Embattled Denel reports R1.7bn loss

Business: Embattled Denel reports R1.7bn loss

Last updated on September 11th, 2021 at 08:38 am

State-owned fingers organization Denel recorded any other loss of R1.7billion for the 2019/20 monetary year due to a significant decline in revenue collection.

This emerged when the Department of Public Enterprises seemed before the portfolio committee on public firms on Wednesday to short the committee on development made in addressing governance challenges facing state-owned entities.

“The loss is without delay attributable to the modern-day liquidity challenges,” stated deputy director-general of the department, Jackie Modisane.

The revelation about Denel’s finance came in the identical week Denel’s appointment of Talib Sadik, a former crew chief executive, as the intervening time crew chief executive.

Denel spokesperson Pam Malinda said: “Sadik, a qualified chartered accountant has labored with the board in creating the turnaround design and the appointment positions him nicely for a seamless transition.

“Sadik served as Denel’s chief executive between 2008 and 2012 and brings a wealth of experience that will be of value to Denel.”

Board chairperson Monhla Hlahla said: “The board welcomes Sadik into the meantime role and looks forward to working with him on a profitable outcome for Denel.”

Meanwhile, alternate union, the United Association of SA (Uasa), will institute contempt of court docket lawsuits towards Denel if it does no longer pay all terrific salaries for the months of May, June and July subsequent week.

“Unfortunately, if Denel has still not implemented the court order, we will launch our contempt of court docket utility on Friday,August 28,” said Uasa sector manager Frik Van Straten.

Uasa spokesperson Stanford Mazhindu said: “Last week Judge André van Niekerk referred to that Denel breached the obligation to pay remuneration for work done.

“On the fee date ordered via the Labour Court, Uasa received a letter from Denel’s attorneys pointing out that the employer was unable to comply with the order and soliciting for an indulgence to allow it to work on measures to raise the funds”.