Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority 2015/16 Annual Report; KZN Provincial Commissioner apology; Rule 201 Investigation briefing

This premium content has been made freely available


16 October 2015
Chairperson: Mr F Beukman (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee concluded its week of scrutinising the annual reports of the Department and entities by considering the report of the final entity - the Private Security Industry Regulatory Alliance (PSIRA). The Committee researcher provided the Committee with an analysis of the annual report, making several observations relating to institutional governance and management, and organisational restructuring, before moving on to a strategic overview. Members were informed of the outcome-orientated goals, the medium-term strategic focus areas, the financial performance, challenges in performance and the report of the Auditor General of SA (AGSA).

After hearing from the Security Industry Alliance (SIA), the Committee considered the PSIRA annual report, including key highlights and details of the programmes of the entity, such as compliance inspections conducted at security service providers, enforcement investigations, criminal investigations and cases, compliance analysis for security businesses, security officers and firearms, firearm enquiries processed and security officers registered.

After government, the private security industry was the largest employer of entry level jobs for South Africans. The sector employed 455 510 employees, with the vast majority being between the ages of 18 and 25. The sector had created in the region of 150 000 jobs in the last five years. The industry invested significantly in training and skills development, specifically in the entry level segment of the market.

Matters which plagued the private security industry included:

  • The unrelenting proliferation of non-compliant and unregistered operators;
  • Customer compliance not currently enforced;
  • The absence of a consumer obligation to hire compliant operators;
  • A specialised service had become a commodity;
  • The increased use of self-employed security officers -- a big problem in the industry.

The practical reality of the private security industry was that there was an increased tendency to make use of non-compliant service providers, who undercut the market and operated under the statutory minimum levels of remuneration. Employee figures declared to the regulator had dropped significantly, resulting in a loss of monthly income, and service providers who had extended their service levels to lower income areas had withdrawn that service due to the many non-compliant operators undercutting the market.

Members questioned whether PSIRA had sufficiently skilled staff in the current financial environment. They asked about the vetting of senior management, the collection of the outstanding 40% in annual fees, and the issue of the uniform, emblem and insignia being similar to that of the SA Police Service (SAPS). The Committee was concerned about the dramatic cost increase for the internal audit from the previous year, challenges in the high vacancy rate and expenditure increases when income had not increased. There was discussion on inspections and offenders, the reasons for resignations, consumer liability, the roll out to rural areas and the optimal use of the ethics hotline. The Committee requested PSIRA sort out issues with the Auditor General of SA (AGSA) well before the next audit and present action plans to keep the Committee updated.

The Committee then engaged with the KZN Provincial Commissioner of Police on the issuing of statements in support of the National Commissioner of Police, because she had not been able to meet previously with the Committee. She was given an opportunity to reveal her version of events and comply with the Committee requests from a prior meeting -- to retract the media statement in support of Gen Phiyega, to apologise to the Committee, to apologise to the President, and to undertake to never have a repeat of such a statement. 

The Provincial Commissioner was interrogated over the Board of Commissioners’ meeting at Magoebaskloof, what the meeting had hoped to achieve, whether the meeting had had an agenda, who had chaired the meeting and how the statement had come to be discussed. Members wanted to know whether the Provincial Commissioner had known she was entering into political terrain and pre-empting presidential processes by supporting the statement.

The Committee was then briefed by the Committee’s content advisor on the Rule 201 Inquiry and how the necessary documentation would be worked through. The briefing looked at the mandate of the Committee, Rule 201 of the National Assembly, terms of reference of the inquiry, documents considered and their content, the consequences of the press statement(s), and the Committee’s engagements with the Board of Commissioners. The briefing gave the Committee an introductory analysis of the key documentation ahead of a thorough page-by-page consideration next week. 

Meeting report

The Chairperson outlined that for the meeting, the Committee would receive a briefing by the Committee researcher on the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) before hearing from the Security Industry Alliance (SIA). There would then be the formal briefing by PSIRA on their Annual Report before Members interacted. After this session, the rule 201 inquiry would commence – the documentation would be made available to Members and they would hear a briefing by the Committee Content Adviser on the matter. There could then be questions for clarity but Members would have to study the voluminous documentation in anticipation of the meeting going into deliberations next week Wednesday. The Budgetary Review and Recommendation Reports (BRRR) would be adopted on Tuesday.

Summary and Analysis of PSIRA 2014/15 Annual Report 

Mr Thembani Mbadlanyana, Committee Researcher, said that PSIRA generated its own revenue through the collection of annual levies, and through money received from any legitimate sources. In terms of legislation development, in 2012 and throughout 2013, the Portfolio Committee on Police had embarked on a review of the PSIRA Act (2001). The Amendment Bill [B27D-2012], which sought to strengthen regulatory oversight of the private security industry, made significant amendments to the 2001 Act and would have a great impact on the structure and reporting requirements of the Authority going forward. The Bill would also introduce significant changes to the ownership of private security businesses by foreign nationals, improve governance and address the funding of the entity through monies appropriated by Parliament.

In terms of institutional governance and management, the Council of PSIRA consisted of five members, of whom one was the Chairperson, another the Deputy Chairperson and the remaining three were ordinary members. Together the Council formed the accounting authority of PSIRA and thus took ultimate responsibility for the Authority. The Council was appointed by the Minister of Police. The contract of the former Chairperson, Mr Thula Bopela, had lapsed in December 2014 and Mr Joy Rathebe had been appointed in an acting capacity until Professor Fikile Mazibuko had been permanently appointed as the Council Chairperson –a move the Committee should applaud.

In response to the Committee’s 2014 Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report (BRRR) recommendations, the Council had undertaken a review of the entire governance framework with specific focus on:

  • The development of a Council Charter guided by the King III principles
  • Segregation of the roles between Council and Executive Management
  • Review of the delegation of powers
  • Development of Council Members

With the organisational restructuring in 2014/15, the Authority’s organisational structure had been reordered. The programme structure of the Authority had been reduced from four programmes in 2013/14, to three programmes in 2014/15. The new programme structure had an increased focus on the core business of the Authority in terms of training, registration of security service providers and client satisfaction (stakeholder management).

Mr Mbadlanyana then presented the strategic focus areas of the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF). According to the 2015/16 Annual Performance Plan (APP), as part of the strategic direction to the Authority, the Council had reviewed the long term goals and objectives of the entity. The result of the situational analysis conducted had necessitated the retention of all of the planned strategic overview of the five years to 2020. As such, the Authority’s five-year strategic plan (2015/16-2019/20) noted that the following strategic priorities/goals would receive considerable attention and would be at the centre of the Authority’s operations during the 2015/16 financial year and over the medium-term period:

  • Priority 1: Excellent service delivery (effective regulation)
  • Priority 2: Effective financial management
  • Priority 3: Industry stewardship, stakeholder and customer relationship management
  • ​Priority 4: Enabling environment with competent and skilled workforce 
  • Priority 5: Efficient and effective processes and systems

According to the Authority’s 2014/15 Annual Report, moving forward, significant efforts had to be placed on improving the following areas:

  • Reviewing of administrative fines;
  • Phasing out the introduction of training in new regulations;
  • Introduction of new identity cards to stamp out identity fraud and improve disclosure and protection of personnel;
  • Benchmark on sustainable funding models in order to reduce regulatory fees and improve participation of the previously disadvantaged within the industry.

Mr Mbadlanyana went through some key concerns/observations raised by the Committee regarding the performance and financial issues of PSIRA, which included issues relating to leadership and lack of capacity of the Council, the determination of salaries for the senior management structure, an ethics hotline, research, planning, the new corporate head office in Centurion, contingent liability and the use of consultants.

Members were informed of the financial performance of the entity and challenges experienced in the last financial year. These included an unfavourable economic climate, financial losses, replacement of human capital with advanced technologies, capacity constraints, over-billing and passing of credit notes.

Comments made by the Auditor-General of SA (AGSA) were highlighted -- those referring to the unqualified audit opinion, emphasis of matters, irregular expenditure, fruitless and wasteful expenditure, material impairments, predetermined performance targets and the reliability of reported performance information. Further comments from the AGSA had been made about the non-compliance with legislation, revenue management, expenditure management, consequence management, procurement management, leadership and governance.

PSIRA was currently listed as a public entity in Schedule 3A of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and as such did not receive any funding from the State. As a regulatory authority, it received the entirety of its revenue from the industry that it was mandated to regulate in the form of annual registration fees and other services provided to the industry. Hence the reason for PSIRA to establish and maintain absolute trust in the industry it was mandated to regulate. The current financial position of the Authority was worrisome and strategies were needed on how to better implement the alternative funding model policy. Reliance on annual and registration fees was not sustainable in the long run. Another significant threat to the financial health of the Authority was the exorbitant cost of the lease agreement for its head office building, and significant debt impairment coupled with a slow collection of debt. The Authority should be commended for receiving an unqualified audit opinion. However, the Authority needed to urgently address a number of issues raised in the AG’s report, more especially around leadership and governance issues, predetermined targets, irregular expenditure, and fruitless and wasteful expenditure.

Private Security Industry (PSI) – An Overview

Mr Steve Conradie, CEO of the Security Industry Alliance (SIA) began the presentation by noting the SIA had been formed in 2003 to be the one voice for the industry. It was an alliance representing security associations and individual companies in SA, and was the industry body which represented common interests across all sectors. All members had to comply with the PSIRA Act and regulations to remain members of the SIA, and all members (both local and multinational companies) were controlled, managed and staffed by South African citizens in compliance with SA law. The members employed nearly 200 000 South Africans, and had an excellent working relationship with the regulator, PSIRA, and the SA Police Service (SAPS). Member companies were required to subscribe to a code of conduct and comply with all legislation requirements.

The SIA was committed to:

  • being the link between government and the PSI;
  • working closely with and maintaining excellent relationships with the regulator and PSIRA to improve the PSI;
  • promoting effective partnerships with stakeholders (including SAPS) to impact on crime, and to act also as the community-based eyes and ears of SAPS;
  • creating sustainable employment opportunities for South Africans;
  • being fully compliant with the laws of the country, including the PSIRA Act and the regulations.

SIA members were bound by the PSIRA Act of 2001 and did not get involved in any intelligence gathering or mercenary activities, as prohibited by law, and were not a threat to national security, as the law required all employees/managers to be South African.

Mr Conradie outlined that after government, the private security industry was the largest employer of entry level jobs for South Africans. The sector employed 455 510 employees, with the vast majority being between the ages of 18 and 25. The sector had created in the region of 150 000 jobs in the last five years. The industry invested significantly in training and skills development, specifically in the entry level segment of the market – the largest company in the industry had trained 24 000 employees and invested more than R100 million on training in 2014.

The sector served its customers and was mandated only to proactively guard and protect assets and people. It proactively prevented the events for its customers, but did not have, nor did it engage in, any policing functions. The sector was responsible for just 1.61% of all legal firearm licences in SA. Private security personnel had the same powers as ordinary citizens, but were authorised only to make citizens’ arrests, banish trespassers, and deny entry and search personal property by virtue of the status mandated by property owners/employers. Security guards may only carry and use firearms subject to the same restrictions and licences as ordinary citizens. Very few personnel were authorised to carry firearms – they had been authorised under a regulated authorisation process, which included SA nationality as a mandatory test. In a presentation to Parliament by PSIRA in March 2015, 1 908 private security companies had been responsible for 75 450 firearms. The regulator confirmed the total legal firearm count in SA was 4.6 million – therefore the sector accounted for just 1.61% for all legal firearms licences in SA.

The sector had grown in line with developed countries such as Australia and the US. It was true that the private security industry had grown in the last decade, but not to the extent that the ratio between security guards and police officers was any different to other countries like the US and Australia. According to a report by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), SA was not different to many other countries in terms of the ratio of police officers to private security personnel – “in fact, SA’s ratio of private security officers to police officers did not differ much from that of developed countries and compares favourably to other middle-income or developing countries”.

Mr Conradie then turned to the PSIRA Amendment Act as a necessary progression. The SIA supported the vast majority of the PSIRA Act as it would strengthen governance and oversight of the industry and catalyse the implementation of “fit for purpose” regulations. SIA had been very much part of the process of bringing the necessary amendments, and had highlighted the need for a strong re-positioning and much needed resourcing of PSIRA. SIA advocated greater control and monitoring of firearms in the industry, the active promotion of crime prevention partnerships between SAPS and private security and the need for more significant penalties for non-compliance.

The only concern was with section 20 of the PSIRA Act, because:

  • it did not address perceived national security concerns;
  • it would be in breach of SA’s international trade obligations;
  • it was damaging to local and foreign investment in SA;
  • there was reason to believe it was unconditional;
  • the process by which it had been introduced was flawed;
  • it had many unintended and damaging consequences.

Matters which plagued the private security industry included:

  • unrelenting proliferation of non-compliant and unregistered operators;
  • customer compliance not currently enforced;
  • absence of a consumer obligation to hire compliant operators;
  • a specialised service had become a commodity;
  • increased usage of self-employed security officers, which was a big problem in the industry.

The practical reality of the PSI was that there was an increased tendency to make use of non-compliant service providers, which undercut the market and operated under the statutory minimum levels of remuneration. Employee figures declared to the regulator had dropped significantly, resulting in a loss of monthly income, and service providers who had extended their service levels to lower income areas had withdrawn that service due to the many non-compliant operators undercutting the market. As a result, the regulator and the PSI were bleeding! This was due to trying to achieve an unfair advantage in a highly competitive market, and to satisfying consumer pressure to provide “more for less,” with non-compliant firms using untrained, unscreened and unregistered persons as security officers who were more often than not undocumented foreigners, and this came down to greed.

The solution was to provide urgent support and action to strengthen the regulator’s powers and the immediate introduction of measures to ensure self-compliance -- not next year, not next month, but immediately. The emphasis was on making the consumer personally liable for using the services of a non-compliant service provider. 

Mr Conradie concluded by saying the Security Industry Alliance was committed to working with government and the regulator in order to turn this industry around in the shortest possible time, in order to level the playing fields.

PSIRA: Annual Report Presentation

Mr Sam Chauke, PSIRA Director, began the presentation by outlining some key highlights, which included that 83% of planned targets had been achieved and PSIRA had received an unqualified audit opinion. In terms of financial performance, there had been a marginal increase in gross revenue, course reports had increased by 24.9%, employee costs had been contained at 6.4%, provision for bad debt had dropped by 68.4% and there had been a marginal decrease in the liquidity ratio due to a provision for refunds. With the current financial performance, over 60% of new fees had been collected, over R75 million of annual fees had been collected and the current cash reserves stood at R70 million.

With service delivery, there had been a marginal improvement in compliance inspections, 71.23% of 90 000 targeted new certificates had been rolled out, and service delivery had been rolled out to remote areas. With stakeholder engagement, there had been consumer education initiatives, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between PSIRA and the Safety and Security Sector Education and Training Authority (SASSETA) to expedite the development of qualifications and joint accreditation, and the launch of capacity building workshops to strengthen industry training compliance. With research and development, there had been the launch of the monograph and research on taxi violence in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN).

Matters raised previously by the Committee and which had now been addressed included:

- the appointment of a Chief Financial Officer (CFO), to start on 1 November 2015;

- the terms of reference approved by Council and the procurement process on the development of a new governance framework was under way;

- vetting of senior managers was still in process – waiting on the State Security Agency (SSA);

- the corporate head office at Centurion lease to be renewed for the next three years. A feasibility study would commence in the next financial year, and National Treasury was on board;

- the disposal of previous head office in Arcadia (Pretoria) -- the outcome of a feasibility study to guide the way forward and the final decision would be determined by the executive authority;

- an agreement with the industry to refund excess fees – R81 million over three years;

- expansion of private security to poor areas. PSIRA would liaise with the Civilian Secretariat for Police on conducting research to provide policy direction on this aspect;

- a new fees structure effective as of 1 April 2015, and new categories created.

Adv Philani Mthethwa, PSIRA Deputy Director: Law Enforcement, took the Committee through the law enforcement programme of PSIRA, beginning by looking at the 27 669 compliance inspections conducted in 2014/15 at security service providers, involving 4 114 security business inspections and 23 555 security officer inspections. A provincial breakdown of inspections conducted was presented, along with inspections according to security business size. The numbers of enforcement investigations was also provided, along with criminal investigations/cases and dockets according to security business size. Members were then taken through the compliance analysis for security businesses, security officers and firearms before the number of firearm enquiries were processed.

Ms Mpho Mofikoe, PSIRA Deputy Director: Communication and Training, took the Committee through the number of security officers registered (employed) for the current financial year noting that the registered active security officers had declined by 7.29%. The number of security officers’ applications processed and the provincial breakdown of business registrations was also provided.

The number of accredited training centres was outlined, along with course reports, training sub-committees and the phasing out of grades to be replaced with the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). The national training compliance forum had been established to uphold the objects of the Authority in promoting high standards in the training of security service providers and prospective security service providers, support the implementation of the NQF, to assist in addressing and reducing non-compliance in the training sector, to undertake or facilitate proper communication on training matters between the Authority and stakeholders at the national and provincial level, and to  strengthen a co-operative approach between stakeholders in enhancing training standards within the private security industry. With the registration of the industry professional body, the body allowed for the setting of minimum standards for the various sectors within the industry, emphasised  the importance of individuals within the industry to meet defined standards of knowledge and skills, and maintaining the development of their professional competence throughout their careers, attracting the right candidates to work in the private security industry, and improving  the integrity of the private security industry through the maintenance of the highest professional standards.

Ms Mofikoe said that for improving industry compliance through effective stakeholder management, 26 provincial industry compliance forums had been conducted, 30 employer/employee sessions in partnership with the private security provident fund had been conducted, industry training for compliance had been launched and six industry training capacity building workshops had been conducted

To empower customers, 66 public awareness programmes had been conducted on PSIRA’s role and functions through mall and trade exhibitions, outreach programmes and media campaigns. There had also been a review of annual fees through consultation sessions conducted in all nine provinces to improve compliance and strengthen stakeholder relations.

Dr Sabelo Gumedze, PSIRA Senior Manager: Research and Development, said that research had been conducted on canine protection -- dogs and dog handlers in the SA private security sector. The findings had indicated non-compliance with the law by the security service providers and the Authority needed to promote the awareness of society to prevent cruelty to animals within the sector. Research surveys had also been conducted on mall security, public and private hospitals, public and private universities, and public and private schools. Some general findings and recommendations in relation to these surveys included:

- consumers who knew about PSIRA were more likely to receive better services, so awareness campaigns were required;

- consumers felt that security officers were generally not adequately trained , so PSIRA had to ensure that security officers were adequately trained and ensure compliance with training standards;

- the majority of consumers did not know the role of PSIRA in SA, so awareness programmes were essential.

Mr Raymond Kevan, PSIRA Deputy Director: Finance and Administration, took the Committee through human capital information, beginning by looking at the composition of permanent staff and personnel expenditure per programme. In terms of the vacancy rate per programme, there were 17% vacancies in Law Enforcement, 29% in Finance and Administration, and 24% in Communication and Training. At the beginning of the year under review, staff composition had been 211. During the year, 35 staff had been appointed and 26 staff had left. Reasons for terminating employment included resignations (69%), dismissal (8%), contract expired (8%) and other reasons (15%). A number of disciplinary matters had been finalised, relating to written warnings, final written warnings and dismissals.

In terms of organisational performance, targets not achieved included:

- the percentage of employees achieving a performance rating of three and above -- remedial steps had been employed to improve the rating with the final assessment;

- the percentage of inspected security service providers (businesses) complying with the minimum standards per year;

- the percentage of inspected security service providers (officers) complying with the minimum standards per year;

- the date of implementation of a security training policy, due to the unavailability of key role players such as SASSETA and the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO);

- the percentage of new registration certificates rolled out on active security officers. The project had been implemented only with effect from 1 December 2014 due to delays experienced with Home Affairs in integrating the system for fingerprint verification. There had also been challenges with ageing IT infrastructure. The target could not be achieved as some businesses did not meet the compliance requirements, such as full payment of annual administration fees and tax clearance certificates.

With the law enforcement programme, under-achievement had been due to a misalignment of the technical explanation with the calculations -- the averaged percentages of compliance standards that were being tested and the targets had not been based on all the identified standards, but only on 60% of the identified standards. The AGSA required all minimum standards identified to be met to qualify as meeting minimum standards.

Mr Kevan then turned to governance and financial results. He said a major impact on the current year’s results had been the loss of a Security Industry Alliance case, which had resulted in the passing of credit notes for R115 million for the period 2012 to 2015, and ring-fenced amounts payable to security service providers for over-payment of annual fees amounting to R80 million. Other issues related to revaluing land and buildings, realising a surplus R8.7 million, and pension scheme changes from a defined benefit to a defined contribution scheme, from 1 April 2015.

Members were taken through the financial statements and fruitless and wasteful expenditure for the year under review. Ongoing concerns included the loss of the SIA court case leading to R26 million in net liabilities and liquidity issues. Methods to address this included a working capital projection for three years, showing PSIRA both solvent and liquid, identifying revenue enhancement and cost containment measures, and ring-fencing the amounts overpaid in annual fees to be repaid over three years. The current performance in 2015/16 for five months showed a net surplus of R20 million over budget. The Authority’s ability to raise revenue was based on legislation, therefore strengthening its ability to continue to exist despite the going concern issues raised by the Auditor General of SA (AGSA).

PSIRA had received an unqualified audit opinion for 2014/15, with emphasis of matters related to:

- Restatement of corresponding figures. Corresponding figures for 31 March 2014 had been restated as a result of errors discovered during the year ending 31 March 2015.

Steps taken to address findings: Prior period errors had been raised as a result of credit         

notes passed for prior year over-billings – no further steps were needed. The bad debt provision and bad debts written off had been incorrectly calculated – proper procedures needed to be followed in bad debts write off, and aproper review of the provision needed to be made.

- Total liabilities exceeded total assets at 31 March 2015 by R26 million. The entity had made a loss of R16.7 million during the year.

Steps taken to address findings: Annual fees had been increased from R3 000 per annum to R7 650 per annum for small businesses, and the monthly fees paid by businesses for security officers employed had increased from R0.70 to R1.98. There would be cost containment in all areas for the next three years, and R80.3 million in refunds due to security service providers would be ring-fenced.

- Provision for impairments of debtors amounted to R9 million.

Steps taken to address findings: Debtors collection processes ensure that overdue debtors’ accounts were dealt with timeously, letters of good standing were not processed for debtors who were in arrears, and irrecoverable debtors were handed over to the legal department to enforce collection.

- Reliability and usefulness of the reported performance information -- data presented as evidence to support the implementation of the new registration certificates rolled out to security officers and businesses (new indicators).

- Steps taken to address findings: new system to be deployed to improve the integrity of data presented, intensify quality assurance and staff training, and enhance the capacity and additional IT resources to support operations.

- Strategic planning and performance management (lack of internal controls with respect to performance management).

Steps taken: Internal audit in place for the whole year.

- Financial Statements, performance and annual reports (misstatements).

Steps taken: Misstatements were not as a result of any internal control failings but from differences of opinions on the treatment of intangible assets and a certain prior period error. In the future, technical accounting opinions to be obtained. 

- Revenue management (failure to collect ALL revenue).

Steps taken: SIA case had had a negative impact on revenue collection, and effective debtor collection procedures were in place.

- Expenditure management (failure to prevent irregular and fruitless and wasteful expenditure)

Steps taken: the Supply Chain Management policy had been implemented with clear delegations of authority for emergency procurement and sole suppliers.

- Consequence management (failure to discipline official who permitted irregular expenditure).

Steps taken: No official could be held responsible. There had been implementation of the Supply Chain Management policy which had clear delegations of authority for emergency procurement and sole suppliers.

- Procurement management (quotations awarded had not been based on preference points).

Steps taken: Quotations were reviewed by the CFO and Manager: Supply Chain Management.

- Leadership (management did not ensure performance information was correctly reported and ensure proper systems and internal controls for performance target setting).

Steps taken: Performance Management Committee oversight and use of internal audit.


The Chairperson said that the Committee had taken note of the unqualified audit outcome. The issue had to do with skills – what would PSIRA do to ensure it had skilled staff members in the financial environment? The AGSA had been making the same findings for five years, so action was needed. The Committee would need monthly plans to address the concerns of the AGSA. He was concerned about the dramatic fee increase for the internal audit function and sought an explanation for it. The figure had jumped from R177 000 in 2014 to R883 000 in the current financial year.

Mr Kevan said the reasons for the misstatement had arisen from technical differences. PSIRA had treated a software contract in a different way to the AGSA. He had a lot of experience and had been a financial director of huge billion-rand listed companies, so he considered himself technically competent. There had been heated debates with the AGSA on the treatment of these issues and even though he had conceded to the AGSA, he still thought he was technically correct. The way the issue had been recorded had created the perception that PSIRA did not know how to put a set of accounts together, when it had actually been the result of technical differences or different interpretations of how things should be treated.

The Chairperson requested that the entity ensure that early on in the engagement process between the AGSA and PSIRA that there should agreement on the rules of the game, otherwise the same issue would arise next year. The Committee wanted to ensure that all four entities within its oversight ambit improved dramatically for the next year.

Mr Chauke, addressing the issue of the internal audit fee, said that although there had been a delay in procurement, an interim supplier had been appointed, which was why the fees were higher than the previous year.

The Chairperson asked if PSIRA was happy with the performance of the appointed firm because this was also very important. If the firm appointed was not au fait with AGSA principles, then the entity would not get a clean audit. Was PSIRA sure the firm had the necessary skills?

Mr Chauke replied that PSIRA was pleased with the skills of the firm. There had been rigorous interrogation of the audit plans and these plans had been based on the risk assessment done in the organisation. He was happy the audit firm had highlighted the risk areas the organisation was concerned about. He was satisfied that the audit committee, as well as management, ensured internal audit was working properly and that there were proper controls in place to ensure risk in the organisation was reduced.

Ms M Molebatsi (ANC) commended PSIRA for improvements made with training. She wanted a breakdown of the number of senior management who had been vetted and then those who had not. The Committee had spoken of the issue of uniforms for many years – were the uniform emblems and insignia similar to the SA Police Service (SAPS) being adequately addressed? Were the PSIRA inspectors’ skills up to standard?

Mr Chauke responded that he was awaiting an updated list of the senior managers vetted. As soon as it came through, he would make it available to the Committee.

Adv Mthethwa, on the issue of the uniform, said that the issue of emblems was found in regulation 13 which outlined that any security officer who, without legal justification, wore a uniform, badge or insignia identical to or closely resembling the uniform, badge or insignia of the SAPS, SA National Defence Force, SA Correctional Services or any other law enforcement agency or service established in terms of the law, was prohibited. The current challenge was with the wearing of camouflage, as camouflage uniforms could even be bought over the counter in retail stores. PSIRA needed assistance for enforcement in cases where there was infringement, but it was struggling to get cooperation in such cases. There were some companies which had a certain uniform even before the establishment of some state agencies -- for example, the ADT uniform resembled the Johnnesburg Traffic Police uniform, but ADT had been there before Johannesburg Traffic Services. All stakeholders were needed on board to address this issue to reach mutual understanding and agreement. The inspectors were well skilled insofar as the mandate of PSIRA was concerned. Where skills were short, or crossed over with the mandate of other entities, joint operations would be conducted.        

Ms M Mmola (ANC) asked when the remaining 40% of the annual fees would be collected. Why were the inspections in some provinces so low in comparison to the previous financial year? 

Adv Mthethwa explained inspections were risk-based. For the year under review, inspections had been mainly in the Gauteng province because it had been discovered there were a high number of companies in the province which had not been inspected for more than four years. Emphasis was placed on companies which had not been inspected in the last 24 months.  

Mr Kevan said the remaining revenue was being collected all the time and the 60% referred to the situation at the end of August. The revenue was now higher, as it continued to be collected. 

Mr Z Mbhele (DA), looking at the briefing the Committee had received from the AGSA on Tuesday and what had been presented today, said there were major issues around human resource management and supply chain management. In relation to the figures around the inspections conducted, some of the numbers did not seem to quite correlate across the presentation -- for example, with compliance inspections conducted on security businesses and then the compliance analysis of businesses -- and he wanted to know the reason for this mismatch in numbers. On the compliance analysis, he sought a qualitative insight into the trends or profile of non-compliance – was it more a case of single offence offenders or was it multiple offence offenders (fewer companies but more offences)? Knowing this would inform the strategic way forward to address the challenges. He had noted that the majority of terminations had been resignations - in the exit interviews, what had been the reasons for the resignations? What was the challenge in reducing the high vacancy rate?

Adv Mthethwa clarified that 4 114 inspections had been conducted in 2014/15 and out of those inspections, 2 533 had been found to be non-compliant. There had been multiple contraventions per company, the majority of which were related to regulations 8 and 10, which were linked to the updating of information and maintenance of documents.

Mr Mbhele wanted to understand if one company could be found in more than one of the categories of offences – did these multiple offence offenders form the bulk of non-compliance cases?

Adv Mthethwa replied that it was very rare to find one company with just one offence, so there were multiple offences.

Mr Mbhele remarked that if this was the case, and there was a small minority of multiple offenders, this would suggest the general picture of the industry was one of compliance – was this the case?

Adv Mthethwa agreed, although the AGSA was of the opinion that the company had to comply fully with all regulations to be deemed compliant. The point was that there had been a huge improvement in compliance by companies.

Mr Chauke said there were various reasons why staff were resigning. Most employees would say they were resigning because they were not paid very well, a lack of recognition of performance, or to pursue further opportunities. It was often the case that people were trained and became better equipped and skilled to move on to further positions. To fill vacancies, PSIRA was hiring as many people as possible while being mindful of the budget. Critical positions were prioritised, to balance employee costs with revenue incoming. Key areas were law enforcement and the inspectorate, so the Authority ensured vacancies in these areas were filled.

Mr M Redelinghuys (DA) thanked the Authority for a very comprehensive presentation. He saw there were very good intentions and a desire to improve, and he appreciated this. Progress made should be commended but he was concerned by the issues raised by the AGSA, even though he understood the challenges. He saw that revenue/income had not reduced significantly but expenditure had increased by R10 million. Had very specific targeted austerity measures been implemented by PSIRA and if not, why not? One of the biggest increases in expenditure was staffing costs, but there was already a 27% vacancy – if these vacancies were filled, staffing costs would balloon. He was interested in the additional capacity created and where this had occurred. On enforcement, was PSIRA experiencing concerns with its enforcement capacity? Was the Authority adequately equipped, in terms of the legislation, to compel enforcement and if not, why not? He had heard about some concerning issues of non-compliance and asked if it was easy for PSIRA to enforce compliance and impose sanctions on non-compliant companies. A suggestion had been made to hold consumers liable for using non-compliant providers – how easy would this be, and would it be fair on the consumer?  

Adv Mthethwa answered that this was part of the consumer liability clause. By holding those responsible for the procurement of security services accountable, compliance would be improved. However, before coming to such a drastic measure, PSIRA needed to ensure it was well known to the public through consumer awareness campaigns, so that consumers knew what was expected of them. It was often found that there were no security managers to guide the procurement of security services and this was a challenge. In many cases it was found that people did not know about PSIRA, but there were awareness campaigns and adverts alerting people to the fact that it was unlawful to make use of unregistered security services. Apportionment of liability was also difficult to establish, especially where there was no security manager.

Mr Kevan, responding to employee costs, noted that in the current financial year, there had been a large actuarial gain which had reduced employee costs, so the employee costs were under control.

Ms Molebatsi asked how the roll out to remote areas was done. She also sought elaboration on the monograph.

Dr Gumedze explained that with the monograph, PSIRA had received a grant from the International Development Research Centre in 2012, where the research had explored the crime prevention partnerships between the state and private security providers in southern Africa.

Ms Mofikoe, on the rolling out of services to remote areas, said the key challenge was for PSIRA to have a presence in all nine provinces. It had become evident that PSIRA offices needed to be established in some provinces like the Free State and North West, based on the responses on access to services. The Authority was also partnering with the industry to take services to the remote and rural areas. Before the end of the financial year, the target was to set up an office in the Free State, to be followed by North West. These provinces had been chosen because of the number of registered companies and individuals in the two provinces.  

The Chairperson was concerned about the decreasing figures for revenue and subscriptions. Was PSIRA satisfied that it had the necessary steps in place to deal with these issues?

Mr Chauke was very concerned about the decrease in numbers, mainly because security firms were not disclosing the correct numbers of employees. A number of action programmes had been put in place, such as compliance forums. PSIRA had a database of registered security officers, as well as those who were active and inactive. In the future, PSIRA wanted to issue security officers with certificates to state they were competent to look for work as a security officer. The employer would then inform PSIRA when the officer was employed and the officer would be issued with a card. This would almost immediately kill the issue of non-disclosure of security officers. PSIRA also had a rolling project which had started last month with law enforcement, SAPS, the Department of Labour and the Department of Home Affairs, to ensure companies disclosed their employees. PSIRA aimed to bring at least 100 000 security officers on board between now and 31 March 2016.    

Ms Mmola asked if security officers were allowed to use personal firearms. What was meant by “unavailability of key role players” in relation to a training indicator not met?

Mr Chauke said that it was unlawful for security officers to use personal firearms.

Mr Mbhele questioned the ethics hotline, and if it was being used optimally.

Mr Chauke responded that there were no further challenges with the hotline. In the past, the hotline had been restricted to complaints of corruption against PSIRA, but it had since been revised and the line had been opened to the entire industry. Non-compliance was being highlighted and there had been investigation. Numbers could be provided in the future, and the hotline continued to be promoted.

The Chairperson welcomed the fact that there was now a permanent chairperson in place, and he asked the board to keep monitoring the performance of the organisation, as it was critical to address the issues. The Committee required the action plans regarding the AGSA, and PSIRA might be asked to provide the Committee with an update at the end of November. It was critical that the matters raised by the AGSA were addressed as a matter of priority. High vacancy rates must be addressed, along with stakeholder relationships. The Committee would liaise with the executive authority to get an indication of the implementation of the new Act and its regulations. Performance indicators needed to be SMART, and technical issues should be sorted out as soon as possible so that the same issues did not crop up again next year. The Committee would monitor progress and develop recommendations.   

Apology of KZN Provincial Commissioner: Rule 201 Investigation

The Chairperson indicated that the Committee had met with the nine police provincial commissioners in August 2015 to follow up on a statement issued by the Board of Commissioners (BOC) entitled “The SAPS Board of Commissioners fully supports General Riah Phiyega”. The Committee had then engaged with eight of the provincial commissioners -- the provincial commissioner for KZN had been on study leave abroad at the time -- to establish why they had drafted and supported the statement. It had been highlighted that the statement released by Lt. Gen. Solomon Makgale indicated all the provincial commissioners supported the specific statement. At the Committee’s engagement on 12 August, it asked four things of the provincial commissioners:

  1. Retract the media statement in support of Gen. Phiyega.
  2. Apologise to the Committee.
  3. Apologise to the President of RSA.
  4. Undertake to never have a repeat of such a statement.

Lt Gen Mmamonnye Ngobeni, SAPS KZN Provincial Commissioner, confirmed that she had been unavailable on 12 August 2015 because of a work study commitment that had been made prior to the Committee engagement. She had received a communication from the Committee to meet with Members, and that there would be certain expectations as far as what had happened in relation to the statement. When the statement was released, she had been part of the collective and for this she apologised unconditionally, retracted the statement which caused confusion and undertook that it would never happen again.

Ms Molebatsi asked who had invited the Provincial Commissioner to Magoebaskloof, Limpopo, and what she had wanted to achieve from the meeting. As a long serving member of SAPS, did she think that what she had done had been right or in order.

Ms L Mabija (ANC) was surprised that the Provincial Commissioner had just jumped into apologising. Had she been aware that she was stepping into political territory when the statement was issued? 

Ms Mmola asked if the Provincial Commissioner knew what the agenda of the meeting had been, and if the statement had been made in reference to the President, or to someone else? The issuing of the statement had been political, and politics should be left to the politicians.

Mr Mbhele, drawing from previous interactions with the other provincial commissioners, said the narrative was that the statement had been issued as part of a collective decision. The process had not been guided by the now suspended National Commissioner and she had not been chairing the meeting at that point, although she had been present. A scenario had been painted to the Committee of an immaculate conception – no one knew how it had happened but yet there had been a very clear outcome. He asked Lt. Gen. Ngobeni what the step by step process had been, from start to finish, where a meeting of the Board of Commissioners (BOC) was going through an agenda and then this issue had come up and then the step by step process which had resulted in the first draft of the statement. Had the item come up as something on the agenda?

Mr Redelinghuys was concerned by the politicisation of the matter, which had gone beyond the mandate of the BOC and of professional police commissioners. The Committee had heard the statement had been issued to “boost morale” – what exact events had necessitated the need to boost morale, especially given the fact that the statement had been issued less than a month after the report of the Marikana Commission had been handed to the President, if he remembered correctly. Given that the President had to apply his mind and that there were serious implications for the National Commissioner, the timing of the statement had been very questionable. Was the report of the Marikana Commission a consideration in the release of this statement?

Lt Gen Ngobeni indicated that the police, in terms of the SAPS Act, could never engage itself in political issues because there were political leaders for this. She said that there had been an agenda for the meeting. SAPS had various governance structures looking into operational and support issues, and one of these structures was the BOC, which also came from the SAPS Act which mandated SAPS to have such a structure. It was a scheduled meeting, so there was an agenda although she might not be able to remember the contents of the agenda. The statement was not intended to be directed to the President.

Ms Molebatsi asked if there was an item on the agenda to interrogate the fitness or unfitness of the National Commissioner.

Lt Gen Ngobeni said that in all honesty, she could not recall this.

Ms Mmola said she did not know how it was possible not to remember, when the statement was clear that it supported Phiyega.

Lt Gen Ngobeni said there was no knowledge that the BOC had been entering into a political space. The meeting had been a scheduled one, so procedurally no one would have been invited. The objective of the meeting was to ensure there was governance operationally in the SAPS. As one of the longest standing members in the SAPS, perhaps it was an honest mistake for saying things out of turn and saying things which were not supposed to be said.

Ms Molebatsi wanted to know what had prompted Lt Gen Ngobeni, as a long serving member of SAPS, to commit such a mistake.

Lt Gen Ngobeni responded that there had been a number of negative media reports which had prompted a look into a perception created by the media in relation to operations and support-related matters.

Mr Mbhele wanted to know the process within the meeting which had led to the beginning of the discussion that had resulted in the first draft of the media statement. The Committee knew the background to the issue -- the item was not on the agenda, but a spontaneous discussion not chaired by Nat Comm Phiyega and which had resulted in a collective decision to issue the statement. He wanted to hear the perspective of the Provincial Commissioner on this process.

Lt Gen Ngobeni indicated that in such a meeting, issues would be discussed and there would be a follow up on some matters. It was like a soccer match – there would be players in the teams but with no exact game plan. In the meeting, things might have been said unknowingly. Whatever transpired, this issue had been somewhat emotional and she had tried her level best to continue with what the Constitution of SA expected of her, as supported by the SAPS Act.

Mr Redelinghuys wanted to know who usually chaired the BOC meetings. If it was the National Commissioner, how had it transpired that she had not chaired this particular portion of the meeting?

Lt Gen Ngobeni could not speak on behalf of the National Commissioner or the other provincial commissioners, but the SAPS Act made it clear that the National Commissioner was part of the BOC, along with the provincial commissioners, while others may be called in on an ad hoc basis to try to deal with matters. She could not recall, but there had been a sign from the National Commissioner to distance herself from the discussions, although she could not remember verbatim.

Ms Molebatsi, whilst sympathising with Lt Gen Ngobeni, found it unfortunate that she was part of this mess, but it was also important to get answers. Sitting at Magoebaskloof, was the BOC aware the matter was already in the hands of the President?

Mr Mbhele said the purpose of the interaction was not to cause emotional distress but to ensure accountability for what intentionally or unintentionally amounted to improper and undue influence of processes in the political sphere – this was the nub of the issue. To carry on with the sports analogy, the Committee was now in the change room and having the post-game debriefing to establish what went wrong.

Lt Gen Ngobeni responded that mistakes did happen and this was what she had been trying to highlight in her sports analogy. The intention was not to engage in politics or influence processes, as this would have been unacceptable.

Mr Redelinghuys thought it would be unfair foranyone to perceive the Committee process as a witch hunt. It was a way to deal with this unprecedented event, post-1994, to demand accountability and ensure it did not occur again.

Ms Mmola felt Lt Gen Ngobeni was not telling the truth, because she kept repeating that she could not remember.

Lt Gen Ngobeni said sometimes negative reports hurt and when they hurt, perhaps they could make people say or do things they regretted. This was how bad the impact of media or negative reports could be.

Ms Mabija hoped this was a learning curve for Lt Gen Ngobeni because if she continued to let her feelings dominate her mind, one day she would end up in big trouble – this was a word of advice. Lt Gen Ngobeni looked very frightened and confused, and this was bad.

The Chairperson asked Lt Gen Ngobeni to confirm that she retracted the statement, apologised to the Committee, apologised to the President of RSA and undertook to not engage in such an activity again.

Lt Gen Ngobeni confirmed this. 

Deliberations: Rule 201 Inquiry

The Chairperson indicated that Members now had the relevant pages of the minutes of the Magoebaskloof meeting, along with the transcript. In the Committee document pack were also the terms of reference for the inquiry, the excerpt from the parliamentary rules, the agenda of the BOC meeting, the attendance register of the meeting, the statements issued by the BOC and Standing Order 156 – the media communicating policy of SAPS. Members also had the transcripts of the Portfolio Committee meetings dated 12 August, 18 August and 19 August 2015. The Committee Content Adviser had already evaluated some of the documents and would take Members through some of the information before they studied it for themselves. 

Mr Irvin Kinnes, Committee Content Adviser, began by highlighting section 199 of the Constitution, which spoke to the establishment, structuring and conduct of security services. 199 (5) stated that “the security services must act, and must teach and require their members to act, in accordance with the Constitution and the law, including customary international law and international agreements binding on the Republic”. With the police, political responsibility was captured in section 206 (1), which stated that “a member of the Cabinet must be responsible for policing and must determine national policing policy after consulting the provincial governments and taking into account the policing needs and priorities of the provinces as determined by the provincial executives”. Section 207 (1) stated that “the President, as head of the national executive must appoint a woman or a man as the National Commissioner of the police service, to control and manage the police service”.

A press statement from the SAPS BOC had been released on 1 August 2015 in response to a Sunday Times article, which had indicated that some of the top brass in SAPS did not support the National Commissioner and crime was out of control. There were claims in the newspaper report of low morale in SAPS, but the BOC statement had rejected these claims. The statement had gone on to pledge support for the National Commissioner and her leadership. Once the statement had been released, the Committee had issued a statement taking exception to it, as displayed during the 12 August 2015 meeting with the BOC. The Committee was concerned the BOC statement had entered the political realm.

During the 12 August meeting, the Committee was explicit that:

  1. The SAPS BOC should retract its statement;
  2. The BOC members should apologise to the Committee;
  3. The BOC members should apologise to the President;
  4. The SAPS should give an undertaking that it would never repeat the process.

All the Provincial Commissioners had apologised to the President and the Committee for interfering in the process initiated by the President

Mr Kinnes then explained that the mandate of the Committee was to:

a) Monitor the financial and non-financial performance of government departments and their entities to ensure that national objectives were met;

b) Process and pass legislation;

c) Facilitate public participation in Parliament relating to issues of oversight and legislation;

d) Review the performance of departments and their entities through annual reports;

e) Scrutinise the financial and non-financial performance of departments and entities;

f) Interrogate the annual performance and strategic plans of the departments and entities; and

g) Monitor the implementation of legislation.        

This mandate should be read with Rule  201 (b) of the National Assembly, that a Portfolio Committee must maintain oversight of:

a) the exercise within its portfolio of national executive authority; including the implementation of legislation;

b) any executive organ of State falling within its portfolio;

c) any constitutional institution falling within its portfolio;

d) any other body or institution in respect of which oversight was assigned to it; and

e) may monitor, investigate, enquire into and make recommendations concerning any such executive organ of state, constitutional or other body or institution including the legislative programme, budget, rationalisation, restructuring, functioning, organisation, structure, staff and policies of such organ of State, institution or any other body or institution;

Mr Kinnes outlined the terms of reference of the inquiry adopted by the Committee on 28 August 2015:

  1. Establish and consider whether the relevant officers were truthful with their testimony in presenting the   facts leading up to the issuing of the said statements;
  2. Establish and consider whether the documents and electronic material made available to the Committee verified the statements made during the said Committee meetings;
  3. Establish and consider whether the relevant statements had been made in compliance with the National Instruction 156;
  4. Establish and consider whether the relevant conduct by the officers had been in line with good governance principles;
  5. Establish and consider whether the relevant conduct had prejudiced and discredited the SAPS.
  6. Establish and consider whether the said statements had been aimed at influencing the process by the President in response to the recommendations of the Farlam Commission in relation to the National Police Commissioner.

Documents considered included:

  1. Statements issued by senior management members of the SAPS and Provincial Commissioners during July and August 2015 in support of the National Commissioner, General R Phiyega.
  2. The process leading up to the issuing of the statements, with specific    reference to the meeting of the SAPS BOC that was held at Magoebaskloof on 15 and 16 July 2015.
  3. Statements made by senior management and Provincial Commissioners during the Portfolio Committee meetings of 12, 18 and 19 August 2015.
  4. A statement issued by Lt Gen Makgale on 14 August 2015.
  5. Individual statements issued by senior commissioners in support of the National Commissioner.
  6. Legislation.

Contents of the documents included:

- SAPS BOC Press Statement (1 August 2015)
- SAPS BOC 2nd Press Statement (14 August 2015)
- Standing Order 156: Media Communication in the South African Police Service
- Portfolio Committee meeting held on 12 August 2015
- Portfolio Committee meeting held on 19 August 2015
- Magoebaskloof Hotel meeting of the Board of Commissioners, 15-16 July 2015

Mr Kinnes said that civilian control of the SAPS was very important in a democracy and something which had been hard fought for in the constitutional negotiations. This civilian oversight must be asserted by Parliament and it was unprecedented for a government department to enter into political terrain. Without this assertion, it could be found that officials could think they could make decisions on behalf of the politicians.

The press statement(s) and Committee engagements with the BOC had shown that SAPS’ senior leadership did not understand the principle of civilian control in our democracy. Secondly, the interactions had shown that the police had undermined the process initiated by the President in response to the Farlam Commission Report. The Committee had to decide if this was intentional. Thirdly, the second press statement and the meeting held on 19 August 2015 showed how some Provincial Commissioners had moved from supporting the apology to the Committee and the President, to supporting the second press statement, which had not amounted to a retraction, but rather a restatement of support for the National Commissioner. Lastly, it brought into question the credibility and trustworthy of the police officers, to subjecting themselves to civilian control.

Mr Kinnes said he had gone through some of the documents and made a few observations about them. Looking at the minutes of the BOC meeting alongside the transcript of the meeting, a very different picture was presented. The transcript showed that the National Commissioner was present throughout the discussion on the report of the Farlam Commission and had participated in the discussion. However, the transcript did not indicate whether the National Commissioner had given the instruction to issue the statement. From the transcript, Lt Gen Mbekela had indicated that Lt Gen Makgale must assist with the crafting of the statement. The minutes of the meeting also noted the National Commissioner had raised issues of conflict.

In the transcript of the Magoebaskloof meeting, it showed the National Commissioner had asked why the commissioners were being so silent about attacks on the police, and she had appeared to urge the provincial commissioners to respond to media reports – “you are the police. You are the leaders, but all I can say is that everybody is saying everything about you, about your work but your silence is deafening, and I’m not sure whether the defence will ever come through because we don’t show that boldness in terms of our members. Leadership is cowering under the tables…at the time where our opinion matters, our opinion is not anywhere…” The minutes did not capture the emotiveness of the meeting. One of the unidentified commissioners indicated she had had a problem with the Farlam Commission from the start, and had indicated that she would never attend the Commission.

The Committee needed to consider whether:

1) The relevant officers were truthful with their testimony in presenting the facts leading up to the issuing of the said statements.

2) The documents and electronic material made available to the Committee verified the statements made during the said Committee meetings.

3) The relevant press statements were made in compliance with Standing Order 156.

4) The relevant conduct by the officers was in line with good governance principles.

5) The conduct by the officers prejudiced, embarrassed and discredited the SAPS.

6) The press statements were aimed at influencing the process by the President in response to the recommendations of the Farlam Commission in relation to the National Police Commissioner.


The Chairperson said that next week the Committee would go through the transcripts thoroughly, page by page.

Mr Mbhele wanted to know to what section of the Constitution Mr Kinnes had made reference in the introduction of the presentation.

Mr Kinnes replied that it was section 199 (5).

The Chairperson asked if there was a wide difference between that which had been presented to the Committee and what had been discussed in the meetings.

Mr Kinnes responded that there had been a difference – what had been presented to the Committee was not a full reflection of what had happened at Magoebaskloof

Ms Molebatsi asked why some of the participants were undentified in the transcripts.

Mr Kinnes explained that when the recordings were transcribed, the writer would say “indistinct” where something was unclear or inaudible. This would be found throughout the transcript. Unidentified speakers were when the person transcribing could not identify the speaker.

Ms Molebasti asked if the names were deliberately unidentified.

Mr Kinnes could not answer this.

The Committee would begin evaluating the documents on Wednesday. On Tuesday it would adopt the BRRR.

The meeting was adjourned.  

Share this page: