Progress report on complaints received from contractors on non-payment of housing delivery services in Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality

Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation

29 July 2014
Chairperson: Ms N Mafu (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Based on the legacy report from the Fourth Parliament Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements, the Committee invited the contractors from Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality to attend a meeting where the Department was instructed to give a progress report on complaints received from contractors on non-payment of housing delivery services at the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality.

The Committee first brought up the manner in which documents for the meeting had been sent.  A member complained that documents had been sent at night and in the early hours of the meeting, and all sorts of irrelevant documents had been forwarded, including attendance registers. It seemed as though the Department was not ready to address the Committee, or that they had hoped to bury the Committee in confusion.

Members and contractors were not satisfied with the briefing by the national Department. The contractors claimed that what the Department was referring to was not what had been discussed in Parliament previously.   In fact, some of the information was new to them and they had no documentation relating to what he had presented to the Committee.  The Committee, on the other hand, felt that there was no substance to the Department’s report, and continuously asked if it did justice to the Committee or the contractors.  

The Committee was not happy with how government was approaching the matter.  If it really wanted to resolve it, there should have been a more senior official present from the national Department. Furthermore, the opening statement from the provincial department was that they did not see a solution to the matter.

The Contractors were also given an opportunity to brief the Committee. They explained that some payments had been made to contractors, and that was the point of dispute. They informed the Committee that initially they had tendered for 30 square metre houses, but at some point they had been ordered to build 40 square metre houses -- but no adjustments in payments had been made. The contractors felt undermined by the Department, as they had continually ignored the orders from Parliament on what to do going forward with the matter.

Members asked for clarity on whether or not the houses were still standing and housing beneficiaries, and for details of the number of houses involved, the nature of the defects, and the cost of correcting them.   The Department was tasked with providing the Committee with comprehensive documentation by the next meeting on August 19, so that the issue could be resolved. 

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the meeting by welcoming the Eastern Cape contractors. She noted that Members had endured a grueling week with the budget vote debates, and thanked them for the way they had conducted themselves in the debate. The strength and the depth of the discussion on human settlements had been enlightening and welcoming.   By the end of the first quarter, Members would have a full understanding of the portfolio’s issues.  


Adoption of minutes

Mr L Khorai (ANC) moved the adoption of the minutes dated 8 July 2014.  Mr S Gana (DA) seconded.

The minutes were adopted by the Committee.


The Chairperson said there was an apology from Ms P Ntobongwana (EFF), who had been in an accident but was present at the meeting.  Ms M Khawula (EFF) who would sit in for her should she have to leave the meeting before it was  adjourned. The Director General of Human Settlements had also sent a letter of apology.  


Ms V Bam-Mugwanya (ANC) proposed acceptance of the apologies, and Ms T Gqada (DA) seconded.

Adoption of draft Committee Programme

The Chairperson said a draft programme, from July until November, had been circulated to Members. Though it was a draft, it needed to be adopted so that the work of the Committee could progress.   The programme was not set and there would be changes to it, but for now it was a guide for the future work of the Committee.


Ms T Baker (DA) proposed the adoption of the draft report, and Mr H Mmemezi (ANC) seconded.

The draft report was adopted.


The Chairperson said on 14 August there would be a Housing Awards ceremony at the Sandton Convention Centre to which the Committee was invited.  The event was on a Thursday, and normally there were party caucuses on Thursdays.  There was also a women’s debate on that day. However, Members who were able to attend could indicate to the Committee Secretary and arrangements would be made.


There was also an invitation to a sanitation summit taking place on 1 August and 2 August 2014 in Johannesburg at the Sandton Convention Centre. The Chairperson asked that Members indicate their availability to attend the summit.

The Chairperson said she hoped that Members had looked at some the documents circulated to them. The item on the agenda came from the legacy report that the Committee had received from the fourth Parliament.  The Committee was pleased to have the contractors present at the meeting, and reminded them that the issue was not new to the contractors, but it was new to this Committee.  For this reason, the Committee felt that it was important to invite the contractors to the meeting, rather than to discuss the issue in their absence. The new Committee was aware of the issue and the last meeting the contractors had with the previous Committee, that had set out a way forward.

In the course of the meeting, the Committee wanted to hear from the Department how far they had progressed in resolving the matter based on the mandate given to them by the previous Committee.

Ms L Mnganga–Gcabashe (ANC) said based on the introductions, there was no one from Cacadu District Municipality -- neither an official, nor a political representative. She asked that the Deputy Mayor of Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality join the meeting as a political representative.

Ms Khawula said if the meeting was to discuss human settlements it was a one-sided meeting, as it had contractors only from the Eastern Cape.  Did contractors in other provinces not have problems?

The Chairperson said Ms Khawula was not a Member of the Committee but a guest.   Ms Ntobongwana should give her direction as to what the meeting was about, and why only the Eastern Cape contractors had been called.  However, to clarify the matter, the Eastern Cape contractors had been invited based on the legacy report of the previous Committee,

The Chairperson handed over to the national Department of Human Settlements (DHS), and other spheres of government, to give a report on what had happened since the last meeting with the previous Committee.

Mr Gana said what had happened in the days leading up to the meeting was not desirable. The Department had sent one presentation and then continued to send other documents in the small hours on the morning of the meeting.   Members were expected to attend meetings prepared and with relevant questions, and if the intention of the Department was to confuse the Committee, then they had succeeded. He asked who was responsible for compiling the presentation for Parliament and sending the documents to Members. In the 18 hours leading up to the meeting, 22 documents were e-mailed to Members. 

Mr Gana said he had had to follow up with the Committee Secretary and ask where the actual report was, and she had still been waiting to receive the report the afternoon before the meeting was to take place. He asked if the Department was actually ready to come and brief the Committee.  Tt was clear to him that they were not, based on the manner in which the documents had been sent.

The Chairperson said she had also been concerned about the report of the Department not being sent in due time.

Mr Mmemezi said Members should appreciate that the current Committee was not the first one to deal with the matter. The matter had been dealt with in three previous meetings, but the Committee had not been happy with the situation.

Progress report on complaints received from contractors on non-payment of housing delivery services at the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality

Mr Mbongeni Shabangu, Head of the Forensic Investigations Unit in the National DHS, apologized to the Committee that there had been no clear format as to how they were to compile the presentation, but it had been clear that the Committee wanted more information. It was never the intention of the Department to undermine the Committee or stifle debate.

In 2011, there had been a complaint to the Department from Mr Sipho Gcora, of Gobo Gcora Construction cc, regarding the construction of houses in KwaNobuhle, area nine and area ten. The allegation was that there had been non-compliance with the Human Settlements housing code and how a contractor had been appointed.  The issue was the appointment of a contractor who did not have a National Home Builder Registration Council (NHRBC) certificate.  There was also alleged corruption in the contract, as monies that were supposed to have been used for top structures had been used for civil services.

The matter had been escalated to the Director General’s office, and investigated by the Department internally, and then referred to the Special Investigations Unit (SIU).    Ms Nomhle Dambuza, Chairperson of the Human Settlements Committee in the fourth Parliament, had referred the matter to the Auditor General to get an audit report. While the Committee was busy with the Gobo Gcora case, the other contractors had then joined in.

The fourth Parliament Committee had then taken a decision that there had to be a forensic audit to determine if there was cause for complaint and if there was something for government to look into. The SIU had found that there was no basis for the government to investigate the matter, as the parties contracted had disclosed that they did not have NHBRC certificates.  Mr Gcora had come on to the contract as a subcontractor, to provide top structures. The Auditor General had said that no government funds had been misappropriated and there was therefore no need for a further investigation.

There had then been a report by the Quantity Surveyor that had not been accepted by the contractors.  It was up to the contractors to engage with the government as to where the gaps in that report were.

Mr Mzukisi Gawu, a contractor, raised a point of order against Mr Shabangu, claiming that what he was talking about was not what had been discussed with the Committee before.  He was now confusing the contractors.

The Chairperson asked the contractors to confirm if Mr Shabangu’s report was foreign to them, and was a new report all together.

The contractors confirmed that it was not what had been discussed in Parliament before -- and was not even a report they had on hand.

Briefing by the Province

Mr Gaster Sharpley, Head of Department of Human Settlements, Eastern Cape, clarified that the province was a funder, not the developer. Nelson Mandela Metro was the developer, and Thubelisha Homes was the implementing agent. The province had attended several meeting and had also appointed the Quantity Surveyor as an independent assessor to assess the claims of the contractors.

He was concerned that there was never going to be an agreement with the contractors.  What was on paper was different from what the province saw as the facts, and what the contractors considered to be facts.  To move forward, the province had offered solutions in the past which had not sat will with the contractors.  He hoped that the Committee could help close the issue or hopefully move the issue out of Parliament.

Mr Sharpley said the claims were never going to be resolved, based on the claims of the contractors.   Should they be paid, the Committee would take him to jail. The more documentation was released on the matter the more he was convinced -- as the accounting officer of the province -- that there was no justification for the claims. There was no direct relationship with the province and the Metro. However there were ways to ensure that every party was satisfied.

The Chairperson clarified that Mr Shabangu had been referring to Mr Gcora’s case. There were two cases, Mr Gcora’s case was in court and had not come to the Committee. The other case was that of the sub-contractors which had come to the Committee due to non-payment. The case of the sub-contractors had been heard by the previous Committee, which had resolved that each sphere of government should have one-on-one meetings with the subcontractors. What the Committee wanted to hear in the course of this meeting was what each sphere of government had done since the last meeting.

The Chairperson said the report by Mr Shabangu had not addressed anything, as it had not given an update based on the previous mandate from Parliament to government on how to approach the issue. During the course of the meeting, Mr Shabangu needed to brief the Committee again and provide them with a progress report.

Mr Gana said the Chairperson was too lenient.  To the Department -- both the Eastern Cape and national DHS -- based on what they had said, he asked: “Was that all you came here to say?” If that was all they came to the meeting to say, then they had wasted the contractors’ time and the time of the Committee.

Mr Lindile Petuna, Executive Director of the Department of Human Settlements in Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality, said they had come together as spheres of government to the Committee with their quantity surveyor, who had made a presentation to the Committee.  As the three spheres of government, they had had to take the report back to the contractors and engage with them, and that meeting had taken place. From the meeting with the contractors, there were issues that they were not happy with, and which they wanted to challenge.  From the meeting, there was a resolution for the contractors to find their own specialist, together with a government-appointed specialist, to deal with the report in order to come to some agreement on the issues at hand.

Mr Petuna said most of the issues at hand were technical in nature, so it was critical for the Department, as well as its service providers, to look at the issues in a technical way and find a resolution.

The Chairperson cut Mr Petuna short when he started to forecast what the specialist of the contractors would say, and told him he did not know the outcomes of their independent investigation.  She asked that Mr Petuna talk about the role of his sphere of government.

Mr Petuna apologized.

Mr Thando Ngcolomba, Deputy Mayor of Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM), said that at a political level, they wanted the matter resolved. However, looking at areas of disagreement, submissions and counter submissions, their attitude was that they ought to continue with the spirit of the last meeting which was to meet with one another and resolve the matter. Disagreements would not assist anybody and would prolong the resolution of the matter.  There should rather be compromises that could be reached in order to move on.

The Chairperson interrupted the Deputy Mayor when he started pleading with the contractors and said that he could not plead with the contractors without hearing what they had to say. The Chairperson gave the national Department one last chance to brief them, before handing over to the contractors.

Mr Shabangu said after the appointment of the quantity surveyor, they had done their work and provided a report. The findings were that there were defects and if the structures were defective, then the government could not be expected to pay for defective structures.  On 18 July 2014, there had been a meeting with the contractors to discuss the matter. The last meeting was to provide contractors with a report to study and respond to.

Presentation by the Contractors

Mr Sipho Gcora, representing all the subcontractors, said the tone of the meeting was quite disturbing, as the contractors were hearing things of which they were not aware.  After the contractors had come from Parliament, he had been appointed as a representative of the contractors, and they had met with the quantity surveyor appointed by the Department. They had been told that the appointed quantity surveyor was an independent person who would come with recommendations at the end, based on the submissions of the contractors, and the spheres of government were expected to make inputs in the process. Unfortunately, the contractors soon realized that the quantity surveyor was not independent but defending the spheres of government.  With that knowledge, the contractors had worked with him for four months and made submissions to him. The quantity surveyor had disputed the information without giving any details, and this had gone on until April 2014.  The quantity surveyor had produced a draft report, where the contractors had an opportunity to make recommendations, but all of their recommendations were ignored.

After that, the process had come to a standstill.  The contractors had written to the National African Federated Chamber of Commerce (NAFCOC) and the Committee to give an update.  Eventually on 20 June agreement was reached between the contractors and the DHS in the Eastern Cape that a meeting should take place and minutes of the meeting were taken. The minutes from that meeting should have provided absolute proof as to what was happening and what the contractors understood was an attempt to resolve the matter.

The minutes were not at all a reflection of what happened at the meeting.  Even the General Manager of Project Management in Human Settlements had also agreed that the minutes were incorrect.  Mr Gcora, however, had also take alternative minutes of the meeting, and these were adopted as a true reflection of the meeting, compared to the ones prepared by the quantity surveyor.

During the meeting on 18 July, instead of producing an objective report the Quantity Surveyor once again closed certain matters off and gave direction on what ought to be paid and who must pay it.  None of the claims were directed to the government or any municipality -- they were directed to private developers and a private contractor who was not even part of the discussion.  Apart from the two meetings with government, there were no other inputs made by the state to the quantity surveyor.  From the meeting of 18 July, a key resolution was taken -- the rejection of the quantity surveyor’s report as flawed.  The Department and government also had to agree that the report of the quantity surveyor was problematic.

Mr Gcora had then been asked by the Department to review the report and make recommendations, and the date of submission for the review report was 25 July 2014.  He had worked the whole week with new information and there had been unbelievable cooperation from the Department. The only information outstanding was the bank records of Thubelisha Homes, to ensure that there was no double paying of claims. The contractors had accepted the report, and the Department had not yet had a response to the reviewed report.

Mr Gcora said it was impossible for someone who was owed millions of rands to continue working without being paid, and he had raised this issue on many occasions.  If one owed suppliers money and did not have a good payment record, it became difficult to get credit again.   The contractors did not have a report stating that there defective structures.  Everything he had presented to the Committee could be backed up with records and minutes from meetings which would be submitted to Parliament.


Mr M Shelembe (NFP) asked if the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality could convince others that the housing component in the municipality was fully functional and capable of doing their job.


Ms Gqada said that during the unconvincing briefing by the provincial government, the HOD had said he did not see the matter being resolved -- and yet the contractors had said a report had been circulated. There was a sense of government not being too interested in resolving the matter, as evidenced by the report of the national government.  She was not happy the Director General was not at the meeting. For the matter to be resolved, senior management needed to be involved and had to be accountable.

Ms Ntobongwana asked for clarity on the payment of contractors.   Had there ever been a payment to the contractors, or not?

The Chairperson said the reason of the meeting was the non-payment of contractors.

Ms Bam–Mugwanya asked whether all spheres of government acknowledged receipt of the review of the report and minutes from the contractors.

Mr Gana said one of the entities or agents that continued to come up in documents was Thubelisha Homes.  Was the entity still a going concern?   Did the quantity surveyor report and the forensic audit report exist, and if they did, could they be provided to the Committee?

Mr Morris Mngomezulu, Acting Chief Director, National DHS, said Thubelisha Homes was being liquidated. A liquidator had been appointed by the Master of the High Court to deal with the winding down of the entity.

Mr Mmemezi said Mr Gcora had mentioned that he had reviewed a report from the quantity surveyor and had received cooperation from government and had managed to finish his report. He asked for clarity from the contractors if they acknowledged any defects that had been brought up in the quantity surveyor’s report. Also, when building houses there were milestones and contractors were paid according to those milestones -- were they ever paid for?   Part payments had been made, the dispute was the amount.

Mr Mngomezulu, Director said he was in charge of winding down Thubelisha Homes. In the process, Learning Strategies had been appointed as a consultant to assist with the process. Several meetings had been held with contractors, and settlements had been agreed upon.  These were now being disputed by the contractors. There were certain payments which had been made to the contractors.  There were also disputes about how much had been paid to the contractors, so Mr Gcora had said they were awaiting the bank statements of Thubelisha.   Claims had been made for vacant stands and for structures with serious defects.

Mr Gcora said that in most instances, the milestones were paid for. The problem was that the contractors had been instructed to build 40 square metre houses, but the funding was for 30 square metres. Irrespective of whether they were paid or not, the contractors would have a shortfall. Regarding the defects, Mr Gcora said he had seen only one report from the quantity surveyor. He failed to fully understand the word “defects”, but if it meant shortfalls, then he had acknowledged them as best he could.

Ms Mnganga–Gcabashe asked if the presentation by the national Department was based on the presentation they had made to the previous Committee. From the last meeting on the matter in Parliament, the Department had been expected to table a report in Parliament on 12 March 2014.  Based on the provincial report in front of the Committee, there were minutes from the meeting acknowledged by both the government and the contractors.  The minutes also reflected that there would be a final report available on 25 July.   She asked that the report be made available to the Committee, if the government officials had it on hand.

The Chairperson said the first step forward would be to acknowledge the report from Mr Gcora.  Though all spheres of government had made comments, none had said anything about the report of 25 July. The Committee did not have the report which meant that it was sitting with the Department, and they had not commented on it.

The Chairperson asked the national Department one last time if they were happy with their presentation to the Committee during the current meeting.   Did they feel they had done justice to the Committee?

Mr Shabangu said there was a need for further engagements, and for now he said he was happy with the presentation.

Mr Sharpley apologized if they had come across as not truthful.  He hoped the facts would correct that perception. He acknowledged the receipt of the report from Mr Gcora, and appreciated the amount of work he had put into it.  Based on the report, the province had taken a preliminary decision that there was a need to discuss matters other than the claims. For example, in Chetty 600, the contractor had tendered for R28 886, and the final amount they had been given after completion was R53 801.  If the Committee would allow it, the province would like to reply to the report line by line, as it was very detailed.

The Chairperson asked if there was a reason the province had not corresponded with Mr Gcora about the report to acknowledge receipt.

Mr Sharpley said he had received the report the day before the meeting with the Committee.

Mr Petuna said the Human Settlements directorate within the municipality was well capacitated with over 400 qualified and experienced staff members.

Ms Khawula asked if the contractors realized how important houses were to people and how critical the issue of housing was.  Even though houses were free, they needed to be of quality and not quantity. She said the quantity surveyor had to be someone that really knew his or her job.

The Chairperson interrupted Ms Khawula, and asked her to deal with the report at hand.

Ms Khawula said it was important that when there was wrong doing, it should be acknowledged in order to move forward. She thanked the representative of the contractors for being willing to be truthful.

Mr Gana said he had first asked if the Department had said all they wanted to say, and the Chairperson had also asked the same thing.  It would have been appreciated if the Committee had received a comprehensive report covering everything about the issue at hand, as half the documents sent to the Committee were useless. It would also make sense that the forensic report existed, since no one had disputed their existence. Also, it seemed that what the contractors were saying was that since there were claims of defective houses, which ones were they, so that payment was not withheld because of a few defective houses. The report from the Department should then list the defective houses, the defects and how much it would cost to fix them, in order to see the whole picture.

There was also the issue of more than one contractor making claims for one house.  It needed to be clarified if there were people staying in the defective houses.  It seemed that attention was not paid to the inspection side of construction, if the defects were picked up in only 2011, when the houses had been built in 2006 and 2008. Also, a house built in 2006 would show wear and tear by 2014. He asked to see the disputed report of the quantity surveyor and the forensic audit the contractors say they never received.

In short, the Department had not been ready to present, and should go back and compile a proper report for the Committee to consider. For now, there was no point of reference for the Committee.

Mr Shelembe said if there was a status report for each project, this would help to determine how many houses were to be built per contract and timeframes.  Currently it was not clear what the role of the inspector and the project manager of the municipality was.  For payments to be approved for any project, the inspector and the project manager had to play their role and give approval for the payment.

The Chairperson said that in the reports, there had been mention of how many houses were to be built per project.  However, the current status was important in order to determine how many houses had actually been built.

Ms Bam-Mugwanya asked what the initial tender specifications were and if they had been reviewed later on.  If they were reviewed, what was the re-determination and the new budget.   It was not acceptable to promise the “shortchanged” contractors jobs, as there was a tender process. She asked why Thubelisha was liquidated, and if it was due to non-payment from government.

Mr Mmemezi said there needed to be a comprehensive report.   With the scattered reports, no one knew what was going on. The Committee was a neutral party in the matter and therefore needed to have every reporting aspect. The Committee could not make sense of the fact that after so many years, the contractors were being told their houses were not up to standard.   This should have happened in the building process had the legislative guidelines been followed as prescribed.   If the incompetence of the contractors was grounds for non-payment, how could the government say they would use them again to make up for past faults?   Mr Mmemezi supported what Mr Gana said in its entirety.

Mr N Capa (ANC) said it must be clear that the current Committee did not want to leave the issue up to another Committee in five years’ time.  It was not clear whether there was consensus on the reason for non-payment.  Another issue was the appointed quantity surveyor, which one party felt was not independent.  This did not help, as the information that he had provided was supposed to be useful in resolving the matter.  What the Committee needed was information and maybe not a report, as reports had a format.   There needed to be information with facts and figures that would assist in moving forward.

Ms Mnganga–Gcabashe said this was a matter outstanding from the fourth Parliament.   What the Committee needed were the reports that were outstanding and had been requested by the previous Committee. That was the starting point. The other report required was what both parties had agreed upon on 18 July, and also the report of 25 July.

At the next meeting, there should be a report from the MEC, the background reports the Committee had alluded to, and all the other documents mentioned by other Members. She objected to requesting everything, as though there had been no work done by the previous Committee.

Ms Gqada said it looked like there was no relationship between the provincial government, local government and the contractors. This was a national problem, and hopefully national government would emphasize the importance of these relationship dynamics.

Mr Gawu said what was important was the truth. The Committee in the fourth Parliament could have resolved the issue.  The Department had undermined the mandate given to them by the previous Portfolio Committee.   Two weeks before the meeting in Parliament, the contractors had gone to the provincial government offices, where a woman had been slapped and the police had been called.

What was troubling was that the 2002, 2004 and 2006 projects had been undertaken with different MEC’s.  Also, the NHBRC said the warranty of a house was five years. Though there may be agreements from this meeting, there would be a new story from government. The contractors were the ones feeling the pain -- their properties were being repossessed as they were still repaying the debt for the houses they had built years ago.

Mr Khaya Veli, Nombasa Construction, to give clarity on whether the houses in question were occupied or not, said the houses were occupied by beneficiaries. The houses had been approved by the province, the municipality and NHBRC.  The Department had handed the houses over and the Minister had launched the project.  It did not look like the province was going to assist in finding a resolution, although the HOD had previously committed himself to resolving the problem. When the contractors had gone to the HOD’s office, the police had been called and they had been beaten.

The Chairperson asked for an official report on the incident mentioned by Mr Gawu and Mr Veli.  

Concluding Remarks

The Chairperson said that during the meeting it had transpired that there was a detailed report compiled by Mr Gcora and there was a set of minutes from 18 July with recommendations. The Department in all spheres acknowledged the receipt of the report, but had not responded to it. The Committee needed to be given the opportunity to study the report and the province to be given an opportunity to study and respond to the report. The Committee, however, did not want only that report, but also all the outstanding documents that had been requested by the Committee on 5 and 12 March 2014.  The forensic report had also been requested by Mr Gana.

The Committee was not happy with the responses of the national and provincial Department.  The Committee was of the view that more work could have been done and more effort could have been given to giving a progress report to the Committee. All the spheres of government should compile a comprehensive report where they actually worked together. The Committee was not happy with the national Department and the delegation they had sent to the meeting.   A more senior person ought to have been present.

The next meeting might even take place at Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality, where the Committee would not only have a meeting, but also conduct an oversight visit.   That would relieve the burden on the contractors of having to travel to Parliament.

The Chairperson appreciated that the contractors had come to the Committee, but said that they were dealing with an issue of houses released to beneficiaries in 2006. From the presentation by Mr Gcora, it seemed the report of 25 July provided a way forward.   His presentation made it clear what was going on -- that there were in fact payments to contractors, but there were disparities and he had explained why this was the case.

Mr Gana said the Chairperson was too lenient on the Department.  She had basically given them free range as to when they had to give the required documentation to the Committee. The issue had existed since 2006.  Hunger had no timeframes, but in this case the Department ought to have delivered the required reports in 21 days (19 August 2014).

The Chairperson accepted that there should be timeframes on the matter.

Ms Bam-Mugwanya also agreed on the need to have timeframes in place.  Furthermore, the Committee needed to see the original specifications and the re-determined specifications in order to see where the disparities were.

Ms Mnganga–Gcabashe said she did not agree with the issue of a forensic report. The MEC had not finalised anything, the Minister had not addressed anything, and these were matters that needed to be dealt with in the Department. All the Committee was asking for first were the documents requested by the previous Committee and additional information.  There was no need for the forensic report currently.

The Chairperson said the Committee needed all the documents and a response within 21 days.  After receipt of the documents, the Committee would pave a way forward and inform the contractors if they were coming to Nelson Mandela Bay, or if they had to come to the Committee. Should they be invited to come back, then the Committee would look at the logistical arrangements.

The Chairperson thanked everyone for the way they had handled the matter and their cooperation. She asked the Department be prepared for the next meeting, or it would not be as pleasant as the current one was.

The meeting was adjourned.


No related documents

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: