PSC Commissioners: interviews day 1; Committee Report on PSC candidate security checks & qualifications verification

Public Service and Administration, Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

15 November 2016
Chairperson: Ms R Lesoma (ANC) (Acting)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The sub-committee formed to interview the candidates for the three positions of commissioner in the Public Service Commission (PSC) asked probing and relevant questions in the course of a marathon session. It had short-listed 14 candidates based on set criteria, which included that a candidate must be ‘fit and proper’, demonstrate a good work ethic, have previous experience with PSC public administration, have senior management skills, have a clear vision of the National Development Plan (NDP) and understand government policies.

The questions asked were aimed at determining the candidates’ notions regarding their fitness and propriety for the post. They were tested on their understanding of mandates from Section 195/6 of the Constitution, the developmental state as stated in the NDP, their human resource experience and their CVs. They were also asked to apply good governance in the area of the public service where they had served, apply their knowledge of the political administrative interface (PAI) in conflict resolution, state strategies that could be used in fighting corruption, and how they could increase the compliance rate on financial disclosure.

The sub-committee set the modalities for the interview based previous experience during Parliamentary interviews, and the candidates were informed of these modalties before each interview started. The findings of the security checks and verification of qualification for each candidate could not be presented, because the Parliamentary security arm had not concluded the exercise.

As a result of the probing questions during the course of the interviews, the sessions took longer than the anticipation time slots given, which affected the time table. In addition, the interviews were interrupted as a result of the three-line Whip activity of Parliament, which mandated Members to vote intermittently. After lengthy discussion on the implications of extending the interview process, it was agreed to continue the next day, after following due process as outlined in the Parliamentary procedures, to ensure that each candidate was interviewed fairly. The Members accepted responsibility for the prolonged interviews, informed the remaining candidates why the schedule of the interview had been changed, informed them of the new interview schedule, and apologised on behalf of the sub-committee.
 

Meeting report

Interview process outlined

The Chairperson said Ms M Mokause (EFF) and Mr M Hlengwa.(IFP, ALT) had been drafted to the sub-committee in order to form a quorum and to ensure that all political parties were represented. The existing Members were Mr M Booi (ANC), Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC, ALT), Ms Z Dlamini-Dubazama (ANC), Mr M Dirks (ANC), Mr M Ntobela (ANC), Mr A van der Westhuizen (DA) and Mr S Mncwabe (NFP). She further introduced the support staff of the sub-committee as Mr Masixolo Zibeko (stand-in Committee secretary), Mr Julius Ngoepe (content advisor), Mr F Bulawa (Committee assistant) and Ms Noluthando Mpikashe (legal advisor).

The agenda included a report on the findings of the security checks and verification of the qualifications of candidates, and interviews of candidates for the position of Commissioner in the Public Service Commission (PSC).

The Chairperson invited Mr Zibeko to take the Committee through the contents of the file given to each sub-committee member.

Mr Zibeko informed the sub-committee that each file contained the timetable of the events of the day, an advert for the position, the appropriate section of the Act and Constitution, Chapter 13 of the National Development Plan (NDP), a description of the term “fit and proper” and the Curriculum Vitae (CV) of candidates scheduled for the interviews.

The Chairperson invited Members to adopt the minutes of the sub-committee meeting, and presented the minutes of 20 October 2016 for adoption.

Mr Van der Westhuizen pointed out that the minutes 20 October were the minutes of the Portfolio Committee, and as such could not be adopted by the sub-committee.

The Chairperson accepted that this was an oversight and proceeded to present the minutes of 1 November 2016 for adoption.

Mr Van der Westhuizen expressed concern that the minutes did not reflect that after candidates had been short-listed, the security arm of the support staff in Parliament would verify the qualifications of candidates and conduct a background check on them.

The Chairperson said that this concern should be captured in the conclusion section. The minutes of 1 November 2016 were proposed for adoption by Mr Van der Westhuizen, and seconded by Mr Mncwabe.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen said that she had not received the minutes on time, and therefore had was not been able to read the minutes before the meeting.

The Chairperson said that she had adhered to the rule of sending minutes to Members via emails 24 hours before each meeting, and the non-receipt by Ms Newhoudt-Druchen could have been due to network failure. She invited the content advisor to brief the sub-committee on the suggested approach of the interviews for the PSC Commissioners.

The Content advisor informed Members that the report on security checks and verification of qualification of candidates had not been completed by Parliament’s security arm as at 14 November 2016. However, he appealed to the sub-committee to continue with the interviews since the Members were not yet deliberating on the candidates.

The Chairperson said that the speed of the vetting carried out by Parliament’s security arm was not something the sub-committee could control. She accepted the content advisor’s appeal, but asked him to follow-up and give feedback on the issue.

She said that the suggested questions were based on Public Service Act Chapter 10, Section 196 of the Constitution and Chapter 13 of the NDP. The proposed questions (confidential), which were contained in the sealed envelope given to each member, would determine if the candidates were ‘fit and proper’. She invited the content advisor to brief the sub-committee on the proposed questions.

The content advisor informed Members that the proposed questions document (confidential) contained the rules and processes of the interview, and the role of the Acting Chairperson of the sub-committee during the interview. The possible questions for the interview included a brief background of the candidate as stated in the CV, a test of the candidates’ understanding of the values and principles of section 195 of the constitution and the functions of the PSC, and application questions on whether the PSC had achieved its mandate. On the legal mandate, the candidates would be tested on how South Africa could achieve the recommendation of a developmental state, as stated in the National Development Plan (NDP). On good governance, they would be tested on the meaning of good governance and would be asked to apply it in any area of the public service where they had served. In addition, questions on the NDP included knowledge on political administrative interface (PAI), strengthening of oversight, fighting corruption, and compliance rate on financial disclosure. The proposed questions would also focus on the role of the PSC in implementing recommendations made by heads of departments (HOD) and Members of the provincial Executive Council (MECs), personal opinions on major obstacles of the PSC in implementing these recommendations, and what could be done to ensure that these recommendations were implemented.

The Chairperson invited the Members to react to the proposed possible questions.

Ms Mokause suggested that Members did not need to be limited to the proposed questions, but they could serve as a legislative guide. However, Members might also ask questions based on the CVs.

Mr Van der Westhuizen said that he ‘loved the tune and direction’ of the proposed questions. However, he observed that there were many sub-questions which resulted in 20 questions for each candidate. In his experience, each candidate should be asked only nine questions, as it would become difficult for the candidate to remember and answer each question. He therefore suggested that the number of questions should be reduced.

Mr Hlengwa said that the sub-committee should consider how the weight apportioned to each question would affect the interview outcomes.

Mr Dirks (ANC) observed that the many proposed questions would affect the programme timetable. He also suggested that the candidates could write down the questions asked by Members during the interview before answering.

The Chairperson said that Ms Mokause’s concern was a matter of principle, and was noted. In addition, she advised that each Member should be consistent with each question asked for fairness, and that each Member would identify who wanted to ask a particular question. Questions on weighting would be addressed when the interviews were been discussed by name at the end of the exercise, but each Member could do a weighting based on his own personal observation. The secretariat was mandated to organize a writing pad, biro and a bottle of water for the candidates at the beginning of the interview.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked about the form that the interview would take -- if all the questions were to be asked at once, before candidates responded, or candidates would respond to a question at a time.

The Chairperson said that the approach based on her experience in Parliament was to take it a question at a time, to allow Members to make follow-up questions and allow candidates to exhaust all the answers.

Mr Ntombela observed that the approach would depend on how long a candidate would take to answer questions.

The Chairperson said that she would politely inform each candidate to stop when the person posing the question was satisfied.

Mr Van der Westhuizen suggested that the Chairperson should inform each candidate that nine questions would be asked within the duration of 30 minutes.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazama argued it would not be fair on the candidate if the sub-committee said that nine questions would be asked within 30 minutes if the interview became extended due to further probing. The sub-committee could not commit to a time of 30 minutes because the assessment of a candidate’s completion of the interview depended on his skill in handling questions.

Mr Van der Westhuizen (DA) observed that if the interview took longer than 30 minutes, the schedule would be prolonged. This would be an injustice to the candidates and might give the sub-committee a bad name.

Mr Mncwabe reflected that if the sub-committee deviated on time it did not matter, but advised the sub-committee to continue with the interviews so as not to waste valuable time.

The Chairperson resolved that the interviews would take less than an hour. Each member should adhere strictly to this timeline and if other issues arose as a result of the interview, another date should be set to resolve the issues.

Three commissioners would be selected from the candidates to be interviewed. A total of 14 candidates had been short-listed, but the number had been reduced to 13 because one had informed the Committee that he had been appointed to another position elsewhere.

In a respectful manner, before each interview started, the Chairperson welcomed each candidate, introduced herself, informed them about the approach the interview, asked them to feel free to ask for clarification on any question asked and said that Members would introduce themselves when they asked questions. Each candidate would not be asked to state his background but would be asked questions based on the CV they had presented. She advised the candidates to listen carefully and briefly answer the questions without being too economical with information. They would be stopped when the sub-committee was satisfied with the answers that the candidate had given.

Questions posed to the candidates

Candidate 1

Mr Jack Lesiba Matlala

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked Mr Matlala to explain the values and principles located in section 195 of the constitution, to give examples and elaborate on some, and to explain the functions of the PSC.

Mr Mncwabe observed that the CV of Mr Matlala did not reflect that he was a senior public servant. He asked him to give strategies that could assist the PSC to appoint suitable senior public servants.

Mr Van der Westhuizen said that in terms of the NDP, the public service wanted to achieve the goal of a departmental state. He asked Mr Matlala to explain the challenges that hindered the public service from achieving the goal of a developmental state.

Mr Hlengwa commented that Mr Matlala’s CV showed that he had worked in the PSC, but he had included references only from politicians. Consequently he asked him if he felt his references reflected his experience. He asked him to state the causes of political interference (PI) and what strategies he would suggest to stop PI.

Mr Dirks remarked that the compliance rate on financial disclosure by senior and junior level managers was low. He therefore asked Mr Matlala to state the advice he would give to a public servant employed under him to compel him to disclose his financial interest. In addition, he asked him to state whether financial disclosure was important in the public service. What strategies would he use to enforce financial disclosure in the public service?

Mr Ntombela (ANC) reflected that because the political administrative interface (PAI) was important, the way public servants handled it was important, and Mr Matlala had mentioned conflict resolution as one of his strengths. He therefore asked how he had acquired his conflict resolutions skills and how he would deal with PAI to ensure that conflict did not occur between administrators and politicians. He also asked him to discuss gender parity in the public service, as he had been a participant at the gender parity conference in China.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazama observed that Mr Matlala had been chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) from 2009-2014, but the National Treasury had taken over the agency in Limpopo in 2010. She asked him to clarify his role at the agency during this period because of the inconsistency in the dates recorded in his CV.

The Chairperson followed up by suggesting that he could explain his role in principle, because he had been a Chief Whip from 2004-2009.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazama also observed that the candidate’s competencies, as expressed in his CV, did not tally with his responses. His ability to monitor and evaluate, as indicated in the CV, was not communicated to the Committee from his responses.

The Chairperson further asked that based on his responses, and the assumption that Mr Matlala had made a commitment to go through the reports presented to the PSC by the heads of departments (HODs) and MECs in the last two years, he should state the value that he could add to the PSC as a commissioner. Based on his response, she noted that he had not committed to going through the report.

Mr Mncwabe also reacted, based on Mr Matlala’s response, and remarked that it would not be fair to the Committee to brief him on the report because he was expected to have read it before the interview.

Candidate 2

Mr Matome Zacharia Mawasha

Ms Dlamini-Dubazama made reference to the candidate’s CV, and highlighted that the candidate’s dissertation was important because the study area was on corruption. Based on this, she asked Mr Mawasha to elaborate on the best model that the Government could adopt to reduce the level of corruption in the PSC.

Mr Ntombela said that the financial disclosure framework stipulated that senior managers should disclose their financial interest. He asked the Mr Mawasha to advise the Committee on what strategies he would adopt as a commissioner to intensify compliance, why financial disclosure was important and what he would do to achieve a high rate of financial disclosure.

Mr Dirks asked the candidate how he would deal with the issue of alleged political interference in the PSC, particularly when politicians wanted to interfere in the PSC administration. He asked Mr Mawasha to express his thoughts on what he thought caused political interference in the PSC, and what caused strain between the administrative officers and the politicians. How would he resolve the conflict? What was his view on Parliamentary intervention and political interference?

Mr Hlengwa asked Mr Mawasha to explain the role of the public service during the section 100 intervention in Limpopo. He reacted to the candidate’s answer by asking if he meant that his recommendations had not been adhered to, and to identify why his recommendations had not been implemented.

Mr Van der Westhuizen asked the candidate to elaborate on what was hindering the PSC in achieving the developmental state.

Mr Mncwabe said that the candidate’s CV indicated that he had a degree, but there were no certified copies of his academic qualifications attached to his application. He asked why his references did not include anyone at Mopani, Limpopo. What would he do to ensure that state departments employed competent public servants, especially in senior positions?

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked Mr Mawasha to explain the values and principles of Section 195 of the constitution and to explain his understanding of the functions of PSC.

The Chairperson asked him to explain to the Committee what value addition he would propose to PSC, based on his experiences in Limpopo and the Northern Cape.

Candidate 3

Ms Lulama Viwe Sizani

Ms Dlamini-Dubazama made reference to the reports that had been recommended to Parliament during the section 100 intervention in Limpopo, based on the candidate’s CV. Consequently, she asked Ms Sizani to brief the Committee on what the reports and findings were about. Based on her response, she asked for her interventions when the PSC had not acted on the recommendations immediately.

Mr Ntombela observed that the PSC had a constitutional mandate based on this, and asked her to explain some of the values and principles in section 195 of the constitution.

Mr Hlengwa asked Ms Sizani to explain what she perceived to be political interference, and also to explain how it could be eliminated.

Mr Van der Westhuizen asked her to elaborate on what was hindering the PSC from reaching the developmental state in accordance with the NDP.

Mr Mncwabe asked Ms Sizani questions that dealt with strategies that must be used to ensure that state departments employed competent public servants, especially in senior positions.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked her to explain how financial disclosure worked. What strategies would she apply to increase the rate of compliance on financial disclosure by senior public servants in the PSC?

The Chairperson asked Ms Sizani to explain what individual value she would add to the PSC if appointed as a commissioner.

Candidate 4

Ms Clara Phumelele Nzimande

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked Ms Nzimande to list and explain some of the values and principles of Section 195 of the constitution and to explain her understanding of the functions of the PSC.

Mr Mncwabe asked her to state the best strategies that must be used to ensure that Government organisations employed competent staff, particularly in senior positions.

Mr Van der Westhuizen asked Ms Nzimande to state what she believed the PSC needed to do to achieve transformation into a developmental state, in line with the NDP.

Mr Hlengwa asked the candidate to explain what causes political interference, and also to state how PI could be averted. What was the role of a commissioner when PI occurred?

Mr Ntombela said that in his opinion, corruption undermined government. Consequently, he asked Ms Nzimande to state how she would alert the executive about corrupt practices, and also how she would combat corrupt practices in government offices. Had the PSC done enough on gender equity in the public service? What were her recommendations to the PSC on gender issues?

Ms Dlamini-Dubazama asked Ms Nzimande to use her professional experience to recommend the way forward on the challenge of trained professional nurses that graduated from mushroom establishments in the private sector.

The Chairperson asked Ms Nzimande to explain what new value she would add to the PSC if appointed as a commissioner.

Committee discussion on time issue

The Chairperson informed the Committee that some candidates might need accommodation for the night, because the interviews had taken longer than anticipated.

Mr Van der Westhuizen advised Members to manage the time so that candidates would not have to come back the next day.

Mr Booi said the sub-committee should get its priorities right and conduct the remaining interviews by following the right standards, even if the process was prolonged. This would result in the selection of quality personnel, despite the added financial implications.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazama said that despite any implications, the sub-committee should engage the candidates well while conducting the interviews so that qualified personnel could be selected. She added that the candidates needed to be informed that the sub-committee was behind time.

The Chairperson said that she had been reliably informed that accommodating the candidates for an extra night would have financial implications that had not been initially captured and approved under the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act (PPPFA), so the secretary would need to explain why interviews might continue till the next day.

Mr Van der Westhuizen expressed concern that some Members might not be able to attend all the interview sessions, and wanted to know the legal implications.

The Chairperson said she had instructed the stand-in secretary to confirm with the administrative office the implications of accommodating the candidates for an extra night. She asked the stand-in secretary to give the sub-committee feedback on the matter.

The stand-in secretary informed the sub-committee that the administrative office had advised that the interviews should continue, as their might be administrative challenges with accommodating the candidates for an extra night.

Mr Booi advised the Chairperson to address the management on the issue.

The Chairperson agreed, and committed to addressing the sub-committee later on the implications.

Mr Booi commented that the organisers of the interviews had not planned the schedule well, and it would reflect badly on the sub-committee.

The Chairperson observed that other committees had also conducted interviews for more than one day, so she would take up the logistics with the management. She gave feedback to the sub-committee after communicating with management. She accepted that the sub-committee had chosen a day to do the interviews that coincided with another Parliamentary event, but they could not be blamed because the information on Parliamentary activities (three-line Whip day) that stipulated voting on financial appropriations intermittently, had come after 1.00pm. However, the candidates had been initially briefed and invited five working days ago. The administration would make a formal application to prolong the interview process. She proposed that the sub-committee should conduct interviews only for the three candidates that were scheduled for after lunch, and continue with the remaining candidates on the next day. The other candidates would not be disadvantaged, because the questions were not read verbatim, and Members would leave the questions and file with the support staff of the sub-committee.

Mr Booi said it was not the correct approach for the sub-committee to defend the issue on its own, since the whole of Parliament would be indicted as a result of the situation. The Chairperson should have communicated with the presiding officer before the meeting started. He said that with the situation, it was better to operate with the machinery in place rather than being defensive.

The Chairperson observed that the Speaker was presently out of the country and asked Members to advise on who the sub-committee should communicate with when the Speaker was not available.

Mr Booi said that the Deputy Speaker was the next presiding officer that could give the way forward when the Speaker was not available.

The Chairperson committed to communicating with the Deputy Speaker.

On her return from the Deputy Speaker’s office, she said that the sub-committee had been permitted to continue with the three interviews slated for after lunch, and to conduct some interviews the next day. However, the interviews would be interrupted by voting intermittently as a result of the three-line whip activity of Parliament.

Mr Booi said the Chairperson should take responsibility and address the candidates by herself, and not send the secretary.

Mr Dirks  suggested that the candidates’ views on accommodation for an extra night should be sought.

Mr Van der Westhuizen suggested that the Chairperson should also inform the candidates that when Members were notified by the bell to go and vote, they had three minutes to summarise their answers so that the Members could go and vote and then return before the interviews continued.

The Chairperson invited the remaining candidates to the venue and informed them that the delays had not occurred due to a lack of planning, but because of the three-line Whip activity that required Members to vote on some issues. She apologised on behalf of the sub-committee and said that she had instructed the catering arm to serve the candidates a late lunch, and informed them of the change in the schedule. She also informed them that the administrative officers would fix logistics in terms of accommodation and flight changes, and also ensure that the candidates would be comfortable.

Mr Booi also conveyed apologies from the sub-committee over the delays and changes in interview schedules, and indicated that there would be four interruptions for voting.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazama also conveyed apologies from the sub-committee over the delays and changes in interview schedules, and said that Members would be informed about the voting with the ringing of a bell.

Mr Ntombela said that any candidate that encountered any problem should inform the sub-committee.

The Chairperson said that the Members had just received a text message that a three-line Whip activity of Parliament was about to start which stipulated voting and a request which was beyond their control. She said that the interviews would stop after the three originally scheduled for after lunch, and the remaining six would continue at 8.30 am the following day in order to be fair to the remaining candidates. The bells rang and the Members had to go and vote.

Candidate 5

Mr Dizine Mfanozelwe Shozi

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked Mr Shozi to explain some of the values and principles mentioned within Section 195 of the constitution. She also asked Mr Shozi to explain his understanding of the functions of the PSC.

Mr Mncwabe asked Mr. Shozi how he would perform the duties of a commissioner if appointed, as he was currently the chairman of the Copmmission for Gender Equality (CGE). What strategies would he use in appointing competent senior level public servants?

Mr Van der Westhuizen asked Mr. Shozi to elaborate on the challenges facing the public service in playing a developmental role, and what strategies should be employed to achieve the developmental state.

Mr Hlengwa asked Mr. Shozi what he thought causes PI, and also state how he thought PI could be eliminated. What role could the PSC play to minimize PI so that it did not minimise service delivery?

Mr Booi asked Mr Shozi about the one-month course that he had taken in Massachusetts in the USA, and how it impacted on issues of corruption in the public service. What value had he added to the PSC by going for a course in the USA, when South Africa had a good education system?

Mr Dirks asked Mr Shozi to give his own definition of good governance.

Mr Ntombela observed that that NDP recommended that the PSC strengthen its oversight and recommendation function. He asked Mr Shozi to explain what caused the weaknesses, and also to identify how the PSC could overcome them.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazama asked him to explain what he understood by being ‘fit and proper,’ as stated in the advert for the position of commissioner. She also asked for clarity on his CV, which stated that he was studying full time for a B Sc degree, was a paralegal secretary, and yet had completed a thesis on sociology at the same time. Mr Shozi was also asked to explain how he had been able to leave the CGE and work at the correctional services agency. Why had he not attached any certificates to his submission? He should explain how he did a full-time course and also worked as a paralegal secretary at a non-governmental organization (NGO). Although Mr Shozi had responded, his CV was misleading because she did not understand how he could complete an undergraduate degree and also work as a paralegal secretary at an NGO at the same time.

The Chairperson said that Mr. Shozi’s response was not satisfactory, but asked him to elaborate on what value he would add to the PSC if appointed.

Candidate 6

Mr Bongani France Mapholoba Khonjwayo

Mr Ntombela asked Mr Khonjwayo to elaborate on some of the values and principles of the constitution located in Section 195, and to explain his understanding of the functions of the PSC.

Mr Booi asked Mr Khonjwayo to explain the transformation agenda of the PSC, in line with the NDP.

Mr Hlengwa asked him to explain why he thought departments did not implement the recommendations in the reports sent to the PSC. What corrective action could be taken for the recommendations to be implemented? Based on Mr Khonjwayo’s response, he remarked that if these recommendations were not implemented because low priority was given to them after a lot of government resources had been expended to investigate the problems, then the officials could be displaying an attitude problem.

Mr Booi asked Mr Khonjwayo to clarify whether he was proposing a structure that empowered every department to have decision-making powers. What had motivated him to state that every department should be empowered to take decisions?

The Chairperson asked Mr Khonjwayo to comment on the remarks expressed by Mr Hlengwa on why the PSC did not implement recommendations from HODs and MECs.

Mr Van der Westhuizen observed that Mr Khonjwayo had a Masters degree in developmental studies, so he asked him to state what was hindering the PSC in attaining the developmental state. He also asked him to elaborate on the strategies that the PSC could employ to ensure that the public service achieved the goal of a developmental state.

Mr Mncwabe asked Mr Khonjwayo to clarify his current position based on his CV, to state whether he was managing a unit called “prestige accommodation” under the presidency, and also to confirm his last employment.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked him to explain what financial disclosure meant in the PSC, and how he would achieve a high rate of financial disclosure in the public service.

The Chairperson asked Mr Khonjwayo to elaborate on the new creative values he would bring to PSC if appointed as a commissioner.

Candidate 7

Mr Lefuno Reginald Ndou

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked Mr Ndou to explain, with examples, what he understood about the values and principles contained in section 195 of the constitution. She also asked him to explain the functions of the PSC.

Mr Mncwabe asked Mr Ndou to state the best strategies that the PSC could use in appointing competent senior level staff in the public service.

Mr Van der Westhuizen (DA) asked Mr Ndou to state in his opinion what could hinder the PSC from attaining the goal of a developmental state. What measures had been adopted in the past to attain the goal of a developmental state, and what strategies could the PSC employ to achieve it?

Mr Hlengwa asked Mr Ndou to state what he identified had caused the recommendations presented by HODs and MECs not to be implemented. What could the PSC do to ensure that recommendations were implemented? He asked Mr Ndou to state his view on whether a constitutional court judgment affected everybody, and to relate constitutional court judgments to chapter nine and ten institutions.

Mr Dirks asked Mr Ndou to state his view on PI and give examples to substantiate whether PI occurred in the public service.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazama (ANC) asked him to clarify if a university could confer an Ll B and a Bachelors programme degree before a candidate took the Bar examination. Why did his CV show that he had attended four universities to obtain an Ll M degree? She asked Mr Ndou to explain why he was applying for a temporary position that paid R1.2 million per annum from a permanent position that he paid R1.1 million per annum after 17 years of service. She also wanted clarity on how he had been able to receive a merit bonus for consecutive years, and to state whether he would not be creating brain drain by leaving a position that the government had invested in for 17 years. In addition, Mr Ndou’s CV showed some inconsistencies around where he had completed his Ll M degree, and she asked other legal Committee Members to help her confirm what was happening.

Mr Mncwabe had also observed some inconsistencies, but Mr Hlengwa said that the degree might have been structured so as to accommodate the completion of the Ll M in Holland.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazama said she could not understand how the Ll M degree had been structured.

Based on Mr Ndou’s response, the Chairperson resolved that the issue would be determined when the outcome of the results of the vetting of his qualifications by the Parliament security were received by the sub-committee. She asked Mr Ndou to elucidate the creative value he would add to the PSC.

She requested the Members to return the proposed question envelopes and files on the candidates to the support staff to ensure fairness in the interview process. She also requested that PMG should not upload the audio until after the interviews had been completed. She informed Members that the time and venue of the meeting would be confirmed via a text message at 12.00am, and the interviews were adjourned to the next day.

Share this page: