Ad Hoc Joint Committee on Probing Violence Against Foreign Nationals Report: adoption of final report

Meeting report

Co-chairperson Bhengu noted that this meeting would continue to deal with the findings and recommendations in the Committee’s draft Report. There had been consensus that Members who had made written submissions could send them to the Committee’s Content Advisor, so that they could be incorporated into the rest of the document, whilst the Committee would continue to work through it.

She gave Member Mr R Chance (DA) the opportunity to continue with his submissions orally.

Mr R Chance (DA) said that he would try and identify where his submissions had been incorporated in the document. He asked the Content Advisor for clarity on some sentences that sounded as if they were based on his submission but had not actually repeated his wording.

Mr Adam Salmon, Committee Content Advisor explained to the Committee how he had written the document. He started to read through it.

Mr Chance asked if the Committee Members would be allowed to interject.

Co-chairperson Motlashuping replied that it would be better for Members to note where they had issues and thought it was preferable for Mr Salmon to go through the document first.

Co-chairperson Bhengu said that the findings from the previous day had been incorporated as discussed. A particular section of the document contained submissions from Mr Chance.

Mr Chance noted that some of his submissions had been incorporated, but others had not.

Co-Chairperson Bhengu also noted that the Committee had agreed that recommendations would be discussed in the meeting, disregarding the written recommendations contained in the working document, which also included submissions by Mr Chance. She noted that the Committee had also previously agreed that its recommendations would come from Members’ findings. However, the Minister in the Presidency; Mr Jeff Radebe, had presented on what the State had already done in its InterMinisterial Committee (IMC). These were reflected as new recommendations in that working document. That meant that the Committee had not reflected on what Mr Radebe had reported. In making recommendations the Committee had to consider that IMC report.

Mr D Gumede (ANC) said that the recommendation in respect of King Goodwill Zwelithini should be deleted from the recommendations entirely.

Co-chairperson Bhengu elaborated that Mr Gumede was proposing that deletion because there were related findings on that point in the document.

Co-Chairperson Motlashuping suggested that the Committee should first discuss the Committee findings.

Ms Z Dlamini-Dubazana (ANC) outlined her reservations on the Report, which including the following: 

• The fact that the Committee had never had time to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Home Affairs (DHA), and therefore felt that the recommendation on the DHA was presumptuous and should be deleted.
• The Committee had also not gone deeply enough into considering the enforcement of regulatory frameworks, so that could not be included in the Report.
• Other matters to be deleted, for the same reasons, included comments around lack of monitoring and corrupt allocation of the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) houses and recognition of law-abiding foreign national statistics. The Committee had not done oversight on any of those issues.

She further enumerated other statements which she said were based on assumptions and therefore could not truly reflect the Committee’s stance.

Ms L Dlamini (ANC; Mpumalanga) said that she was concerned that although the Committee had agreed that it would use the term ‘foreign nationals’, this document still contained instances where the term “migrants” was used. She thought that a section of this document contained recommendations from an old report which the Committee had agreed should not be considered. There was, however, a proviso that recommendations from that report could be brought to deliberations as additional recommendations by Members, but not by the Committee staff. She did not pick up any of her submissions; although something similar had appeared, it had been modified to the extent that the content ended up quite different to the way that she had worded it.

Mr L Ramatlakane (ANC) felt that there were slight modifications needed in the “Recommendations” section. Additionally there were statements listed under Committee findings which he felt would be better placed with the recommendations.

Co-chairperson Bhengu clarified that there had been consensus previously amongst Members of the Committee regarding the recommendations from the old report. Mr Chance had said he would want to correct the narrative that said the recommendations from the old report had been submitted by him as new submissions. Therefore she would grant him that opportunity. She further commented that Mr S Motau (DA) need not have shaken his head in the manner he had, nor did he need to interject, as Mr Chance would still be allowed to clarify and submit new recommendations if he had any.

Ms G Manapole (ANC: Northern Cape) commented on Ms Dlamini’s point. She could identify where Ms Dlamini’s submission had been included, although possibly it could have been assimilated and compressed with other recommendation. She further suggested grammatical improvements to that submission in the findings.

Co-chairperson Motlashuping interjected that Ms Manapole did not need to deal with the Recommendations section which had been proposed for deletion. The Committee had agreed, on the previous day, not to include the recommendations that originated from an older report. He asked the Committee to agree upon the first set of recommendations, which did not include any of the contentious issues.

The Committee expressed its agreement.

Ms L Zwane (ANC; KwaZulu Natal) asked whether the assertion that there was no coherent social cohesion programme following the 2008 xenophobic attacks was the Committee’s way of acknowledging that there had been xenophobia in the country.

Co-chairperson Bhengu reiterated Mr Motlashuping’s statement, and pointed out that Ms Zwane was commenting on a section of the report that was not being included.

Mr S Motau (DA) proposed an amplification of the statement dealing with the reasons why foreign nationals left their home countries. He would prefer to use the wording ‘those affected by “unstable” conditions in their country of origin’. Foreign nationals were also exploited because of being undocumented, over and above the fact that they were not unionised.

Mr Chance said that his submissions had not been incorporated, even where it was suggested that they had been. Although some elements were identifiable, the most substantive portions had been excluded. He felt that it the portions discussed earlier were to be excluded, then the “heart” of the draft Report would be lost. That had been researched work brought by the Content Advisor, as prior to this the Committee had nothing to go on.

Co-chairperson Motlashuping reiterated that he would like Mr Chance to agree that the first set of recommendations with findings would remain intact. After that, he could read and comment on his new submissions.  

Mr Chance said he had issues with that first set of recommendations and could not agree to them without having the chance to clarify them. The Committee was over emphasising the supposed exploitation of foreign nationals. A large number of foreign nationals were willingly offering their labour at reduced rates. Therefore a blanket statement on their exploitation was incorrect. Some of them were opportunists that had come to SA seeking opportunity. He was asking therefore that the paragraph be modified to differentiate between the exploited and the opportunistic.

Ms Dlamini conceded with Ms Manapole’s comment that her findings were indeed contained to some degree in the draft report, with modification. Possibly the Committee would have also done well to have sourced report writers to assist Mr Salmon. The Committee was  as the Committee was going back and forth and not finalising anything. She was not comfortable adopting the Report, even with the ongoing changes the Committee was making.

Mr Gumede said that most importantly the Government had established institutions from national, provincial and local Government levels to respond to the violence against foreign nationals, and the Committee had found those institutions to be functional. That finding must be included in the Report.

Mr Chance interjected that he thought that the deliberation was around his point on exploitation and not any other matter. Mr Gumede seemed to be going off on a tangent.

Mr Gumede continued that traditional and western style leadership had to be accorded similar respect mutually.

Ms Manapole also interjected that she thought the proceedings were around Committee findings at that stage.

Co-chairperson stated that part of the difficulty the Co-Chairpersons were facing was that Members would return to points already dealt with. She asked Members to read the changes that were being made before commenting on points already finalised.

Mr Chance noted another generalisation without any concrete basis, which was the suggestion that all foreign run shops appeared to be owned by big business. This might be true of “many” but not “all” and he proposed that this be changed.

Other Committee Members suggested “some” rather than “many”.

Mr Chance elaborated that he had asked the South African Police Services (SAPS) or DHA, when they were present in the Durban City Hall, whether they saw a potential terrorist threat in the illegal actions of some of the foreign nationals in the country. He proposed therefore that the Committee should include, in its findings, that there were perceived potential terrorist threats to the country’s internal security as a result of the unlawful actions of foreign nationals.

The Co-Chairperson said that Mr Chance’s remark had been alluded to in Johannesburg, but the respondent foreign national had simply reported that some of his compatriots, including him, had formerly been with the military in their countries of origin. It could pose a security risk if former soldiers entered SA illegally to reorganise themselves to go back to their homelands. That question had been raised by the Committee.

Mr Chance read a submission he had made, comparing this to what it had been modified to, in the draft Report. He agreed with Ms Dlamini that perhaps another complementary team could have captured the deliberations properly.

Co-chairperson Bhengu said she was surprised because the Committee had a large contingent of complementary staff, although she understood that there was lack of coherence during the Parliamentary staff’s industrial action. She could not understand why,now the strike had ended, the secretariat duties were being performed by the Content Advisor alone.

Ms Zwane reiterated Ms Dlamini’s earlier proposal on report writers, and requested the Co-chairpersons to raise the matter with the Parliamentary authorities.

Ms Dlamini again lamented the missing submissions which were missing and asked whether it would be possible for the Committee to meet again, to debate what Members had actually submitted. 

At this point, the National Assembly (NA) Members were then called to the Chamber to vote, and the National Council of Provinces Membership remained.

Co-chairperson Motlashuping noted that the Committee had already asked three times for an extension of time to submit the Report. He asked the remaining Members to make their submissions as additional submissions, to allow the Committee to proceed.

Ms Manapole said that her concern with doing that would be that when the NA Members returned, they would simply re-start the process. She made a counter-suggestion to halt the proceedings until their return.

Co-chairperson Motlashuping said he could do that but asked that Ms Dlamini and the Content Advisor confer now, to ensure that her submissions were properly captured.

When the NA Members returned, the meeting resumed.

Mr Motau proposed that the Committee should now read the document, paragraph by paragraph, from the start, making corrections as it went through.

Ms Dlamini said that the findings in the document had been discussed and agreed upon, and Mr Motau was proposing that this be done for the rest of the document.

Ms T Kenye (ANC) asked if it would not be better to deal with the document page by page instead of paragraphs.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazana proposed that the Co-chairpersons sit with at least six individuals and the Content Advisor to work through the document paragraph by paragraph. Both Mr Motau and Mr Chance should be included in that small group, to try to move the process forward.

Co-chairperson Bhengu asked if there were any other Members who felt their submissions had not been captured correctly in the current draft.

Most of the Committee raised their hands.

Ms Bhengu then said that since this was the case, she suggested that Mr Motau’s proposal be adopted and asked why the Committee could not capture the outstanding submissions as had been proposed earlier. She suggested that the Committee must firstly agree on the findings, moving any as appropriate to recommendations.

Ms T Mampuru (ANC; Limpopo) said that there were two NCOP Members who had to take part in a sitting the following day, and there was also a strategy workshop. She requested that they be released.

Ms Dlamini read out her submissions. noting what was incorporated into the draft report and those which had not been captured to her satisfaction.

Mr Salmon interjected to try to explain where he had compressed the statements and where they had been included.

Co-chairperson Motlashuping asked Mr Salmon to simply record what Members were saying verbatim. This was delaying the proceedings.

s Zwane said that her concerns related to foreign nationals’ unwillingness to integrate into SA communities. The mushrooming of churches run by foreign nationals had a potential for provoking conflict as they were de-populating local churches.

Mr Salmon explained that it had been agreed that the matter of churches would be included in the body of the report, as a finding, but not as a recommendation.

Co-chairperson Motlashuping asked whether Members had any other findings that they wanted to add.

Co-chairperson Bhengu noted that the causes of the violence would have to be captured in the findings, as they were not included in the introduction.

Members confirmed that the causes of the violence were captured to their satisfaction.

Members then proceeded to consider the findings. They made suggestions on both the grammar and content of the draft Report.

Mr Gumede commented that perhaps the point on a potential terrorist threat would need to be substantiated with evidence, before being included in the draft. After further discussion, the Committee agreed that the term “terrorist” should be replaced with “former military foreign nationals”.

Mr Ramatlakane said  the Committee had established that there had been little pre-detection capacity in South African Police Services (SAPS) and that should be included as one of the findings.

Co-chairperson Motlashuping answered that he was not certain that this would have made a different. Instances of violence had been isolated and had been triggered largely by criminal elements acting against shop owners.

Mr Gumede reiterated that source documents would help him to a better understanding of the findings that the Committee was trying to convey.

Mr Ramatlakane said that the finding was derived from a reply that he had received when he put questions to SPAS during the oversight visit. He had asked about the SAPS intelligence capacity to detect the violence and where it might move - for example, when the violence started in KZN, how had the SAPS responded? The response had been that because of the quick spread of violence, the intelligence was not able to track the trend. However, he said that if further deliberations on this would prolong the report adoption, he would be happy to not mention this.

Mr Gumede said he specifically recalled asking the question of capacity in Umlazi, but SAPS responded there that it did have capacity.

Co-chairperson Bhengu said that what she was hearing from her Co-Chairperson was that the violence flared up suddenly, which would mean that no intelligence services would have been able to predict it; it was unplanned. SAPS could therefore not be expected to have capacity of that nature.

Ms Kenye said the role of intelligence could be included in a separate sentence. She had previously made the point that even some Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) funded by Government could be used as fronts for drug factories.

Co-chairperson Bhengu said that inclusion of such a statement would change the context of the point, and indicate organised crime instead of intelligence capacity.

Ms Z Dlamini-Dubazana (ANC) proposed that the entire sentence concerning intelligence or SAPS capacity be removed, as Members were not vetted and therefore had no access to activities on intelligence.

Mr Gumede commented that many foreign asylum seekers in SA were found to be economic migrants. That finding should actually translate into a recommendation.

Co-chairperson Bhengu reminded the Content Advisor to capture the finding that Government had institutions to respond to violence against foreign nationals across the country, in all its spheres.

Mr Salmon read the statement referred to by Mr Gumede, and said that he could well move this to the findings section.

Mr Gumede thought that possibly the Committee would have to change its approach in the Report and deal with cause and effect of the violence. The Committee could not pre-empt departments as Members did not work for any of them. He suggested that the conclusion on a need to improve coordination by Government departments in the different spheres, so that they were more rapidly able to assist those affected by violence, as well as to prevent violence, should rather be stated at the beginning, and not as one of the findings.  The IMC on Migration should be addressing all these points pre-emptively and recurrently.

Mr Salmon said that a similar paragraph expressing that sentence was in the preamble.

Mr Gumede argued that in an investigative report, the status of a preamble and a finding were not similar. More emphasis was placed on findings.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazana asked for clarity on how that paragraph should be captured.

Co-chairperson Bhengu said that there had to be a distinction between government's immediate reaction, and the long-term IMC intervention. She clarified that the Committee was refining the wording so that anyone who had not been in the country at the time would be able to get a clear picture of what happened.

Members of the NA were called into the Chamber again to vote at this point, and the proceedings adjourned for a short while.

On resumption, Mr Salmon continued to read through the draft findings.

Co-chairperson Bhengu reiterated that the Committee had been discussing how to make the distinction between immediate and long term interventions. She then elaborated how she felt this distinction should be made, noting the presentation of the IMC report, and what she would term the ‘immediate response’.

Mr Motau said that the Report had to clarify that the IMC was the ‘IMC on Migration’ to distinguish it from other inter-ministerial committees.

The Committee proceeded with the draft, modifying sentences as it proceeded.

Members highlighted the issue of housing given to South Africans who in turn rented those out to foreign nationals. One of the points of contention was the possibility of corruption in the transfer of possession of houses from the Department of Human Settlements (DHS) to citizens, and then to foreign nationals. They also highlighted that the competitive advantage held by foreign-owned spaza shops arose not through any better skills, but by using unfair competitive trading practices.

Mr Chance asked that some sentences be simplified to deal with only one point and not to try to compress too much into that sentence.

Co-chairperson Bhengu commented on a sentence to the effect that during the Committee’s oversight it had not come across any municipality or skilled foreign nationals who presented credible information as to how foreign nationals were actually contributing to job creation. She asked whether a particular sentence had been trying to present that, and where the research to back up this statement was to be found.

Ms Zwane said that though it was an important point she did not remember any presentation being made to this effect to the Committee. Therefore, she did not consider it relevant to this Report.

Mr Gumede agreed and suggested that it be deleted.

Co-chairperson Bhengu said that the Committee could not reproduce the IMC on Migration Report word for word and proposed that the Committee state simply that it agreed or disagreed with this report.

Members agreed and felt it would be sufficient merely to acknowledge that report.

Mr Gumede suggested that the Committee should not deal with the conclusion now but focus on it separately.

Co-Chairperson Motlashuping asked if there were any further recommendations on the draft.

Mr Salmon said that there was an overlap between the recommendations and the conclusion.

Ms Kenye asked if her findings and recommendations had been added to the draft. She enumerated them again.

Co-chairperson Bhengu replied that they, and other findings, had been captured, although in a summarised form. She also elaborated on one point, noting that the Department of Small Business Development (DSBD) would have to focus on developing street vendor businesses run by citizens.

Mr Gumede said that it would be important for the foreign nationals to be classified according to nationality, as there were not only African internationals in SA. He also proposed that the derogatory word ‘Kwerekwere’ be deleted from the draft report as he did not see its relevance.

Co-chairperson Bhengu agreed that xenophobia could not be equated to the use of the derogatory names used against foreign nationals, though she agreed that the practice existed. It was something that needed to be worked on by politicians.

Mr Gumede said that his point was that there was a minority of SA citizens that were xenophobic, but the majority were not.

Mr Ramatlakane said an acknowledgment like this could be problematic. The Committee could acknowledge attitudinal differences by some groups of citizens towards foreign nationals.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazana agreed with Mr Ramatlakane that the Committee had observed certain tendencies in SA communities.

Co-chairperson Bhengu said that this issue had been fully debated at a previous meeting and suggested that Members move on.

The Committee then went through the revised draft Report for the second time.

There was disagreement between Mr Chance and Ms Dlamini-Dubazana over the legislative defining of xenophobia.

Mr Chance said that the point he was raising was that xenophobia in SA had not been classified as a hate crime or even a crime. In the absence of legislation criminalising xenophobia as a hate crime, this alone would not sustain a criminal charge.

Co-chairperson Bhengu said that if the Committee's findings did not speak to xenophobia, it could not introduce that at the end. She agreed that it was very difficult to class it as a hate crime for these technical reasons.

Mr Motau cited a corollary with cable theft. It had been classified as petty theft until Parliament developed legislation which heavily penalised cable theft, and that was what the DA was trying to note.

Mr Ramatlakane said the statement concerning xenophobia had suddenly been introduced to the Committee without it having been fully discussed, and he felt it should be removed.

Mr Dlamini-Dubazana said that there was no country in the world that had criminalised xenophobia.

Co-chairperson Bhengu said Mr Motau’s comparisons between xenophobia and cable theft could be allowed if the Committee had found xenophobia to be a hate crime. However, since  the Committee's findings did not allude to it, it was difficult then to jump to the conclusion that it should be legislated.

Mr Motau said that the Committee knew why there had been an agreement to shy away from using the term” xenophobia”. Moreover the Committee had to be careful how it approached that particular issue. Mr Raymond Suttner, a political commentator, had been critical about the Committee and it should be honest and confront the issues.

Adv L Mpumlwana (ANC) said that had Mr Suttner availed himself to the Committee and made a presentation then his opinion would have counted, but he had not. The Committee had taken a decision earlier to exclude the term “xenophobia”.

Ms Zwane noted that the Committee had already agreed that it had not found evidence of any xenophobia, which would belie any conclusion that a portion of the South African population was xenophobic.

Mr Ramatlakane reiterated that he had already proposed the deletion of the statement acknowledging xenophobia.

Mr Chance commented that he found it problematic that written submissions had not been openly debated by the Committee. He then read a statement from one of his submissions.

Ms Kenye interjected that the Committee was given a task of probing the root causes of violent crimes against foreign nationals.

The Committee continued to discuss whether the term “xenophobia” should be used at all in the Report.

Co-chairperson Bhengu ruled that the fact that a submission had been made by Members did not automatically mean it would go into the draft Report, even if it referred to work done by a Parliamentary committee.

Mr Chance felt that written and oral submissions were treated differently and reiterated that there had not been a proper discussion of the written submissions.

Ms Manapole said that the mandate of the Human Rights Commission (HRC) report, to which Mr Chance had been alluding, was to deal with human rights issues. The Committee's mandate was different.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazana suggested that no more time be spent on this issue as the statement had already been deleted.

Co-Chairperson Motlashuping ruled in support of her proposal and said that the recommendation referring to xenophobia would be deleted.

Mr Salmon continued to read the recommendations.

ANC Members supported the recommendation for better streamlining and monitoring by state institutions, such as the IMC on Migration and Operation Fiela.

Mr Ramatlakane proposed that the first recommendation should be based principally on the work of the SA Government in the Continent, helping to stabilise other states through its peace missions, which also led to minimising the influx of refugees into South Africa. Secondly; the instruments used to ensure political stability in the countries of origin of foreign nationals had to be monitored.

Co-chairperson Bhengu concurred with the recommendation. The Committee’s mandate had been to analyse the root causes of the violence, and it had found that these were socio-economic and political. It had also described how citizens and foreign nationals responded to those challenges. The Committee’s first recommendation had to speak to those issues and it should stress that all governments – not only South Africa - had to address socio-economic and political instability challenges.

Mr Chance said he thought the first recommendation as outlined by Mr Ramatlakane sounded high-handed and patronising.

Mr Ramatlakane said that it was a fact that SA had peace-keeping missions. It was important to acknowledge the government's work in the African Continent.

ANC Members concurred with Mr Ramatlakane’s general proposal but reworked some of the grammar.

Mr Salmon continued reading through the recommendations.

Mr Ramatlakane noted that the phrase ‘root problem of violence against foreign nationals’ was not entirely correct as the Committee had found isolated violence between citizens and foreign nationals, but not attacks by waves of citizens against all foreign nationals. He proposed that clause be reworked to correctly reflect the Committee’s finding.

Mr Chance said that the word 'problem’ simply should be replaced with the word ‘causes’. The Committee had to focus on  the fact that the root cause of the violence was socio-economic.

Co-chairperson Bhengu differed, saying deaths had not occurred because of socio-economic problems. Ms Dlamini’s death was a result of a foreign shop owner shooting at a looter and hitting her with a stray bullet. The root cause of violence, in her view, was the conflict that arose through competition for trading spaces between foreign nationals and citizens. The looting and violence were the direct results of that overcrowded trading space. She supported Mr Ramatlakane’s earlier wording that the Committee found that violence was between citizens and foreign nationals.

Mr Salmon noted that he had captured that recommendation and continued to take the Committee through the wording.

The Committee recommended that the DSBD had to provide support through accommodation and skills development in addressing the five needs of local small businesses.

Co-Chairperson Bhengu raised a point of procedure that some of the recommendations had already been published in the public domain, although the Committee had not even agreed upon them.

Mr Salmon replied that there had been a media representative in the previous day’s meeting who had taken away a draft document, despite his advice not to rely on it.

Co-chairperson Bhengu reprimanded Mr Salmon, saying he should have removed that draft document. The publication of a draft would distort the work of this Committee.

Mr Salmon apologised.

Ms Zwane suggested that the Committee need not be excessively vexed over the situation, as the media report clearly was not a true reflection of the Committee's work.

Mr Ramatlakane said that the Co-chairpersons could simply issue an official statement that the Committee was still deliberating, therefore the media report was not true.

Mr Gumede proposed that the Committee needed to continue with its work as consequence management was not the preserve of the Committee.

Mr Motau wanted clarity on whether, in clause 10; the Committee should refer to municipalities, or local government.

Co-chairperson Motlashuping replied that the Committee had agreed to refer to “municipalities”.

Mr Chance challenged the assertion on the recommendation involving Gauteng ensuring 30% procurement from Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs) instead of global procurement. This was not government policy; SAA had been trying to implement something similar when it received a letter from the Department of Trade and Industry instructing the airline to desist from following this route. He proposed that National Treasury must immediately tell government departments to comply with the mooted policy of 30% procurement from SMMEs, and 70% local procurement. 

Co-chairperson Bhengu said that a statement made by the President during a State of the Nation Address (SoNA) was equivalent to a policy.

Mr Chance replied that this may be so, but there were no mechanisms to implement it.

Co-chairperson Bhengu said that if it was government policy, the Committee could recommend that all mechanisms to implement it must be put in place. She added that during oversight, the Committee had recommended that Gauteng share with other provinces its practices on receiving and settling migrants, to lessen the instantaneous and situational conflicts that arose in communities. That province seemed to be more organised.

Mr Salmon continued to read through the document, and the Committee continued to agree on deletions, modifications and changes.

Mr Motau asked what the Committee’s stance would be when questioned on the Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini's statement in Pongola, since the earlier recommendation had been deleted.

Co-chairperson Bhengu replied that the Committee had agreed to, and had engaged extensively with the National House of Traditional Leaders, who had responded that the Zulu King had simply referenced the legislation dealing with immigration in SA. The previous recommendation concerning the King had been deleted.

Ms Manapole proposed the deletion of all recommendations following the recommendation on the Zulu King.

Mr Chance said he did not understand the reason behind the deletion of all the recommendations as proposed by Ms Manapole. Parliament had every right to request the executive to do certain things, as Ministers and departments must account to Parliament.

Mr Gumede said that he agreed with keeping Government accountable. However, it was necessary to have regard to the Committee's mandate. The IMC on Migration had been set up, which had already given its account and it would continue to work and report. It was unnecessary, in addition to this, to then ask individual departments to come to Parliament to account for something that had already been handled.

ANC Members agreed with Ms Manapole's suggestion.

Mr Chance responded that the  IMC on Migration had been appointed by the executive branch of Government. Parliament was the legislative branch and therefore had a separate mandate. There was no overlap. If the Committee was not making a recommendation to departments, he felt that was a dereliction of duty on the side of MPs.

Mr Ramatlakane asked whether it would not be a sufficient recommendation to request the IMC on Migration to submit its progress report on violence against foreign nationals.

Mr Chance replied that that report had already been submitted.

Co-chairperson Bhengu suggested a recommendation that Parliament must monitor the progress being made by the IMC on Migration, and government’s long term interventions through that mechanism. Inserting new recommendations would imply that government had not done anything regarding the violence against foreign nationals.

Mr Chance commented that although he agreed with Co-chairperson Bhengu, he did not think it was an either / or situation. The recommendations that the Committee was to make would not be devaluing the work that had already been done.

Co-chairperson Bhengu said that recommendations from the Committee had to fill the gaps of what had not already been done by the IMC on Migration.

Mr Chance pointed out that Co-Chairperson Bhengu had noted earlier that recommendations being deliberated were derived from Members' written submissions, and not from the IMC on Migration's report.

Co-chairperson Bhengu replied that the Committee should not be submitting duplicate recommendations.

Mr Salmon pointed out that any grammatical errors would be fixed up in the final draft.

Co-Chairperson Bhengu suggested that any final remarks should be made now, for the Committee was ready to adopt the Report.

Mr Chance said that although the DA would concur with the adoption he still had severe reservations about the omissions from the Report.

Mr Motau said that it would have been very beneficial if the Committee had allowed the Zulu King to make representations to the Committee.

Ms Zwane felt that it would have been inappropriate for the Committee to invite the Zulu King to make representations to the Committee, for reasons well known to Mr Motau.

Co-chairperson Bhengu said she was proud of the work the Committee had accomplished. She thought that it was correct not to call the King to Parliament, as the NHTL had accounted for him.

Mr Chance said that even Co-chairperson Bhengu had alluded to the fact that Parliament was the highest decision making body in South Africa's constitutional democracy. The Zulu King was an ordinary citizen, just as the South African President was, and he reiterated that he believed the Committee had missed the opportunity.

Co-chairperson Bhengu said that the King had authority and could not be referred to as an ordinary subject.

Consideration of Minutes
Co-chairperson Motlashuping asked the Committee to go through its minutes for 4 and 25 June; 4 and 25 August; 10, 11, 13 and 17  November.

Mr Chance pointed out that two sets of minutes were missing from his pack.

The Co-Chairpersons then noted that there were not sufficient Members in the meeting to form a quorum.

For this reason, neither the Draft Report nor the Minutes could be adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.