Committee Report on Donation of Wild Life Game animals by North West DRDLR

Meeting report

The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs welcomed all and said it was supposed to be a very brief meeting that followed a meeting the previous week, where extensive input was made that was included in the report. Except for some minor differences that still needed to be made the report should now be adopted.

The Chairperson asked if there were any more amendments or positions on the report.

Mr R Purdon (DA) noted spelling errors on pages 6, 10 and 12.

Ms M Semenya (ANC), Chairperson for the Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries was unsure of the two committees’ prerogative to, within the intergovernmental relations framework, direct other spheres of government under the recommendations. Regarding the content, she was not in the meetings frequently and therefore would not deliberate on that.
 
Mr T Hadebe (DA) asked if legal advice was sought as to how far they can go to untangle what was done by the provincial department. What power did the committees have to resolve the situation?

The Chairperson answered that, when the matter was picked up and raised the Committee on Environmental Affairs asked for a report from the Provincial Legislation but no report was forthcoming. An explanation was sought from the Member of Executive Council (MEC) and when that was ignored the Committee consulted with the Legal Services of Parliament. The Committee was told that to subpoena the MEC was well within the Committee’s powers because they ultimately disbursed the funds. A subpoena was drafted, but the MEC came back to the Committee before it was issued. On the strength of that interaction the powers that the Committees have, should not be questioned.

Mr P Maloyi (ANC), from the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries,  proposed that the report be adopted although he was not sure if Agriculture had the same view as Environmental Affairs on bullet 1: that the Department did not handle the donation of the animals in accordance with the existing legislation and hence requests the MEC of the Department to reverse the South Africa Rare Game Breeders Association (SARGBA) Game Donation Project and ensure that no further donations to SARGBA take place, with immediate effect – and bullet 2: that the cost of the reversal of the project must be personally born by the MEC, the Accounting Officer and any persons or entities that may have inappropriately benefitted from this transaction of the resolutions . He suggested that the two chairpersons must consult at legal level to check the legality of that.

Mr C Mathale (ANC), also from the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, said how National relates to Province is outlined in the Constitution. He referred to the complications of when there were Section 100 interventions in Limpopo. If, in this case, the donation must be reversed, a particular process should be followed. Was previous legal advice communicated back in writing? Verbal communication can lead to misunderstanding. Members must have copies of that legal advice.

Ms Semenya said, according to her advice, only conditional grants can be monitored. Proper legal advice in writing would help. Her Committee expected the Minister to take responsibility as she is aware that the MEC reported the programme was a Cabinet decision. The National Department must work with the Province to redo the issue. Her advice was that she can only oversee certain issues and direct response should go to the Minister first.

Mr S Makhubele (ANC), from the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs, made the following points:
- Without question all spheres of government are equal.
- Taking legal advice into account those who do not want to come to Parliament can be forced to do so.
– Once a report goes to Parliament it is issue for Speaker and becomes parliamentary business.
The intention is to get things done properly but unfortunately at the level of the Department there was no National Standard or framework. The Department was called to account. The wish of the Committee is that the process is reversed and that negligence is called.
He proposed that the powers in terms of punishing those at provincial level are checked. He understood from the Agriculture that the challenge was that only conditional grants cannot be redirected. Other money cannot be tracked ant that has been a problem that government has always had. Money being for sports, for example, gets given for education by Province’ own accord.

Mr Hadebe said that he was partly covered by Mr Makhubele. The Committee realised something wrong was done because there was deviation from the mandates of the Department and of Environmental Affairs. He supported Mr Maloyi in his suggestion to seek advice from legal minds to check if they were within their rights on bullet 1 and 2 (to reverse the donations and to hold individuals personally liable for the fruitless and wasteful expenditure)
Legal backing is needed. The Committee knows about the autonomy of the different spheres of government, but things that are wrong cannot be allowed to happen. He proposed the report should be adopted with amendments.

Mr Maloyi said he made a proposal 15 minutes ago to adopt the report, but taking concurrent function and intergovernmental relations into account the first two bullets need more legal consideration.

Mr M Mabika (NFP), from the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs, had a problem with adopting the report while bullets 1 and 2 need to change and asked if that would not be adopting an incomplete report.

The Chairperson summarised that in essence there were no fundamental problems with the report, but everything must be in consistence with the law. There is no need to start from the beginning. He reminded the meeting that the Committee wrote a report to the Province’s Committee asking them to share with the Committee the work they have done to follow up the matter – without getting any response. It was explained that they had some difficulties. The Portfolio Committee resolved to proceed and proceeded to do oversight work. The advice from Legal Services was to go ahead and proceed. Unfortunately, the advice was not in writing because it was not requested to be in writing that time. As far as bullet 2 goes, Members are saying that should be subject to legal advice. It will be adopted as such. The matter will go to the House and while there will be interacted with legal services. Changes will be shared with the committees.

The Chairperson said that that brought the Committees to the end of the meeting that was supposed to be short but in true fashion Members of Parliament were probing activists.

Ms Semenya was still not convinced. Maybe because she was from Limpopo and the way they were affected by similar matters before, but she had to interact with the legal team before the report goes to Parliament. Agriculture became involved later in the process and they do not have the same understanding. If the report is adopted it should be adopted without Agriculture - because she is not sure whether the right processes are followed. It would be irresponsible of her to participate.

The Chairperson said that the adoption is subject to legal advice of the bullet points. It was difficult that some Members were not part of the meetings from the beginning. The reason why the MEC is isolated is contained within the body of the report and it was clear from a previous meeting that was not attended by the Chairperson of Agriculture. Mr Maloyi from Agriculture had consistently attended the meetings.

Ms Semenya said in the meeting she has attended the MEC said they acted on the mandate of Cabinet. The concurrent function of the Minister is to oversee the provinces. There are things that are not responded to in this report. She asked why, if it were a Cabinet decision, they do not subpoena the Premier and the Minister.

Mr Maloyi asked why they were making this difficult. What needs to be done is that the two chairpersons should get a legal opinion and then come back. He also asked the Chairperson to ask ANC members to stay behind after the meeting.

The Chairperson said the committees were not able to finalise the matter as there were more questions. The matter does not have to be rushed. It can be delayed. Environment was part of process and was comfortable to approve report, but Agriculture is not comfortable and because it is a joined meeting it is only fair that both committees must be satisfied with the report.

Mr Purdon asked for clarify: legal advice is going to be taken, the report will be amended. Will the committees be called back or will the report be circulated?

The Chairperson said the report would not be adopted that day. The matter will not be hurried and will be postponed to another date.

Mr Hadebe said they had gone through the matter many times and the matter needs to be finalised – on condition of the legal advice. The report needs to be adopted.

The Chairperson said Environment Affairs is ready but the colleagues from Agriculture must be on board. Environment asked the questions to the scientists who explained the involvement of all the role players. It was said that somebody must pay for the cost of relocation of the animals which is why it was included. At the end of the day the whole transaction was a mess and not in line with the law. Government was lied to that there was policy. There is need to rush. The committees will have to come back, deal with the report and adopt it.    
The meeting was adjourned.