NYDA Board vacancies: Recommendation & Committee Report

Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities

05 August 2020
Chairperson: Ms C Ndaba (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and People With Disabilities (NA) 5 Aug 2020

Tabled Committee Reports

The Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and People with Disabilities met to consider and adopt of its draft report on the filling of vacancies on the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) Board.

A total of 680 applications had been received, and one candidate had withdrawn. 30 candidates had been shortlisted. A progress report on their academic qualifications had been tabled on 4 August, but the report from the State Security Agency was still outstanding.

The Committee recommended the following seven candidates for appointment by the President to serve as board members for a period of three years:

Mr John Sifiso Mtsweni

Ms Karabo Mohale

Ms Thutukile Zuma

Ms Paballo Ponoane

Mr Molaoli Sekake

Mr Lukhona Afika Mnguni

Mr Avela Mjajubana

The objection of the DA was noted. 

The Committee stated that it wanted to assure citizens that it had complied with the provisions of the NYDA Act in its recommendation of candidates. Some Members expressed disappointment that women were outnumbered by men on the board, and there was disagreement over the need to include the geographical spread of candidates in the report.

The minutes of meetings detailing the appointment process were tabled and approved.

Meeting report

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities on filling of vacancies on the National Youth Agency (NYDA) Board

The Chairperson made brief opening remarks and asked Ms Nomvula Giba, Unit Manager:  Committee Section at Parliament, to present the Report to the Committee.

Ms Giba presented the draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and People with Disabilities on the filling of vacancies on the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) Board for adoption. The Committee considered the request by the Speaker of Parliament dated 25 July 2019, to fill seven vacancies on the NYDA board. Members of the board hold office for a period of three years and were appointed by the President. The term of the previous board expired on 31 May 2020.

On 26 November 2019, the Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities and the Select Committee on Health and Social Services had nominated people to sit on the selection committee.  On 15 December, Parliament had advertised in various local, regional and national newspapers, as well as the Parliamentary website, inviting applications for persons to serve on the NYDA board. The deadline for applications was 24 January 2020.

A total of 680 applications were received, and one candidate withdrew, bringing the total number of curricula vitae (CVs) to 679. Candidates’ CVs were published on the Parliamentary website. The sub- Committee had resolved to shortlist 30 candidates. Shortlisting took place on 1 and 2 July 2020. The names of shortlisted candidates were published on the Parliamentary website on 3 July.

Verification of academic qualifications and security clearance was done for all candidates. A progress report on academic qualifications was tabled on 4 August, but the report from the State Security Agency (SSA) was still outstanding.

Interview guidelines had been adopted, including the candidates’ knowledge of the mandate of NYDA Act, the National Youth Development strategy and National Youth policy, the National Development Plan (NDP), good governance principles, youth development experience, innovation and creativity, and leadership and vision. Candidates were interviewed for 45 minutes.

The sub-Committee had interviewed 29 candidates between 27 and 28 July, and again on 30 and 31 July. One candidate had not attended the interview and was disqualified after the sub-Committee resolved that no valid reasons were provided and fruitless and wasteful expenditure had been incurred for travel arrangements that were cancelled.

During the interviews, all 29 candidates were assessed, based on the interview guidelines. The sub-Committee agreed that only Members who participated in interviewing all 29 candidates would be eligible to participate in recommending suitable candidates to the board of the NYDA, and reporting to the principal Committee.

The Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and People with Disabilities recommended the following 7 candidates for appointment by the President to serve as board members in the NYDA for a period of three years:

Mr John Sifiso Mtsweni,

Ms Karabo Mohale,

Ms Thutukile Zuma,

Ms Paballo Ponoane,

Mr Molaoli Sekake,

Mr Lukhona Afika Mnguni

Mr Avela Mjajubana.

The Committee would like to assure citizens that it had complied with all sections of the NYDA Act in its recommendation of candidates to serve on the NYDA board. It was confident that all candidates recommended had an understanding of the NYDA mandate and were passionate about youth development in South Africa. All candidates were fit and proper to serve young people in the country with distinction in addressing the socio-economic challenges facing the youth.

The Committee thanked all candidates for availing themselves for appointment.

The Committee commended Members for their hard work throughout the process.

Discussion

Ms M Khawula (EFF) made comments that were not in English. [21:20 YouTube stream]

Ms F Masiko (ANC) welcomed the Report, saying it was a true reflection of the Committee’s deliberations. She said the Committee had also reflected on gender representation, which was important. On a board of seven members, 50% was not possible, but she would have been comfortable with at least a 60:40 split in favour of women. This had not happened with the scoring process used, which depended on individual Members’ interpretation of the candidates. It was unfortunate that there was not 60% representation of women, but the work the Committee had done had been to the best of its ability.

Ms M Hlengwa (IFP) made comments that were not in English [27:07].

Ms N Sharif (DA) said that the Report did not give the geographical spread of the selected candidates, which made it difficult for her to assess those who were selected based on the selection criteria. She referred to a note in the qualification report, and asked if the sub-Committee had received the concluded qualification report.

The Chairperson said all the reports on qualification verification had been submitted. At first, a report had been received for 25 candidates, the second was for four candidates, and the last was for one candidate. The only report that was not presented was from the State Security Agency.

Ms Sharif asked what the implications were of not receiving the report from the SSA, and what this meant for procedures that needed to be followed.

The Chairperson said there was nothing the Committee could do -- all candidates needed to be vetted by the SSA.

Ms Sharif asked for the geographical spread of the selected candidates.

Ms T Mgweba (ANC) answered Ms Sharif, saying that she should refer to Ms Masiko’s comments on the geographical spread. The NYDA Act was clear in its requirements to always look at the geographical spread. She wanted to confirm, on behalf of the Portfolio Committee and the Select Committee, that the shortlisting of the 30 candidates had taken into account the geographical spread. The end product of the process and the CV’s of candidates showed that they were from various places across South Africa, which meant the geographical spread had been adhered to. She agreed with Ms Masiko that the only issue was the gender representation, which was an oversight by the sub-Committee that must be dealt with as by the Portfolio Committee. In terms of the process, they were comfortable.

Ms Sharif said she did not think it was appropriate for Committee Members to be directed to the parliamentary website when it was a Committee Report that was being presented for adoption. She urged that it be added to the report, as it was reflected in Section 9.4 of the NYDA Act that it was a requirement.

Ms Masiko said she wanted to add to Ms Gweba’s comments, although the Committee might not necessarily add them to the Report. The approach the Committee should take to the matter should be to advise the NYDA where there was a board member attached to a province, and where there were smaller provinces, there was at least one board member. There were nine provinces, but only seven board members. In terms of the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE), there were commissioners attached to each province across the country.

Ms Khawula made comments that were not in English [41:55].

The Chairperson said some people criticised the Committee as if it had not done justice on the representation of women. She agreed that there were seven board members -- and no “half person.” Candidates were chosen according to performance and scores, and it should remain the way it was. There was nothing that could be done.

Ms B Maluleke (ANC) said Ms Masiko had mentioned something about the youth of the country reviewing CVs, which was not in the report, and said it must be reflected.

Ms Sharif asked if everyone could be a part of the discussion that was taking place.

The Chairperson said she wanted to get clarity from Ms Maluleke on what Ms Masiko had said.

Ms Giba said this information would be found and added in a paragraph under “Public Participation” in the report. This would indicate how many people had viewed the CVs, and this information had been requested through information communication technology (ICT).

The Chairperson asked for a mover for the adoption of the Report.

Mr E Ngcobo (DA) asked for clarity on the demographics issue.

Ms Sharif said that it should include her request to include the geographical spread in the Report, which was three amendments being proposed.

The Chairperson said she did not like what the Committee was doing, as when the Committee was about to adopt the Report, other issues were being raised. She did not understand this. Ms Sharif had raised the issue of geographical spread, and Ms Mgweba had responded to this. This was what the Committee had come up with, and was not according to its own making -- it was according to how candidates had performed.

Ms Sharif said she had come with a counter argument, saying it should be included in the Report as it was addressed in Section 9.4 of the NYDA Act. She had proposed that it be added in the Report so that the Committee could see the geographical spread.

Ms Masiko asked Ms Mgweba to respond to Ms Sharif’s question again.

Ms Mgweba said if Members perused the draft Report, they would see it was clear (at number five) that the selection criteria for the shortlisting of candidates had been discussed and adopted at a closed meeting on 30 June, and a revised version had been presented on 1 July. In her response to Ms Sharif, she had said that based on Ms Masiko’s comments, the sub-Committee felt that it had adhered to the NYDA Act’s requirements and criteria on the demographics. She did not understand why Ms Sharif wanted the provinces that candidates came from to be included in the Report. They had been comfortable that these young people belonged to different areas of the provinces.

Ms Hlengwa said from the start she had thanked the Committee for the work it had done. The process of shortlisting had served this purpose, and she did understand what the problem was now. If one was not included in the interviews, it meant one had failed to accomplish that, but the shortlisting took one in because of the geographical spread.

Ms Khawula made comments that were not in English [1:59].

Ms Sharif said she was unhappy, because when points were raised in a Committee, they needed to be taken in uniformly and in totality, as the Committee was the body that needed to approve the Report and must have ability to edit and put more information into it. She had not accepted Ms Mgweba’s comments, so she had raised a point of order, but had been ignored. Ms Mgweba could not assume that Members entered the process knowing where candidates came from. How could she prove that these were geographically spread candidates if this was not given to the Committee in the Report? She understood what Ms Hlengwa was saying, but it could not be correct that a whole parliamentary Committee was being told to go to the website to get this information when this was a Report that it was putting together. If Ms Masiko’s amendment was going to be taken, she would argue that the amendment she was proposing and the amendment Mr Ngcobo was proposing should also be taken into consideration.

Ms C Phiri (ANC) thanked the sub-Committee for its work. On the basis of demographics, the Committee had explained thoroughly the criteria it had used. She proposed moving the adoption of the Report, and while it was being taken to the National Assembly, which province the candidate came from and if they had a disability or not, should be attached. She urged the Committee to move forward and not waste time on issues that could not take it anywhere.

Mr L Mphithi (DA) said section 9.4 of the NYDA Act stated quite clearly that candidates selected to serve on the NYDA board must reflect the demographic and geographical spread. He could not understand the refusal for this addition to the Report. The DA had an objection on the basis of section 9.4. Why could this not be added? If it could not be added, then it should be put to a vote. If they could include Ms Masiko’s point to consult the website, why could the demographic and geographical spread of candidates not be included?

The Chairperson made comments that were not in English [1:07:00].  

The Chairperson said Members must be genuine when they raised issues, and not add on to comments other Members had made. This was not professional. It was not a “train smash” when Members disagreed. It was not always that they would agree, but other Members must be convinced to share one’s view. Members had always been given a fair chance to speak, and she had never shut down any Member who wanted to speak. Starting new fashions because of this was not acceptable. She asked Members not to do this to the Committee.

Ms Khawula made comments that were not in English [1:09:18].

Ms Mgweba said the Committee should agree that the criteria had been followed according to the NYDA Act. The points raised by Ms Phiri, Mr Mphithi and Ms Sharif had been raised, but she failed to understand this, as Mr Mphithi had been part of this process and had not raised it then. Instead, he had decided to object the process without convincing the Members. She asked if they could adopt this Report as a true reflection of the Portfolio Committee.

Ms Maluleke said she thought the Committee had exhausted the topic. Even if the seven candidates did not represent all the provinces, there was nothing that it could do, because they had been recommended according to their scores and performance.

Ms Masiko agreed with Ms Maluleke, and said the Committee was comfortable that it had met the requirements of the NYDA Act. She said Members needed to be questioned, because if their scoring was considered, or if Mr Mphithi’s scoring was considered and compared to what he was raising now on the geographical spread, she was sure one would find something totally different. They had scored according to candidates’ responses. If Mr Mphithi was speaking from both ends of his mouth, the Committee would have a problem. She urged the adoption of the Report. The Committee was not hiding the geographic spread from the public.

Mr Mphithi asked if it was parliamentary to say someone was speaking from both ends of their mouth. He asked to be accorded respect.

The Chairperson said the geographic spread would be included in the Report, and asked for a mover for the adoption of the Report.

Ms Hlengwa said she was seconding Ms Phiri, who had moved the adoption of the Report. Issues Members had raised had been responded to, so there was no need for them to debate about them the whole day.

The Committee supported the adoption of the Report.

Mr Ngcobo asked why the Committee was afraid to include the geographical information in the Report if it was satisfied that it had followed the correct process.

Ms Khawula said she had seconded the adoption of the Report.

Ms Sharif said the objection of the DA should be noted.

Adoption of minutes

Sub-Committee meeting of 26 November 2019

Ms Giba referred to the minutes of the sub-Committee on 26 November 2019, dealing with the filling of vacancies on the NYDA board.

Ms Maluleke moved the adoption of the minutes, and Ms Khawula seconded.

Ms Masiko said Ms Khawula had not been present, so Ms Mgweba seconded.

The minutes were adopted.

Minutes of 3 December 2019

Ms Khawula moved the adoption of the minutes, and Ms Maluleke seconded.

The minutes for 3 December 2019 were adopted.

Minutes of 4 December 2019

Ms Masiko moved the adoption of the minutes of 4 December 2019, which dealt with the leaking of the advertisement on the filling of vacancies on the NYDA board. She requested that the spelling of Ms Maluleke’s name be corrected.

The Chairperson said she had been saying that she was C N Ndaba, and was correcting Ms Giba for the last time. The next time, the Committee would not even look at the minutes.

The minutes were adopted.

Minutes of 30 June 2020

Ms Masiko moved the adoption of the minutes of the closed meeting of 30 June which dealt with consideration of the sub-Committee programme and the criteria for shortlisting.

Ms Khawula seconded the adoption.

The minutes were adopted.

Minutes of 1 July 2020

Ms Maluleke moved the adoption of the minutes of 1 July, which dealt with the shortlisting of candidates for the NYDA Board.

Ms Mgweba seconded the adoption..

The minutes were adopted.

Minutes of 2 July 2020

Ms Mgweba moved for adoption of the minutes of 2 July, which dealt with the shortlisting of candidates for NYDA board

Ms Khawula seconded the adoption.

The minutes were adopted.

Minutes of 26 July 2020

Ms Masiko moved the adoption of the minutes of 26 July, which dealt with the consideration of the sub-Committee’s programme, qualification verification and the SSA, the finalisation of questions for interviews, and an update on correspondence and appeals received.

Ms Maluleke seconded the adoption.

The minutes were adopted.

Minutes of 27 July 2020 

Ms Khawula moved the adoption of the minutes of 27 July, which dealt with the first day of interviews for the NYDA board.

The Chairperson said that an amendment should be made to the minutes about the one candidate who did not show up for the interview. She said this should be reflected in the minutes.

Ms Giba said reference had been made to this candidate in paragraph 3.

Ms Maluleke moved the adoption of the minutes, with the amendment.

Ms Khawula seconded the adoption.

The minutes were adopted, with the amendment.

Minutes of 28 July 2020

Ms Masiko moved the adoption of the minutes of 28 July, which dealt with the second day of interviews for the NYDA board.

Ms Khawula seconded the adoption.

The minutes were adopted.

Minutes of 30 July 2020

Ms Mgweba moved for the adoption of the minutes of 30 July, which dealt with the third day of interviews for the NYDA board.

Ms Maluleke seconded the adoption.

The minutes were adopted.

Minutes of 31 July 2020

Ms Masiko moved for the adoption of the minutes of 31 July, which dealt with the fourth day of interviews for the NYDA board.

Ms Maluleke seconded the adoption.

The minutes were adopted.

Concluding comments

Ms Giba said the minutes of the 4 and 5 August would be adopted when the Committee returned from their constituency break.

The Chairperson thanked Members for their commitment and sacrifice, saying that they had shown commitment when they worked until the early hours of the morning.

She congratulated the candidates who had made the final list of recommended candidates for the NYDA board, and wished all the other candidates well.

She said the Committee had learned from the criticism it had received on social media platforms.

She thanked the support staff, the legal team and the research team for their work.

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: