Delay in the implementation of the Smart Card ID by the Department of Home Affairs

Meeting report

Opening Remarks by the Chairperson
The Chairperson explained that the meeting had been convened for the Committee to be briefed on the reasons for the delay in the implementation of the Smart Card ID by the Department of Home Affairs (DHA). He recalled that the previous Committee had also requested a briefing around the difficulty or challenges regarding the implementation of the Smart Card ID. At the time, the Department had replied that it was not in a position to give a report because it was still liaising over certain aspects with the Department of Public Services and Administration (DPSA) The implementation of the Smart Card ID would obviate quite a number of concerns around identity fraud and related crimes, thus the urgency and the need to find out what was happening with the matter.

The Chairperson informed Members that his Secretary had received a request by the Minister of Public Service and Administration to postpone today’s meeting. This request was received this past Friday, 19 February 2010. There had been insufficient notice for the request to be dealt with timorously and the Minister had been informed that it would not be fit to postpone the meeting at such short notice.

The Chairperson asked Members to consider the Minister’s request for a postponement, noting that the ideal situation would be for the two Ministries to meet and sort out that situation. When the Committee requested a report from the DHA they would not then be informed that a full report could not be given due to certain aspects that were still in progress or that were still lacking from the DPSA.

Briefing by the State Information Technology Agency (SITA)
Mr Moses Mthimunye, Chief Executive: Strategic Services, SITA, acknowledged that SITA had received the Committee’s request for a briefing in relation to the Smart Card ID. However, they had not been able to finalise their report due to the matter of an outstanding forensic audit report that had to be validated by the DHA. SITA had resolved that it would be inappropriate to appear before the Committee with statements that had not been corroborated by the DHA. This is why a postponement had been requested until there had been engagement within SITA led by the DPSA with the DHA to clarify what was contained in the forensic audit report. Their reason for attending therefore was to request for that particular engagement to occur so that they could finalise their report and be able to make representations to the Committee.

Briefing by the Department of Home Affairs (DHA)
Mr Mavuso Msimang, Director-General: Department of Home Affairs, had prepared a chronology of events relating to the smart card ID project. Cabinet had approved the smart card ID project on 25 July 2001. On 31 March 2005, the DHA had received approval from Cabinet to start procuring smart card IDs. On 21 May 2005, Cabinet had requested the DHA to re-submit a proposal on the future of the smart card ID taking into account, risk factors. The project had been put on hold by the former Minister of Home Affairs in June 2006 pending the new vision and design of the Department and an inter-departmental investigation that was taking place.

Procurement had been suspended pending completion of that exercise. The former Minister had communicated to Cabinet colleagues, namely the inter-Ministerial Committee that the pilot of the smart ID card would be rolled out by the end of 2008. The former Minister had approached Cabinet towards the end of April 2008 and obtained approval for the implementation of the smart ID card. The Governance and Administration cluster, mandated the project as part of its programme of action. The managed roll-out of the smart ID card to the entire population was planned over 5 to 8 years commencing in 2009.

On May 12 2008, the DG had written to SITA requesting them to administer and run the smart ID card tender process on behalf of the Department. The tender was published on 15 May 2008. There was a second request for the extension of the bid from SITA as it was expected that by then suppliers would have taken advantage of the first extension granted by the DHA. The closing date of the tender was set for 11am on 27 June 2008. The Chief Executive Officer, Llewlyn Jones, had approached the Auditor-General (AG) with a request to audit the processes until the tender was completed on 30 May 2008. This was a pro-active audit for the AG to be part of the tender process. The AG responded on12 June 2008, informing SITA that they would need to discuss the scope and terms of reference of the audit.

The DHA then wrote to SITA on the 11 August 2008, 26 August 2008, 9 September 2008, 6 October 2008 and 3 November 2008 regarding delays that were taking place. SITA eventually responded on 14 August 2008 and expressed discontent with the DHA’s complaint. On 12 September 2008, the DG had written to SITA urging them to make all efforts to enable them to meet the pilot project delivery date, which was the end of that same year.

On 27 November 2008, SITA had updated the DHA on the tender process. The next day, the DHA had written to SITA again about the delay in the tender process. On 12 December 2008, the Chairperson of the SITA Board responded to the DHA’s letter referring to a Board meeting where it had been decided to request an enquiry into the integrity of the processes. The time-frame for this forensic investigation was set to end in January 2009.

On 18 February 2009, SITA wrote to indicate that the preliminary tender process had been completed. However the Recommendation Committee had not yet dispensed with discussions in order to forward a recommendation. They also summarised the hurdles experienced by the recommendation Committee. On February 2009, the DHA had begun looking at ways to mitigate the delays with the project. On 15 April 2009, the SITA Board informed the DHA that they had appointed forensic auditors to investigate the project and that progress was being made. They recommended that the DHA cancel the tender.

The DG had responded that the DHA would take a decision once the final forensic report had been received in a letter dated 5 May 2009. The DG had then written to National Treasury on 19 August 2009 requesting their assistance with the tender. National Treasury had indicated that SITA had to continue with the process. However, they would need tender assistance to monitor compliance with the smart card ID management procedures.

The DG had written to SITA to cancel the tender on 19 August 2009. The reason for the cancellation was that they had been allocated funds from National Treasury to start the pilot project. As they clearly had run out of those funds, they would have had to re-motivate for an allocation of additional funds.

Discussion
The Chairperson clarified that the Committee would postpone the meeting and invite both the Minister of Home Affairs and the Minister of Public Services and Administration to attend a briefing about the implementation of the Smart Card ID.

Ms J Terblanche (DA) regretted that the Committee would have to postpone the meeting as she had allocated time and set aside other commitments to attend the meeting. She thanked the DG not wasting the Committee’s time and for at least giving them a chronology of events that took place.

Ms Terblanche recalled that in the past, the Committee could never get a response about the status of the forensic audit report. The Minister of Home Affairs had stated that she could not validate the forensic report because she had not received it. SITA on the other hand, had stated that they could not bring the report to Parliament because it had not been validated by the DHA. This was all very confusing and had to be clarified for the Members.

The Chairperson explained that this was the purpose for the postponing the meeting. Both departments had to be in attendance so that the Committee was not sent from pillar to post.

Mr M Mnqasela (DA) believed that the manner, in which the sequence of events leading to the postponement had occurred, comprised the integrity of Parliament. This comprised Parliament’s ability to deliver services to constituents in a manner that was required by law. He recalled the President’s call for government to provide quicker and better services to the people of South Africa. The Committee’s work would be comprised if this issue was not debated fully in the next sitting as had been requested by the Chairperson. He expressed support for the idea that the meeting be postponed until every fact was available for the Committee.

The Chairperson stated that he would communicate with the two Ministers and their respective departments to schedule a meeting as soon as possible.

The meeting was adjourned.