Department of International Relations & Cooperation & African Renaissance Fund on their 2015/16 Annual Report; allegations at DIRCO, with Deputy Minister

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

19 October 2016
Chairperson: Mr M Masango (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Annual Reports 2015/16 

The delegation of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation convened to brief the Portfolio Committee on their Annual Report 2015/16, and its third consecutive qualified audit outcome, as well as the Annual Report of the African Renaissance Fund. DIRCO also briefed the Committee on the serious allegations against the Higher Commissioner to Singapore and the conduct of the Ambassador to Israel. An apology for lack of attendance was noted for the Minister, but the Members of the Committee rejected it with contempt, because her frequent absence showed a lack of accountability to Parliament.

The Chief Director of the Department of International & Cooperation (DIRCO) presented the audit findings of DIRCO for 2015/16. Even though there had been considerable achievements for the Department abroad, the audit outcome was a qualified audit outcome. The Department spent 102% (R6.6 billion) of its appropriated allocation of R 6.5 billion, which represent a net overspending of R134 million due to foreign exchange fluctuations. The performance and achievements of each of the four programmes were presented and the reasons for underachievement explained. Governance, Human Resources and the Financial Report were also presented.

In discussion, Members requested highlights from South Africa’s year as chair of G77 & China; queried if the documentation of South Africans abroad correlated with the Registration of South Africans Abroad (ROSA); requested a status update of the fellow countries of BRICS; if the disciplinary process for missions was complicated as having only 47% of disciplinary cases resolved, was evidence of the lack of consequence management; why only 83% of Senior Management had submitted signed Performance Agreements by the deadline; if DIRCO conducted exit interviews to ascertain the reasons as the exit rate seemed high; if there was best practice on how other countries’ missions dealt with locally recruited personnel (LRP); if there was alignment between the performance of DIRCO with the National Development Plan (NDP); if acquiring property overseas was not a better option than renting; what was the strategy of DIRCO to curb the problem of the rand fluctuations; why was the asset register not sorted out and why assistance with the three-year problem with heritage assets had not been accepted.

MPs also questioned if there was budgeting to complete the integration of the ICT systems; how DIRCO was ensure that other countries paid their membership contributions, so South Africa was no longer responsible for the lion’s share; why had nothing been done about the qualified audit root causes which had been identified in past years already; despite the Chief Operating Officer being appointed as recommended, the same audit findings had recurred; did the COO have adequate support; had the internal audit committee and risk management unit raised red flags; had the third qualified audit opinion resulted in consequence management; why the online ROSA was not functional; if the current budget accommodated preparation for the Partnership Fund Development Bill of 2017; if South Africa had responded in any manner to Aleppo; if ICT corporate governance was not fully compliant was this not a security risk; if the families of those that had died in Nigeria had been updated about the court case and their interests defended in court.

MPs asked about the rationalization of missions and reducing the locally recruited personnel (LRP) with one MP stating that National Treasury was overstepping its mandate with the “demand” for rationalization of missions as it was a long term investment and economic diplomacy had been profitable for South Africa.

The report on the African Renaissance and International Co-operation Fund (ARF) noted that:
• It had provided much needed assistance to the people of Namibia due to the severity of the drought
• Food security project in Guinea Conakry has continued to yield positive results
• Collaborated with global partners in efforts to contain the spread of the Ebola virus disease in West Africa
• South Africa has also recorded a milestone in its hosting of the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) following launch of Meerkat. The ARF has contributed R120 million for implementation of the project in other African countries. Ghana has been completed and will be launched later in the year.

There were eight performance indicators which were all achieved. Appropriated funds for 2015/16 was R145.637 million; Accumulated surplus from 2014/15 R1.612 billion; Committed funds as multiyear projects were R838.965 million; Approved grants for 2015/16 was R161.733 million. The Fund incurred irregular expenditure of R1.2 million, and the Accounting Authority had not condoned R131 000, but ultimately the audit outcome of 2015/16 was a clean. Available funds on 31 March 2016 totalled R1.562 billion.

MPs suggested that the speculation that more missions may face closure should be reconsidered, and what happened to the official who the Deputy Minister alluded to as betraying South Africa.

Department of International Relations & Cooperation on the allegations at DIRCO
The Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation and the Acting Director General briefed the Committee about the allegations against the South African High Commissioner to Singapore, the South African Ambassador to Israel and the allegations of NEHAWU against DIRCO due to the Chief Financial Officer.

Members queried if as a result of the incident with the High Commissioner that South Africa would rescreen the security clearance of all of its ambassadors and official representatives abroad; if the State Security Agency was subject to investigation as well, because they merely removed the security vetting of the High Commissioner now that allegations of her drug smuggling were public, which implied that their own security measures had already been compromised; that the Ambassador to Israel should be warranted an interview in fairness to have him explain his actions, and requested that DIRCO draft a profile of what an ambassador’s roles and responsibilities were.

Meeting report

The Chairperson noted that the meeting was cancelled last week because the Minister of International Relations and Co-operation was unable to attend it. Currently the rescheduled meeting was convening and yet again the Minister could not attend. The Committee had informed the Minister by letter that certain matters could not be delegated to anyone else, such as the Foreign Service Bill and the White Paper on Foreign Policy. The stance of the Committee was that the Minister had obligatory attendance at least once a year. Thus far, the Deputy Ministers always answered questions posed by the Committee. An apology was given, but actually the Committee would have preferred the Minister to warrant her time. It was mandatory that Ministers avail themselves to their relevant Committees, to enable the Committees to adequately address and account to the Parliament of South Africa.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) agreed that there were certain matters that were exclusive to her authority as a Minister to account to the Portfolio Committee. The Committee should liaise with the Deputy President about her lack of attendance and the dismay that it caused, and the Chief Whip should enforce disciplinary measures. The current meeting was postponed from last week to have accommodated her. It was advisable that the Committee write to the Leader of Government Business, which was the Deputy President, to raise the dismay at and the unhappiness with the conduct of the Minister, as well as write to the Chief Whip to ensure that there was some form of discipline. Since as a Committee, the sentiment was displeasure of and disgust at the attitude and conduct of the Minister, especially since the processes could have already been dealt with last week. The unhappiness and disgust with the attitude of the Minister should be recorded.

Mr L Mpumlwana (ANC) stated that as much as he agreed that the Minister had a duty to attend the Committee meeting; it could be that she had to meet with political heads. However, the date when the Minister was required to convene with the Portfolio Committee had been communicated to her, but it should be emphasised hereafter. Even though it was understood that her attendance was required internationally, for instance, last week she attended the BRICS conference in India, the Department should communicate to her in advance the dates that her attendance was required for the Portfolio Committee. Since the Minister had apologized, it should be accepted with a warning prohibiting its repetition, only after which, other forms of action against should be followed.

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) noted that it was important to acknowledge the huge pressure that the Minister was under, but merely a written apology was received and, whilst the Committee would accept it, it was essential to express the disappointment in the fact that DIRCO received three consecutive years of qualified audits, and failure to attend sends a message that the Department’s audit outcomes were not extremely important. In a sense, it also puts the Committee in an embarrassing situation having given the benefit of the doubt over the previous years, and so it was now expected to go the extra mile in terms of giving the right kind of reasons to account. The Committee was not being assisted with that. Whilst the Committee does understand the huge difficulties and pressures, this particular engagement was to be taken very seriously to assist the Committee to get to the bottom of what it needs to understand.

Mr M Mncwango (IFP) agreed that it was very disappointing that the Minister does not seem to prioritize the meetings with the Portfolio Committee, in view of urgent matters that needed to be sorted out and discussed with her. The work that the Minister did abroad was appreciated, but that had not meant that she was to behave as a foreigner to the Committee. It was presumed that the Minister worked according to a diary, which would not be easy to manage, but a slot of availability to engage with the Portfolio Committee could be made, particularly due to the bad audit reports for the Department. Hence, the sentiment was supported that a letter should be written to express the disquiet of the Committee. Also, it was suggested that the communication channels between the Minister and the Committee be upgraded or improved, because that could alleviate the disarray, pressures and stress experienced by the Committee.

Mr B Radebe (ANC) noted that as the Portfolio Committee there was a responsibility to execute, and part of that responsibility as per the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) was to ensure that the Department spends the money that was appropriated for it in an efficient and transparent way. In the process, each and every department had an Executive Authority, thus even though the presence of the Deputy Minister was appreciated, ultimately, he was not a Member of Cabinet, as there were queries that only a Member of Cabinet could answer or decide upon. He concurred with the other Members of the Committee that the absence was actually bordering on illegality. Since it could not be that Parliament appropriate funds and those liable for its expenditure would not revert and account for its expenditure. That behaviour could not be condoned nor should it ever be. Thus, a letter was written to the Minister indicating that when a Bill was deliberated on, she was expected at Parliament and when a budget was under review her attendance was obligatory, because she was expected to lead the Department and the accounting audits. According to the PFMA it was explicit that a quarterly report mandated her attendance every quarter. If a particular day was initially inconvenient, it could be rescheduled or meetings could be held in the evenings if necessary, but engagement with her was paramount, because there were issues that lay squarely on her shoulders and no-one else could account for this and it could not be accounted for by means of a letter.

He noted that since the motivation was fighting for a better life for South Africa, part of the betterment was to ensure that state funds were spent appropriately and to ensure that the relevant authorities had used the resources in a responsible way. What was currently critical was that the sentiment of disappointment was shared amongst Committee Members. Since joining the Committee, the Minister had never answered a single question in the House of Parliament, because the Deputy Ministers were always delegated to do such. In the past, there was a Minister who stayed in the evening after the convening of Parliament, because even though he had travelled abroad frequently, ultimately he was still obligated to account. Thus, this conduct by the current Minister was wrong and it should be emphasised that it was the last time that it has occurred. The calendar of the quarterly reports was not a surprise, everyone applicable knew about it in advance, thus as the Department prepares its presentations, it should remind her accordingly. The collective objective was for a successful Department, and the Committee was not the enemy of the Department, but it desired to make her aware of weaknesses that were exclusive to her authority to resolve. Consider the audit report, if the Executive Authority had been firm as they could be, the recurring findings would not have been repeated. How could Senior Managers when called by the internal risk committee, not attend their meetings? Their behaviour was embarrassing, because the Senior Managers were meant to implement the policies and goals of the Department, first and foremost, as they were responsible for outlining these. The only authority who could have held them accountable for failure to attend those meetings was the Minister after which the Executive Authority could do so. The Deputy Minister should convey the frustration of the Portfolio Committee, as this cannot continue.

The Chairperson clarified that the Minister had cited reasons for her not attending the current meeting, such as her essential attendance at a meeting with Cabinet and the hosting of the Heads of Missions that had included issues arising from international engagements. Her excuse cited the inability to have time to attend both; as a result the Deputy Minister would suffice as ministerial attendance. It was also written in a letter of apology. Regarding communication, the Committee had addressed its concern, but it should be assured that there was no problem or crises of communication between the Portfolio Committee and the office of the Minister, because the Parliamentary Liaison Officer (PLO) attends management meetings and attended Committee meetings without fail. The sentiment amongst Members was the Minister has to prioritise the meetings with the Portfolio Committee as well. The letter that was earlier referenced was written to the Minister in February 2016, and it had indicated the importance of attendance too. Also, when the meeting of last week was postponed, the Minister was informed that it had not convened, because she had failed to attend, and the Chair of Committees was notified accordingly as well. The 25 October meeting was meant for the adoption of the BRRR report. The presentation shall be reviewed, and the Committee was to give recommendations immediately. Therefore, a meeting on Tuesday 25th October was proposed, so that it could adopt the draft the report to ATC, taking cognisance that by the 25th, the report should have been adopted and ATC. Thus, a date for reconvening before the 25th was open to suggestion.

The Chairperson then requested proposals for a date to reconvene, and confirmed the date and time for Tuesday 25 October at 1pm.

Ms D Raphuti (ANC) said that the Portfolio Committee had been inconvenienced, as well as the personnel that worked in the offices of the Minister. The Monitoring and Evaluation report indicated that the Senior Managers were not performing or assessed. It was not only the Minister that was at fault regarding meeting absenteeism.

Mr Luwellyn Landers, Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, apologised that what had happened today, had happened before. He was aware of one instance when the delegation arrived for a meeting, but the Portfolio Committee had dismissed them. In fact it had not happened only once, yet they were expected to be prompt for every other meeting. It was noted, because without the mutual respect there shall be unnecessary tension. The tension that existed between the Executive and Legislature was natural, but there was no need to exacerbate that tension. The BRRR process, from personal experience, involved the interrogation of the Department’s Annual Report and the only two people who could engage and respond to it were the Minister and the Director General. However, the criticism was noted and it will be liaised with the Minister. The proposal given to refer the matter to the Leader of Government Business and to the Chief Whip of the ruling party must be adhered to, in addition to the letter that shall be written to the Minister expressing disapproval. Since it was correctly noted that earlier in the year the Portfolio Committee had sent the Minister a letter of communication that outlined the instances, dates and occasions of which her attendance was required. Hence, it was not as though the notification just occurred a week or two ago. Therefore, the Portfolio Committee was urged to follow those proposals, because of the critical matters that were found in the Annual Report as well as listed on the agenda, which required the response and interrogation personally from the Minister and the Director General. Regarding the audit report that cited the irregular expenditure etc, the Acting Director General might succeed in addressing those concerns. The matter relating to someone called ‘Hazel Francis Ngubeni’ who was the South African Ambassador to Singapore would be commented on, but the Minister was meant to warrant complete explanation. The questions around South Africa’s Ambassador to Israel, his pronouncements and actions that required a response from DIRCO shall be answered with his personal view and that of the Acting Director General in the interim.

The Deputy Minister had warned the delegation that they should be prepared to be told to leave by the Portfolio Committee. Even though the delegation of DIRCO had not believed the forewarning, he had explained that he had been in that position before and had eye-witnessed the delegation of DIRCO dismissed by the Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation. It was, therefore, noted that the Chairperson had been very kind.

Department of International Relations & Cooperation (DIRCO) Annual Report 2015/16
Ms Delores Kotzé, DIRCO Chief Director: Strategic Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, highlighted:
- South Africa’s year as Chair of the G77 & China was concluded
- The African Union Summit was successfully hosted in June 2015 and FOCAC in December 2015
- The Foreign Service Bill was submitted to Parliament and was currently with the Portfolio Committee
- The new organisational structure of the department was approved and is being implemented in phases
- Yet the Department is facing severe challenges with the reduced budget and the currency fluctuations
The contract of the Director General, Ambassador Jerry Matjila, expired on 31 May 2016, just after the conclusion of the reporting period.

Performance of Programme 1: Administration
The Department’s budget continued to be under pressure, due to foreign exchange fluctuations. DIRCO spent 102% (R6.6 billion) of its appropriated allocation of R6.5 billion, which represents a net overspending of R134 million. Rapid weakening of the rand against major currencies recorded foreign exchange loss of R134 million attributable to expenditure in the missions abroad. It should be noted that there were savings on Programme 3 and 4, due to cost-containment measures implemented during the AU and FOCAC summits, but DIRCO did not receive approval for virement between the Programmes.

Adherence to all five aspects of corporate governance of ICT: not achieved
There was adherence to four out of the five aspects of corporate governance of ICT which were ICT Policy; ICT Charter; Implementation Plan and Operational Plan. The lacking aspect was the drafting of an ICT plan.

Financial systems integrated: not achieved
Financial systems not integrated due to lack of internal capacity and processes to source external capacity.

100% consular assistance responded to as per the Service Delivery Charter: achieved.
100% (835) of reported cases resolved including citizens in distress, new cases of detainee/prisoners, mortal remains, whereabouts of citizens, parental child abduction, extraditions, and the service of process.

100% of documents processed and legalised: achieved
100% (43 453) documents processed and legalised.

100% compliance with 30-day payment period: not achieved
99.85% of providers paid within 30 days. Delays due to systems error and outstanding end user information.

Two constructions and one renovation projected completed: not achieved
• 80% completion in Dar es Salaam, due to project negotiations and freight material hold-up at the port
• 95% completion in Lilongwe, due to extreme weather conditions
• Renovation in Mbabane – project cancelled due to reprioritisation, as it went over the allocated budget.

Provide 94 skills training programmes: over-achieved
128 training programmes were conducted in line with the Workplace Skills Plan, due to additional requests.

Two training programmes provided to international participants: over-achieved
4 training courses provided for international participants, due to additional requests.

100% of identified training courses in partnership with international institutes: achieved
100% (8) provided by international training institutes for South Africans.

100% of training requests for protocol training responded to: achieved
100% (50) protocol training to various stakeholders was responded to.

Three publications capturing institutional memory: not achieved
Two publications were released that captured institutional memory.

20 stakeholder engagements in support of foreign policy: over- achieved
21 stakeholder engagements in support of foreign policy took place.

Three publications capturing institutional memory: over- achieved
Four research papers
• A Looming World War: The Spectre of Global Terrorism,
• Mutually Beneficial International Relations Opportunities for South Africa in Latin America
• The Chinese economic downturn and its implications for South Africa
• The future of the African Caribbean Pacific Group (ACP) – Post 2020

Four reports on risk assessment: not achieved
Two reports were submitted, as the Risk Management Committee had not convened for two quarters.

Performance of Programme 2: International Relations
The overall targets for Programme 2 were not-achieved due to scheduling difficulties. DIRCO had 29 out of 34 structured bilateral engagements, and 39 out of 58 high level visits which were coordinated to promote national priorities, the African Agenda and the Agenda of the South.

Achievements for Programme 2: Utilised the structured mechanisms and high level visits to
- Source FDI; support for skills development, scholarships at different levels
- Agree on cooperation in areas such as agriculture, science & technology, mining, energy and others
- Discuss and promote peace and stability on the continent
- Source investment in the energy sector, mineral beneficiation, agro-processing, infrastructure and the ocean economy
- Exchange of views on a wide spectrum of bilateral, regional and global matters and the establishment of working groups covering sectoral cooperation in various matters
- Commitments were made to strengthen cooperation in the fields of energy, defence, education, the Blue Economy, assistance for rural development and skills development
- Signed 23 agreements with China to the value of R107 billion
- Japanese companies with investment in SA increased from 114 (2014) to 140 (2015) and employing 150 000 South Africans
- Japan agreed to specialised artisan training programme for SA artisans
- Korea committed grant aid of about $ 1.5 million for skills development and rural development
- Over 200 fully funded scholarships for South African students were secured in the Americas and Europe
- Over 350 000 jobs created by 2000 EU companies operating in SA
- SA was promoted as an investment and tourism destination.

South Africa’s Economic Diplomacy should be met with commercial benefits. Some bilaterals did not take place, but it still exceeded the budget with unauthorised expenditure of R133 million.

111 out 112 planned Trade and Investment seminars: not achieved
Promoted exports in agro processing; renewable energy; various sectors such as banking; mining; automotive components; fruits; cosmetics; military equipment.

144 out of 126 planned engagements with chambers of commerce: over-achieved.

99 out of 64 planned engagements with different Government ministries: over-achieved
Explored collaboration in food processing; aviation; transport and infrastructure, science and technology and education. Promoted South Africa’s Nine Point Plan, IPAP VI, Operation Phakisa, the Green Economy.

154 out of 86 planned Potential investors: over-achieved
Created awareness of SA products and promoted SA as a favourable investment destination

94 out of 67 planned Tourism promotion events: over-achieved

Performance of Programme 3: International Cooperation
All international meetings, multilateral forums were attended and South Africa played a significant role. As Chair of the G77 plus China advanced aspirations of developing countries; in the climate change Paris Agreement (funding, transfer of technology, ODA) and influenced the outcomes of SDGs. Introduced agenda item in the ICC Assembly of State Parties on consultations under Article 97 of the Rome Statute.

Promotion & protection of human rights
Negotiated and influenced the adoption of resolutions on: Protection of the family; Violence against women
South Sudan; Racism and various others

Disarmament, nuclear security and Non-proliferation
Continued the promotion of peaceful uses of nuclear energy and the safety and security of nuclear energy.
Concluded host country agreement to host AFCONE

Post-2015 Development Agenda and Sustainable Development
Continued to promote the lessons learnt from the MDGs and the importance of adequate Means of Implementation. Focus on strengthened institutional and human capacity for the implementation of the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Through its position as chair of G77 & China, SA was instrumental in the adoption of the 17 SDGs

Climate Change
In its role as chair of G77 & China, SA was instrumental in the adoption of the Paris Agreement and its supporting decisions on climate change.

G20
Participation in the G20 Summit where the following was agreed to:
• G20/OECD High-Level Principles on SME Financing and Joint Action Plan on SME Financing inclusive of SME in global value chain, export capacity
• G20 Skills Strategy and G20 Policy Principles for Promoting Better Youth Employment Outcomes –theme of inclusiveness, skills for new economies

Legal and policy advice – International & Domestic Law
Provided 100% (518) legal service and advice related to international law and 100% (778) legal service and advice related to domestic law. Continued with South Africa’s submission on the extended continental shelf

Programme 3: Continental Cooperation
Peace and stability; socio-economic development; good governance and democracy
- Utilised AUPSC membership to promote peace and security on the continent, including decisions taken in placing in abeyance the dissolution of the African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crises (ACIRC)
- Participated in two election observer missions
- Advanced Africa Agenda through participation at AU structures, providing a national account on efforts to promote and protect human rights, adoption of the Ten Year Implementation plan of the Agenda 2063
- Provided support to the President at NEPAD Summits. The following were tabled:
- NEPAD Support for Regional Integration and Women Empowerment; African Development Goals in the context of implementing Agenda 63; and Africa’s Global Development Forum

SADC Regional Integration
Participated at various summits to address
• Peace and security challenges, particularly in Lesotho, DRC and Madagascar; Regional economic development issues
•The draft Regional Industrialisation Strategy

Programme 3: South-South and North-South Cooperation
BRICS- Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa
- Seventh BRICS Summit concluded establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA)
- Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership adopted
- Reviewed the SA-BRICS strategy

IBSA- India, Brazil, South Africa
- Participated in the IBSA Focal Meeting where the functioning of the IBSA forum was reviewed
- Continued to work with IBSA fund for poverty alleviation

IORA- Indian Ocean Rim Association
South Africa assumed Vice-Chair of IORA in October 2015, hosted first international workshop on the Blue Economy Contact Group

European Union
Affirmed EU collaboration with SA in the Ocean Economy in sharing of knowledge and technologies

Programme 4: Public Diplomacy
Setting the Agenda: over-achieved
• 19 out of 18 planned media briefings;
• 197 out of 160 planned media statements;
• 10 targeted opinion pieces

Own platforms: over-achieved
20 out of 19 targeted publications. Ubuntu magazine available in digital format and SAA business lounges

Promotion and Branding South Africa and DIRCO
• 12 targeted public participation programmes undertaken to create awareness of SA’s foreign policy priorities
• Annual Diplomatic Fair
• 2nd Annual Ubuntu awards

Programme 4: State Protocol
Provided Protocol Services for state and ceremonial events, incoming and outgoing visits
• Provided protocol services at five special events;
• 242 incoming and outgoing international visits
• Facilitated 30 658 dignitaries through the State Protocol Lounges

Provide immunities and privileges for the Diplomatic Corps
• Issued 6 064 diplomatic passports & visas;
• Responded to 7 361 requests for Diplomatic accreditation;
• Responded to 2 219 requests for Diplomatic privileges

Governance:
Risk Management

The Risk Management Committee consisted of independent external members (Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson) and members of senior management structure. It meets quarterly to review reports on:
- implementation of risk management activities which incorporates all areas of risk universe such as department-wide risk assessment reports,
- performance information, audit reports, financial, assets management, property management, corporate management, project management and ICT reports.
• DIRCO received risk management Maturity assessment level 5, in accordance with the Treasury’s Maturity Framework which indicates that risk management has a significant influence on decision making.

Fraud and Corruption
• The department maintains and implements a fraud and corruption prevention policy and strategy
• Reviews and updates the Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy in line with risk management framework
• DIRCO has developed a Whistle-blowing Policy in line with the Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy
The suspected indication of fraud or corruption is either reported internally through appropriate channels (supervisors and/or the Risk Management Unit) or anonymously through the National Anti-Corruption Hotline

Internal Audit
During the reporting period, Internal Audit performed the following audits at both Head Office and missions: Compliance audit, Special audits, Consultations / management request, ICT audits.

Audit Committee
The Audit Committee met at least four times during the reporting period.

Human Resource Management:
Employment and Vacancies as at 31st March 2016
•Number of approved posts: 2 564 (excluding Locally Recruited Personnel)
•Number of filled posts: 2 233
•Number of vacant posts: 331
•Vacancy rate: 12.9% as compared to 14,8% in the previous financial year

Reasons why the vacancy rate remained higher than the National average
• High exit rate of 4,52% (101)
• Internally appointed employees exceed external appointments
• Migration and placement of incumbents took long due to consultations of employees affected
• Only identified critical posts not affected by the new structure were prioritised for filling

Way Forward for DIRCO
• Full implementation of the structure is being done during the current financial year, after budget responsibility codes for new components could only take effect from 1 April 2016.
• Non-critical posts will be identified to be frozen/abolished in order to implement the compensation of employees’ ceiling as instructed by National Treasury

Misconduct and disciplinary hearings finalised and Grievances lodged
• 62.5% (5 out of 8) disciplinary cases were finalised within 90 days as prescribed
• 47.2% (17 out of 36) grievances handled / finalised within 30 days

Performance Agreements by SMS - Senior Management Staff
• 83% (237 out of 287) SMS members submitted signed Performance Agreements by the deadline
• One SMS member was charged with misconduct for failure to submit performance agreement. The member, however, was not found guilty after the disciplinary hearing.
• The reason the remainder did not submit on time was due to their job descriptions being changed during the organizational review. As such they were given the grace period to submit after the deadline.
• Some SMS members were promoted and still submitted within the three-month eligibility period.

Financial Information:
The Department spent 102 per cent (R6.6 billion) of its appropriated allocation of R 6.5 billion, which represent a net overspending of R134 million. Also, the department recorded foreign exchange loss amounting to R134 million due to the depreciation of the Rand against major currencies, attributable to expenditure in missions abroad. However, the department also recorded savings on Programmes 3 and 4 as a result of cost containment measures implemented during African Union (AU) Summit and Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) Summit. The unspent operational budget underwent virement to cover overspending in Programme 5.

Audit financial report
DIRCO received for 2015/16 a Qualified Audit Opinion on:
• Non-identification of heritage assets
• No updated asset register for movable tangible capital assets and minor assets

Cost drivers: foreign exchange fluctuations affecting compensation of employees and transfer payments to international organisations

Asset Portfolio
DIRCO manages a state-owned property portfolio of 24 chanceries, 33 official residences, 40 staff accommodation, as well as a rental portfolio in excess of 850 properties.

In the last quarter of 2014, DIRCO reported it had set up oversight task team; developed a turnaround strategy on asset management; reviewing asset procedure manual; conducted workshops at missions; appointed asset controllers; enforced verification of assets using scanning device (HARDCAT); consequence management letters; quality assurance teams sent to high risk and non performing missions; asset register preservation decentralised.

Financial Expenditure per Programme
Programme 1: Administration à R1 381 471 billion = 100.0% of budget spent
Programme 2: International Relations (Multilateral)à R3 640 379 billion = 103.8% of budget spent
Programme 3: International Relations (Continental)à R523 051 million = 99.6% of budget spent
Programme 4: State protocol and public diplomacy à R333 222 million = 91.7% of budget spent
Programme 5: International Transfersà R766 641 million = 104.4% of budget spent
Total variance amounted to: R133 910 million overspent (102.1%).

Programme 1 Expenditure outcomes
1. During the period under review, the Programme continued to provide support with regard to the development of the overall policy and management of the department through efficient, effective and economical utilisation of scarce resources.
2. Expenditure for programme 1 is R1.4 billion, which represents an increase of 12% compared to 2014/15. Increase in expenditure is due to the spending on Dar es Salaam and Lilongwe construction projects.

Programme 2 Expenditure outcomes
1. Expenditure increased significantly from R3.1 billion in 2014/15 to R3.6 billion in 2015/16 at nominal growth rate of 16%, mainly attributed to the depreciation of the Rand against foreign currencies.
2. The depreciation of the Rand resulted in high exchange rates, thus increasing operational costs in missions abroad, including salaries and wages as well lease payments for office and residential accommodation. Consequently, expenditure for programme 2 exceeded the budget by R134 million.

Programme 3 Expenditure outcomes
1. Expenditure increases from R485.1 million in 2014/15 to R523.1 million in 2015/16 at nominal growth rate of 8%. Savings are mainly due to the cost containment measures for operational expenditure.

Programme 4 Expenditure outcomes as at 31st March 2016
1. Expenditure increased from R485.1 million in 2014/15 to R523.1 million in 2015/16 at nominal growth rate of 8%. Savings are mainly due to the cost containment measures for operational expenditure.

Programme 5 Expenditure outcomes as at 31st March 2016
1. Programme 5 had an overspending due to foreign exchange rate losses for payment of membership fees and South Africa's compulsory assessment contribution to United Nations and African Union.
 
The expenditure decreased from R863 million in 2014/15 to R734 million in 2015/16 which represents a decrease of 15% compared to 2014/15.

Discussion
Mr M Malia (ANC) welcomed the presentation, and requested DIRCO to highlight the major key achievements during the one-year that South Africa was the chair of G77 & China. It was noted that South Africa was instrumental in the adoption of the Paris Agreement and its supporting decisions on climate change, but could DIRCO elaborate further on achievements in that role? (Programme 3: slide 17) He requested that the 0.15% of providers not paid within the 30-day payment period be quantified (Programme 1: slide 5). Would the renovation in Mbabane proceed, because it was cited that the project was cancelled as it went over budget? (Programme 1: slide 6) It was cited that not having a business analyst was the reason for not achieving a target, thus when would a business analyst be appointed? He queried if the documentation of South Africans abroad correlated with the Registration of South Africans Abroad (ROSA). A status update of the fellow countries of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa) was requested of the Deputy Minister, because a year ago it seemed that an economic downgrade was inevitable (Programme 3: slide 17). Lastly, 62.5% (5 out of 8) disciplinary cases were finalised within 90 days as prescribed. However, were the disciplinary processes of those on missions not complicated, because it might have required flying out to the country that they were based in? Could the disciplinary process for those on missions be explained?

Ms Raphuti appreciated the presentation. Why had only 83% (237 out of 287) Senior Management Services (SMS) members submitted signed Performance Agreements by the deadline? Even the personnel of the Deputy Ministers and the Minister should be accountable to sign Performance Agreements, because it seems that the incurred challenges were as a result of issues that were not prioritised. Also, it was assumed that the contract of Ambassador Matjila as Director General would be extended, because of his expertise and skills. It was commendable that South Africa was the chair of G77 & China. Does DIRCO conduct exit interviews to ascertain the causes for resignation, such as burnout? Many young people wanted to work in the field of International Relations, but the high level of resignations indicates that there was something else to resolve. Was it not unfair to have merely two employees operating the Risk Management facility for DIRCO, which was a global department? As a previous shop steward, the weight of the responsibilities of those two employees was understood. However, the Department should increase the rate of which it employs, especially the appointment of more qualified risk management staff, because there were competent citizens who sought employment.

Ms T Kenye (ANC) appreciated the presentation. DIRCO cited foreign exchange fluctuations for the over-expenditure at missions. Were there best practices for how other countries’ missions dealt with locally recruited personnel (LRP)? Or has DIRCO a cost effective method to maintain current salaries of those on missions? Was there alignment of the performance of DIRCO with the National Development Plan (NDP)? The Department’s rental portfolio in excess of 850 properties was a concern. How far was the building of permanent headquarters for the agencies of the United Nations? Renting was expensive and it was understood that there would be financial implications, but what was the status of the processes, and how far was the Department with assessing the availability of acquiring property, as opposed to renting abroad? DIRCO seems to have a problem with asset register preservation. One of the reasons why a qualified audit report was always received for the registration of the heritage asset may be due to not monitoring it. The rand fluctuations may be the cost driver for overspending, and so impeded on the ability of South Africa to deliver on and execute its foreign policy. What was the strategy of DIRCO to curb that problem?

Ms Dudley questioned if there was budgeting to complete the integration of the ICT systems, because it was cited that the processes had just begun. (Programme 1: slide 5) It was noted that over-expenditure for Membership, such as African Union, was due to compulsory assessment commitments that were financial. (Programme 5: slide 52) There was also the impression that other countries were not paying as they should. How was DIRCO responding to that lack of commitment of others? Thus, what could DIRCO do and what could it not do, to ensure that other countries paid their contribution, and so South Africa was no longer responsible for such a lion’s share? What does South Africa have to do to get out of that predicament? Since root causes were identified accurately in the past, had those accountable merely ‘wished’ that these went away. Was it money or other practicalities? What was lacking that discouraged resolving the root causes which had recurred for a few years now? What would ensure the success of the measures currently taken, and what was different that would assist management to resolve the root causes? She then noted experiencing login problems with ROSA when on conference in Berlin. First, the memory of ROSA was problematic; would the average South African remember to register before leaving, even for a quick visit? Next, was there a connection of ROSA with DIRCO for the public also? Lastly, the user-friendliness of ROSA required upgrading. She queried if the current budget accommodated preparation for the Partnership Fund Development Bill/Foreign Service Bill of 2017 and whatever would come into place as a result of it. It was requested that the Deputy Minister advise if South Africa had responded, in any manner, to Aleppo and the atrocities of targeting Christians.

Mr Radebe welcomed the Annual Report presentation and its user friendliness. It contained the third Audit Report that resulted in qualification for recurring issues. Should Consequence Management by the third time not result in dismissal by now? Whatever was implemented was ineffective. What shall be done differently to improve the situation? For instance, Treasury has provisions in its regulations that permit deviations if communicated in advance; such as if a country only has one BMW dealership and so three quotations will not be submitted as required, Treasury should be notified and appealed to. It was no longer a situation of ignorance, but that there should be a shared direction of duties instead. Secondly, the R4.6 billion worth of assets owned abroad by DIRCO was a concern, especially since those very assets were not being maintained, despite the budget for maintenance. It meant that those responsible for maintenance were not doing their job, and its negligence was actually eroding the money of South Africans. It was illogical, for example, to own a £20 million house in Europe but it had raw sewage flowing out of it for two weeks. Its reputational damage was an implication for all South African citizens as a whole. Since the foreigners could reckon that that house was owned by South Africa which wanted to ‘play a big boy’, but could not even maintain its house. It cannot be entertained- someone must be held liable for the negligence.

Mr Radebe said the Audit Report may note 100% consular services achieved, but it was merely theoretical and not an accurate depiction of what was practically happening on the ground. Examples include Ms Naidoo whom was recently refused consular services in Israel. Within the financial year under review, the people who died in Nigeria had their case taken up in court, but what assistance was given to the families of the deceased, who kept the families updated and who defended their interests in court? What happened to the groom that went missing in Mozambique? No report was given after his disappearance was announced. Hence, 100% consular services provided looked good on paper, but was not the reality.

Mr Radebe noted that if ICT corporate governance was not fully compliant, it indicates that excellent services were not rendered to South Africans. It was appreciated that DIRCO listened to the recommendation of the Portfolio Committee to appoint a Chief Operating Officer (COO) to assist the Director General, particularly when he was abroad. The COO had been appointed, but the same issues of the Department had recurred. Thus, was the COO given sufficient power to deal with the issues? It was expected of the Acting Director General present to explain which powers were given to the COO? Also, disciplinary hearings may be conducted at the level of employment, but there was a serious case that the Department should report on because it was high profile, and the media should not be expected to do oversight. He requested a report on the $32 000 ‘eaten’ in South Sudan, because those ‘rats’ must be fat wherever they are.

Mr Mokgalapa agreed that those ‘rats’ must be very fat. He emphasised that there were evidently two issues that caused the qualified audit. One issue was that there might not be capacity in DIRCO or recruitment of unskilled people, particularly in the financial department or management. The other issue was that there may be competent people in their positions, but they had absconded from their duties. Three consecutive years of qualified audits on serial issues but nothing had been resolved. Thus, the question was, does DIRCO have the capacity - do they know what they are doing, or did they have the capacity and knew what was expected, but did not do what they should have? That was the bottom line. Secondly, the concern of risk management was not the ambiguity of the root causes, as the issues were clear; it was a matter of what was DIRCO doing to resolve the root causes? What both the Risk Management and the Internal Auditor had informed was the same information that Auditor General South Africa had briefed on. There had been engagement between Senior Management and all stake-holders involved, inclusive of DIRCO and the AGSA, thus why the recurrence of the same issues? There were two critical matters of concern; one was the leadership of the accounting officer and the executive authority, and secondly was the lack of financial internal control that adhered to supply chain management policy and procedures. Those were two bones of contention, apart from the three root causes that the AGSA had stipulated, inclusive of lack of consequence management and the capacity in the division of finance.

He questioned the vacancy rate at DIRCO versus the high exit rate. It was said that DIRCO was such an attractive employer, since many people wanted to travel overseas, so why were they then running away from DIRCO? Was it a matter of gatekeepers or something more serious? The extent of disciplinary cases may indicate the lack of leadership by the Accounting Officer. Having only 47% of disciplinary cases resolved, was evidence of the lack of consequence management that AGSA had indicated. It was agreed that all disciplinary hearings may not result in dismissal, but at least some action was taken, but that was not even happening. Regarding ROSA, it was explicit that it was not functional, because of complaints of registration. What was the status of ROSA?

Mr Mokgalapa addressed the Deputy Minister directly and stated that there were political questions that he had wanted to ask the Minister, but since she was not present, he would have to take the flag. Treasury had given its recommendations about the rationalisation of missions and LRP, both of which were political decisions, including the purchase of property as opposed to leasing. Treasury had also recommended the reduction of the missionary fee, and had explained that an error was that diplomats of DIRCO had gone around the world and made commitments, without first asking if there were funds available to suffice those commitments. For instance, R1.8 billion was allocated for the new membership scale for the AU - where would that R1.8 billion come from? These were political questions that posed a serious concern. It should not be assumed that Treasury should give DIRCO the R1.8 billion. LRP already costs R660 million on its own. It seems that DIRCO does not understand how to measure COLA - the cost of living abroad, and Treasury had to engage with DIRCO to have informed better calculations. (Programme 2: slide 9) It was agreed that three years ago the Committee had advised the Director General to warrant the position of COO to continue duties whilst the DG was abroad; however, the position was not given teeth. The internal audit committee and the risk management were meant to raise the red flags too. It was expected that whatever was discovered as faults would be communicated in the quarterly meetings that the Portfolio Committee had with the Internal Audit. AGSA findings noted that the Internal Audit had discussed these faults with DIRCO during the year.

Mr Mokgalapa told the Director General last year that DIRCO could already write the Audit Report for the following year, because the issues were unresolved, despite having an internal audit committee and risk management, and it was proven true. The Audit Report was a replication of the two years preceding it. AGSA had offered to send its employees to the missions, with DIRCO paying for their accommodation and AGSA would pay for the flights, to review asset verification. However, the offered was ignored. Instead there were disputes with AGSA on technical contentions, such as what was deemed as a heritage asset. DIRCO could get an expert from Arts and Culture to verify if unsure, it was not about the quantity for verification, but rather whether the heritage asset was accurately captured. It was clear that there was three root causes and critical to it was asset management and heritage assets. Why was DIRCO not willing to accept their offer?

Mr Mokgalapa said the Committee that the cited "100% consular services provided abroad" was inaccurate. Perhaps this referred to simple matters. However, there was the complex situation where the Deputy Minister had to go beyond his ambit to call around as intervention for the missing groom in Mozambique. However, since neither DIRCO nor the Embassy provided the consular services at the appropriate level, the Deputy Minister had to provide it himself. It was good that the Committee had done their homework and had met with the two key stakeholders of DIRCO, which were National Treasury and AGSA. Both had made recommendations, but what was DIRCO doing about them? On the matter of ITC governance, it should be strengthened, because our diplomatic cables could be compromised. If WikiLeaks could leak top-secret Russian information, it should serve as a forewarning. In conclusion, DIRCO should have stronger accountability from the Executive Authority and the Accounting Officer, and yet none of them were present - merely one individual in an acting position.

Mr Mncwango asked why the repeated findings and root causes were not being addressed. AGSA indicated that the same occurred for three consecutive years without any action, thus it might be an issue of capacity. Where was the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) amongst these errors? Was there a CFO appointed in DIRCO, and if not, why not? All of the problems derived from financial mismanagement. Could the CFO inform them about the difficulty incurred due to the assets, because DIRCO owned globally 200+ assets that amounted to R4.6 billion of taxpayers’ money? Was there an asset register and was it updated? Since its audit was still not done nor categorization of it, how was it known what was owned and what was no longer owned? Some assets were in a state of decay and others so eroded that they should be written off. Maintenance of assets was more costly than their acquisition. A person should be held liable for asset management and with time frames. Also, the security of information in DIRCO was essential. Hence, the condition of the ICT was problematic. It was reported as outdated, unavailable at times and unbefitting for the purposes of running diplomatic missions. Resolving this should be delegated within DIRCO with timeframes, so that progress could be monitored. Why was there no consequence for wasteful expenditure? There was a reported liability payment by a certain individual and no consequences against that person were reported. Was that also an issue of capacity? If so, a skills audit was necessary to ascertain if people were allocated to the correct position.

Ms Dudley asked what happened three years ago that DIRCO had started to receive qualified audits, because assets had been around a lot longer than the three years as well as exchange rates that influenced increases in price. What triggered this problem that seemingly had not been there beforehand?

Mr Mncwango asked if the Acting COO enjoyed adequate support in conducting her responsibilities and duties. If there were no proper mechanism to support her, it would be problematic.

Mr Mokgalapa asked if DIRCO used the Modified Cash Standard as advised by Treasury, as it appears that DIRCO had a problem in applying its principles.

Mr Radebe later commented, between the response of the Deputy Minister and the Acting DG, that Treasury was overstepping its mandate with the demand for rationalization of missions. It was constitutional that the President invited and appointed ambassadors to foreign embassies; because foreign policy was determined by the President. It was not the duty of National Treasury to dictate restrictions. South Arica was aspiring to be a Member of the Security Council in the United Nations, but how was international support going to be garnered if the country was decreasing it international footprint? The underlying reason why G77 & China was as successful as it was at influencing was because it had a footprint around the world. Hence even though the costs of missions were expensive, it was a necessary sacrifice. It was similar to if one thought that education was expensive, so one decided to try ignorance. It was imperative that Treasury be told that it was overstepping its mandate. Even though Treasury has to determine State resources and consumption, there should be sections that were exclusive to Departments to determine its own resource consumption. The figures showed imports to the country amounted to R1 trillion, and the exports were R900 billion. It had almost cancelled each other out, because of the global footprint that South Africa had. If it was not so, the economic position of South Africa would be similar to the economic turmoil that the democracy had inherited in 1994. The direct return on investment may seem small, but for the greater good and long term investment, it was both profitable and advisable.

The Chairperson noted that there were a host of issues to deliberate with the Minister. Another meeting with the Minister would be called, because the Risk Committee and AGSA had listed the same issues to the Portfolio Committee. The matter of the CFO should be clarified by DIRCO, whether it chose to appoint a new CFO or not and its reasons. DIRCO had performed well on its diplomatic and political networking by the Ministers, Diplomats and other officials. However, the risk management; internal audit; AGSA and the Portfolio Committee have discovered perpetual weaknesses in the sector of its finances. A COO was hired as advised by the Committee, but why was DIRCO not implementing change? AGSA had noted disputes of what constituted a heritage asset by DIRCO, but it was a simple matter of categorizing them and then within the categories, quantifying should take place. The political principal should compel DIRCO to create a task team and allocate funds to quantify the heritage assets. What was the policy on pledges? Treasury noted a contingency liability for the government as the funds allocated by pledges were not initially budgeted for. Since some locally recruited personnel (LRP) were aged 75, DIRCO should consult with other countries regarding what their age limitation was and conditions of work. Due to foreign exchange and rand fluctuations it was more profitable to purchase a building than to lease. Risk management had one person and now there were two employees, were they enough? In the interim, before meeting with the Minister, a letter would be sent to her listing the grievances expressed.

Deputy Minister response
Mr Luwellyn Landers, Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, commented that he was beginning to understand why the Minister might not have wanted to be present. In previous meetings that the Portfolio Committee had with the former Director General, the Committee had praised his diplomatic work both in the position as well as prior to 1994. However, whilst he was abroad, someone was required domestically to give account of DIRCO. Therefore, the Committee had advised him to appoint a Chief Operating Officer (COO), to assist him. The problem was that another diplomat was appointed. In fact, DIRCO as a department was full of diplomats.

He gave the example of the proposed property that would house the Pan African Parliament. The property was identified and construction plans drawn for it. However, only once physically scrutinized, it was discovered that the property was situated on a swamp, and so was strictly protected by Environmental Affairs. The point was not to assign blame on Ambassador Matjila, since DIRCO should accept responsibility and liability, both individually and collectively and within his capacity as Deputy Minister as well. Diplomats cannot be administrative and financial experts, and consequently should not be in such roles. At least when Ambassador Salie was appointed as Acting Director General, he appealed to the Deputy Minister for help, because he admitted that he was not trained in that capacity and may incur mistakes, as the pursuit of one role would sacrifice the other. DIRCO had recently advertised the post of Director General. The Committee should in their interaction with the Minister emphasis that a diplomat should not be appointed as Director General. Instead the appointed individual should be an admin, financial and legal expert, instead of one that would leave the office for duties abroad. Financial and administrative roles should be reserved for the relevant personnel, otherwise DIRCO will continue to receive qualified audits. This should not be perceived as blame on Ambassador Matjila, because DIRCO had assigned him the position, with the misnomer that he would succeed, but could not. The appointment of the new DG would be an opportunity to correct the error from DIRCO. Whether the new DG would have sufficient time to correct the inherited qualified audit  was uncertain, but if the appropriate person was an administrative, financial and legal expert, some positive outcomes could be expected as relief. For three years the situation had not changed, instead the problems that were already, had caught up, and it was inevitable that it would do so.

G77 & China: The Deputy Minister was present in New York when the chairmanship was given to Thailand. The Member States had convened in the preliminary hall to conduct the annual ritual of rendering the gavel to the successor, but before doing so an address was requested. He noted that there were not many occasions that he had been exceedingly proud of being a South African, but that moment was one of them. Since every person that was asked to speak showered praise on South Africa’s role in reaching the Paris Agreement. South Africa took the lead and witnesses in Paris cited that SA had such control of the situation that the delegates from USA, who were usually in control, were compelled to run around to ascertain what the decisions were. The USA was not a Member of G77 & China. In particular, Ambassador Kingsley Mamabolo played a crucial strategic leadership role. Due to the high esteem that his fellow ambassadors granted him, South Africa was abld to fulfil its mandate to the point that the Paris Agreement could manifest.

BRICS: One of the matters observed about Brazil and India was that BRICS could be challenged when their governments had changed. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India was not regarded as part of the Congress Movement in India, which was what the ANC had aligned itself with. Those who knew him have perceived himself as lukewarm to BRICS; hence his consent to participation of BRICS was questionable. However, after the Summit, he had both consented to short and long term initiatives. President Michel Temer of Brazil has had close ties with the USA. The Brazilian President together with other officials in his parliament had faced a string of corruption charges, but it was confirmed that he was, indeed, the new Head of State. He had attended the BRIC Summit as well, but his commitment to its objectives was not yet definitive.

The president of the New Development Bank (NDB), K V Kamath, was asked in an interview, “Is the NDB in competition with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank?” His response was that the NDB was not in competition, but that its role was actually complementary, and that the NDB would provide funding for projects that were unable to be sourced from the World Bank or IMF. His stance was quite diplomatic when answering, but sincere, as he was an internationally distinguished banker, and his response remained as the official response for NDB. Of course there had been many complaints from South African politicians and the ANC in the past, regarding the World Bank and IMF and the manner in which they conduct themselves. However, that statement derived from the NDB president.

After a meeting with the African Heads of State, the President of South Africa had communicated on 18 October with the Ministry that the all of the African Heads of State had demanded to be involved in the opening of the African Regional Centre at a temporary domicile set to take place in November or December. The exact date would be advised to the Committee and it was suggested that the Committee should be invited as special guests as it will take place on South African soil. It was a temporary though, as the project to build a permanent domicile was at its beginning stages and it would be a while before construction actually took place.

The status of the Partnership Fund Development Bill of 2017 was that both Treasury and DIRCO wanted the final say on the funding of its projects. The Deputy Minister had recommended to those responsible to draft the Bill to include two or three options that could be presented to Cabinet, and then allow Cabinet to decide which would be ratified. The Bill was to be presented to Parliament, but it had currently been delayed for over a year, and its procrastination could complicate the reasons that caused the initial delay.

Aleppo: There were not only Christians dying in Syria. The Deputy Minister reminded them of the photograph of the boy of six with his surroundings blown up and the extent of fear in the child’s eye and who was dumbstruck by such atrocities. It was inevitable that that child would grow up to be a terrorist. Yet to prohibit it was the role of the UN Security Council and the Permanent Five. Therefore, it was not a light-hearted discussion by the ANC to democratise Syria. The Permanent 5 was using Syria as a proxy war, because they had not wanted to implicate their own citizens. It was a matter of a power struggle between them, and they were using Syrian grounds to settle it. He read a quotation of an international criminal lawyer: “that this conflict had raged on for five years was a travesty in itself. But another deeply tragic factor is that it exposes just how ineffective the Security Council can be, when politics and self-interest were prioritized over the alleviation of human suffering.” Therefore, the Permanent 5 will appear in the media and make pious pronouncements about the suffering of the Syrian people. These had proven to be vacant words, because they were determined that their power struggle would be settled in Syria, yet they were UN Security Council members and should have set an example. A top human rights official had proposed in the UN that whenever any of the Permanent 5 are directly involved in a conflict of this nature, they should lose their right to veto, but the idea was rejected, especially by Russia and the USA. France and Britain had showed interest but the other two were not interested at all at the proposal.

What was South Africa’s position in all this? Recently, the US Deputy Secretary of State called the Deputy Minister and asked for the stance of SA on the use of chemical weapons. Since the US now has advanced technology that measures the use of chemical weapons and picked this up in Syria. His response, which was the official one, was that “South Africa condemns any use of chemical weapons in conflict.” The only solution to the Syrian conflict was that the protagonists came to their senses. However, it did not look as though they were going too.

Rationalization of missions: DIRCO had already closed a mission in Perugia, even though it had not been announced yet. More closures of missions may possibly occur, as DIRCO was reviewing which criteria should be used when opening a mission. Obviously, trade was one motivation, but there were other motivations to consider too. There were instances, when such a criterion was not applicable, such as in Cuba. It was understood that Cuba had sacrificed the most for the freedom of South Africa, thus even though there were no trade liaisons with Cuba, the mission in its country shall not be closed as a matter of principle. When asked why there was a mission in Fiji, research was done to decipher all of the missions and their value in trade, with the result showing that trade with Fiji was worth millions of Rand. Yet there was suspicion that more missions would be closed. The concern would be what to do with the returning South Africans. Yet, it may somewhat resolve the high rental expenditure abroad. Also, DIRCO was on the verge of opening its first mission in Malawi. The personnel were already set up, but no official mention of it had been made yet. It should be noted that traditionally, the mission entailed that embassy staff lived elsewhere away from it. The ambassador would usually reside in a luxurious house. Consequently, the personnel were provided with vehicles to travel in. However, many had chosen vehicles that they were not entitled to, such as Mercedes Benz, and a chauffeur. South Africans were not acquainted with the location of the places they were deployed to. Thus, from the point of arrival the embassy staff was chauffeured, and its costs borne by the South African taxpayers. It was a small example of why LRP were necessary. Some countries already have their chancery and accommodation in one building. It may not be an easy endeavour, but it should be worthwhile as a means of cutting down on auxiliary expenses, such as travel costs and chauffeuring. The only travel would be using the elevator. Also, there was the challenge of limited space, because some embassy personnel were doubling up in their offices.


Heritage assets: DIRCO had acknowledged that a procurement process was necessary, but it posed questions whether an Arts and Culture expert would have to go to every embassy to do evaluation, which was costly. Should such a process be undertaken, it would be appreciated that the Portfolio Committee would not reprimand it on such unprecedented expenditure, because it was a necessary process to ensure a clean audit on the heritage assets and works of art.

The Deputy Minister replied to a suggestion by Ms Dudley that an alternative was to find an Art and Culture expert within each country to do the evaluation for DIRCO, saying it was impractical to have foreign Arts and Culture experts doing so. Neither would National Treasury or AGSA approve it. It was necessary for DIRCO to engage with the Department of Arts and Culture to pursue the endeavour of quantifying heritage assets.

Acting Director General response
Mr Kgabo Mahoai, Acting Director General, DIRCO, requested permission to give a response in writing for the technical questions, as there were altogether 59 questions. However, he answered the following:
Business analysis that DIRCO had wanted to undertake: DIRCO had already prepared terms of reference to apply business analysis in order to procure the service. Over and above the regular software systems, DIRCO had used software systems that were compatible for abroad. There was no compatibility or integration that would otherwise have been operational in South Africa. It thus required compatibility, because there were two operating systems, one compatible with South African affairs and the other was exclusively for international usage to enable payment of creditors abroad. DIRCO will acquire a service provider to integrate it.

High turnover rate/high exit rate (pp 183-185 of Annual Report): The majority of those who had exited DIRCO was due to retirements, because DIRCO has an aged workforce. There were only 33 resignations out of the 101 that exited. Also, there were two tiers of employment, one was international and the other was domestic. In other words, it is a foreign service within a public service. Many, particularly the younger generation, would network themselves better employment in the international sphere. Sometimes the same individuals would return to DIRCO but at a higher level of employment. Others had left for employment in other departments, and others were influenced by a ‘scare’, such that they were uncertain about the future of DIRCO, due to the change of management.

Locally recruited personnel (LRP): DIRCO had created a LRP review task team, which had the duty to impose a benchmark for LRP from the South African side, as national interests globally were not the same. It was acknowledged, in hindsight, that DIRCO may have a high reliance on LRP, which was unnecessary in many instances, and it would like to minimize that reliance as well as abolish posts that had been vacant for too long. Also, in many countries there was no retirement age limit, and consequently DIRCO had employees aged 79 and older. The task team was to review age restrictions. Hence measures to maintain South African legislation abroad was undertaken too.

National Treasury: DIRCO was not in the position to comment on Treasury. However, to elaborate on the connection, it should be noted that Treasury had granted DIRCO a calculation method COLA - cost of living abroad - that DIRCO should adhere to. The table in the presentation was a simple illustration of return on investment as a result of the global footprint. All of which had factual evidence.

Markets: Value-added products were applicable for South Africa on the African continent, but it shall not be elaborated any further, because DIRCO carried the sentiment that Treasury should have waited for DIRCO, and that a joint meeting should have occurred since government work was currently conducted as though in isolation. Treasury was only responsible for finance, however, it should be appreciated that the heart of the measures should rather focus on whether there was return on investment. For example, DIRCO was not in any way involved with the drafting of the COLA calculation. The conditions of service, in terms of the South African law were the responsibility of Minister of Public Service and Administration. There was no other mechanism except the collective agreement entered into by organized labour and the Foreign Service Dispensation, which affects how the calculations were done. Hence, DIRCO had requested that South African legislation be implemented, to enable the Minister or Ministry to determine conditions in lieu of how, within the diplomatic call, certain things were managed. Indeed, it would be costly, and negotiations were in favour of employers, but DIRCO has not had a seat where decisions were made yet, and in terms of categorization of government DIRCO had belonged to a different sector compared to the transversal that influenced the determination. DIRCO had informed Treasury of its need to be empowered to inform decisions, as DIRCO had not even the power to negotiate.

ROSA: An apology was given for its non-functioning. It did not have all of the features to protect itself. There were repercussions of safety, due to cyber-hacking. The ICT system was currently in the process of upgrade at DIRCO. As a result, DIRCO was only using broadband. Although initially meant for missions, the process of implementing broadband was halfway.

Root causes: This year, for the first time, DIRCO held a post-audit workshop to decipher how exactly the qualified audit was incurred. It became clear that in most cases merely symptoms were being dealt with, and it had highlighted the topic of skills and capacity as queried by the Committee. However, it should be understood that in DIRCO there were primarily two sets of people, one type was the diplomat, who were appointed for foreign services, and the other type was the administrator. For example, a person employed at Head Office as an assistant Director in any sphere, was able to apply for employment as a Head of Corporate Services. If the application were successful, the former assistant would now be in charge of a multi-million dollar budget. DIRCO had noticed that posting was an incentive and even though it had wanted to execute fairness, the appointment of those who lacked particular skills was conducted at the risk of DIRCO’s overall success.

Asset management: Weekly accountability for AGSA was now executed. For instance, in the Americas on 7 October 2016, where 8 out of 18 missions did not have its assets verified, the balance received 100% verification. In every region, the Department was now updated, as opposed to previous ignorance. Just as businesses do monthly stocktaking for accountability, DIRCO had adopted accountability of its assets too. It would prohibit the short reports that were submitted in the past that had resulted in qualified audits too. It was applicable to the heritage assets as well. DIRCO had invited the Accountant General, the custodian of accounting standards, who was not an expert on heritage assets as there were no heritage asset experts in South Africa. DIRCO had also requested the services of a specialist from Ditsong National Museum of Natural History with experience of Arts and Culture too. They have been invited for the purpose of discussing heritage assets. The specialist had not been an accredited expert either, but he possessed the basic elements to advise. When DIRCO reverted to the Office of the Accountant General a problem was highlighted of which, admittedly, if there were prior engagement it could have been prevented. The Accountant General had basically required of DIRCO to classify its heritage assets in order to apply accounting principles. Therefore, had the Department compartmentalised it from the onset, the heritage assets would not have incurred a qualified asset. Thereafter, National Treasury, AGSA and DIRCO had convened for discussion of the areas that were, not necessarily in judgement, but were initially misinterpreted. Admittedly, had DIRCO engaged with the Accounting Officer before the audit submission for the previous financial years, the audit outcome may have been different due to proper distinction.

It was hinted that DIRCO may get another qualification in the upcoming financial year, but if so, it would no longer be due to asset verification. Also, the new approach was to submit an interim report, correct misinterpretations and then resubmit for final audit may minimize the probability of a qualification too.

Grievance: The collective agreement prescribes that within 30 days a grievance was meant to be resolved. This assumes that a dispute would be resolved before the 30 days elapsed as litigation was outsourced, but if not settled by then, the aggrieved employee then has the right to declare a dispute to the Bargaining Council. It was a preventative mechanism. However, DIRCO had faltered in resolving the matter of grievance, hence its length. It was the responsibility of Labour Relations to mediate whether the issue was resolved or not and inform the employee who had lodged the complaint. Not that defamation of character was permissible of diplomats, but some had presumed that it was a waste of their time to resolve grievances against them. Consequently, the grieved employee would then approach the Bargaining Council. There was improvement in DIRCO concerning this. However, the objective was to minimise employees approaching the Bargaining Council directly as that would mean internal processes had failed altogether.

Discipline: The collective agreement prescribes that within 90 days a disciplinary hearing should be held. DIRCO had improved in this too, but still had challenges due to dispersed locations. For instance, if an employee had committed an offence in Norway, the Department, such as the presiding officer as well as the union representatives, would have to go to Norway for the disciplinary process, as opposed to the alleged offender reverting to South Africa. Despite wanting DIRCO to complete the procedures within the prescribed time frames, DIRCO operated on a global level, and that it was paramount that its processes entailed procedural fairness and substantive fairness, which were the criteria. Hence, the objective for disciplinary cases was resolution more than the time it took to resolve it.


Management: To enforce discipline was a function of management as it was a corrective action, thus it also reflected the performance of management. It should be assured that SMS members were obligated to submit their performance agreements two months after the beginning of the financial year. Appraisals and evaluations were to be conducted after the release of the Annual Report, because the value of the performance was indicated in the Annual Report. However, DIRCO had experienced a backlog, and so by 31 October, all appraisals shall have to be submitted and by December all evaluations should be completed. Every Senior Manager was obliged to complete this.

Mr Gideon Labane, Chief Audit Executive, DIRCO, clarified that risk management was conducted before the auditing process, because it was an active process, as opposed to auditing that was a passive process. He confirmed that only some of the recommendations were acted upon, mainly due to issues the Acting Director General had alluded to, which were skills and capacity. Due to the capacity constraints, the extent of effective change was limited; however, Risk Management was attempting its best under the circumstances. The cash of South Sudan was lost, an investigation was conducted, its report ensured a disciplinary procedure, and the official was found guilty of negligence, and consequently was in the process of repaying the cash lost.

Ms Zodwa Manase, Audit Committee Chairperson, DIRCO, clarified that best practice of any audit committee were the regulations and charter that have to be adhered to. There were things that audit committees could do and there were things that audit committees were restricted from; in summary, merely a report was expected. When the audit committee had started their contract three years ago at DIRCO, recommendations for improvement were done from the onset. Some of the results came from the actions taken after these recommendations. However, that was not the focus of the audit. The audit had reported on areas that the audit committee was unhappy about. It was commendable that the internal audit committee from the start of the contract separated the internal audit into a risk management function as well, which was also a recommendation. Another recommendation was the review of the internal audit by National Treasury, and as a result, the lack of capacity and its weaknesses were identified. The division of finance was also reviewed, but not dealt with. Consequently, heritage assets, supply chain management and ICT, which were all financial, had incurred qualified audits. The internal audit committee had met five times a year with the Department, but its reports were recommendations as the practicing of it was the responsibility of DIRCO.

Mr Mahoai clarified that the queried disciplinary case was serious and it proved to be a conflict of interest, but there were no financial implications. The official was subjected to disciplinary process and found guilty, and the sanction was a written warning with one to two month’s suspension without pay. The Office of the COO offered support to the Acting Director General, offered services of monitoring and evaluation to the Department and follow-up services as well as raising red flags of concern. Its Office was quite effective and assisted in the areas of default that may not have been highlighted in the presentation. Even though the current COO was also a diplomat he was assisted by personnel that had expertise in M&E and related skills. Soon, the Heads of Mission would be given a state of the department, and it will include the root causes of the qualifications and how to resolve these. DIRCO believed that with this cooperation between the Chief Director and the COO himself together with the governance structure of assurance providers, a collective work would enable improvement of the performance of DIRCO. He noted that consular services were civic services abroad and the figures cited were reported cases as of that period. The number of personnel in the missions had varied, from two to sixteen people, and in many cases there were no specified consular services staff and the diplomats had doubled up to fulfil that role. The LRP could not fulfil a national mandate. During the #FeesMustFall protests a certain country had perpetually requested updates of the status of their citizens who were students at UCT and some other universities.

African Renaissance and International Co-operation Fund
Ms Dineo Mathlako, Head of Secretariat, DIRCO, presented the findings of the African Renaissance and Cooperation Fund, and introduced it as an important tool for the enhancement of South Africa’s development cooperation on the continent.

Key Achievements:
• ARF had provided much needed assistance to the people of Namibia due to the severity of the drought
• Food security project in Guinea Conakry has continued to yield positive results
•Collaborated with global partners in efforts to contain the spread of the Ebola virus disease in West Africa
• South Africa has also recorded a milestone in its hosting of the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) following launch of Meerkat. The ARF has contributed R 120 million for implementation of the project in other African countries. Ghana built has been completed and will be launched later in the year
 
Performance Report
There were a total of eight performance indicators:
1. Performance Indicator: Percentage of requests responded to for quality assurance and review of project proposals in preparation for ARF Board meetings
Target: 100% of requests received responded to timeously
Achievement against Target: achieved 100% 13 Project Proposals reviewed and submitted to meetings

2. Performance Indicator: Number of ARF structures and processes convened to identify and recommend projects in compliance with the ARF Act, 2000 and PFMA, 1999
Target: Four Advisory Committee Meetings to consider project proposals for recommendation
Achievement against Target: achieved. Four meetings held to consider project proposals

3. Performance Indicator: Democracy and good governance
Target: 100% of approved disbursement to support democracy and good governance processed timeously
Achievement against the Target: achieved 100% of approved disbursements processed:
• R1 006 151.01 spent on SA election observer missions to Mozambique (2014/15), Tanzania, Seychelles

4. Performance Indicator: Socio-economic development
Target: 100% of approved disbursement to support socio-economic development processed timeously Achievement against the Target: achieved 100% of approved disbursements processed:
• Payments of R6 633 023.43 for implementation of the Cuban Medical Brigade Project in Sierra Leone.

5. Performance Indicator: Human Resource development
Target: 100% of approved disbursement to support capacity-building processed timeously
Achievement against the Target: achieved 100% of approved disbursements processed:
• Payments totalling R 4 783 127.93 for Africa Capacity Building foundation project.

6. Performance Indicator: To provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief
Target: 100% of approved disbursement to humanitarian assistance processed timeously
Achievement against the Target: achieved 100% of approved disbursements processed:
• Payments totalling R32 500 000 approved for Emergency Relief and response to Ebola disease outbreak.
• Payments totalling R48 168 012.34 for Namibia drought relief project.

7. Performance Indicator: To contribute to Project for Conflict Resolution and Development- PCRD
Target: 100% of approved disbursement to support PCRD processed timeously
Achievement against the Target: No disbursement requested during the reporting period

8. Performance Indicator: To support cooperation between South Africa and other countries
Target: 100% of approved disbursement for cooperation processed
Achievement against the Target: achieved 100% of approved disbursements processed
• Payments totalling R27 119 915.46 for the Cuban economic package.

ARF Financial Information
Appropriated funds 2015/16 was R145, 637 million; Accumulated surplus from past years was R2 205 263 billion; Committed funds as multiyear projects continued was R838 965 million; approved grants for 2015/16 is R38 031million. Hence, the actual performance was that The Fund incurred irregular expenditure of R1.2 million, and the Accounting Authority had not condoned R131 000, but ultimately the Audit Outcome of 2015/16 was a Clean Audit Outcome. The available funds as at 31st March 2016 was R1 561 906 billion.

Discussion
Mr Radebe appreciated the attempts of assisting Cuba, because even though none trade relations existed between South Africa and Cuba, a R2 billion plants resulted, perhaps not directly because of Cuba, but it shown that good neighbourliness yielded return on investment. He empathised that he had still not agreed with cutting the missions. Since, it was a situation of cutting one’s nose to spite one’s face.

The Chairperson clarified that international banks used the American dollar as a default currency before it was transferred to the various domestic national banks and its currency, such as the Rand in South Africa. Consequently, the international banks had not wanted to take the risks of transferring the South African Rand into the American Dollar for assistance to Cuba, because of the sanctions imposed on Cuba and the relations it have had with the other banks. DIRCO had explained that the international banks rejected the finances offered by South Africa to Cuba. Now that the Cuba 5 had been released and so trade relations with Cuba had been eased, South Africa, which had facilitated or mediated peace enforcement in other countries, but had not advantaged itself by means of those peace agreements, could now establish its businesses in Cuba. The USA was being strategic, because even though sanctions had been eased, it was done so that its own companies would gain access into the Cuban market, but keep other countries out. Since when it comes to business it is a ‘dog-eat-dog’. Hence the relationship that South Africa has had with Cuba politically might have to influence possibility to gain economic foothold.

Mr Malia complimented the presentation and the clean audit outcome, because the advice given to ‘follow the money’ was finally taking shape.

Mr Mokgalapa agreed that it was appreciated that the issue of ‘following the money’ was finally implemented, as it was quite a concern. Since it reflected return on investment, ensuring that national interests were protected and that business had come back home, particularly empowering the business as well as dispensing it was killing two birds with one stone and that was exactly what the Committee had wanted to review. It also proves that the missions should be rationalised.

The Deputy Minister appreciated the congratulations and assured that it shall be conveyed to the Secretariat, although admittedly, there had been criticism, and those criticisms emanated from the Executive. The response given by the Chairperson to the Honourable Radebe was correct, because of the challenges faced due to a South African official regarding the possible hand-over. It was uncertain if it was a DIRCO official or an official from Treasury, but when the official became aware that South Africa was going to provide financial assistance to Cuba, he had alerted the American government. The minute that happened, South Africa have had to become ultra cautious, since South Africa would never take bags of money and personally give it to a Cuban Ambassador, all transfer of funds were done via an international bank or finance houses. If a country utilizes the America Dollar in its transactions, the sanctions that applied to Cuba could be enforced on such country too. Throughout the process the Cubans were at pains to say that they had not wanted South Africans to suffer any consequences.

The Deputy Minister noted that on his first visit to Cuba he had eye-witnessed ways around the sanctions, because he had seen businesses from Italy, France and Germany. There was a chemical plant run by the Italians, and when questioned how it was possible, they had answered that one had to be smart. Hence South Africa have had to be smart regarding the funding to Cuba, because the important objective was that the Cubans have had to benefit, such that South Africa does not suffer any sanctions from the USA. Trade with Cuba, as is the case with all the countries in the Caribbean, suffers from the challenge of distance for South African companies. An example would be that a South African businessman would have to travel to São Paulo in Brazil first and possibly wait for eight hours or so before he could board the next plane to Havana in Cuba, all of which would seem wasteful to the businessman as “time was money”. This inconvenience needs to be bore in mind with the talk of trade relations with Cuba. Some of the criticisms that the Executive gave included the following:

The ARF Secretariat needs to adopt a pro-active approach in their engagements with their African counterparts. The African counterparts had made the point that presenting the project proposals was both cumbersome and difficult, and took a long time.
 The difficulty and problem that Members of the Executive have found was that the average civilian was oblivious of the good deeds executed by ARF. Hence, a communications strategy may need to be considered and the public diplomacy personnel could perhaps assist. If an article that reflected the praise by the Namibians, Guineans and Cubans was written, it could have served as evidence. However, even though the Executive knew that ARF was verbally commended, there were none evidence to support their achievements, nor had the average South African knew of ARF existence. The Minister shall respond to that concern by way of written response to the Executive.

Mr Radebe noted that the Deputy Minister had alluded that an official had betrayed South Africa. What happened to that official, because that could be considered as treason? It was unacceptable.

The Chairperson explained that officials who worked in the different departments belonged to different political parties; religious persuasions; ethnic groups and racial classifications etc. Of course there was a broad identity of government but tendencies as such were influenced by other convictions other than the national identity.

Allegations against the South African High Commissioner to Singapore; allegations against South African Ambassador to Israel; allegation from NEHAWU against DIRCO
The Chairperson noted the first allegation regarding Ms Hazel Francis Ngubeni It was said that she had operated under several names with many identification documents, so the given name within the High Commissioner title was under investigation as well. She had not disclosed any case of fraud that she was arrested, charged or convicted for. The Portfolio Committee had wanted of DIRCO to investigate and verify if she was representing South Africa, as the allegation would injure the credentials of the country since the issue was about integrity.

The other allegation was against Sisa Ngombane who was South Africa’s Ambassador to Israel. The BDS wrote a letter to the Deputy Speaker stating that Ambassador Ngombane makes utterances that were contradictory to the President of South Africa and the ruling party ANC. The manner, in which he conducted himself in a spontaneous interview at the airport, when Ms Naidoo whom was arrested in Israel was deported, was unpleasant. The Deputy Speaker then had called the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee to show the letter, of which it was expected of DIRCO to explain the matter, after which feedback would be given to the Deputy Speaker. Feedback was expected last week, but it was excused that the meeting was postponed. Thus, no feedback could be retrieved to have given the Deputy Speaker to share with the BDS. It should not be strange that the matter came via the Deputy Speaker, because concerns were sent through various entry points of Parliament. Other concerns were sent directly to the Portfolio Committee. Mr Mandela recently sent a petition too.

The last allegation was against an official in Dekort who was the CFO. Honourable Mokgalapa brought this situation at Communicare to the attention of the Chairperson. Apparently NEHAWU had issues with the CFO and made allegations against him/her. It was requested of DIRCO to report of the legal processes and its outcome, after having involved the relevant lawyers.

The Deputy Minister replied that BDS had also sent himself a letter and that within it was a link of a video of the press conference in which Ambassador Ngombane made certain controversial statements. (ii) He stated that Israel was justified with its attack on Gaza. A group of female activists chose to sail to Gaza to display the solidarity of Gaza. However, the Israelis detained both the ship and its passengers. The first accusation against Ambassador Ngombane was that when the ship was detained and consular services was requested; he flatly refused to have provided it. Yet when they arrived back to South Africa, which was two weekends ago, he had accompanied them. Why was he in South Africa, when he was stationed in Israel? Why did he see fit to follow the activists home? Since they arrived safely, there was no need for him to have escorted them. The second matter of contention, of which investigations will clarify, was why they had allowed him to gatecrash their press conference. BDS had apparently complained about the views of Ambassador Ngombane before, regarding the situation of Palestine and Israel, and their complaints had fallen on deaf ears. It was important to note that any Ambassador, regardless of whom the individual was, whether His Excellency Ambassador Tony Leon or Her Excellency Shelia Cameron, were members of the DA and opposition, but they were elected to become Ambassadors and where they were posted they were obligated to advance government policy. In fairness to them, there had never been a single complaint about their personal views, not once. Thus, when an Ambassador was posted somewhere s/he no longer represented him/herself. Ambassadors were meant to represent the policies of the government of Republic of South Africa. Hence the question that was to be posed to Ambassador Ngombane was, in simple terms, ‘what was South Africa’s policy towards Palestine and Israel?’ and then allow of him to answer. His response may be astonishing. The matter was also raised with fellow Deputy Minister Nomaindiya Mfeketo, because BDS had perpetually urged the Deputy Minister for action, in addition to the imposition on the Portfolio Committee, as they seem to pressure people to provoke a response. The view of DIRCO was that Ambassador S Ngombane must be recalled. He was no longer representing the policy position of the government of the Republic of South Africa. The Deputy Ministers had wanted a meeting with the Minister the day before (18th October 2016), but it could not happen, as this matter and the matter of Hazel Francis amongst others had required deliberation, not merely as preparation of the current Portfolio Committee meeting, but because various people were confronting them. As a result, the Deputy Minister was compelled to warrant personal views that was bore the risk of being construed as the official stance of DIRCO. Therefore, having the Ambassador to Israel recalled was not official yet, but both Deputy Ministers had agreed on it, and had wanted to persuade the Minister of his recall. In fact, he should not be allowed to return after the Heads of Missions Conference. Regarding the press conference, the Ambassador was forced to leave, and it was reported on television media. The letter received from BDS will be forwarded to the Committee.

The Deputy Minister will expect of the Acting Director General to answer the steps taken about the allegations against the CFO. He then expressed views on ‘so-called Ambassador Ngubeni’ (i) Ms Ngubeni was found guilty and served two years imprisonment for drug smuggling in America [note to editor: I presume the USA? Once again, internet was down so I cannot research it.] The question that it evokes, of which someone should be liable for was, how did this person become an Ambassador for the Republic of South Africa? Firstly, it was now liaised that her security vetting had been withdrawn, which was quite laughable, since her term of office in Singapore was due to end in December. She had already been there for more than three years. Withdrawing her security status now will not reverse any damage already incurred. In fact, both DIRCO and the state security had to account for her case. Since in this day and age, the Internet was a resourceful mechanism on the history of anyone’s identity. For instance, if one was to enter Honourable Dudley’s name in the search engine of Google, it will divulge publically recorded information. In 2013, when she was appointed as the Ambassador to Singapore, someone should have done research about her on the Internet and perhaps her true identity would have surfaced. The truth about her could have been revealed, but it was told that she was in the habit of changing her name. Thus, it was uncertain if the name that DIRCO has of her, Hazel Francis Ngubeni, was correct or not. However, it was a total outrage. The Portfolio Committee had in the past raised issues of Ambassadors and their behaviour, but this was probably the worst case that required resolve and it was an absolute disgrace. Anyone and everyone who was involved in her appointment should answer for it and explain how they got to the conclusion that she was suitable to represent South Africa in Singapore. The Deputy Minister then appealed to the Portfolio Committee to adopt the same stance and be harsh about its need for accountability regardless of who was involved. He did not state such, because he was not in the position in 2013, but because her misconduct was not about politics, but about the Republic of South Africa and its citizens. Also, it implicates the country’s international position, because after such scandal, what was the rest of the world going to deem South Africa as? This situation was far beyond an Ambassador or Diplomat being slightly drunk at a function. The woman was also previously a cabin attendant for SAA, and it raises the concern, how does a cabin attendant automatically become an Ambassador? The new Head of State Security had publically announced that they were conducting an investigation, but the person who had initially granted her the security clearance has to be dealt with and held accountable for how s/he had done so given the alleged criminal history. As the Deputy President was en route to Singapore he had issued an instruction to DIRCO that when he landed in Singapore he had not wanted to see that woman. Consequently, she was promptly instructed to retreat home. She had access to what was called Diplomatic Pouch and Diplomatic Bag. A Diplomatic Pouch once it was sealed, no one could open it, because by opening it was a criminal offence. She was a drug smuggler- how much drugs had she not smuggled via the Diplomatic Pouch and the Diplomatic Bag?

Mr Mahoai elaborated on the allegations of the CFO. (iii) NEHAWU has allegations against the CFO, of which DIRCO was yet to investigate. The allegations were forwarded to DIRCO anonymously. The granted information was received in the midst of an internal investigation of the irregular expenditure as prescribed by the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), with special reference to the areas that indicate the violation of supply-chain management processes. DIRCO had only received last week the report of the investigation that began at the beginning of the month, of which had recommended a deeper investigation as well as investigation of the financial department, because there may be accomplices that may have contributed to the irregular expenditure as discovered by AGSA. DIRCO had received an internal report last week, which had confirmed the fact that the irregular expenditure occurred as a result of non-compliance or adherence to supply-chain management, and it established the fact that those responsible should be held liable as per the law. In this context, a thorough investigation was embarked on. There was a database of investigators that government had authorised to source for matters as these, because DIRCO could not conduct it, because it may be problematic to do. DIRCO was in the process in selecting one or two of the panel of experts to do the investigation, after which DIRCO would confirm whether the CFO was single-handedly liable or if other officials were also involved. Currently, there was no other record than the internal report. NEHAWU have had a myriad of concerns, but this particular matter was assured that further information would be communicated to them once the findings had been confirmed.

Mr D Bergman was encouraged by Deputy Minister Landers’ honesty and readiness to combat whatever sounded or looked wrong. In terms of the Israeli Ambassador, personal interaction found him to understand the South African position and have found him almost bias towards Israel. Even though not a personal fan, when the press conference was viewed, the Ambassador had divulged factual history that included views of which those present had abhorred. The eventual point that the Ambassador had tried to make was after he had beat around the bush and before he finished it was as though the shoes were ready to be thrown at him. It was imperative that the Portfolio Committee and DIRCO should not go on a witch-hunt for the sake of what BDS had wanted, but rather motivated by what DIRCO and the position of South Africa. If one views the press conference, the behaviour and tone of those present as well as how South Africa and officials of DIRCO was portrayed, should be considered. Secondly, as noted by the Deputy Minister the situation in Singapore was rather embarrassing, thus was it possible to have a diplomatic rescreening of the Ambassadors to ensure that they have had security clearance? Perhaps a panel could be created, because South Africa’s integrity does not look trustworthy right now. It should be highlighted that the security verification was due to the situation of drug smuggling. It may affirm international confidence and prohibit such an embarrassing situation amongst the Diplomats again as well as influence the Department’s selection criteria.

Mr Mncwango asked if the State Security Agency would also be subject to investigation, because they had merely withdrew the High Commissioner’s security clearance now that she was alleged to have offended, which insinuates that according to them, she was eligible for clearance until now. That calls into question the efficacy of their security vetting. It was done in respect of all the Ambassadors it would then mean that rescreening of all the Ambassadors was necessary, because the State Security System was actually flawed and already compromised.

Mr Mokgalapa agreed with the Deputy Minister that the actions of the High Commissioner in Singapore was an absolute disgrace and concurred with Honourable Bergman and Honourable Mncwango that a rescreening in light of the situation was paramount. In the next question session with the Minister, the status of the South African Diplomats and their need for rescreening shall be raised. Regarding the CFO, what was the current status? Was she suspended or in office? What was the timeframe considering the legality and due processes that the Committee could expect resolve by?

Ms Dudley thanked the Deputy Minister for sharing his viewpoint, as it really highlights the importance of the investigations and the need to follow the due processes. From a personal point, having watched the video of the press conference, irrespective of what the Ambassador to Israel would have said or not, it was inevitable that he was to face attack, because it was a pure set-up. Hence it shall be very important to know what had actually taken place so that a response could be made to it. The seriousness of the Singapore situation demands extensive investigation. Thus, the report and its feedback were keenly anticipated. Appreciation to DIRCO for taking the matters as seriously was made.

Mr Mpumlwana thanked the Deputy Minister for the briefing on the allegations, and noted that he would not even comment on the ‘so-called Ambassador’ to Singapore. He recommended that an interview with the Ambassador to Israel should be done to warrant him fairness in presenting his view and why he have said what he has, as opposed to have watched a video and draw conclusions on it. Only thereafter could satisfactory opinions be made, because there were always two-sides to every story. It was commendable that DIRCO had opted to wait and conduct thorough investigations of the CFO, instead of instant dismissal, because in upholding the law DIRCO could not be sued.

Mr Radebe noted that the allegations against the CFO were serious, and the due legal processes were necessary, but amongst the allegations was an allegation that those whom worked with the CFO had experienced bullying. Thus, what were the measures in place to ensure that the whistle- blowers had safety from repercussions? A report should be submitted by November, because consequences without time frames were not really ensuring accountability. Regarding the Ambassador of Singapore, the sentiments were the same of the Deputy Minister. However, the offence had highlighted a need not necessarily to screen the current Diplomats, but for DIRCO to draft a profile of what an Ambassador was, such as his/her roles and responsibilities etc. Since it was absurd that a cabin attendant becomes an Ambassador- what skills could she have possibly brought to the table? The Diplomat Academy should account for what it was established for, so that, if necessary, during the processes of ratifying the Foreign Bill, a criterion for an Ambassador and their minimum should be decided upon. It was unacceptable that after 22 years of democracy, such blunders could be made. In his view, the worst criminal act that an Ambassador could do was to deny a South African consular services, as in the case of the Ambassador to Israel. The very mandate of foreign affairs was to provide assistance to South Africans abroad. It was not a personal matter of agreeing with him or her views. On Israeli grounds he was representing the government of South Africa, which was mandated to protect the South African citizen there too, thus, by denying South Africans consular services, he was, in personal view, eligible for dismissal. To involve other politics regarding his offence was out of context. Just by denying South Africans in distress consular services he had deserved dismissal. Consular services were the minimal requirement of an Ambassador, and what kind of services was it if it was selective to whom it was given too? Foreign services were not meant to partial. This misconduct was not to be tolerated. Also, irrespective if an Ambassador had approved of the President or not, if the Ambassador was publically recorded making a statement in contradiction to the President, that person was eligible for dismissal as well.

The Deputy Minister answered that the Ambassador to Israel have had a right to represent himself, and whilst he should explain himself he should also elaborate on why he saw fit to follow the activists home. He should have stayed in Israel. However, DIRCO shall warrant him an opportunity to explain himself as proposed.

He noted that DIRCO should probably re-evaluate the security clearance of all Ambassadors. The present delegation shall forward the recommendation for consideration with merit.

The Deputy Minister expressed that the State Security has to be investigated. An article in the Sunday Times of last cited that, ‘Arthur Fraser, who was a new Director General of SSA, said, “We have revoked her security clearance and have launched an investigated into the matter.”’ It was unclear what exactly that had meant. He then appealed to the Chairperson to request a report of the offence by State Security, because it had involved International Relations and a ‘so-called’ Ambassador, who they provided with security clearance. If necessary, the Chairperson was urged to liaise with the Chairperson of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, as this Portfolio Committee was particularly interested in this matter. It should not be accepted that it was a matter of State Security and thus classified.

Mr Mahoai also replied that the CFO was still in office, because the Bill Of Rights prohibits instant dismissal and this has to be adhered to.

The meeting was adjourned.
 

 

Present

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: