Office of the Military Ombud 2018/19 Annual Performance Plan

Meeting report

Briefing by the Office of Military Ombud

Lt Gen Temba Matanzima, Military Ombud, apologised on behalf of the Deputy Military Ombud who was absent because she was not feeling well. He invited Committee Members to attend the Office’s annual symposium that would take place on t30 May 2018 in Pretoria.  In October the Office will host an international conference in Pretoria in which military ombud institutions and military academics would attend. A formal invitation would be communicated to the Committee. He further indicated that he did not have the Chief Director of Operations as he was assigned to Parliament. He reminded the Committee he was about to complete his seven-year contract and stated that he had liaised with the Minister and the President to start preparing to find a person that would take over from him. 

Mr Johann Behr, Director: Intake and Analysis, Military Ombud, said the aim of the presentation was to brief the Committee on the annual performance and allocated budget to the Office of the Military Ombud.  The scope of the presentation encompassed the strategic overview, programme and sub-programme plans, and risk management. He provided the Committee with the situational analysis from political, social, economic, departmental, and military perspectives. From a political perspective, the Office of the Military Ombud contributed to the realisation of the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF), New Growth Path (NGP), and the State of the Nation Address (SONA). In so doing, the Office focussed on the areas of management, training, corporate governance, stakeholder relation management, anti-corruption and fraud prevention, financial management, target dates, operations, service delivery, independence and implementation of operational recommendations.

Mr Behr highlighted the Office’s mandate as contemplated in terms of the Military Ombud Act and the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). There had been no revision to the Military Ombud Act and other mandates, but there was a possibility that it could be amended to ensure accountability and to strengthen the governance framework. He further noted that there were three court cases that were relevant to the Office before the Pretoria High Court. Two of these cases dealt with matters wherein the powers of the Office in respect of recommendations made to the Minister of Defence would be addressed. The third case was one in which the recommendation of the Office were being taken on review. All three matters were currently sub judice (or under judicial consideration) and the Office was awaiting the outcome thereof.

In terms of organisational environment, Mr Behr stated that the organisational structure was approved during June 2012 and was in process of being staffed. The current approved organisational structure consisted of 89 posts of which 66% focused on the execution of the core business (i.e. operations).

The total budget allocation for the 2017/18 financial year was R56.4 million. The total human resources budget was R39.5 million which left the operating budget to R16.8 million. From the operating budget, the largest cost drivers were R5 million for the payment of the building lease, subsistence and travel of R3.2 million, computer service for R1.9 million and hosting of the 10th ICOAF for R900 000. In spite of the total budget allocation of R56.4 million, the full cost amounted to R70 million. Whilst R54.5 million was allocated for the 2018/19 financial year, the full cost was expected to amount to R71.8 million.

Mr Behr said written complaints finalised within the Office was 70% finalised in 2017/18, whereas 80% finalised complaints were achieved the previous year. The total number of finalised cases was 664 out of 799.  Most of finalised cases related to promotion, demotion and career intervention. Cases of this nature were 322. Other cases related to utilisation and placement (54), service benefits and working environment (48), education, training and development (4), remuneration (42), grievance/discipline procedures (21), service determinations (89), official conduct of members of the SANDF (15) and other (2). In terms of the 2018/19 financial year, the Office achieved 75% of the annual targets. 

With regard to risk management, Mr Behr said the Military Ombud Act did not address the governance and accountability framework and this hampered the Office in obtaining institutional and financial independence. The Act therefore needed to be reviewed. He further stated that the Office’s independence was at risk because the credibility of the Office was compromised due to a lack of understanding and trust by all stakeholders. Development of a case and matter management was a problem because the credibility, integrity and provision of management reports of complaints lodged and captured (or registered) were unreliable due to the limited availability of information.

The Office had identified the following challenges:

-The Military Ombud Act remained a challenge due to the absence of addressing the governance and accountability framework.

-Non-compliance to the said Act with respect to the monies appropriated by Parliament.

-Independence of the Office was at risk due to the current placement of the Office.

-Funding remained a challenge as the Office was still in establishment mode and therefore required additional funds.

Discussion

The Chairperson said the presentation was short and to the point and that the Ombud should send a formal invitation to the Committee to attend its activities.

Mr S Marais (DA) said that, on the contribution to the governmental imperatives, the presentation referred to the NGP and failed to mention the NDP although the NDP was the main national growth plan. Did the Office respond to cases referred to it or did the Office identify the cases by itself in the military environment?  Were there cases reported by the public? What kind of cases did the Office deal with?  When one looked at the vision of the Office one would see that human resource was crucial. He asked what the progress of the cases involving racism, a horse and luxury military car were. The judgment of the military car case was delivered and was appealed against. These three cases were in the eyes of the public and were detrimental to the SANDF. These cases would expose the relevance of the Office because of concern was the value for money. He noted that the Office was guided by the Military Ombud Act but stressed that these cases would indicate the relevance of the Office. How did the Office justify itself that it was relevant? If one looked at the cost, one would see R70 million, but the Office got R56 million. That was a huge difference.  From this premise, one would like to know how the Office budgeted. Was it added percentage model or was it as a result of negotiations? How R70 million was arrived at and where did the Office get it? How the difference was generated or funded? What were structure and index used by the Office?  What was justification of money spent on travelling and subsistence?

Mr S Esau (DA) asked what subsistence and travelling entailed and why the Office was leasing a R5 million building? Was this only the option the Office had? On computer service for R1.9 million, what software and hardware were involved? He was expecting the Office to be independent and asked a clarification on how complaints were lodged with the Office. On the risk management, he noted that the Military Ombud Act was identified as a challenge and asked whether there was any suggestion made to the Minister to consider the revision of the Act. The Committee could also initiate an amendment of the Act. It was not only the Minister who could do this. On the issue of compliance, he remarked that the Office should elaborate on the security policy of 75%. What this real or implied? He asked whether all MoUs were completed and signed.  On the filling vacancies, he asked whether there were vacancies that were vacant and what these positions were. The Office should elaborate on the three cases before the Pretoria High Court although matters were sub judice, the Office should elaborate on the nature of those cases and not the merits of cases. On the training, he asked what was the implication and cost of training and whether training could be accommodated in the current allocated budget. There was a need for a skills audit with a view of enhancing the performance of the staff and organisation. There was an issue of reinforcing the Office’s funds, stating that the funds should be approved by Parliament and not the Minister as this would enhance the independence of the Office. There were factors the Committee would have to take into consideration for the Committee to approve the budget. He commented that he had noted that the Office was utilising social media and asked what social media were used and what the perceptions of the public was with respect to the work of the Office. He finally asked to be updated on the internship. Had the office identified areas where interns could be appointed?

Mr D Gamede (ANC) appreciated the improvement of the Office as compared to the previous year. The Office was able to fill certain position and the targeted positions they had last year had been improved on. Referring on slide 22, he asked whether there was still pending cases in terms of carried over cases?

On the question of lodging a complaint to the Office, Lt Gen Matanzima responded that, in terms of the Military Ombud Act, the Office ought to wait for aggrieved individuals to lodge their complaints. This could be done in writing or walk-ins. He reminded Members that he had been struggling to convince the Committee to revisit the Act even though it was constrained and not in line with the international trends. Some understood that officials of the Office should not walk around in the barracks looking for where the trouble was. He was no longer fighting because his term was expiring. This was however an issue of Parliament to see whether the Act could be reviewed. What he could insist on was to advise the Committee that many things were happening and that the intervention of the Office was clearly needed. Junior military was facing a lot of problems but these issues could not be looked into because of legislative constraints. Should the Minister be able to listen to people who were complaining to her office or through newspapers, the Minister had the legislative power to ask the Military Omnbud to investigate. Investigations of cases were not limited to those lodged with the Office. In the case directed to the Office by the Minister, the Office found that officials went beyond their power to discipline junior soldiers and the case had been referred to the court martial for trial. If the Minister asked the Office to investigate the case, it would so. Another example was the case of a lieutenant who was deployed to Cuba and decided to return because of disagreement with military leadership. The Office was investigating that case and soon would be completed.

Lt Gen Matanzima said that they were not receiving complaints from the public because the public undoubtedly did not know about the existence of the Office. This was fact no matter how the Office tried to talk to the media, provided presentation to Parliament, conducted workshops with military units, and engaged with municipal mayors. Engagements with mayors were crucial because frustrated soldiers did approach their offices to lodge with them their complaints. The Office was doing its best to sensitise the mayoral offices so that they could assist in identifying cases. At the moment, there were three cases from the public. The Office was however going out to meet soldiers and hear their complaints out. The Office was willing to get involved and assist.

The Office heard about the cases of sexual harassment in the DRC and was of the view that the Minister would request the Office to investigate these complaints from the United Nations. Until the Minister issued an instruction to investigate, the Office’s hands were tied. They had no mandate to go further and investigate. Apart from the Minister, Parliament could give authority to the Office to go ahead and investigate these issues of concern. Perhaps, these international issues would be elaborated on or discussed under the upcoming international conference.

Ms A Welgemoed, Deputy Director: Policy, Strategy & Planning, stated that the manner in which the Office contributed to the NDP was clearly outlined on page three of the APP. Referring to the Defence Review, she said that the Office was not involved. At the initial stage, there was a chapter in the Defence Review that talked about the Office and as it was progressively developed, but that chapter fell away.

Lt Gen Matanzima said that he engaged with the team responsible for reviewing the Defence Review and asked whether it was the intention of the team to exclude the Office. The team responded that they had made a request to the Minister to include the Office but such request was not approved. The Office did not have many meetings with the Department of Defence. All these difficulties indicated the need of institutional independence.

Mr Behr said that the Office investigated cases brought forward. In terms of cases lodged by the public, the Office could investigate a case involving the military official’s conduct. Most of cases the Office received from the public included vehicle accidents. In these cases, they were advised to follow the procedure so that they could be compensated. On the cases reported on in the media, these cases could be investigated if the Minister authorised to do so. On the expenditure, he remarked that a lot of money went to investigations because information was a key to resolve the matter and some money went to outreach programmes. In terms of the nature of the cases, two cases involved the recommendations of the Office to the Minister. In another case, the complainant was not happy with the merit of the case as handed down by the Office. Another case involved the findings of the Office in favour of the complainant and ordered the reinstatement. The responded went to the Public Protector. Other cases were before the Equality Court. The case was being dealt with by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) because the Office was unable to resolve the matter through mediation and arbitration processes. On the issue of recommendation of amendment of the Act, the Office made a presentation to the Minister. However, the Minister indicated that she wanted to hear both the SANDF and the Office on the question of revisiting the legislation and they had not yet secured the date for presentations. In terms of the conclusions of the MoUs, he noted that some of the MoUs were being reviewed and others were still pending. These pending MoUs had to be concluded between the Office and Chapter 9 institutions. He said that they had been unable to finalise the MoU with the SAHRC.