Minister on case against National Commissioner, the vetting of officials and suspended officers

Meeting report

The Minister of Correctional Services, Ms Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, said that the Committee had requested her to report on progress in the ongoing case against the suspended National Commissioner, Ms Xoliswa Sibeko, and linked to this, progress with the action against Regional Commissioner of Gauteng, Advocate Thozama Mqobi-Balfour. Also requested was a briefing on progress in the vetting of officials and officers on suspension with full pay for over a year.

She said that she was not at liberty to disclose the particulars of the National Commissioner’s case as she was legally contesting her suspension, and awaiting a hearing. The Minister’s intention was to ensure that her suspension was as short as possible to allow the department to continue with its functions. Minister Baloyi had been commissioned to institute an enquiry into the accommodation of the National Commissioner. The finding showed that there was abuse of the procurement policy. There were concerns about the acquiring of accommodation and rental of accommodation so acquired. There had been an inquiry into the role of the acting Chief Financial Officer, Ms Mareka, however she was cleared of any wrongdoing. The National Commissioner contested the findings, and instituted legal proceedings. The case is currently awaiting a DC hearing scheduled for the end of November. The National Commissioner‘s legal team had requested the minutes of all Portfolio Committee meetings were the matter had been discussed. They had requested the minutes of all senior management meetings which was difficult as the matter was always on the agenda. The Department was in need of a National Commissioner however it seemed that there was still a long battle ahead. Progress was being closely monitored, however substantive information on the progress could not be provided due to the legal implications of the matter.

The investigation into the Regional Commissioner’s accommodation was dependent on the outcome of the National Commissioner‘s case, as the Regional Commissioner had acquired accommodation on the approval of the National Commissioner. Private rented accommodation was not a new thing within the department. However in these cases, the rentals of over R35 000 per month were exorbitant.

There was policy but gaps in the policy was being exploited and a task team had been appointed to investigate and address the problem. She had issued a directive that a new housing policy should be developed and that seniors managers had until end of December to vacate their premises.  Senior managers should acquire their own housing as is the case with other public servants. Representations had been submitted by offical, giving reasons as to why they could not vacate. The task team had been given a directive to look into the merits of the representations.

She moved on to the subject of the the vetting of officials which she said was very important. The National Intelligence Agency (NIA) was the custodian of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) Vetting Field Work Unit. A Memorandum of understanding had been signed by NIA and DCS. There were challenges due to the moratorium and financial constraints. There were a number of critical vacancies in the Department of Correctional Services that could not be filled because there were no funds, including Deputy Director of Vetting. When the moratorium was put in place, this was used as an excuse for avoiding dealing with critical challenges like appointments. When the moratorium on critical vacancies was lifted, the new story was that there were no funds.

On the matter of officials on suspension with full pay for over a year, she said that well over 1 million rand was spent every month on suspended officials. Legal contestation was rife, hence the delays. By September 2009 DCS had seven officials who had been on suspension for seven to 12 months, six officials on suspension for 13 to 24 months and nine officials from KwaZulu-Natal who had been on suspension for more than 24 months. In  a department that is grossly understaffed, it is spending over R1 million a month on employees on suspension in the department. Once a suspension had been legally contested, there was very little that could be done. The extent of the disputes was a matter of concern. The number of declared disputes was too high and a consultative labour forum that had been facilitated to look into the nature of these disputes.

There were many challenges, many of which had been with the department for years. The DCS had a crucial role to pay in breaking the cycle of crime, and this could only be achieved by having a strong committed, well-managed DSC.

Discussion
The Chairperson agreed that legal processes and matters subject to DC hearings should be respected.

Mr Z Madasa (ANC) said that he was extremely concerned by the possibility of the matter of the National Commissioner being prolonged given the current vacancies and personnel issues. The department should seek legal opinion and support. The matter was linked with other management problems, and should therefore be dealt with urgently. He asked for clarity as to whether the officials’ salaries included subsidisation for accommodation. If not, they should pay for their own accommodation and gaps in policy should not even be an issue, and could not be used as a justification.

The Minister responded that legal opinions had been sought. There had been good consultations and legal advice had been obtained. The trick that was being used was the unavailability of the National Commissioner’s legal representatives, which caused unnecessary delays. When the legal representatives said that they were not available, there was nothing that could be done but to set another hearing date. She confirmed that senior managers’ packages were subsidised for accommodation. The National Treasury and the Auditor General had raised the issue of double dipping, and the task team would be addressing these concerns. The people were contesting their removal. The department had not been strict in its securing of accommodation. In cases were an official was transferred to another area, accommodation was meant to be secured for a period of time, however this was done indefinitely.

The Deputy Minister, Ms Hlengiwe Mkhize, said that the requests made by the National Commissioner’s legal team were unreasonable. What was happening within the Department with regards to future plans should not hold up the proceedings. It was not in the interest of the Department to be running without a National Commissioner.

The Chair said that the Committee agreed that the matter should be expedited, and that they would not stop doing their work as members of Parliament and politicians because lawyers wanted them to account to them. The matter should be put to rest until 30 November.  If there was still stagnation, something would have to be done.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) said that she was concerned about the suspension of officials. She asked for clarity as to why the suspensions were taking so long to finalise. The money being paid was too much and the Department was suffering.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) asked for clarity on the moratorium on posts. These posts were vacant due to suspensions and had been budgeted for. She asked what happened to the money seeing that there were no funds available to fill these posts

Mr N Fihla (ANC) said that decision to introduce vetting came about as a result of escapes and corruption in prisons. It was felt that all officials in maximum security prisons should be vetted as these prisons held prisoners convicted for the most serious crimes. If 225 officials were vetted, were these officials from maximum security prisons, and how many officials were there in maximum security prisons altogether? It was important that personnel in maximum security prisons should be vetted.

Ms M Mdaka (ANC) said that she was worried that there were too many suspended officers still receiving full pay. The duration of the suspensions was of concern, and 24 months was too long. She asked how long it took to finalise suspensions, and who was responsible for the failure to implement the guidelines. That person should be called to account, and such a situation could not be allowed to continue.

Ms B Blaai (COPE) asked how long it would take for the posts to be filled, and whether there was a time frame for this.

The Chief Deputy Commissioner, Mr Alfred Tsetsane, said that he did not have the figures for the number of officials in maximum security prisons, but stated that these could be obtained.

The Minister said that the DCS should be driving the vetting process, and that this should not be left to NIA alone. The DCS had not been able to prioritise this, and a Deputy Director for Vetting had been appointed to drive implementation. Directives were good; however they were useless unless implemented. If people came back saying that there were no funds, nothing could be done as far as implementation was concerned. It seemed that the Department would continue running at a deficit for the next three years unless the National Treasury came to the rescue. If a seven-day establishment had been implemented earlier on, some money would have been saved. A lot of money was spent on overtime which had not been budgeted for. The National Treasury allocated money based on the budget and presentations made by the Department, and using money for non-budgeted implementation caused a shortage of funds. The movement from a five-day to a seven-day establishment should save quite a substantial amount of money.

The Minister said that the vetting entity should have more personnel than what was stipulated on paper. There were large numbers of officials who had not been vetted. Even senior managers should be vetted in light of the challenges that were being faced. They were aware of the problem areas and were doing their best to effect change.

The Chair agreed that something urgent should be done about the suspensions. The DCS had its own code on disciplinary procedures, which stipulated that suspension should last for a maximum of 90 days. If a disciplinary hearing was not held within seven days, the matter should be reviewed regularly. He asked if the suspensions were being reviewed on a regular basis, and whether there was someone accountable for that. It seemed that people were reluctant to follow directives. He noted that the presentation on Suspension Data stated that 6.2 million had been paid to employees on suspension this year, added that the amount corresponded to the amount spent last year. This gave an impression that this was okay, and nothing out of the ordinary. The situation should change and not remain the same from year to year.

The Minister said that it was preferable to create stability in management to ensure that there was someone who would be the ultimate responsible person. There should be an accounting officer to make decisions and ensure that directives were given. Given that the Department did not have a permanent National Commissioner, it was very easy to undermine directives. The Legal Team had a lazy attitude with regards to pushing litigation and disciplinary issues. The Legal and Corporate Services had to work together otherwise the whole Department would be stuck.

Mr Tsetsane said that the issue of discipline was a regional matter. Information was gathered by Corporate Services and used to compile a monthly report on the progress. An analysis was done on a quarterly basis and sent to DSC accounting officers. Letters were written to the Regional Commissioners outlining areas of concern. Corporate Services were the custodians of policy. However the implementation was left to the regions. The disciplinary process was carried out in terms of the code. Cautionary suspension required extensive investigation. The nature of the transgression was also taken into account. Some officials were put on a different post while their cases were pending. Some transgressions however involved corruption and criminal elements, therefore these officials could not be kept in the work force. Another cause of delay was the appeal of finalised cases. Once a case was appealed, there was nothing the Department could do. Policy was constantly being challenged, and this raised problems of capacity.

Ms Phaliso said that the explanations given for the prolonged suspensions were not good enough. She asked whether the Department had the legal capacity to deal with these problems. The answer that had been given was technical in nature, and not the kind that was being sought.

Ms Mdaka said that she did not understand how a person who had been charged could be placed on another post. She asked how they could deploy a person who had been charged. Someone who was trying to bring the Department down and that person should be held to account.

Mr Madasa said that the Department had a culture of non-accountability and ill-discipline. Even when one was caught, they were not humble enough to step down. There had to be a legal strategy to anticipate problems and deal with the existing ones, especially in the presence of such ill-discipline. The Department should look into austerity plans with regards to finances. A previous meeting, Corporate Services had reported that there were people who had been given final warnings for fraud, and the Committee had requested the criteria for sanctions as fraud seemed to be a serious offence worthy of more than just a final warning. The information on the criteria had not been received. The codes had to be made available if the Committee was to be able to comment on them.

Ms Nyanda said that in a meeting with the Regional Commissioners (RCs), they were told that there had been no suspensions, and so she was surprised to see so many being mentioned. She requested an explanation for this and asked whether the regional level was not meant to report to the national office.

The Minister agreed that there was a culture of non-accountability in the Department. The lines of accountability were skewed.  There was no pressure applied on the RCs from head office, as the RCs were only accountable to the National Commissioner. The CDC was not willing to take accountability, while the RCs maintained that they did not feel the support of the head office. The lines of accountability were blurry and open to manipulation. This had to be looked into.

Mr Tsetsane said that the gap in the accountability hierarchy was a problem. When the RCs appeared before the Committee, the National Office was not called, which allowed the RCs to say whatever they wanted.

The Deputy Minister said that there seemed to be a shifting of role posts between the regions and head office. The question to be asked was what could be done. She asked where the guidelines were coming from. They had to be accountable to someone otherwise the CDC would not be compiling a quarterly report.

The Minister said that policy came from head office, however the implementation of the policy remained solely at the regional level. When it suited them, the RCs claimed to be at the same level as the CDCs and saw no need to account. At other times they maintained that they were not being supported by the CDCs. The ultimate accountable person was the Accounting Officer, but it was difficult to get all the information when certain CDCs were not taking accountability for their areas. Accountability was a major challenge that they were looking into and trying to resolve.

The Chair said that there was a need for the structure to be strengthened. The Committee would follow up on Mr Madasa’s request.

The meeting was adjourned.