The Democratic Alliance (DA) in Limpopo will call upon the Limpopo Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the MEC for Public Works, Roads, and Infrastructure (as the custodian of EPWP funds) to investigate serious complaints by EPWP workers attached to the Tompi Seleka Agricultural Training College. The allegations concern the use of strong-arm tactics by the Department in an apparent attempt to coerce workers into accepting altered contract terms.
The DA has received troubling reports from EPWP workers contracted through the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to the Tompi Seleka College. The workers claim they signed contracts for the period 25 February to 25 March 2025 at a daily rate of R250—amounting to approximately R5,500 for 22 working days.
However, multiple affidavits indicate that after work had commenced, the workers were called to a meeting where they were pressured to sign a second contract. Under this new agreement, they would be paid R250/day only until 13 March, and then R140/day from 14 to 25 March. Workers were told they would not be paid unless they signed the revised contract—a move they rightly refused.
As the DA we have had sight of a letter signed by the Director: Training Services at the Limpopo Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The letter proposed that workers be remunerated at R140/day for 21 days, and offered an extension of 17 working days—at the same R140 rate—to “compensate” for the R110/day shortfall from the original agreement.
This raises serious concerns:
- Altering the terms of a contract after it has been signed and implemented appears irregular and unlawful.
- Threatening to withhold payment unless workers sign a second, less favourable contract may amount to coercion and a violation of basic labour rights— and is more heinous when targeting the most vulnerable in society.
- If the department budgeted for R250/day but only R140/day was paid, then where did the remainder go?
At best, this saga reflects gross mismanagement and unethical treatment of vulnerable workers. At worst, it points to potential fraud or corruption involving public funds.