26/03/2017 11:59 SAST | Updated 26/03/2017 13:26 SAST

EFF Dissidents Ask Where The Party's Money Is

Sources claim that EFF MPs and councillors must pay substantial chunks of their salaries to the party. Meanwhile ANC top brass have escaped lifestyle audits.

REUTERS/Mike Hutchings
Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party leader Julius Malema

Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema is facing a revolt over financial management from party dissidents, reported the Sunday Times.

The newspaper said there was "growing discontent" over Malema's control of money allocated for constituency work and the accounting for this.

"We don't get our constituency funding ... all the funds are centralised from head office," a member of the EFF central command team told the Sunday Times.

Malema's deputy, Floyd Shivambu, told the newspaper that the EFF received funds allocated by Parliament and provincial legislatures and this was accounted for nationally.

Other unnamed EFF leaders told the newspaper that there was unhappiness over the party's policy that members of Parliament and of the provincial legislatures had to give the party up to 30 percent of their salaries while municipal councillors had to pay up at least 50 percent.

Meanwhile, African National Congress (ANC) MP Naledi Pandor, who is Minister of Science and Technology, told the Sunday Times that there should be lifestyle audits of fellow ministers as some appeared to be living beyond their means, raising questions of questionable payments.

"How would a colleague have a 13-bedroom house and another a three-bedroom house?" Pandor told the newspaper, questioning how some leaders owned paid-up houses and others were "going around getting $10 000 [about R125 000] or €20 000 [about R270 000]", beyond their state salaries.

"They should start asking questions about those people. It is well beyond what we earn. So this is what I am saying: are our institutions so useless that they are unable to identify some of these things?" Pandor told the newspaper, saying the party had not acted on a previous decision to run lifestyle audits.