceptable that there are organisations with applications pending for close to

three years.

The second issue is the criteria used to fund the charities. The board must be consistent and transparent in the manner in which it allocates funds to these charities. The haphazard manner in which these disbursements are made must stop.