Sports and Recreation South Africa & Boxing South Africa qualified 2008/09 audit reports: hearings

Public Accounts (SCOPA)

08 February 2010
Chairperson: Mr T Godi (APC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee asked Sports & Recreation South Africa questions about its qualified audit. The most significant problems were SRSA’s financial management, non compliance with rules and regulations, and mismanagement and misconduct. Reasons for the qualification were fruitless and wasteful expenditure to do with sports royalties, irregular expenditure of R45 million, unauthorised expenditure of R704 620, irregularities involving the Division of Revenue Act provincial transfers, internal control deficiencies, and non-compliance with legislation. SRSA officials raised capacity as a defence for the poor performance, coupled with problems inherited from predecessors in office. Questions were raised about officials suspected of and charged with misuse of funds. Many of the officials in question had resigned and SRSA was asked what measures were being taken against them. SRSA was requested to provide police case numbers. The Committee complained about the repeated audit qualifications and lack of accountability within the department.

The viability of Boxing South Africa as a going concern and its inability to raise funds was discussed. Questions were asked about its inefficient use of finances, in particular the amounts spent on salaries. Boxing South Africa cited lack of funding as the reason for their inability to manage its finances, together with legislated structural guidelines which prevented them from being creative with their use of funds. Questions were also asked about the accountability of officers guilty of misconduct.


Meeting report

Sports and Recreation South Africa (SRSA) qualified audit: hearing
Fruitless and wasteful expenditure
Mr S Tobejane (ANC) said that SRSA had received a qualified opinion from the Auditor General for the past three years. He asked why there had been no improvement, and why this was recurring year after year.

Mr Vernie Petersen, Director General: SRSA, said that the reason for the qualification had to do with the matter of royalties. The Auditor General had said that the amount from IMG [
sports management company] had not been collected as reflected in the records. There had been a dispute between the department and IMG. However after legal proceedings had been instituted against them by the department they agreed to refund the department. Royalties had not been collected due to problems with the registration of the royalties, which had been inherited from their predecessors.

Mr Tobejane said that he did not agree with the excuses that had been given. It was the responsibility of the Director General (DG) to put systems in place to allow for the collection of royalties irrespective of who had been in charge before him.

Mr Petersen agreed that it was his responsibility to put proper systems in place. He explained that they had been going around in circles and were trying to understand the issues involved in sports management and royalties. A consulting company had been hired to assist in unpacking the complexities. As the royalties were not registered, they had no legal basis for collecting the royalties including those already collected, and could not continue doing so until registration had been finalised.

Mr Tobejane asked whether there was a specific unit that was responsible for the matter.

Mr Petersen replied that the matter was under a chief directorate within Sports Support Services, however this was only one of his responsibilities. There was a lack of expertise and capacity within the department.

Mr Tobejane said that there was a capacity issue that seemed to be playing a role in the department’s poor performance. Part of the DG’s job was to ensure that everyone was doing one’s part. The current problems had to be rectified. He asked for a commitment from the department that things would improve.

Mr Petersen said that they would do everything in their power to improve the current state of affairs. The settlement had been paid by IMG. They were working on put proper systems in place and could not really move forward until these had been implemented.

The Chairperson said that there seemed to be more issues at play than initially indicated. At first IMG had been cited as being the cause of the problem, however there seemed to be issues with royalties and registration. The main issue was that AG’s Report stated that the department could not provide full records for an amount of R850 000, and that the records of its entities did not allow for external audit procedures to be carried out.

Mr Petersen responded that the background was important in understanding the matter. The amount had been inherited without proper records from their predecessors. They were reliant on IMG who had collected the records through a company called Signal.

The Chairperson asked if these records would ever be obtained or would this remain a qualification forever.

Mr Makoto Matlala, Chief Financial Officer of the SRSA, replied that they had engaged with IMG after the AG’s Report, and IMG was willing to assist in retrieving the records.

The Chairperson said that that he would be waiting to see what would happen the following year as this was the main reason for the qualification.

Irregular expenditure
Mr Tobejane referred to an amount of R45 651 000 mentioned on page 68 of the Annual Report. He asked for clarity on what had happened to this amount.

Mr Petersen replied that part of that amount was due to expenses incurred in previous years. R35 000 had been used to renovate the DG’s office, arguably irregularly. This was done before he took office, however he was enjoying the benefit thereof. R20 million went to the training of coaches, which was more than that which was available to be used.

The Chairperson said that the breakdown had been provided on page 108 of the Annual Report. He asked why these records had not been provided to the Auditor General.

Mr Petersen replied that the R20 million for the coaches was meant to be a multi-year contract starting from 2006 to the value of R60 million. The department went and procured goods and services without ensuring that the money was available.

The Chairperson said that the transaction had been completed, and asked where the records were.

Mr Petersen replied that all the documents had been submitted to the Auditor General.

Mr Tobejane asked what had been done to discipline the person responsible for incurring expenses without ensuring that the funds were available.

The Chairperson said that according to page 108 of the Annual Report, all the cases were still under investigation.

Mr Petersen replied that some investigations had been completed, however some of the people responsible had resigned. Once an official resigned, disciplinary measures could not be implemented. However criminal charges had been laid.

Mr Tobejane said that case numbers had to be provided for the more important cases.

Mr Petersen replied that the person responsible was a Director-General who had resigned, however a case had been opened.

The Chairperson said that the case number should be provided, together with the facts of the case in writing.

Mr Tobejane asked that an explanation of the R45 million be included in the information to be provided.

Ms M Mangena (ANC) asked if this individual had been given a pension fund upon resignation. Why was the pension fund not withheld to ensure payment should they be found guilty?

Mr Petersen replied that unfortunately the pension fund had been paid out. It was often the case that the investigation is instituted after the person has left. Due to the timeline and the way matters usually unfolded, they were not able to withhold the pension payout.

Ms Mangena said that they should have known that the individual was implicated since the AG Report had indicated that money had been misused.

Mr Tobejane asked when the person had resigned, and when the AG’s Report had been produced, in order to make sense of the resignation.

The Chairperson said that notices were given before a person resigned, and checks should be performed to see whether the individual did not owe the department anything.

Mr M Steel (DA) asked how they could have entered into multi-year contracts for which there was no money in the budget. This was utter incompetence.

The Chairperson asked how this could have happened.

Mr Petersen replied that this had happened in 2006, at which time he was not yet in office.

Mr Steel said that someone must have signed for the tender, and he asked who that person was.

Mr Petersen replied that the Tender Committee had signed for the tender. He said that it was a flaw in the system that needed to be rectified.

The Chairperson said that the Tender Committee had not allocated the budget, and that some official must have signed for it to make it legal.

Mr Petersen replied that a Mr Greg Fredericks had signed for the tender. He had since resigned and was now working with the 2010 Local Organising Committee.

Ms Mangena said that the R45 million irregular expenditure raised questions of efficiency within the management of the unit. The report stated that the internal audit unit was effective. Was this effectiveness? The accounting officer should have been able to pick this up.

Mr Petersen replied that the ineffectiveness of the department was due to the inconsistency of the people in charge. There had been about four to five officers in charge in as many years. When there was that much discontinuity things were bound to go wrong.

Mr M Mbili (ANC) asked what had been done about the official who had signed for the contracts.

Mr Petersen replied that once again, due to the timeline, it was difficult to take disciplinary measures as he had resigned.

Mr Mbili asked if any measures had been taken against him. This person was still alive and they knew where he was.

Mr Petersen replied that from a criminal point of view, a case had been opened.

The Chairperson asked when the case had been opened.

Mr Petersen replied that he would have to clarify the dates, but it had been done very recently.

Ms Noziphiwo Lubanga, Director of Internal Audits, said that the case had been opened in December 2009. However the person who had all the information on the case had left the department, which made it difficult to follow up on the matter.

Mr Tobejane said that the AG’s Report had been completed on the 31 March 2009, and that action should have been taken immediately after that.

The Chairperson asked requested that someone should obtain the police case number and asked for it to be provided before the end of the meeting.

Unauthorised expenditure
He referred to the amount of R704 620 on page 69. He asked whether there was an explanation for this kind of behaviour.

Mr Petersen replied that this was with regards to the mass mobilisation programme in 2007. The DG had asked them not to proceed, however this went ahead without the DG’s approval.

The Chairperson said that the issue was not how good and noble the programme was. The problem was that it had been done without proper authorization.

Mr Petersen replied that there had been a difference of opinion. The request had been received from the Minister, and was referred to the DG who disapproved on the basis that it had to do with a particular church, the Seventh Day Adventists.

The Chairperson asked whether it was an issue of the Minister’s approval against the DG’s disapproval, where the DG’s disapproval had been ignored.

Mr Petersen replied that the matter had been more complicated than that.

The Chairperson said that the AG had made its findings based on existing rules which were well known and clear.

Mr Petersen replied that the DG’s disapproval had been voiced after certain processes had been implemented.

Mr M Malale (ANC) said that what was clear was that someone had disobeyed the DG’s instruction. He asked who this person was, and what measures had been taken against them.

Mr Petersen replied that it was Ms Kelly Mkhonto
(Director: Community Sport, SRSA) who had been served with a final written warning.

Mr Malale said that it was a common thing in public service departments for serious offences to be treated lightly. Merely serving the implicated person with a warning was undermining the Public Finance Management Act, which made it clear that this was a dismissible offence. He asked who had been responsible for chairing the enquiry. 

Mr Petersen replied that there had been a case, however he had decided to deal with the matter informally.

The Chairperson asked why the matter had been dealt with in that manner. It seemed that the Minister had approached junior officials with instructions, and by the time the DG found it out, it was already too late.

Mr Tobejane asked if this was the way things were meant to be done.

Mr Petersen replied that the minister could deal directly with various people depending on their portfolios, however the managers had the responsibility to inform the DG.

The Chairperson said that that this had many implications and could mean a lot of things, which could cause all sorts problems.

Mr Tobejane said that the minister should be invited to respond to the matter.

The Chairperson said that they would request a response from the minister in writing.

Mr Tobejane referred to fruitless expenditure amounting to R4.9 million in relation to accommodation that had been booked and not used.

Mr Petersen replied that this was during the Beijing Olympics, where rooms were booked but not occupied. Various departments were meant to send people, however the final arrangements had not been formalised.

Mr Tobejane asked whether the money had been paid before the formal arrangements were made.

Mr Petersen confirmed that this had been the case.

Mt Tobejane asked why this had happened. They could not turn a blind eye on the matter and that something had to be done. He asked how the money would be recovered. The departments would have to be asked to take responsibility; otherwise someone would be made to pay that money.

The Chairperson asked whose duty it was to formalise the arrangements.

Mr Petersen replied that different people had been involved.

The Chairperson said that the former DG was still an employee of Correctional Services. He asked if disciplinary measures had been taken.

Mr Petersen replied that there had been no disciplinary measures; however criminal proceedings had been instituted.

The Chairperson asked how far these proceedings were.

Mr Petersen replied that they were still investigating the quantum of the charge as there were other amounts relating to the same person. They were currently in a dispute with the lawyers.

The Chairperson asked how far they were with the case. They had said that a summons would be issued in October for Ms Xoliswa Sibeko, but nothing had been done thus far. He asked if it was possible that they did not have the appetite to pursue the matter. The process needed to be expedited. If money could not be received from her, then someone would have to volunteer to pay it. He requested a letter by the following week indicating how far the matter was.

Mr P Pretorius (DA) asked how many rooms had been booked.

Mr Petersen replied that it was 20 rooms together with a conference room. There had been disputes as to room availability since the then President of the United States was to be staying in the same hotel.

The Chairperson said that availability had nothing to do with it, and that they should have know at the time of booking whether the facilities would be available or not.

Ms Mangena asked what the cost had been per room, given that the President of the United States was to stay in the same place. The price for the accommodation would have been too high for the department to afford and asked why they had decided to stay there.

Mr Petersen replied that he did not have the details with him.

Mr Tobejane said that Mr Petersen knew that he would be appearing before the Committee and should have brought all the information with him.

Mr Steel said that there seemed to be a lack of urgency within the department. He asked for the information to be provided within a week.

Division of Revenue Act (DoRA)
Ms T Chiloane (ANC) referred to page 69 of the Annual Report. Various reports from provinces and municipalities and not been submitted, and in certain instances had not been signed. She asked which provinces and municipalities had not done so.

Mr Petersen replied that this referred to all provinces, and with regards to municipalities, it was the 2010 host cities

Ms Chiloane said that the receiving officer had the duty to provide monthly reports on the actual expenditure of the province. She asked what steps had been taken about the non-compliance

Mr Matlala said that National Treasury had been informed of the non-compliance and the relevant departments had been informed that they would not receive their monetary allocation if they did not comply.

Mr Chilone said that the business plans had been submitted after the due date, while one province had failed to submit. She asked which province had not submitted a business plan.

Mr Matlala replied that this was Gauteng province, with an allocation of R44 million.

Ms Chiloane asked on what basis this amount had been allocated in the absence of a business plan.

Mr Matlala rephrased his answer, saying that Gauteng’s business plan had been submitted on 14 February.

Mr Petersen replied that there had been a dispute between an official of the department and the AG. The official claimed that the report had been submitted while the AG maintained that they had not received the report.

The Chairperson asked whether it was possible that the AG had misplaced the documents and were claiming that they had not received them.

Ms Androula
Lythrangomites, Senior Manager: Auditor-General South Africa, said that they had not received the documents.

Ms Mangena asked whether there was a system of signing for documents once they had been received.

Lythrangomites said that documents were signed for when received.

Ms l Mashiane (COPE) asked if the department had resubmitted the documents when the AG said they had not received them. Who had been responsible for sending the document?

Mr Petersen stated that they were having problems with their document management system.

The Chairperson said that if that was the case then the department could not confidently say that the document had been submitted.

Mr Tobejane said that the question that remained was how money could have been allocated in the absence of the business plan.

Mr Petersen replied that the document might have been lost, however this did not mean that it never existed.

Mr Tobejane asked whether they had requested a copy from Gauteng.

Ms Mashiane said that this was a long time ago, and that all these things should have been done in due time.

The Chairperson asked who had been responsible for signing off the money to the province.

Mr Petersen replied that it had been the accounting officer in charge at the time. He said he acknowledged that they had erred by not following up on the matter.
Ms Chiloane said that none of the nine provinces submitted sustainability and risk management plans, however R230 million of the taxpayers money was used.

The Chairperson stated that none of the correct procedures was actually followed. There seemed to be a spirit of anarchy within the department. He asked for a commitment that the compliance issues would be attended to.

Mr Petersen replied that management had detailed plans aimed at dealing with compliance, and that the department would be following up and implementing measures to improve the situation.

Ms Chiloane asked about the form of control and oversight taken to account for funds being transferred. She said that there had to be an official somewhere within that same office who was responsible for the implementation of these transfers.

Mr Petersen replied that unfortunately some official made decisions for which they were not prepared.

The Chairperson asked whether this meant that money was being given without the capacity to manage it. This was a potential waste of money.

Mr Petersen replied that unfortunately this was the case.  

Ms Mashiane said that the message that the DG was sending was that he did not have the capacity to manage the department. If this were not so, he would have done something to address the lack of capacity as soon as he realized that this was a problem, despite his being new within the department. The DG seemed to expect Treasury to solve his problems for him.

Mr Petersen replied that he acknowledged the lack of capacity. They were working on improving systems, providing training, and had contracted a service provider to assist with risk management. They had managers at head office level, and were working directly with the provinces.

Ms Chiloane asked why the department had not seen the need to investigate where the money was going after discovering that there were shortcomings. The department was meant to visit six hubs per province; however this had not been done. She asked for a reason for this.

Mr Petersen replied that the number of hubs had been unrealistic, given the number of people available to perform the task. He said that they were the ones who had decided on that number in the first place.

The Chairperson asked if they had made the decision on the number of visits to be made without applying their minds.

Mr Petersen agreed that unfortunately that had been the case. They had visited much fewer than they were meant to. They had now reduced the frequency of the visits to a more attainable goal.

Ms A Muthambi (ANC) said that the number of hubs to be visited was gazetted and could not be reduced.

Ms Mangena asked whether reducing the number of hubs was their way of improving the situation.

Mr Petersen replied that the target could not be implemented due to lack of capacity at head office. The officials within SRSA would have to reset the target to make it more realistic. The SRSA was very small given its mandate and budget, and something had to give. They were trying to improve the situation by making structural adjustments. There were a lot of things being done by the department, some of which were not their duty to do, bur rather fell under the scope of the municipality. Another crippling factor was the amalgamation of people who lack capacity due the dissolution of the SA Sports Commission.

Risk management
Ms Chiloane referred to the responsibility of the Accounting Officer under the PFMA. Risk management strategies had to be documented and used, however this had not happened.

Mr Petersen replied that some risk management plans had not been completed, however they were working towards improving the situation. He agreed that the current situation left much to be desired.

Ms Chiloane said that the department needed to substantially address the previous audit findings. She asked why the qualifications were recurring.

Mr Matlala replied that they were compiling a disclosure code, which had been a problem. Once completed, this would improve the situation.

Ms Chiloane asked if any of the disciplinary measures recommended by the AG had been implemented.

Mr Petersen replied that they were taking the cases very seriously and were following up on the matters.

Mr R Ainslie (ANC) said that the Audit Report stated that they had been satisfied with the monthly and quarterly reports; however the department still got a qualified opinion.

Mr Petersen replied that they had engaged thoroughly with the AG. Unfortunately they were dealing with matters that had happened in the past, which then affected the current audit report. It seemed to be a matter of timing.

Mr Ainslie said that this should be looked at as it seemed to be happening in a lot of other departments. He asked what steps had been taken to strengthen the internal audit division.

Mr Petersen replied that vacant positions were being filled, and that this would improve the situation.

Mr Steel referred to page 71 of the Annual Report. He asked what the department was doing to address the unit’s deficiency.

Ms Lubanga replied that what they had been doing was to check the controls against the risks to see whether sufficient controls were being put in place. They then compiled reports and advised on any changes that needed to be made.

The Chairperson asked what happed to the reports.

Ms Lubanga replied that usually the issues were addressed by management. However if this was not done, management was re-advised to attend to the problem.

Mr Steel asked for an explanation for the lack of control and over-spending at the hubs.

Ms Lubanga replied that this problem had not been identified in their audit. However since it had been raised by the AG they would be taking corrective measures, and they would be paying visits to the hubs.

Ms Chiloane referred to the indicators on page 30 of the Annual Report. With regards to the fraud policy and response plan, the target was 100% however the actual performance was 0%.

Ms Lubanga replied that she had started in October 2009 and had found that the business plan included things that were not meant to be there. The development of a fraud prevention plan could not be performed by the internal audit unit, who were also expected to audit the same plan. They could not be a referee and a player, and had asked for this to be moved to the appropriate department. The risk management plan was being processed. They found that there was no one in charge of this, and had undertaken to have it processed.

Ms Chiloane referred to the findings on performance information on page 72 of the Annual Report, and asked for an explanation for these findings.

Mr Petersen replied that there was a list of issues that contributed to this, ranging from lack of discipline to lack of appropriate systems. Measures were being put in place and new instruments would be introduced. They would be reviewing the framework to improve performance information.

Ms Chiloane said that there was no risk management strategy or fraud prevention plan for the Institute of Drug Free South Africa. There was also no supply chain management unit. She asked for an explanation.

Mr Petersen replied that this was an independent institute which reported to the Minister.

Mr Tobejane asked who allocated money to the Institute. That person would have had to certify that the institute had the capacity to use the money wisely.

Mr Petersen replied that there was a separate managerial board responsible for the Institute.

The Chairperson said that although the day to day running of the Institute was managed by someone else, the DG had to ensure that the money allocated would be used efficiently. He asked if this had been done. If not, had any measure been put in place to guarantee the efficient use of the money?

Mr Petersen replied that he had not interpreted his role to be that of an overseer. However if the Committee so wished, he would do so in future, but there would be legislative implications.

The Chairperson said that the issues that had been discussed would have to be addressed, especially those pertaining to DORA. He said that it did not matter who had been in charge at the time, and that accountability was structural and not personal. He asked for the case numbers to be presented.

Mr Petersen thanked the Chairperson for the opportunity to appear before the Committee. He said that he had a committed team and that they would be revisiting and rethinking their strategies. Unfortunately the nature of the engagement was such that it concentrated on what was wrong. However there were a lot of things that the department was doing right.

Boxing South Africa’s qualified audit: hearing
Mr Steel asked what Boxing South Africa thought was meant by “being a going concern”.

Dr Peter Ngatane, Board Chairperson of Boxing South Africa, responded that this referred to the entity’s ability to continue functioning on its own financially. 

Mr Steel referred to page 87 of the Annual Report which indicated the deficit to have increase from R1.787 million to R4.27 million. The department received a grant from SRSA, however their excess of liabilities over assets had grown from R1.6 million to 3 million and was now 5.95 million. He asked how they could regard themselves as a going concern.

Dr Ngatane responded that there was a structural problem that needed to be rectified. The grant was not enough to cover their activities, and most were being funded by sponsorship.

Mr Steel asked whether Boxing South Africa would be able to keep its ‘going concern’ status without a significantly increased grant.

Dr Ngatane responded that it would not be able to do so without an increased grant.

Mr Steel referred to page 59 which showed a net deficit of R4.327 million. This was mainly due to employee costs and not structural issues as was indicated. The directors’ emoluments had increased from R865 thousand to R1.87 million. How could these increases have been made in the absence of an increase in fiscal funding?

Dr Ngatane replied that the amount reflected was the money that was owed to directors, and that none of them had received the money.

Mr Steel said that whether the money had been received or not, they were a liability to the account.

Dr Ngatane said that according to legislation, the salaries had to be on par with those of other entities within Sports and Recreation, however the funding available did not begin to cover this. The grant was only enough to cover staffing and was not enough to address other issues. Even the proposed organogram could not be funded.

Mr Tobejane asked how SRSA could approve an organogram
that could not be funded.

Mr Petersen replied that SRSA had engaged with National Treasury, and had presented a bid for the funding to be review and increased. National Treasury refused, stating that it was the model, and not the funding that needed to be reviewed. The grant had been increased by an additional R2 million in 2007 however nothing had changed.

Mr Steel said that the department had run way of course with its staff costs in the midst of a very bad financial situation. Overall employee costs had gone up by R500 000. He asked the department not to make excuses as it was clear that its staff were being paid too much.

Dr Ngatane asked how these salaries could be reduced when legislation stipulated that they had to on par with other departments. He said that the Act that governed Boxing South Africa did not make provision for activities and that they had to conduct activities at provincial level for which there were no funds. These were the structural problems which were causing a deficit.

Mr Steel said that the entity’s expenses were going up while income was falling by just over R1 million. He asked what turnaround strategy had been put in place to address the sustainability of the business.

Dr Ngatane said that activities had been going on without any funding from the government. The decline in revenue had been due to cancelled tournaments, which was where their income came from.

Mr Malale said that if lack of funding was the problem, then there had to be an intervention. He referred to page 87 which showed an over payment of a former employee and asked how this could have happened. He also asked about the duplicate payment that had been made to a promoter which amounted to R50 000.

Dr Ngatane said that the promoter claimed not to have been paid when he actually had been paid, at which point he was paid again. They were in a dispute with the promoter who was refusing to pay back the money.

Mr Tobejane asked who had been responsible for this, and what had been done to recover the money.

Dr Ngatane said that the person responsible was Mr Khumalo. Some of the matters had been discussed with the Portfolio Committee, and legal remedies were also being sought.

Mr Malale referred to the R1.2 million that had been paid out to Krish Naidoo. He asked whether normal measures had been pursued in settling the matter.

Dr Ngatane said that the matter had been taken to the CCMA and had been dragging for a long period of time. The money that would have been spent on legal costs in pursuing the matter would have exceeded the amount that was paid out to him.

Mr Malale asked for the facts of the case. He said that had they had a strong case, the matter should have been pursued to the very end.

The Chairperson asked whether he had been dismissed unfairly. He had followed the case in the newspapers, and it seemed that he had indeed been dismissed unfairly, which was why he was paid.

Mr Malale said that the entity had failed to pay its liabilities to SARS, which had led to penalties and interest being added. He asked for an explanation for this.

Ms Tumelo Kekana, Financial Controller of Boxing South Africa, said that this dated back to 2007, which was why the interest had been added. Steps were being taken to address the problem. They would be working with a debt collecting agency to ensure compliance in the future.

Mr Molale asked how many members served on the internal audit committee.

Dr Ngatane responded that there were only two individuals, one of which was no longer performing the function.

Mr Mduli highlighted that according to legislation, there had to be a minimum of three members in the internal audit committee.

Mr Molale asked why the budget had not been submitted for audit purposes.

Dr Ngatane replied that the plan did not conform to the department’s requirements, and there had been some disagreements in that regard. By the time the plan was finalised, the submission had passed.

Mr Molale said that it seemed that the finances were being handled by junior officials.

Dr Ngatane replied that they could not afford senior officials. The department had promised that they would be provided with a Chief Financial Officer, however this had not materialised.

Mr Molale said that there had been no recourse with regards to the R346 000 of the operations expenditure. The audit committee found that they could not account for the meagre finances that they did have.

Dr Ngatane agreed that those had been the findings of the AG, and that they had consulted with the Office to find out what the state of affairs was. However they were still waiting for paper work to be submitted with regards to this.

The Chairperson referred to page 88 of the Annual Report which showed an increase from R12 000 to R545 961 in consultancy fees. He asked what this consulting was about.

Dr Ngatane said that it had been for a chartered accountant as there was no CFO.

The Chairperson asked whether a hired consultant was cheaper than a CFO, and stated that this could not be the case. He said that they should not be asking for more money, but instead using their judgment and attempting to do things differently.

Mr Pretorius asked whether they had approached Treasury and asked for someone to assist with their finances.

Dr Ngatane said that they had not done so. Usually their first stop was the SRSA, and they had been counting on the commitment that they would receive a CFO.

Ms Muthambi said that if good governance was to be achieved, they could not continue working with junior officials. It would be better for them to minimise the number of directors because the status quo could not continue.

Dr Ngatane said that the Act stipulated the number of board members, and that any changes made would have to be structural.

The Chairperson said that some intervention was needed.

Mr Petersen agreed. He said that the Minister had started an intervention to examine the issues around boxing, and recommendations had been made. These were to be addressed at a boxing convention that would be coming up.

The Chairperson said that the managerial issues had to be addressed right away and should not have to wait for the convention. He thanked the members of the Committee and the delegation.


The meeting was adjourned.



No related documents


  • 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: