2019 Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report: Department responses; with Deputy Ministers

Meeting report

The Chairperson was disappointed that the Committee did not have the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) briefing document. It should have been provided to the Committee three days prior to the meeting. She asked whether DIRCO was under the false impression that the meeting was not to go ahead. She said that the Committee always met as planned and did not entertain requests for postponements.

The DIRCO briefing document was summarily distributed to members.

Mr D Moela (ANC) pointed out that members were placed at a disadvantage by only getting the document in the meeting. Members should have been given the opportunity to work through the document.

Ms B Swarts (ANC) agreed with Mr Moela and stated that the Committee should not be getting requests from DIRCO requesting that meetings be postponed.

Mr Kgabo Mahoai, Director General, DIRCO, said that the comments and concerns of the Committee were noted. He added that the current responses were an update to what had been given to the Committee in January 2020. The current document should be read with the original.

The Chairperson asked whether a scanned document - which the original seemed to be - should be considered as an official document.

Mr Mahoai apologised and noted what the Chairperson had said. He would check on it.

Briefing by DIRCO on its responses to the 2019/20 Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) of the Committee

Mr Mahoai presented the DIRCO’s responses to the Committee’s recommendations as contained in its 2019/20 BRRR. 

Committee Recommendation: That an audit plan be developed, implemented and monitored to address audit outcomes.

DIRCO’s Response: DIRCO had developed an audit action plan to address audit findings and outcomes. The audit action plan was being implemented and monitored.

Committee Recommendation: To have a turnaround strategy on measures to have a credible asset register, to avoid findings on existence and completeness.

DIRCO’s Response: In order to stabilise and improve reliance of the Asset Register, DIRCO had introduced a detailed plan. The aim was to have a complete and accurate Asset Register by January 2020 so as to amongst others have improved data integrity and have an audit trail for all updates to the Asset Register.

Mr Caiphus Ramashau, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), DIRCO, added that missions had been asked to scan assets. Performance sat at 89%. 100 000 out of 150 000 assets had been scanned.

Committee Recommendation: The DIRCO to investigate cash and bank findings relating to foreign bank accounts before the end of the current financial year.

DIRCO’s Response: Arising from the fact that the DIRCO did not have good experience with private service providers the AGSA was requested to conduct the investigations into the cash and bank findings. Following repeated enquiries, the AGSA only responded in February 2020 and declined the request. DIRCO was utilising its Internal Audit Unit to conduct the investigation. 

Committee’s Recommendation: To investigate and report on the circumstances pertaining to irregular expenditure to the amount of R298m incurred during the 2018/19 financial year.

DIRCO’s Response: The irregular expenditure related to contracts awarded in the previous financial years (2016/17 and 2017/18) was investigated by an independent investigator. The same exercise was conducted on the 2018/19 cases of irregular expenditure. It was expected that all cases would be finalised by 31 March 2020.

Committee’s Recommendation: Upgrade Information Communication Technology (ICT). Report on the work of the Ministerial ICT Team.

DIRCO’s Response: Short-term interventions to stabilise and modernise the ICT Infrastructure had been identified. The procurement process had been initiated. The ICT plan for infrastructure modernisation and digitisation would improve operational efficiency for both Head Office and missions. The DIRCO was conducting a skills gap analysis through the Ministerial Task Team on ICT Review to determine the capacity required t manage the ICT environment effectively.

Committee’s Recommendation: The establishment of the South African Development Agency (SADPA).

DIRCO’s Response: The African Renaissance and International Co-operation Act, No 51 of 2000 should be amended to make provision for the name change of the African Renaissance Fund (ARF) and for the designation of a head as an accounting authority that would be responsible together with the secretariat for the administration of the Fund. The DIRCO had as yet not briefed its principals. DIRCO would review its position to deregister the Southern African Development Partnership Agency (SADPA) from the Public Service Act and to deal with the SADPA Bill which was still to come to the Committee.

Committee’s Recommendation: The provision of permanent headquarters for the Pan African Parliament (PAP) as well as for the agencies of the African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN).

DIRCO’s Response: DIRCO had engaged both the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) and National Treasury on the PAP construction project as indications were that the project could not continue on the site initially identified by the DPWI. DIRCO had requested the DPWI to identify alternative land for the project. The DPWI consequently requested the DIRCO to update the needs assessment for the project which was currently underway.

Committee’s Recommendation: Consequence management to address the inadequacies in the work of the Finance Branch.

DIRCO’s Response: Guidelines on Disciplinary Procedures had been developed to assist management in all matters of implementing consequence management including all matters related to financial misconduct.

Committee’s Recommendation: That DIRCO report on disciplinary actions on financial conduct cases in the DIRCO.

DIRCO’s Response: The outcomes of the disciplinary action, including progressive discipline were regularly submitted to record purposes comprising of management’s action at Head Office and missions. The record of disciplinary action taken was on file and was submitted to top management on a regular basis and was also captured on Personnel and Salary (PERSAL) System. There were two cases where officials were found guilty. Funds were being recouped from one of them.

Discussion

Ms T Msane (EFF) stated that the briefing spoke to many things having been done but the problem was there was no confirmation that things were actually working. On the recommendation that there be a turnaround strategy to put measures in place for an asset register that was complete, she asked which areas were found to be problematic. Were there problems on ICT or on the procurement of assets? What consequence management had taken placed in respect of findings. She also asked on the foreign bank account finding whether computer audit aided tools had been put in place. Which missions had irregular expenditure? Has the rule of law taken its course? She noted that the Minister of Finance had spoken about scaling down the number of missions. A 2017/18 Report of the Committee had spoken about the position of Chief Operations Officer (COO) not giving the desired results as it should. What improvements would be made to the position? She asked where there was wrongdoing by employees and what improvements had been made to date.

Ms Msane asked how far DIRCO was in putting together a property management team to maintain and monitor the asset register. Why was it that year after year ICT was not sorted out? The data DIRCO was not safe.

Ms Msane asked whether the Department had sourced land for the PAP building. She was concerned about the manner in which African Renaissance Fund (ARF) funding took place. No prescripts were used.

Ms Mathu Joyini, Deputy Director General: Diplomatic Academy, DIRCO, responded that DIRCO had difficulties on ICT and infrastructure. In late September 2019 a task team was formed to deal with ICT matters. The task team comprised of experts. The task team had terms of reference ie how to digitise? Software licences would be acquired, network infrastructure would be modernised, computers and laptops would also be acquired. She added that procurement would start soon

Mr X Nqola (ANC) said that the briefing spoke to work in progress. He asked whether the audit action plan had been reported to its principals.

Mr Nqola asked whether the Department’s derelict properties had been captured in its asset register. On cash and bank, he asked whether there were still missions that kept huge sums of money in their safes. On gaps in procurement and supply chain, he asked what the legalities were of not having permanent committees. Committees were only formed when needed. The Auditor General of SA (AGSA) was clear on DIRCO’s audit findings. Consequence management had to take place. If the matter of the CFO was concluded, he asked for greater detail on the CFO winning his case on procedural grounds and not on substantive grounds.

Mr Nqola noted that according to the ARF Act, the ARF was to provide humanitarian assistance and sought clarity if was only for assistance outside of SA or did it apply within SA as well.

Mr Moela asked what progress had been made thus far since the development of the audit action plan. He further asked how the performance of missions were measured and monitored (Recommendation 5). DIRCO’s response to the recommendation made mention of the Personnel Management & Development System (PMDS) being utilised. Was there no other way? He felt that the PMDS could be manipulated if needed. On the Committee’s recommendation (Recommendation 8) to investigate and report on the circumstances pertaining to irregular expenditure to the amount of R298m which was incurred in 2018/19, he observed that he did not see actual progress made in the response. The Committee needed proper responses on the CFO. There was also a recommendation (Recommendation 15) that there be consequence management to address the inadequacies in the work of the Finance Branch. All the response was saying was that guidelines on disciplinary procedures had been developed. Had there not been guidelines before? On Recommendation 23 which spoke to the ARF needing to apply criteria for the funding of projects as stipulated by the ARF Act; he asked that provision be made for funding of youth programmes/ projects.

Ms Motshabi Modukanele, Chief Risk Officer, DIRCO, was upfront about the weakness that emerged. When the audit action plan was developed it did not look at the root causes of the AGSA’s findings.  The root causes were now looked at. Management had to self-assess and be as honest as possible. Why had irregularities happened? The second weakness was on self-assessment. Self-assessment supposed to add value. The idea was to audit yourself before you get audited. This would allow one to find weaknesses before one was audited. Going forward this was what DIRCO intended to do. On the ARF, she said that management had come in and implemented what assurance advisers had recommended. Possible weaknesses had been identified. If the proposal was approved terms of reference would be come up with.

Mr Mahoai responded that on missions, reference monitoring was done. Currently, DIRCO used the PMDS and did monitoring & evaluation. He realised that it needed to be more comprehensive. A more frequent monitoring mechanism was needed over and above the normal. Perhaps in the Regulations of the Foreign Service Bill it could be institutionalised. On the self-assessment report card, he conceded that DIRCO realised that it had weak internal controls.

Mr B Nkosi (ANC) observed that in the responses DIRCO, in some instances, provided timelines whilst in others it did not. DIRCO needed to be consistent. On the Committee’s recommendation DIRCO close gaps identified in procurement, supply chain management, asset management, and financial statements with misstatements (Recommendation 4), he felt that the response did not address the recommendation.

Mr Nkosi referred to Recommendation 7 and asked what the response was saying. Was it the Director General’s Office or the COO’s Office that was being strengthened.

On Recommendation18, he said that DIRCO’s response should provide detail on what the revised Supply Chain Management (SCM) Policy was. How would Policy address issues?

On Recommendation 19, he said that all the response was saying was that it was work in progress. DIRCO needed to provide the Committee with detail on the names, levels of employment and the charges that were levelled against officials. Progress should also be spoken to. The Committee needed timelines and deadlines.

Mr Mahoai, on gaps in procurement, pointed out that National Treasury Regulations did stipulate what bid committees should look like. The adjudication committee was more of a permanent type of committee. The DIRCO did have internal control mechanisms.

Ms Modukanele, on the SCM policy, said that the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) got involved. The policy had to go through various processes. SCM had to draft the policy. Her office had partnered with SCM and had identified the weaknesses of the policy. She noted that standard operating procedure was still being developed.  

Ms Swarts observed that the briefing had said that scanning of assets was taking place and that the figure sat at 89%. It would seem that the DIRCO envisaged the process to be completed by the end of March 2020. 100 000 out of a total of 150 000 assets had been scanned. She however asked who was monitoring the service provider. She said that a report needed to be provided to the Committee on this matter.

Ms Swarts said she had a problem with DIRCO officials undergoing corrective counselling. The Department was not a hospital to treat people with kid gloves. Where persons had done wrong they should be charged whether they were found guilty or not. She also felt that the DIRCO, in its responses, was vague and not clear on its efforts to halt irregular expenditure. Was DIRCO’s Annual Report available as yet? She was sure that by now the DIRCO had already received recommendations from the Auditor General of SA’s (AGSA’s) Office.

On land and properties, the responses mostly spoke to what it intended to do. DIRCO repeatedly referred to the Department of Public Works (DPWI) when it came to land and properties. Why was DIRCO not prepared to deal with land/property issues themselves? The Foreign Service Bill was on the verge of being signed by President Cyril Ramaphosa yet reference was made to the DPWI. She felt that the DIRCO, on the property/land issue had been parasitic since DPWI was managing its properties on its behalf.  She was also concerned about multiple efforts by DIRCO in providing training for its staff. DIRCO should be employing people that were fit for the job concerned. She asked whether there was implementation of ICT. Was a service provider appointed? She asked DIRCO to bring the tender documents before the Committee. It was unacceptable that the DIRCO, after many months, could still not appoint a service provider. What was the problem? She too felt that responses on the ARF/South African Development Agency (SADPA) were vague and did not say much. If DIRCO was yet to brief its principals when was the matter coming back to the Committee. She too felt that South Africans should benefit from the ARF. She was displeased with the fact that the CFO was to chair the internal audit committee. She noted that if the DIRCO had had proper internal auditors it would not have had the problems that were outlined by the AGSA. On the recommendation that the DIRCO needed to investigate cash and bank findings relating to foreign bank accounts before the end of the current financial year (Recommendation 3). She felt that the response from the DIRCO that the Internal Audit Unit was conducting the investigation meant that thieves were auditing thieves and overseeing thieves. It was beyond her how the CFO who until recently had been investigation could chair the internal audit committee. The DIRCO needed to implement consequence management. She was shocked that only two officials had been found guilty. Had the persons been fined? DIRCO’s response had been that funds were being recouped from one of the persons. Were funds being deducted from the person’s salary or pension? Proper disciplinary committees needed to be in place. She felt that there was real witchcraft around the CFO’s case.

Ms Joyini, on training, said that it was necessary to up-skill staff so that they could perform as was required. Training was done with the Office of the AGSA and the DPSA. Mr Mahoai had started a process on organisational improvement. It was done by senior managers. DIRCO had done a culture and climate survey where staff could have their say.

Mr Gideon Labane, Chief Audit Executive, DIRCO, on the investigation of cash and bank findings, said that the intention had been for the AGSA to do the investigation. The AGSA had however declined to do the investigation as its office had already audited the work to be investigated. The internal audit unit was tasked with investigating 124 bank accounts. Attempts were being made to source a service provider to assist with the investigation. The investigation would be completed by June 2020.

Mr Ramashau explained that the AGSA’s finding had stated that DIRCO had not done reconciliations on a regular basis. Other issues around cash were reconciliations around petty cash and travelling etc. A task team had been established to look at registers that were kept. A total of 460 000 transactions had been cleared.

He explained that when missions requested funds from head office the money that was transferred to missions was called cash in cash. He was not talking about what was available at missions in real time. There were therefore balances that were not reconciled. He was confident that by the reporting period DIRCO would have balances that were confirmed. On the asset register, he explained that DIRCO had migrated from the Excel System to the Netrace System. In the past all processes were concluded at Head Office. One of the challenges was that the auditors could not find all the assets. Missions had been required to do asset verifications. He was confident that measures put in place on cash and assets would yield results that were wanted. Head Office had established controls to ensure compliance.

Mr Mahoai understood that consequence management was a concern of the Committee. DIRCO had a guide that it had developed. DPSA too had a sanction guide which the DIRCO followed. In as much as members did not agree with corrective counselling it was the first step that had to be followed. Yes, the expenditure made was irregular expenditure but it had not been intentional. DIRCO had to test what the reason for the irregular expenditure was. Did the DIRCO hold officials liable? Yes, action was taken and officials were taken through disciplinary committees. Consequently, the DIRCO was able to request condonations. The DIRCO was however at present on a preventative mode. Consequence management was important.  

The meeting was adjourned for a short while so that members could vote on the Division of Revenue Bill in the House. Thereafter the meeting reconvened.

Meeting reconvened

Ms Swarts reiterated that it was unacceptable for the CFO to chair the internal audit committee given the recommendations of the AGSA. Persons who were implicated in wrongdoing should not be chairing.  DIRCO needed outside investigators to undertake the investigation. She asked how much implementation had been done thus far. Corrective counselling for wrongdoing was not an option. On land and properties, DIRCO needed to provide the Committee with proper answers. DIRCO needed to speak the language of the FSB and not rely on the DPWI. She noted that on some properties the DPWI had signed leases on behalf of the DIRCO. The DIRCO had to do things on its own. Something was amiss if the CFO was to chair the internal audit committee and it was then the job of the internal audit committee to oversee missions. She was concerned about the CFO chairing the internal audit committee when the case against him had only been lost on procedure.

Ms Bernice Africa, Chief Director: Property and Facilities Management (PFM), DIRCO, said that the first thing to deal with was to have an asset register. Implementation would follow. All missions were required to get the title deeds of properties. DIRCO was aware that properties were in disrepair. The second thing was to have an execution plan which DIRCO did itself. A total of ten land parcels had been assessed. The DIRCO had to make decisions around leasing versus buying. DIRCO however had to prioritise certain missions over others. Only one development could be prioritised. DIRCO also identified four vacant properties to renovate but in the end had to settle to renovate one as per its Annual Performance Plan (APP). She conceded that there were many properties in Europe that were of 50 years old. DIRCO undertook to do a conditions’ assessment.  

Mr T Mpanza (ANC) commented that some of the responses to recommendations were progress reports whilst other responses were just statements. On the recommendation for DIRCO to investigate and report on the circumstances pertaining to irregular expenditure to the amount of R298m incurred during the 2018/19 financial year (Recommendation 8) he asked whether the date for the finalisation of all cases ie 31 March 2020 would be met. The same applied to Recommendation 16. Would the consultative process on the organisational structure alignment be completed by the end of financial year 2019/20 as the DIRCO envisaged? He felt the response document to the Committee’s recommendation was lacking in substance. He suggested that the DIRCO come back to the Committee with an improved report with more substance. An implementation plan with timeframes was needed with detail on which officials were responsible.  

He asked for progress on the matter relating to the closure of a mission office in Bonn, Germany. This had been on the books for ten years and the office was supposed to be moved to Berlin.

The Chairperson commented that it would seem as if the DIRCO was making an effort but that certain sections of the response document were dubious. DIRCO was giving the responsibilities of its Chief Operations Officer (COO) to its CFO. The audit committee needed to implement the recommendations of the AGSA. DIRCO’s response had been the COO position had not yielded results. Where was the evidence to support this? The Committee needed evidence. She was concerned that if there was no COO then thieving would continue. She summarised some of the Committee’s findings and recommendations. The Branch Finance had no capacity at all. Skills development was needed at Branch Finance. How was the decision made to make the CFO the head of the audit steering committee? The Committee had asked DIRCO to provide it with an audit action plan. It was still not before the Committee. What was being implemented? DIRCO’s response to recommendations around consequence management was mediocre at best. The Committee was left with no other choice but to refer DIRCO to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA). The Committee had recommended that DIRCO do certain things but the DIRCO chose to do its own thing. The Committee needed to deal with the SADPA Bill as soon as possible. Timeframes were needed. The Bill had to come from cabinet to the Committee. At present, the ARF functioned as a slush fund. Things could no longer be done willy nilly. The Committee needed to do what it needed to do as DIRCO was basically giving it the middle finger. On SA providing headquarters for the PAP she asked whether it was going to happen or not. In October, President Cyril Ramaphosa was to have a soil turning ceremony on the supposed site. On the vacancy of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) post, she found it unacceptable that the DIRCO could not find suitable candidates. If interviews were done in November 2019 why was no person appointed. She asked for an explanation. If it was the Minister of Finance who had called for a scaling down of SA’s missions she asked the DIRCO whether it was the Minister of Finance’s call to make. How would the scaling down of missions benefit SA?

Mr Mahoai explained that there were terms of reference for the audit steering committee and proceeded to read it out. The audit steering committee had to be chaired by the CFO who was the custodian of the DIRCO’s finances. The audit committee itself however was comprised of external persons only.

He explained that the DIRCO response document to the BRRR of the Committee was submitted on 13 January 2020. The BRRR was used as an addendum to the DIRCO’s action plan. The briefing was intended to update the Committee on what had been done subsequent to the response document of January 2020. The DIRCO had a template that it used to show progress made. He assured the Committee that timeframes would be included in the response document. DIRCO noted the concerns of the Committee around the ARF and the reference that the ARF should cover youth as it did women. He noted that the ARF was a reactive fund but agreed that a proactive aspect was also needed. He said that the SADPA Bill would be referred from cabinet to parliament. On the reduction of missions, he stated that there was a task team that looked at repositioning the footprint of DIRCO around the world. This was in keeping with the aspect of rationalisation. The process was started well before the announcement by the Minister of Finance. It was work in progress and the Committee would be updated. He did note that the DIRCO was going through a process of organisational review. The problem when the COO position was created was that functional areas that it was intended for was not included in the position. The question was to ensure that the COO of the DIRCO would be a third eye so as to say look over things to prevent a recurrence of issues that the DIRCO at present was accounting to the Committee for. The DIRCO would attach elements of its audit action plan as an annexure to its response document. The DIRCO tried its best to provide full exposure.   

Ms Joyini, on the matter of the CIO appointment process, said that she was the chairperson of the interview panel. DIRCO was trying its best to find the most appropriate person to fill the position. The third round of candidates’ process would end on 31 March 2020. Interviews would be done.

The Chairperson pointed in its responses DIRCO had said that the candidate for the post of CIO had been head hunted. She asked for clarification.

Ms Joyini clarified that the post of CIO was advertised. It was open to anybody who qualified. She explained that when suitable candidates could not be found, DIRCO had embarked on a head hunting exercise which was the second phase. During the second phase the same processes in the first phase was followed. This was in terms of requirements set out by the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA). 

Mr Ramashau confirmed that DIRCO’s response had said that the DPWI had assisted it in sourcing land for the PAP. The land that had been identified was now under dispute. DIRCO requested alternative land to be identified. Engagement with DPWI was ongoing and the process was being monitored. On irregular expenditure by missions, DIRCO had engaged with National Treasury and the irregular expenditure by missions were deemed to be deviations. DIRCO started processing things in terms of prescripts. When there was a deviation then it affected the DIRCO’S efficiency. DIRCO identified areas that it needed to be proactive on. Other areas of irregularities of missions included that translation of invoices from foreign languages to English.

The Chairperson asked what about the issue of the CFO chairing the audit steering committee.

Mr Moela stated that the land identified for the PAP was in dispute. He did not see DIRCO meeting its target on the PAP matter. Perhaps the political leadership of DIRCO should be allowed to make an intervention. He was concerned about President Ramaphosa being embarrassed over the matter. On missions deviating without approvals, he said that it was an ongoing thing. There needed to be accountability. He was not pleased with the DIRCO’s response on consequence management. It was a matter that the Committee raised repeatedly. The Committee needed to be provided with an update report on all cases. He was not convinced that the PMDS could be relied on to get the DIRCO to attain a culture of high performance. He was concerned about the inability of Mr Mahoai to make decisions.

Mr Mahoai said that the PMDS had more assurance than before. The concerns raised were noted. 

Mr Nkosi suggested that the Committee schedule a meeting with only the DIRCO’s Director General and its Chief Risk Officer. It would give the Committee the opportunity to make a rigorous assessment of the internal control environment of the DIRCO. He noted that there was only six months left to turn the PAP issue around. Given the lockdown due to the CoronaVirus there was no way that the matter could be resolved in time. He felt that the PAP issue should be included in the long term plans of DIRCO. He also suggested that the Committee schedule a meeting with DIRCO solely on SCM. On asset management, he understood the fact that the DIRCO had capacity constraints. He did however ask what was possible over the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) period. Could the DIRCO provide the Committee with a breakdown of properties? He stated that the Committee needed to see the readiness plan of the DIRCO once the FSB became an act. 

Ms Swarts was very disappointed with the responses given by the DIRCO. On the recommendation to investigate cash and bank findings relating to foreign bank accounts, she said that she had asked whether the DIRCO was using internal auditors to investigate. DIRCO had responded that it had five investigators. The response report confirmed that internal auditors were investigating. The Committee had queried important issues pertaining to irregular expenditure. DIRCO’s response was merely to state normal things that it was doing. There was no substance to the responses. She hoped that an updated report to have more substance. Missions were still storing cash in safes; the CFO had however spoken about bank accounts. She was also disappointed that Mr Mahoai had not spoken about the officials that had been found guilty. Were these officials dismissed or were they still in the employ of the DIRCO? She asked what the offences had been. How were funds being recouped? Mr Mahoai was asked when last his senior managers at missions were vetted. She asked that a report be provided to the Committee. There were so many discrepancies but the Committee was back to square one with no answers.

Ms Msane agreed that no progress was being made. The Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation had requested the Committee to give the DIRCO time to fix things. Money was being spent at the present moment without there being any accountability. Where were the funds spent? R30m in ARF funds were transferred somewhere. The destination was still unknown to the Committee. As a member of the EFF she was not seeing any progress. If things continued as they were the Committee would see no progress as its predecessor had. On 21 August 2019 the Committee had requested to see the DIRCO’s asset register. It was supposed to have been provided by 6 September 2019. The Committee had not received it. Detail on cash in cash, the DIRCO’s property management strategy, the list of missions not complying was also requested but nothing was forthcoming. A simple thing like the DIRCO’s website was not even being updated. How were South Africans supposed to access information from it? The DPWI spoke about vacant properties. How many vacant properties were there?

Ms Msane asked whether a data recovery system had been put in place. She further asked DIRCO to put a figure on the number of missions receiving gifts, aid and sponsorships. On the PAP, she asked what type of project was being looked for. In October 2019 the Committee was informed that there were 300 bank accounts yet in responses given the figure was now 124. She asked that a deadline be set for responses to findings and recommendations of the Committee.

Ms Africa, on the asset register, stated that there were 127 actual title deeds. Properties were 163 in number and this was individual buildings. There were also 12 pieces of land on which buildings could be erected. On unoccupied buildings, there were 21 structures, chanceries or residences. There were 1000 rentals

Ms Joyini, on the data recovery system, the terms of reference were provided to supply chain processes in December 2019. The process of procurement was underway.

Mr Ramashau, on accountability of non-compliant missions relating to consequence management, explained that missions reported to Deputy Director Generals of any branch. DIRCO could provide a report on it to the Committee. 

Mr Alvin Botes, Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, stated that once the reconfiguration of missions was completed then the Committee would be given detail. The reconfiguration was not taking place because of National Treasury but rather for the DIRCO to consolidate its work. In doing the reconfiguration issues to consider included political solidarity and economic diplomacy. It would seem as though the Committee was getting frustrated by the lack of consequence management at the DIRCO. Mr Mahoai had reported that by 31 March 2020 cases would have been concluded as it related to consequence management. He assured the Committee that when DIRCO next met the Committee members would be given a report on the outcome of the cases. The political principals would meet with the Director General and his management team so that the briefing given addressed the concerns of members. He agreed that the PAP was a major issue. The Minister had spoken to the Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure about the matter. There were challenges around environmental issues. A formal report would be provided to the Committee on the land issue. Egypt was ready to stand in if SA could not deliver on the PAP issue. A detailed report was required over the matter. He conceded that processes in the DIRCO were not up to standard. The process around the issue of the CFO had been concluded. The CFO was found not to be in conflict with regulations. The legal principle of double jeopardy came into play. A substantive aspect of the CFO matter could not be pursued. He asked that the integrity of the CFO not be questioned. He appealed to the Committee to rebuild its working relationship with the DIRCO officials.    

The Chairperson responded that in the Department’s last quarterly report, Mr Mahoai had spoken about the normalisation of missions. The idea was to reduce the number of officials at missions. This was contrary to reducing the number of missions as the Minister of Finance had spoken about. She suggested that DIRCO stick to the plan of reducing staff at missions rather than reducing the number of missions. From the responses given it would seem as though there was only progress on ICT. Generally, there was no other progress. The CFO had spoken about missions having bank accounts but withdrawing funds and keeping it in safes. What was the logic in that? She asked what the DIRCO had done to stop this practise. There was the instance in Madrid where locally recruited personnel (LRP) tampered with the mission’s bank account. She explained that the Committee was strict on consequence management because the AGSA was entitled to prosecute. What did the repositioning of the DIRCO’s footprint of missions entail? She observed that there was a culture of impunity at the DIRCO. She asked what the findings of the ministerial review were. What were the recommendations?

The Chairperson asked why DIRCO had not put the same measures in place for the Corona Virus that it had put in place for the Ebola Virus. What was not done this time round? The Committee was dissatisfied with the DIRCO. The competence of the entire DIRCO was an issue which needed to be addressed.

Mr Mahoai, on the PAP issue, said that the African Union desk had obtained a date for the soil turning ceremony by President Ramaphosa. The date was to be in October 2020. The challenge that had emerged was that in August 2019 the DPWI was made aware that the identified site was found to be registered under private ownership. There was thus a legal matter that had arisen.

The Chairperson asked whether the DIRCO had a contingency plan in place. Had alternative land been acquired?

Mr Mahoai said that alternative land had not yet been sourced. He believed the best thing to do was to recommend that the ceremony by the President be cancelled. He explained that in SA DPWI was the custodian of properties. DIRCO was just an end user.

The Chairperson said that the signing of the FSB by the President was imminent. The FSB was with the President and would be signed. The FSB provided the DIRCO and the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation with custodianship to deal with properties. She pointed out that the Committee, unlike DIRCO, was results driven. The DIRCO needed to respond in a manner as if the FSB was signed by the President.

Mr Mahoai said that the concerns of the Committee on consequence management were noted. On rationalisation, it could entail the abolishing or freezing of posts. On the reduction of missions, he explained that the Executive had more authority over it. Perhaps there was a need to review SA’s footprint. Economies of scale could be used and perhaps savings could be made.

Ms Candith Mashego-Dlamini, Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, stated that she had received a report from DIRCO on consequence management. A person had violated the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). The contravention amount was also stated. The outcome was that there was no need for discipline. The relevant Deputy Director-General would institute action. If there was a financial delegation by the Deputy Director-General, then the Deputy Director-General would be responsible. She had questioned the CFO in order to clarify issues. The report was being dealt with and would be forwarded to the Committee.

Deputy Minister Mashego-Dlamini stated that DIRCO did not have an asset register. All that DIRCO had was a list of properties from the DPWI. There was a need to still verify properties and to land survey properties. Only when a conveyancer changed the title deeds of ownership from the DPWI to the DIRCO then the list of properties could be considered an asset register. The list at present was not an asset register. The properties were still those of the DPWI. The DPWI had only given the DIRCO a list of properties. The list was not yet at a level of an asset register.

The Chairperson asked Deputy Minister Mashego-Dlamini if she was aware of the implications of the explanation that she had just given. Ms Bernice Africa had earlier in proceedings said that there was an asset register. Was Ms Africa lying? On the matter of the PAP, she suggested that a meeting be called with both the Ministers of Public Works & Infrastructure and of International Relations and Cooperation so that the matter could be resolved. The PAP issue was an old one. First the land identified had environmental issues and was considered a wetland. Now with the second identified piece of land there were issues of private ownership. An investigation would be able to shed light on when the land had been privately sold. She hoped the PAP issue to be resolved before October 2020. She observed that DIRCO was very much resistant to change. She advised Deputy Minister Dlamini-Mashego to crack her whip harder. Addressing Mr Mahoai, she said that he had allowed President Ramaphosa to commit on the legacy project of the PAP Building. It would be a problem if the soil turning ceremony could not take place in October 2020. She said to Mr Mahoai that he should have let Egypt taken responsibility for the PAP project. Addressing Deputy Minister Dlamini-Mashego, the Chairperson said that the Committee had no choice but to be strict on consequence management. As per her notes there was a shortfall of R300m. The AGSA could hold the principals of the DIRCO liable individually. In the Committee’s next meeting with DIRCO specifics was needed. A formal letter would be written addressed to Mr Mahoai requesting specifics. She would also write to the Minister as well as to the Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure for them to account on the PAP project. There needed to be a contingency plan in place. The Committee would have its own findings, diagnosis and thereafter write to the Speaker of the House about issues.

The meeting was adjourned.