Discussion on National Conventional Arms Control Committee & Defence Committee Programme

Meeting report

Opening Statement by the Chairperson
The Chairperson informed the Committee that it was going to be a very short meeting. He explained that the Committee was supposed to discuss the report on the dismissal of Armscor’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr Sipho Thomo; however Mr Thomo was not happy with the report and wanted to challenge it. The chairperson of the Armscor Board had made a request for the board to be excused from the meeting so that it could finalise the matter with Mr Thomo. The board would report back to the Committee after the matter was resolved. The letter that was sent by the board to the Chairperson of the Committee would be made available to the Members. He stated that the board was “keeping to itself” because of the details of the dismissal as well as the nature of the accusations and charges. Mr Thomo had said that he was going to take the issue up in court. The Chairperson stated that he wanted the board to come before the Committee once it was fully informed on what Mr Thomo’s appeal was about. It was in the publics’ interest that the Armscor Board came forward and provided an explanation for what was happening.

Mr D Maynier (DA) asked for further details on the conversation between the Chairperson and the chairperson of the Armscor Board, Mr Popo Molefe. He asked if Mr Molefe had given the Chairperson an idea of what legal action Mr Thomo intended to take and when the Committee could expect a full briefing on the situation.

The Chairperson answered that he had not gone in to detail about the matter; the chairperson of the board just mentioned that Mr Thomo was appealing against the report.

Other Questions for Clarification
Mr Maynier stated that there were quarterly reports that were supposed to have been sent by the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC). A claim was made in the Sunday Press by Minister Jeff Radebe’s spokesperson that the quarterly reports were being sent to Parliament. He asked if the quarterly reports had been received by Parliament and if so, when they were received.

The Chairperson stated that there was some level of confusion as the NCACC had just given the Committee its annual report. The confusion stemmed from whether the quarterly reports had to go to the Portfolio Committee or the Joint Standing Committee on Defence. After engaging with Minister Radebe, the Chairperson was made aware that the NCACC had met and it was decided that the quarterly reports would be sent to “Parliament”. He had a copy of the report but warned that Parliament had to clarify itself as to where the quarterly reports should be sent.

Mr Maynier asked if Mr Radebe had authorised that the quarterly reports be sent to Parliament and if the NCACC was in breach of the law for not sending the quarterly reports to Parliament earlier. He asked for a copy of the NCACC’s quarterly report.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee would have to look in to whether the NCACC was in breach of the law; however, there seemed to be confusion as to where the reports had to be sent. He informed the Members that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) would be engaging with the NCACC’s quarterly report the next day. Members would receive a copy of the report.

First Term Committee Programme and Development of the Five-Year Strategic Oversight Priorities
The Chairperson asked Members to consider the programme and to comment on it. He recalled that there were issues that Members had raised in the previous year that had not been addressed. This could be included in the programme. The Committee also had to prepare a Five-Year Programme. This would be submitted to Members for inspection and would be adopted officially at the next meeting since Members had not yet inspected both programmes properly.

Mr Maynier noted that the programme included a series of hearings, oversight visits and legislative duties. He thought it was very important to have a hearing on the Ministry of Defence concerning how it interacted with the Secretariat of Defence and the Chief of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). He also wanted to know what the various positions were in the Ministry and how it functioned. He was very “unhappy” with the Ministry of Defence as he had not received any reply to his correspondence with them. The Ministry was not dealing with complaints made by Members of the Constituency and Parliamentary questions were not being replied to. He asked that the Committee have, under civilian control, a hearing on the Ministry of Defence. In terms of policy, it was important to have a hearing on defence policy. Regarding operations, it was imperative that Members receive a briefing on combat readiness. He noted that this was already included in the programme. Under staff issues, he stated that the Committee should look at service conditions and salaries. He thought it would be helpful if the Committee received a full briefing on the Strategic Capital Acquisition Programme and the Department of Defence’s priorities concerning capital acquisition. In terms of military veterans, a full briefing was needed from the Deputy Minister on the progress made by the task team. The most important short term priority in respect of oversight visits was that Members of the Committee should visit the Directorate of Conventional Arms Control to hear what the challenges were and the solutions that were being put in place.

Mr L Diale (ANC) added that the Committee should visit South African peace keeping forces that were stationed in other countries.

The Chairperson stated that Members should be happy that the Defence Committee was being treated as a priority Committee and would have funds available for oversight visits. The Committee was also being treated as a priority as they were preparing for the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

Mr A Mlangeni (ANC) asked what Mr Maynier meant when he said the Committee needed to have a hearing on the Ministry of Defence.

Mr Maynier noted that a meeting would be held on the 9^th February 2010 where the Committee would complete its annual report. In order to complete its business and to properly fulfill its oversight role, it was imperative that the Committee invite the “right people” to the meeting. This included the Acting Secretary of Defence and the Chief of the SANDF where they could give detailed answers to questions concerning military matters.

Mr Maynier told Mr Mlangeni that what he had in mind was a full public hearing. The Ministry of Defence, as far as he was concerned, was not functioning; it was in fact functioning at NCACC levels of administration.

The Chairperson agreed that the Secretary of Defence, the Chief of SANDF and the rest of the arms of service had to come to Parliament as they were accountable to it.

Mr Maynier asked if he could get a commitment in advance from the Department of Defence saying that the Chief of the SANDF as well as the other Chiefs of the defence services would appear before the Committee. If they did not come, the Committee would have to decide what action it would take against them. It looked like the Committee was heading towards a situation where they would have to subpoena the Chiefs.

The Chairperson did not wish to take it that far but said that the Chiefs had to come before the Committee and account for themselves. It was his opinion that they knew this. The Committee had different questions for each arm of the defence force. The Chief of Defence was the only one that could assure the Committee that everything was fine. The Secretary of Defence’s job was to focus on collecting and distributing resources; he did not have anything to do with operational issues. The only way that Members could be satisfied was if the Chiefs of the defence forces came before Parliament.

Mr E Mlambo (ANC) stated there were veterans that needed to be looked after. He noted that the Deputy Minister was working on a policy that would address the issue. He asked if the Committee could receive an update on the progress of the policy.

The Chairperson answered that the Deputy Minister was very committed to the policy and was ready to tell Members what progress had been made with the policy. The Committee needed to look at the issue of military veterans urgently.

Mr Maynier agreed that the issue of military veterans was very important and that the Deputy Minister’s report on the matter should be looked at as soon as possible. It was his view that the Deputy Minister’s task team on the military veteran policy was going “wobbly”. He thought there was more evidence to support this claim as the Deputy Minister was unsuccessful in handing his report on military veterans to the Minister. Nobody knew how many veterans there were or how much the benefits would cost; however, it was the Committee’s duty to resolve these issues.

Mr Maynier stated that the most urgent issue that the Committee had to focus on was sending a delegation of the Committee to the Directorate of Conventional Arms Control (DCAC) during this week. There was substantial evidence that the situation at the DCAC was chaotic. This evidence was reliable as it was produced by the Auditor-General (A-G). The Committee had a duty to perform its oversight function at the DCAC.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee would consider this proposal. He would be attending a meeting the next day with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) where the matter would be discussed. He asked the Members to forward suggestions to the Committee Secretary about the First Term Committee Programme.

The meeting was adjourned.