Department of Traditional Affairs & MISA Special Adjustments Budget

Meeting report

The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee, Ms Muthambi, noted the apology from the Minister who was in another meeting; Deputy Minister Obed Bapela, who was sick and in self-quarantine; and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Municipal Infrastructure Support Agent (MISA), who sent in a delegate to act on his behalf for the meeting. The Chairperson also noted with great concern that the Director-General (DG) of the Department of Cooperative Governance (DCOG) sent in an apology that was not signed and which did not reveal who was acting or representing the delegation from DCOG. She noted that another apology came from Deputy Minister (DM) Parks Tau, who was able to follow the meeting but unable to respond to questions as he was on the road because of a family emergency.

The Chairperson took a moment to convey her heartfelt condolences to the family of the late North West CoGTA MEC, Mr Gordon Kegakilwe, on behalf of the Portfolio and Select Committees.

The Chairperson allowed Members to comment on the absence of the executive members of DCOG, particularly on the apology from the Director-General.

Ms H Mkhaliphi (EFF) echoed the Chairperson’s sentiments on the absence of the Director-General whose apology came quite ambiguously with the short explanation of “pressing matters.” She said that this was concerning.

Mr B Hadebe (ANC) also raised concerns on the absence of the DCOG executives. He wished DM Bapela a speedy recovery and understood DM Tau’s situation but asked for clarity on whether someone from the DCOG was delegated to lead the DCOG delegation and take questions from the Committee, as the matter to be discussed was of importance and the Committee should not be hindered from playing its oversight role.

Mr H Hoosen (DA) asked for further clarity on what the explanation was from the DG of DCOG. He said that it was unprecedented for a DG to be absent from a Portfolio Committee meeting dealing with strategic plans and perhaps there was a good explanation. He said that he understood that the DG had been appointed recently but from recent experiences he did not get the impression that the DG had been properly orientated by political principle. He suggested that the items that were going to be led by the DG be moved forward to another date and the meeting continue with the other items.

The Chairperson asked whether DM Tau would be able to comment on Members’ questions. She said that she had registered the apology tendered by him but in the absence of other political heads he may have to comment.

Mr Tau asked for some time to pull over from the road before he could respond to the Members.

Ms Mkhaliphi asked for clarity on who was delegated in the absence of the DG to lead the presentation by DCOG. She said that the DG’s absence was unacceptable as the matter on the table was the adjustment budget which was a very important one.

The Chairperson said that the letter that was sent by the DG did not clarify who was delegated to lead. It simply referred to “officials,” yet there were several officials in attendance in the meeting. Had the letter been clear, there would not be any issues.

Mr Hadebe said that previously there was a similar problem where no one was officially informed as delegated to lead the delegation by the accounting officer, and thus no one took that responsibility upon themselves. He said that if there was no clarity in the letter sent from the DG then that scenario would likely repeat itself.

Ms D Direko (ANC) said that this situation made her wonder if the DG understood the importance of the Committee and whether the DG was taking the Members for granted. She said that all the items that had to be led by the DG be referred back and rather be discussed in a meeting where the DG was present.

Mr G Michalakis (DA, Free State) expressed great concern on the absence of the executive heads of DCOG, saying that this was not the first time that this has happened. He said that the executive authority had not honoured a single invitation from the NCOP and the Minister had not appeared before the NCOP or responded to questions. He said that it was not a partisan matter and reflected how the NCOP was treated by officials across parties. This was unacceptable and the NCOP could not continue to be disrespected in this way. He said that this was a very important meeting and the NCOP had this meeting once a year and so he supported the suggestion to call on the executive to attend a meeting at a later time.

Mr K Ceza (EFF) proposed that the meeting be postponed until the executive authority came to the Committee. He said that he was just in a meeting that was postponed based on similar circumstances.

Mr Tau responded to Members and said that the branch responsible for the presentation was the branch led by Deputy Director-General (DDG) of DCOG, Mr Tozi Faba, who was on the line, and both himself and the Chief Financial Officer, Ms Dorothee Burger-Snyman, should be on the line to deal with questions from the Committee. Mr Faba was responsible for compiling the report. He said that he could not confirm the reasons for the DG’s apology but the officials designated were available on the platform.

Mr Hoosen said that in fairness to the executive heads, both the Deputy Ministers Tau and Bapela attended almost every meeting, even if they did not have a significant contribution to make. They did show the required level of respect to the Portfolio Committee and there was a genuine willingness even from the Minister’s side. He said that the DG saying that there was something more urgent to deal with showed disrespect to Parliament as an institution and the DG should be orientated on this point. He supported the submission that the items of the DG should be postponed.

The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee agreed that from the National Assembly side this was not a problem that had been reoccurring.

Mr G Mpumza (ANC) agreed with the submission that this meeting be postponed.

The Chairperson commented that there was consensus that the items which the DG was responsible should be moved forward. She asked Members to comment on the other items of the meeting and whether the meeting should continue for their sake.

Ms Direko suggested that other items should be dealt with and the Department of Traditional Affairs should be allowed to continue with its presentation.

Ms Mkhaliphi agreed with Ms Direko but added that it was not enough to simply postpone the meeting. She reminded Members that the last meeting was postponed on the basis of incomplete information and so at some point the Committee should get a full report from the DG as it was unfair to the work of the Committee to always postpone the meetings on account of the DG.

The Chairperson noted Members’ concerns and allowed the DG of Traditional Affairs, Mr Joseph Mashwahle Diphofa, to present.

Presentation by the Department of Traditional Affairs

Mr Diphofa led the presentation from the Department of Traditional Affairs (DTA), which focused on the budget allocation special adjustments in so far as how they affected the Department and the implications for the annual performance plan (APP) for 2020/21. In the previous presentation of the DTA’s strategic plan 2020-2025 and 2020/21 APP, the Department indicated that it would come back to the Committee to present changes to its budget in response to the advent of the pandemic. The presentation highlighted that following the President’s announcement for the R500bn fiscal stimulus package, partly funded by existing departmental budgets in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department’s budget was reduced by R3 million.

For purposes of the discussion, the presentation focused on the figures in the original budget tabled in March 2020 in Parliament and the adjustment budget. The total budget tabled in March 2020 was R173.399 million and in the adjustment budget it came down to R170.399 million. The three programmes highlighted in the presentation, where this mandatory budget cut was spread, were Administration; Research Policy and Legislation; and Institutional Support and Coordination. The presentation also broke down the budget figures in terms of different economic classifications, including compensation of employees; goods and services; transfers and subsidies; payments for capital assets; and payments for financial assets. In terms of economic classifications, the budget cut affected only the goods and services classification, which was reduced from R37.943m to R34.943m to finally get to R3m which was the total mandatory budget cut in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The presentation broke down this R3m budget cut down according to each programme. In programme one, Administration, that budget was cut by R525 000 under goods and services. In programme two, Research Policy and Legislation, that budget was cut by R1.302m under goods and services. In programme three, Institutional Support and Coordination, that budget was cut by R1.173m under goods and services.

The presentation then indicated the implications of this budget cut on the DTA’s APP. Mr Diphofa highlighted that there were projects that would have required the Department to be physically present on the ground and it was now going to be difficult to implement these projects in the face of COVID-19 regulations limiting travel and gatherings. The presentation listed the reconsidered projects per programme and the rationale for their discontinuation. Many of these projects affected were in the Research, Policy and Legislation programme, and two projects were in the Institutional Support and Coordination Programme. The rest of the projects from the APP not mentioned in the presentation as being reconsidered would remain in the DTA’s APP 2020/21.

The presentation highlighted that some of the projects that required enabling legislation such as the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act (TKLA), which was yet to be proclaimed, were being carried over to the next financial year. The presentation also indicated that the DTA had added projects to its APP that would respond to some of the COVID-19 pandemic impact, particularly in the Institutional Support and Coordination Programme – covering issues of food security, capacity building for traditional leadership, monitoring adherence to COVID-19 regulations and COVID-19 awareness programmes.

The Department asked that the Committee note the changes to the DTA’s budget allocation amounting to a reduction of R3m and the proposed changes to the 2020/21 APP, which affected the first year of the Strategic Plan.

Discussion

Ms M Mmola (ANC, Mpumalanga) asked that the DG of the DTA clarify what the term of office of traditional leadership was. She also asked for clarification on when the last training of traditional leaders was conducted.

Ms Mkhaliphi confirmed that the Committee noted the decrease in the budget of the Department. In terms of impact, she saw that programmes two and three were the ones mostly affected. She raised a concern on the anticipated reduction in the expenditure of traditional leadership disputes and claims, saying that this was the core work of the Department. She would like clarity on the justification of the downward revision here as it would seriously affect the daily functions of the Department and its coordination. She understood that much of the reasoning in considering the discontinuation of some programmes related to the limitations coming from COVID-19 regulations in terms of gatherings but asked for further clarity on this. She asked that the delegation answer what the justification was for the Ministry and management level not being affected by the downward revision.  She also asked for further clarity on the discontinuation of research projects, since to her understanding, research projects could be carried out virtually and without the need for gatherings and travel.  

Ms Z Ncitha (ANC, Eastern Cape) noted that the handbook of traditional leaders was not yet completed and asked for timeframes on when that process was planned to be completed. On the eight traditional councils still to be established and the delays experienced in the current circumstances, she asked that the delegation clarify whether the Department had considered using other means to hold meetings to facilitate the establishment of the councils as well as the training programmes. In light of the decreased budget, she raised a concern on the indication that the Department was still awaiting the Khoi and San groupings to join them and would have to establish councils and facilitate training, and asked that the Department clarify how it would mitigate the impact of the budget cuts for this effort in particular.

Mr Ceza asked that the delegation clarify impact of the budget cuts on disputes, claims, possible court cases and legal costs. He asked that the Department clarify how it was making sure that the legal disputes were still resolved.

Mr B Luthuli (IFP) raised a concern about the fact that the reduction was taken from goods and services and asked that the delegation clarify how the Department was going to approach improving traditional courts under these circumstances. He said that there were certain areas which did not have access to traditional courts and some courts affected by the storm in 2017 had not been built. He said that due to lack of infrastructure, there were Amakhosi who were forced to facilitate proceedings under trees.

He also raised a concern on renovations, saying that in 2019 he took a decision to take tribal money and use it to repair the traditional court in his jurisdiction and those expenses amounted to about R340 000. He asked for clarity on when the Department was going to start repairing the traditional courts as at the moment it seemed that this was not prioritised in the new dispensation. He also asked for clarity on the timeframe for the training of traditional leaders because without this training, unlawful actions could unintentionally be taken in ignorance of constitutional imperatives.

Mr Hadebe commented that Mr Luthuli had made a very progressive move by repairing the courts out of tribal resources and encouraged Mr Luthuli’s resolve. He raised a concern about the budget cuts affecting key programmes such as training. The Department needed to be innovative and adapt as these pandemic circumstances might last a long time. He asked for clarity on what would happen to some of these activities if the Department could not adapt quickly and adopt innovative ways to implement the programmes. He said that if the Department needed help, it should speak up rather than only taking money away without putting measures that respond innovatively to the new normal.

The Chairperson echoed the concern about the building and maintenance of traditional courts and said that DTA should clarify how it would work with the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, and the Department of Correctional Services to look at the issue of traditional courts. She also asked for clarity on the correlations between the indications of the activities that would be discontinued and the reduction, which seemed to only cover goods and services. The narrative explanation of the spread of the budget cut did not seem to align with the budget adjustments, which only looked at goods and services.

She noted that the presentation indicated that the Act still needed to be proclaimed but asked that the Department clarify what extent the downward revision on the Research, Policy and Legislation programme would affect the implementation of the TKLA, particularly for the establishment and operational costs of the Commission on Khoi-San matters. On the Institutional Support and Coordination programme budget cut, she recounted that in the previous budget tabled in March 2020, the bulk of the decrease related to the anticipated decrease in expenditure of traditional leadership disputes and claims; she asked the delegation to justify this downward revision.

She echoed Mr Luthuli’s point, saying that she did not see anything in the documents submitted relating to DTA mechanisms to support the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and the Department of Correctional Services in the implementation of the Traditional Courts Bill. She raised a concern on the discrepancies in benefits and allowances in different geographic spaces and emphasised that because South Africa did not function as a federal state, there were some matters that required uniformity. The Department of Cooperative Governance was responsible for matters requiring uniformity in the governance of traditional leadership; it was therefore concerning to see a traditional leadership in one province having more benefits than the other. She asked that the Department clarify what its stance was on issuing norms and standards relating to the governance of traditional leadership, even as some of these matters were in the competency of provinces.

Responses

Mr Abram Sithole, CEO, National House of Traditional Leaders, answered to the question on the term of office saying that the structures’ term of office was just like that of Parliament – five years. He said that this term applied to the Traditional Council, the Local House of Traditional Leaders, the Provincial House of Traditional leaders and the National House of Traditional Leaders.

He responded further that the TKLA, once commenced, would require that all structures must be streamlined in terms of their terms of office and end on the same year. He shared that the current term of the National House would end in 30 June 2022 since the last elections were in 2017 and a new National House would be elected to include the recognised Khoi-San leaders. When this happened, provincial houses would then have Khoi-san participants and the houses would be reconstituted.

On the question of terms of office, Mr Diphofa clarified that there was a term of office for the institutions themselves and no term as such for the traditional leaders.

Ms Reshoketswe Mogaladi, Deputy Director-General (DDG): Institutional Support, DTA, responded to the questions and concerns on projects that were being postponed or discontinued for the current APP. On the constitution of Traditional Councils (TCs) she said that currently there was no enabling legislation to constitute the TCs as the timeframes to constitute the TCs legally had lapsed. She said that once the TKLA had been proclaimed the Department would then be able to constitute the TCs legally. On most of the projects within the Research, Policy and Legislation branch she responded that limitations on physical meetings with communities and the lack of an enabling legislative environment were the two main reasons some projects were being reconsidered. She made the example of the documentation of customary laws of succession, saying that it required meetings with royal families and communities, and virtual meetings with that category of stakeholders involved were not feasible. She made another example of the Nama Leaders Research, saying it also required going to the Nama leaders and communities in order to document their customary roles, and this interaction would not be possible given the pandemic protocols.

Looking at the projects that had more to do with the implementation of the TKLA, such as the establishment of the Commission on Khoi-San matters, she responded that this was also not possible under the current circumstances because there was no enabling legislation even as all the preparatory work had been done. She explained that since the Act itself had not been proclaimed, the Department was unable to monitor its implementation since it had not yet commenced.

On the question on norms and standards, the DG explained that this was where the work of the handbook came in. The handbook on the institution of traditional leadership would deal particularly with those things that the Remuneration Commission did not deal with. He said that the Remuneration Commission dealt with salary levels which were determined through recommendations from the Independent Commission on the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers for particular categories in traditional leadership being kings and queens, principal traditional leaders, senior traditional leaders, headmen and headwomen, and chairpersons and deputy chairpersons of traditional houses. He said that these determinations were not comprehensive and would not include aspects like staff support, vehicles, travel and accommodation. The handbook was supposed to deal with those matters that were unaddressed. The draft handbook was completed and the DTA intended to ensure exhaustive consultations on the draft handbook, including provincial government and the institution of traditional leadership at various levels. This consultative process needed to be taken to its logical conclusion as ultimately it was provinces that would be footing the Bill, such as in the case of staff support. He said that some of the consultations would take place through virtual meetings but beyond the level of government officials, stakeholders in traditional leadership may not be as accessible. The DTA would take the consultative process as far as possible, but the Department remained concerned about how far it could go.

On the perceived misalignment in the presentation regarding the budget and its narrative explanation, Mr Diphofa explained that goods and services included travelling and accommodation as researchers had to travel to carry out that work. Regarding the Khoi and San research, there was overlap with other countries such as Namibia which researchers had to travel to in the past. He explained that the reduction was under goods and services because of the kinds of meetings that would have to take place. He said that the same applied to consultation activities which would require travel, catering and accommodation.

Mr Diphofa responded to the issue of traditional courts, echoing the Chairperson’s comment that this work was under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJCD). He said that there was outstanding work, primarily around the Traditional Courts Bill. He shared that there was a period where the Bill was tabled in the National Assembly but then there was a stalemate. The DTA, through the facilitation of the Minister, convened a ground-breaking consultative session between the Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa, the National House of Traditional Leaders, members of the Justice Portfolio Committee and all the relevant stakeholders. He shared that one of the main achievements of that engagement was that the Traditional Courts Bill was endorsed within the National Assembly and had moved to the next step at the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). As with the Customary Initiation Bill, the Department expected to continue briefing provinces and had similar arrangements together with the DoJCD.

On the reduction in the budget, Mr Diphofa explained that the reduction came after the announcement by the President of the R500bn fiscal support package. He said that R130bn was supposed to come from the baselines of departments and discussions had to take place between various departments and National Treasury. The starting point was that there had to be a reduction, and initially there was supposed to be an even higher reduction, which was eventually negotiated down to the level of R3m. Justifications for the reduction should be understood in this context.

In justifying the consideration to discontinue certain projects and activities, he said that because the work that the Department included a lot of travelling for activities like research and capacity building, the pandemic restrictions meant that some of that kind of work would have to be reconsidered. The Department was having discussions with the Local Government Sector Education and Training Authority to find new ways to carry out some of those activities affected by pandemic restrictions and think differently about how the training was going to occur. He said the Department acknowledged that the limitations on gatherings might still be here in the next financial year and that this was being considered as a possibility.

On disputes and claims, Mr Diphofa described the levels of leadership and how this related to jurisdiction for different levels of government. He said that in terms of legislation, the President recognised kings and queens; premiers and provinces recognised the levels below that of kings and queens. He said that it was important that the provinces played a leading role in the lower levels for three reasons: the national sphere was not empowered in legislation nor was it empowered with the necessary resources, and provinces were much closer to the communities affected. He emphasised that the provincial counterparts would have to play a leading role when it came to issues at a lower level than that of kings and queens. One of the projects that the Department had retained was that on framework for the resolution of disputes and claims. The Department would continue to work with provinces to work on that framework and monitor the extent to which that framework was being implemented to avoid situations where the Minister of CoGTA and the President were cited as respondents in matters where they did not have the authority.

On the maintenance of traditional courts, Mr Diphofa said that he was aware of the situation in Limpopo where the MEC announced that there would be three to five infrastructures erected but after that there was no clarity on who would take responsibility for maintaining those structures. He said that the Department was working with provinces and the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) on guidelines for the renovations of infrastructure for the institutions of traditional leadership. DTA did not have the resources to effect the renovations but the guidelines introduced ideas on how the process of renovations and maintenance could be coordinated.

On the issue of training, he said that there was training done at a provincial level which was uneven. There was also training that was conducted at the level of the DTA but that training did not go far enough. The nature of the programme that the Department was currently developing intended to cover as many needed and aspects as possible. He shared that one of the DTA’s focuses was the integrated capacity building programme and a training programme on the induction of new members of traditional councils and the Department was considering different ways to conduct the training without physical interaction on the ground. The DTA had said to its counterparts in different provinces that, to the extent possible, provinces should not stop with the training. What was being considered now was a new mode of the delivery of the programme beyond the traditional meant of face-to-face interaction.  

Follow-up questions

The Chairperson allowed for follow-up questions. She said that under level three of COVID-19 regulations, gatherings were limited to 50 people. She was concerned that in the District Command Councils she attended representation of traditional leaders left much to be desired. She said that when she had tried to figure out why traditional leaders were not attending meetings, the response was that they did not have the necessary gadgets and tools. She asked that the delegation clarify what mechanisms the DTA had put in place, as a norms and standards department, to ensure traditional leaders were supported.

Ms Mkhaliphi said that her questions on programme three were not adequately covered. She said that she was concerned about how the DTA would be affected by the budget cut on the coordination side and, in turn, how people on the ground were affected, particularly regarding traditional leadership programmes on gender-based violence and patriarchy. Traditional leadership should play an important role particularly in rural areas.

On claims and disputes, she noted the explanation that there were two types of matters, those involving kingship and queens and those involving lower levels. She said that the Committee was interested in the media reports on King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo, saying that his powers were returned to him by the Eastern Cape province.

On the disputes, Mr Luthuli noted the explanation on how the Department normally intervened. He asked for clarity on how the Department intervened on a dispute for chieftainship, referencing the issue in KwaZulu-Natal where there was a traditional council dispute – where the government was intervening but there still seemed to be no way forward. He said that there were issues involving appointments of people who were not within the community, to take over the chieftainship at the insistence of the Department itself – which seemingly had not consulted the traditional leadership or Umndeni. On salaries for Izinduna, he raised a concern on those who had not received their outstanding back-payments. He said that the Izinduna needed to get this money and government should avoid the situation where Izinduna ended up refusing to attend the traditional council elections because of this grievance. He said that he was not satisfied by the interventions of the national government in the provincial sphere and the coordination that must happen there.

Responses to follow-up questions

On Izinduna, Mr Diphofa said that the DTA was aware of reports of outstanding payments in the salaries of Izinduna in KwaZulu-Natal and the MEC of CoGTA in the province had met with the Minister. There were agreements on some further work that needed to be done with the understanding that once the work had been done there would be a regrouping to move the process forward. He said that the Department was aware that when the Independent Commission on the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers was making recommendations on salaries, the echelon of Izinduna was not included and this was only included later in legislation. Once Izinduna were included and other provinces began to take this forward, there were budgetary challenges in KwaZulu-Natal leading to the delays that followed. The payments of the salaries were currently happening, but the problem lied with the accumulation of the backlog. The Department would be able to provide an update on those issues once a follow-up engagement between the Minister and the MEC in KwaZulu-Natal had taken place.

On disputes, he clarified further that as per legislation, the President was responsible for recognising kingships, queenships and the incumbents and so this was the level at which the Department might intervene. Legislation provided that once a kingship had been recognised, the royal family recommended an incumbent for the President to recognise. He exemplified the dispute with AmaMpondomise where the President had signed the proclamation to recognise the AmaMpondomise but there was a dispute within the family as to who should be recognised as the incumbent.

On chieftainship, he said that legislation labelled this as senior traditional leadership and gave the power to recognise a senior traditional leadership and senior traditional leader to the province allowing the family to make a recommendation to the premier. He said that there were cases where the Premier received two conflicting submissions. To the extent possible, when such a matter came to the Department’s attention the Minister would write to the MEC and the Premier to facilitate engagements on the matter so that it was sorted through intergovernmental relations processes and still resolved at the level of provinces. At the national level, recognition relied on the recommendation of the royal family and there had to be supporting documentation given to the President to make the recognition. He said that the problem arose when there were two conflicting recommendations. Unfortunately, some of the matters ended up in litigation and the Department and the President were cited even though the authority did not lie with them, and in that case would have to get involved to some extent. The Committee Members could make the Department aware of specific issues that it was not aware of to take through the intergovernmental relations processes with the understanding that the national level had no authority in the levels below kings and queens.

In response to Ms Mkhaliphi, Mr Diphofa highlighted that in the earlier APP presented in March 2020, the Department presented a programme to include the institution of the traditional leadership in the District Development Model (DDM) and this programme remained. Out of all the districts, 30 had the institution of traditional leadership. He shared that the Department’s plan was to work with the local houses of traditional leadership who were the equivalent structure at the district level; as such they would actively participate in the process of the implementation of the DDM. All the areas of concern including those relating to coordination, women’s participation and gender-based violence were built into the work that got done at the district level. Government’s approach was such that that the district became the entry point geographically for coordinating all efforts that needed to be implemented. He said that the question on Abathembu was a difficult one.

The Chairperson asked that the DG respond to the question despite the difficulty as he had said in his own words that the Department was responsible in matters of kingship and queenship.

Mr Diphofa explained that after Kumkani Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo went to jail, the province appointed an acting king as part of the province’s competency. He clarified that the President recognised a king but was not involved in matters happening in between, such as the appointment of a regent or acting king; this would not fall into the competency of the Department and the law at the national level did not speak to these kinds of matters. He said that provincial legislation spoke to the issues of acting appointments, which was why the acting appointments were made by the province and not at the national level. Even the provisions that spoke to the conditions where an acting appointment was withdrawn were contained in provincial legislation and not in national legislation. He said that the report the Department received from the province regarding Abathembu was that the conditions in the provincial legislation governing acting appointments no longer applied and thus there was no justification for the acting arrangement to continue. The province said it would proceed with the process of terminating the acting appointment. At the moment this was a matter before the court because the acting king had approached the courts to challenge the manner in which the acting appointment was terminated, alleging that it was unfair and unlawful. He said he was reluctant to go into further details on a matter that was before the court.

The Chairperson asked that the DTA, as the custodian of national legislation, to clarify what the ideal situation would be in such a case. She asked for clarification on the legislation governing the absence of a king or acting appointments.

Mr Hadebe said that he understood that the matter was sub judice but asked that the delegation answer whether the Department was not privy to the conditions and provisions for acting appointments that were imposed then so that the Committee could a better understanding of the situation.

Mr Diphofa responded that what happened in this particular case was that the province acted on recommendations that it received from the royal family at the time, providing that in the absence of Kumkani, these were the persons put forward for consideration for the acting appointments. He said that as per the conditions, the person recommended would act when the rightful incumbent was not there. The question that would arise when the rightful incumbent returned was whether that acting appointment could justifiably continue. He said that the feedback the Department received, as per the provincial framework, was that the acting appointment could not continue because the rightful incumbent would have returned. The national framework did not deal with the absence of the king or the acting appointment; it dealt with recognition and made provision for the removal of the person recognised on basis of reasons that the royal family would consider. It was the royal family that would come back to the President to say that it would like to withdraw a recommendation for kingship or queenship and make a different recommendation; the President would be able to act with the advice of the Minister of CoGTA. He added that in the unfortunate circumstance where a king or queen passed away, national legislation provides that the royal family could appoint a regent for an acting appointment with the provinces before eventually going to the President for recognition of a new person.

The Chairperson asked for clarity on whether the national legislation was quiet even on matters relating to the incapacity of a king or queen in performing their responsibilities. She asked the DG to clarify whether there was a lacuna in the national legislation. 

Mr Diphofa explained that the national legalisation required that the royal family come back to the President with a different recommendation but not for an acting appointment. National legislation dealt with recognition of kings and queens and their removal.

Mr Sithole echoed the DG’s words. He said that the issue of traditional leadership, whether in the case of the king, the principal or senior traditional leader, was dependent on the royal family. He said that it was the royal family that was responsible for deciding on who was king, regent, or was appointed in an acting position. The structure that must support the incumbent was the royal family; the royal family was responsible for ensuring that the incumbent did their work correctly. He said that there were instances where there were new practices conducted by a traditional leader when there were lapses in the royal family on how to bring up an heir incumbent. He emphasised that the royal family was the core of the whole process and government could not take action without it.

The Chairperson commented that there may need to be more time dedicated to this topic on competencies and the relevant legislation. She told the DG that the Committee would schedule a meeting where the DTA could brief the Committee on all these provincial frameworks as Members operated at the level where there were kings, Izinduna and senior traditional leaders.

Ms Mkhaliphi agreed with the Chairperson that more time was needed for the DTA to clarify the contents of the Acts and how this played out in disputes. She said that the Committee should be empowered to understand clearly what would happen when there was a dispute within the royal family. It was not ideal for Members to struggle with answering questions at the lower levels because of not having clarity on these matters.  

Ms Mogaladi commented that in the current legislation, the issue of the appointment of the regent or the acting king or queen resided with the premiers. She said that the TKLA, which was awaiting commencement, did address the appointment of the regent, as per Section 12(1)(a) and (b).

The Chairperson reminded the DG on the concerns about the lack of representation of traditional leaders and added that this concern also applied to council meetings. She said that in all the districts in Limpopo, there was no representation of traditional leadership and the explanation given had been the lack of the necessary resources for attending meetings. She asked for a timeframe within which this issue would be dealt with.

Mr Diphofa responded that the concern on the representation of traditional leaders was raised with the Department’s colleagues in provinces and at the National COVID-19 Coordinating Committee (NCCC). He said that the agreement was that there should be representation and participation of the institute of traditional leadership. At the national level, the NCCC now had representatives from the National House of Traditional Leaders through the chairperson and the deputy chairperson. He said that the Department had received reports at the lower level that in some provinces and some districts there were representatives from the traditional leadership, but this arrangement was uneven. The Department was committed to pursuing this matter to accommodate the institution of traditional leadership at the lower levels. He asked the Committee for time to have provinces prepare reports and respond accordingly and proposed a deadline of around early August.

The Chairperson replied that August was too far. She said that the Committee was giving the Department two weeks to collate the data and respond to the Committee with a status update report. This information was important for this constituency period. There could be more time given on how the situation was going to be addressed. She said that the lockdown conditions at the moment allowed for work to be done.

Presentation by the Municipal Infrastructure Support Agent

Ms Mapatane Kgomo, DDG:  Infrastructure Delivery Management Support, led the Municipal Infrastructure Support Agent’s (MISA) delegation acting on behalf of the CEO who was on leave. The presentation outlined the MISA 2020/21 budget adjustment and the impact of that budget reduction on MISA’s current APP. The presentation indicated that the total budget reduction amounted to R5.982m and MISA had subsequently considered the revision of its Strategic Plan and APP to accommodate the adjustment. The presentation provided some preliminary indications from MISA’s Strategic Plan and APP review processes showing that the budget reduction would adversely affect the Agent’s ability to meet some of its performance targets and activities in the Agent’s APP.

Two of the indicators affected by the budget adjustment fell under the Technical Support Programme and the third fell under the Infrastructure Delivery Management Support (IDMS) Programme, reducing the number of APP indicators from 32 to 29. The presentation outlined the proposed changes under the two programmes; it recommended that the Portfolio Committee and Select Committee note the budget allocation adjustments and the review process of MISA on its Strategic Plan and 2020/21 APP that would result in the re-tabling of the APP.

Discussion

Ms Mkhaliphi welcomed the presentation. On the two indicators that would be removed, she asked for clarity on the justification and impact of the complete removal in the APP, particularly on job losses for artisans. On the number of water and wastewater process controllers placed in municipalities, she said that she understood that the budget adjustment was necessary because of addressing COVID-19 issues, and so there seemed to be a misalignment if some controllers were removed. She asked for clarity on the projected impact of that decision on the ground.

Mr Hoosen said that he noticed that the feasibility studies around water reticulation projects had been drastically reduced and that there would not be any new ones in the financial year. He asked that the delegation clarify the impact of this and the overall impact of the reduction in any other particular targets.

Ms Direko echoed the concern expressed by Ms Mkhaliphi on the removed programme, and she asked that the delegation should indicate whether MISA was considering implementing alternative measures to cover what the programme was intended to achieve.

Mr Luthuli asked for clarity on why the arrangements seemed to project that the COVID-19 pandemic would still be active in 2023 because in the presentation the number of artisans was being reduced till that time.

Responses

Mr Sam Ngobeni, Acting DDG: MISA Technical Support Services, responded by clarifying that the responsibility of MISA was to support municipalities and the municipalities were ultimately responsible for basic services. Any reduction in MISA’s work would have a significantly impact on municipalities and communities given that municipalities provided basic services in communities. He said that what was clear was that there would be job opportunities lost and at the same time the municipalities would lose in some of the infrastructure operations and maintenance support which MISA would have provided. He said that this did not mean that MISA’s outcomes would not be achieved in the medium to long term.

In answering Mr Luthuli, he said that the removal was not necessarily permanent and if conditions improved and MISA was able to restructure its programmes, it may bring this support back to the municipalities. He said that the adverse impact on the reductions would be mitigated through other interventions that still remained in the APP.

In response to Mr Hoosen’s question on the impact of not conducting the feasibility studies, Ms Kgomo confirmed that there was going to be an adverse impact on municipalities because municipalities were going to continue to have projects that were not aligned to the bulk that had been provided – for example, by the Department of Water and Sanitation. She said that MISA may be unable to afford to conduct the feasibility studies as they could be quite costly. MISA was in the process of engaging with the Department of Water and Sanitation on how to assist municipalities as municipalities reprioritised their grants, particularly the Municipal Infrastructure Grant; this was so that during that reprioritisation process, projects implemented were aligned to the bulk infrastructure that the Department of Water and Sanitation had already put in place.

Follow-up questions  

Ms P Xaba-Ntshaba (ANC) said that she had a problem with MISA, saying that the entity reported indicators, to the Committee, that were not reflected on the ground. She pointed out that in Pietermaritzburg MISA sent an official to find out about the conditions previously flagged in wards five and six but did not follow up thereafter. She said that there currently was no water, yet the National Command Council told people to wash their hands. She said that MISA’s comments that they were providing water were comments she could not attest to and she would like the delegation to report the truth on what they were doing and where. She raised that in ward six there were pipes that had been installed with no water running through them.

Ms Mkhaliphi echoed the concerns of Ms Xaba-Ntshaba and reminded Members that this was not the first time these concerns were being raised; Ms Xaba-Ntshaba had raised this in 2019. This should be the last time.

Responses to follow-up questions

Mr Ngobeni said that he was aware of Ms Xaba-Ntshaba’s concerns having been raised on several occasions. He asked that the Committee allow the MISA delegation to commit to giving the Committee a report back after some time on exactly what was transpiring in the area. He emphasised still that MISA was not responsible for providing infrastructure but rather responsible for supporting municipalities in providing infrastructure and would not avoid this responsibility. MISA should be able to report back to the Committee with tangible information and a timeframe on resolving the matter.

The Chairperson emphasised that this matter was raised in the June 2019 induction, where the CEO assured Ms Xaba-Ntshaba that he would attend to the matter. She asked that the Acting CEO present, Ms Kgomo, raise the matter sharply with the CEO. There needed to be a written response within the next seven days as the matter could not be delayed any further.

The Chairperson informed Members that the issue of the correspondence on the Bill from the DG of DCOG would be dealt with when the DG would be present. She asked the Chairperson of the Select Committee to closing remarks. She also invited Members of the Select Committee to the following day’s engagement on the reports of fraud and corruption regarding the OR Tambo District Municipality.

Mr Dodovu, Chairperson of the Select Committee, made closing remarks. He said that the meeting was very useful for understanding and clarifying the budget adjustments for MISA and the DTA. He agreed that various follow up engagements needed to happen. He said that the Committees would continue to engage with the delegations throughout the year in consideration of their budgets and also to monitor their impact during the COVID-19 pandemic. He also mentioned that the Committees would follow up with the officials from DCOG regarding the postponement of their presentation item.

He thanked the officials from MISA and the Director-General of Traditional Affairs for the wonderful engagements.

The meeting was adjourned.