Home Affairs & entities Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report

Home Affairs

10 October 2017
Chairperson: Mr L Mashile (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee Content Advisor briefed the Committee on the Draft Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs (DHA) on Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report – 2017/18 Financial Year (the Draft Report). He took the Committee through a 37 page Draft Report and noted that the Committee met with the Auditor General South Africa (AGSA) to receive the outcome briefing on the DHA, the Government Printing Works (GPW) and the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC). After AGSA, the DHA, GPW and IEC briefed the Committee on their annual reports for 2016/17 financial year. The Draft Report contained a brief overview from the four reports.

Members went through recommendations to ascertain whether they were written down in accordance with members’ proposals. Few changes were made. However, some members disagreed with the recommendation to condone irregular expenditure on the IEC’s Riverside Office Park subject to provision of further information on why the IEC did not challenge the High Court ruling up to Constitutional Court. Yet, they were of the view that a recommendation to investigate areas experiencing high-cost litigation in the DHA could not be made unless the DHA had briefed the Committee on report on these litigations.  

Meeting report

Opening and Apologies

The Chairperson noted that the meeting was convened to deliberate on the Committee’s Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report (BRRR) covering the Department of Home Affairs (DHA), Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) and Government Printing Works (GPW). Central to the Report were observations and recommendations made by the Committee. He remarked that the Minister of Home Affairs was scheduled to brief the Committee but the Minister apologised as she would be briefing Cabinet on whether the GPW could become a state-owned company. As the Cabinet meeting was also in Cape Town, the Minister still have time to brief the Committee if her Cabinet engagement ended early and the Committee meeting was still in progress.   

The Chairperson noted apologies from Ms S Nkomo (IFP) and Ms N Dambuza (ANC).

Home Affairs & entities Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report

Mr Adam Salmon, Committee Content Advisor, took the Committee through the Draft Report which covered the Committee’s engagement with the Auditor-General of SA (AGSA), DHA, GPW and IEC on the Department’s, and its entities, Annual Reports for the 2016/17 Financial Year.

Discussion

The Chairperson noted the Draft Report would be sent to the National Assembly. Issues in the Report should be captured separately according to the entities so that observations and recommendations were clear. He made some observations on some of the Report’s recommendations which included GPW briefing the Committee that the position of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) was advertised and should be filled by the end of October – the Chairperson felt this should be reflected in the recommendation. He made further grammatical amendments.

Mr M Kekana (ANC), referring to condonation of the Riverside Office Park, remarked that Members agreed that the IEC should, first, send a report to the Secretary of the Committee because the Committee could not condone something (i.e. irregular expenditure) that it did not understand. The Committee should not promote corruption and wrongdoings. The Committee should do its work of oversight and ultimately keep the wrongdoers accountable. Members agreed that a person, or persons, involved should be criminally charged and they should bring back the money. When the language of the Committee was only condonotion, this would imply the Committee was established to condone wrongdoings and so encourage others to do the same as their acts would be condoned. This was not right. It was wrong.

Ms H Hlope (EFF) agreed with Mr Kekana and remarked that the Committee should not promote wrongdoings but rather hold those responsible to account. She felt some recommendations did not capture what Members had agreed to – there was agreement that a report on litigation should first be shared with the Committee and the Committee should be briefed on high cost litigation on 31 October 2017. On another recommendation, she remarked that the DHA would not achieve what it was designed to achieve if its services, as it pertained to rural areas, would be provided through banks.

Mr A Figlan (DA) asked whether recommendations had touched on issues of provincial managers who were acting in other branches. Recommendations should place emphasis on the shortages of staff in the DHA and the need to fill vacancies.

The Chairperson agreed but pointed out that the DHA was challenged by shortage of staff simply because it was not well funded in that it could not fill all vacant positions. Inadequate funding could however not stop the Committee from recommending with emphasis that more staff were needed in the DHA in order to meet its mandate.

Ms T Kenye (ANC) noted the recommendation of “fraudulent documents for foreign nationals ought to be discouraged by the DHA” was problematic because the word “discouraged” sounded like the word “condoned.” Usually a person discouraged conduct which was right to do owing to certain reasons. She asked whether issuing fraudulent documents was the right thing to do but which could be discouraged. If it was the wrong act, punitive measures should be taken by the DHA.

Ms N Mnisi (ANC) highlighted that Members agreed that undocumented migrants should be traced in and around Sterkspruit and removed in the country. However, this was not a good move as undocumented migrants were in every corner of the country. The Committee should recommend that the Immigration Inspectorate be considered to be deployed in every corner of the country.

The Chairperson said that Ms Mnisi’s proposal was covered by a recommendation already in the Draft Report.  

Ms Kenye, on another recommendation, noted that the recruitment of adequate Immigration Inspectorate officials, if regard was given to porous SA borders, was essential.

Responding to Mr Kekana’s comments, the Chairperson said that he was opening the floor to discuss the question of condonation. He explained that the condonation of irregular expenditure, as it pertained to the Riverside Office, was not corruption but an administrative issue. He recalled that there was a court order that the recommendation on the building made by the Public Protector was binding. The court said that the IEC could not opt out of the lease contract. If the IEC could vacate the building to the new office, it would still pay the monthly rent. It would have to pay twice for accommodation services. The total value of the lease was R404 million over a 10-year period. Therefore, the ruling of the court could not be overlooked. The IEC had no choice but to continue to pay rent as per order of the court. According to the AGSA, the National Treasury had to endorse such payment and an absence of such endorsement resulted in the classification of such expenditure as irregular. In the Chairperson’s own point of view, irregular expenditure was money paid on something that should be done but lacked approval or did not fall within the ambit of Annual Performance Plan (APP). The question of criminality might arise in the situation of fruitless and wasteful expenditure. In cases such as this, the responsible person could be asked to return the money or face legal consequences.

Mr Kekana said that matters surrounding the Riverside Office were highly suspicious. He noted that the judgment was granted in High Court and that it was not true that the matter could not be challenged in the Constitutional Court. He was not ready to support the notion of saying that the IEC reported the Riverside Office matter to the Committee and that the IEC’s actions, in that regard, were constrained by a court ruling. Why should the IEC hide behind a court ruling it had never challenged? The Chairperson’s definition of irregular expenditure was totally wrong. He differed with the Chairperson on this definition and the conduct of the IEC and wanted the matter to be discussed in the political parties’ respective forums.

The Chairperson said there was no need to challenge the court ruling because, by its very nature, the recommendation of the Public Protector was subject to review and set aside by a court of law. A court of law was not necessarily implying the Constitutional Court. The IEC went to court to ask whether it could opt out of the lease contract and the court responded that the Commission could not do such a thing. The IEC could not go further.

Mr M Hoosen (DA) agreed with the Chairperson’s sentiment but found it problematic that the Committee adopted a culture of condoning irregular expenditure. The Committee should issue its strong view on irregular expenditure and thus state whether what the state institutions were doing was either correct or wrong.

The Chairperson, referring to the Draft Report, said it should be indicated the Committee had asked that it see the court ruling.

Ms Hlope proposed that no recommendation be made on the Riverside Office until a clear picture was given or until all documents, including the court judgment, were shared with the Committee.

Ms Kenye said that a lot of money was spent on the Riverside Office and more information was needed in order to understand the issues. The court order should be shared.

Mr Kekana agreed that the court ruling should be sent to the Committee so that, through reading the judgment, Members would understand what the problem was. Second, the legal advisors should be invited to advise the Committee. By the following week, the Committee Secretary should send documents to all Members. These matters should not be waited on until next year. He finally stressed his view that the IEC challenge the court ruling up to the Constitutional Court.

Mr D Gumede (ANC) said that Members should go back and read the recommendation made by AGSA with regard to the Riverside Office and take into consideration such recommendation. Members should not put on hold the work of the IEC. As the issue of condonation was delayed so the work of the IEC was delayed. Such delay had a negative impact on the upcoming elections. At this critical time, it was not only about money, it was rather about the integrity of the IEC and the future of the country.

The Chairperson said that he could not understand quite well what Members wanted as clarity on the Riverside Office was sought in previous meetings where it was explained why the matter was taken to court.

Mr Kekana said that he wanted to read the High Court judgment to ascertain reasons stated by the IEC in approaching the court.

The Chairperson responded that he could find the case law online. Mr Kekana sounded as if the Committee had the power to review a court ruling - the Committee had no such power. The Committee should rather read the judgment only for understanding. The Committee should respect the court ruling, on the one hand, and protect the integrity, credibility and independence of the IEC, on the other.

Ms Mnisi asked why Members were treating the Riverside Office matter as if it was new and why Members were acting as if they did not conduct an oversight visit where the office in question was examined and questions were asked. On top of this, there was a report established by the Committee on this issue. In her view there was no further information needed for the Committee to decide on condonation.

Ms D Raphuti (ANC) agreed. She said the Committee Secretary should send the court ruling to Members to grasp what legal issues were and what the rationale behind decision of the court was. The issue of Riverside could not be treated as if it was new.

The Chairperson agreed. He instructed the Mr Salmon to clean up the Report, based on today’s discussion, where it could be considered for adoption at the Committee’s meeting next week.

Consideration of the document from Speaker

The Chairperson informed Members that there was a document he received from the Speaker of the National Assembly which contained issues related to refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants. He asked the Committee Secretary to circulate the document to Members so that they could familiarise themselves with the document as it would be discussed in the following meeting of the Committee.

Members agreed.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Documents

No related documents

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: