Public Protector appointment: shortlisting of candidates

Appointment of Public Protector

24 August 2009
Chairperson: Adv T Masutha (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee met to consider the shortlisting of candidates nominated for appointment as Public Protector, noting that the term of office of the current Public Protector was to expire on 15 October and that the new appointment should be made by 1 October. A Member raised concerns that the treatment of the issue to date had been “appalling”. Some Members were not even aware that they were to serve on this Committee, whilst others did not attend due to clashes in committee schedules, and only three had attended the first meeting. This was even more serious given the importance of the office of Public Protector. It was agreed that the Chairperson would take the matter up with the Chief Whip of each of the parties, who should ensure their members prioritised attendance at this committee.

The Committee then noted that 31 nominations were received, of whom sixteen were not qualified in terms of the legislation, leaving fifteen potential names. Although Members commented that there were some strong and serious contenders, there remained concerns that the post was first advertised during the election period, that a considerable time had lapsed since the closing date for applications on 24 April, and that a relatively small number of qualified applicants had come forward. Re-advertising the post might well bring forward a larger and better pool of candidates from whom to choose. A Member commented that it this was done, then it should not disadvantage those candidates who had already applied, and stressed that enlarging the pool should not in any way disadvantage any of the existing candidates. The Committee therefore resolved not to proceed with the short-listing but instead to re-advertise on Sunday 30 August, with a closing date of 4 September, and that the Committee would have to meet in the following week to compile the short list of candidates for interview.

Meeting report

Public Protector appointment
The Chairperson stated the Committee had been charged with the important mandate of making recommendations of candidates for appointment to the office of Public Protector, but not sufficient number of Committee members were present to deal with the issue. However, he noted that copies of all the curriculum vitae (CV) and applications received had been distributed to Members to study, and assess which would warrant inclusion on the short list. It had been agreed that in the event that the pool of candidates would not be sufficient to enable the Committee to make a proper recommendation, then it would explore the possibility of extending the invitation and enlarge the pool.

Ms N Michael (DA) raised concerns that the Committee had met today to draw up the shortlist. The post of Public Protector was one of the most important positions in South Africa. She considered the way in which this Committee was treating the matter as appalling. It had taken three meetings to elect a Chairperson, and at the first meeting there were only three members present. This was a sorry state of affairs.

The Chairperson requested the Committee Secretary to comment.

The Committee Secretary reported that several Members also had to attend the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, scheduled for the same time, and several had tendered apologies. Two Members from COPE had not been informed that they were to serve on the Committee.

The Chairperson supported Ms Michael’s statements and said that perhaps the option of writing to the Chief Whip of each of the political parties, indicating the Committee's concern at the poor attendance, should be pursued. This should also point out the significance of the task, and Members must be asked to prioritise this Committee.

A Member suggested that perhaps this meeting should be postponed, particularly since those Members who were unaware of their appointment meant that some parties were not properly represented.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) supported the comment, but stressed that it was not acceptable that people should not be made aware of their appointment to the Committee. It would not be fair to those who had made a special trip to Cape Town to have the meeting adjourned. He noted that this too must be raised with the Chief Whips, and it must be stressed that attendance was expected. The Committee also had deadlines that could not keep being extended.

Ms Michael added that those living outside Cape Town could not reach Parliament before 09:45, which meant that if a meeting was scheduled for 09:00 they had to fly in the previous day. She proposed that meetings be scheduled to start at 10:00.

Mr Ndlovu agreed with this suggestion, as more members would attend if the meeting started at 10:00.

The Committee Secretary explained that the draft Committee programme had reflected 10:00 and the time was amended by the Office of the Chief Whip.

The Chairperson said all comments would be adopted when preparing the next meeting. He suggested also that SMS messages were not sufficient, and that attendance be confirmed in telephone conversations.

Ms T Sunduza (ANC) submitted that if the post had to be re-advertised there was a danger of running out of time. She agreed that the Chief Whips must deal with their members.

The Chairperson agreed the Chief Whips of those parties would have to explain. Each party must ensure their members were informed on which committees they were expected to serve, and prioritise them. The Committee Secretary would write to those parties whose members had not been informed of their appointment.

Ms Michael stated that the Committee Secretary had done everything possible to inform members about the meeting, as they had received two notices, an e-mail, a phone call and an SMS.

The Chairperson recapped that the Committee had before it a list of potential candidates, who had either applied for the position or had been nominated. The list had been arranged into two sub-lists, one showing the candidates who were under qualified, and did not meet the minimum requirements of the Act, and the second showing those candidates that had potential. The Committee must assess to what extent those in the second sub-list were worthy of being invited to interviews. The Committee must draw a shortlist, and then decide if the pool of candidates was adequate. If not, then a decision should be taken to re-advertise, and he asked how many weeks that were likely to add to the process.

The Committee Secretary responded that the term of office of the current Public Protector ran until 15 October, and that the new Public Protector should take office by 1 October. The advertisement could be placed in the forthcoming weekend, with a closing date of 4 September. However, the incumbent must be appointed before 1 October.

The Chairperson calculated that the full process would take until 16 September, and the Report would have to be forwarded to the House for a decision in the week of 22 September. Once the Committee had made its recommendation the President would need to make an appointment, or refer the matter back to the Committee if there were any problems, although there would in that event be no time for the House to reconsider matters before 1 October.

Ms Michael understood the Chairperson's concern that the President would not have time to send the matter back, but noted that only in the most extreme circumstances would the President not agree with the recommendations made by a duly constituted committee.

The Chairperson clarified that no one should be pressurised by time in exercising his or her constitutional responsibility properly.

Mr Ndlovu submitted that if there were any question that the matter would be referred back, then the Constitution would allow for an extension of time from the House.

The chairperson asked the Committee Secretary to report on the status of the candidates received.

The Committee Secretary responded that there were 31 candidates, of whom fifteen were potential candidates, and sixteen did not meet the requirements set out in the relevant legislation.

The Chairperson asked Members to consider how many of the fifteen showed good potential, and whether this was a sufficiently large pool to draw recommendations.

Ms Michael agreed that the top fifteen met the requirements of sufficient educational and practical qualifications, and said a number of CVs had impressed her. Taking into account the role of the Public Protector, there were some serious contenders.

Mr Ndlovu thought that the Committee only needed to shortlist five out of the fifteen qualified candidates. He said the Committee would need to consider if there were benefits to be gained from re-advertising.

The Chairperson clarified that the main reason for re-advertising would be to ensure that the position had indeed received sufficient public attention and attracted sufficient response from as many potential candidates as possible, to ensure that the selection was made from a sizeable pool, in light of the significance of the office. However, he also said that it was critical that that decision be made today whether this was necessary.

Ms Michael asked why any more people would be interested at this stage.

The Chairperson stressed that enlarging the pool would not in any way disadvantage any of the existing candidates. He noted that the first advertisement was issued by the previous government, at the time of the elections, which could be one of the factors contributing to the small response.

Ms Michael mentioned that when the shortlist for the Human Rights Commission was drafted, the ANC members had included all new nominations, at the expense of some potential candidates on the former list. She felt that there was sufficient and extensive talent in the existing fifteen already, and she would not like them to be disadvantaged by re-advertising. She supported re-advertising, but stressed that this should not then omit the current talent from the shortlist.

The Chairperson said that Members fully understood the time pressures, because of the expiry date of the current Public Protector’s term on 15 October. However, he noted that some Members were concerned also about the lack of response, and the fact that the deadline for applications had been 24 April, two days after election day.

The Committee Secretary added that less than half of the 31 applicants met the requirements of the Act. The Committee thus found itself with a small pool of potential candidates from whom to make the appointment. Although there were some strong potential candidates, the Committee had indicated that in view of the importance of the position, the opportunity to apply should be re-opened, to allow more potential candidates to make themselves available, and enlarge the potential pool to enable the best possible recommendation, in the interests of the country.

Members, after discussion, agreed that the present meeting would not proceed with the short-listing, but that instead an advertisement would be placed in the Sunday newspapers on 30 August, with a closing date of the following Friday, 4 September.

The Chairperson instructed the Committee Secretary to assemble the CVs as soon as they were received, so that during the week commencing 7 September, the Committee would be in a position to sit and draw the shortlist for interviews.

The meeting was adjourned.


 

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: