Public Protector quarterly performance

This premium content has been made freely available

Justice and Correctional Services

08 October 2020
Chairperson: Mr G Magwanishe (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: PC on Justice and Correctional Services, (NA) 08 Oct 2020

Due to all Annual Reports delayed by the pandemic, the Committee was virtually briefed by the Public Protector of South Africa (PPSA) on its 2019/20 quarterly performance report and its 2020/21 Quarter 1 report. In her introductory remarks, the Public Protector, Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane, said that although the Office was able to achieve many of its targets, it could not fulfil all of its duties because of an inadequate budget. Both she and her officials expressed their concern about the effect of the looming budget cuts from National Treasury. She appealed to the Committee to assist her Office in obtaining additional funding for the next financial year.

PPSA was pleased with its performance in 2019/20 financial year as it was able to achieve an institutional performance of 79%. It was able to exceed certain targets, such as finalising 4 643 more cases than it had originally planned (7 000 cases planned and achieving 11 643). Whilst many targets were either achieved or exceeded, there were certain unmet targets. For instance, it was not able to secure two state-owned buildings in Umtata and Thohoyandou. In addition, due to lockdown, it was unable to conduct clinics and road shows across the country.

The Office indicated improved internal audit findings. Irregular expenditure during 2019/20 was R201 million. The biggest case amounted to R84.6 million. However, in the first quarter of 2020/21 no irregular expenditure was recorded. Fruitless and wasteful expenditure amounted to R30.1 million for 2019/20. Much of this expenditure was spent on expensive travel costs which were deemed unnecessary. No fruitless and wasteful expenditure was recorded in the first quarter of 2020/21.

The Chairperson was ‘cautiously’ happy with the progress made by PPSA although it would await the Auditor General findings in the Annual Report. Member asked about severe indictments made by the courts about the Public Protector. Members noted that the PP had still not provided the Committee with a list of the litigation costs. The PP apologised and indicated that her office would provide the list. It was agreed that once the list was provided, the PPSA should report to the Committee quarterly on litigation.

Members took issue that the Vrede Dairy matter had not been concluded since 2018. In January 2020, the PP informed the country that investigations into the role of politicians was at an advanced stage, yet in this meeting, the Committee was told there had been a delay in the process. The PP clarified that Section 79 reports had been served on the implicated politicians at the start of September, but the individuals had asked for an extension to respond – and this was granted by the Office. They are awaiting the responses and once received, the investigations should be concluded by December 2020.

Members were concerned that individuals had been appointed to critical positions on an acting basis. The PP indicated that whilst it had not made a permanent CEO appointment, it had been filled on an acting basis by the Chief Financial Officer as she had a great understanding of the workings of the institution. Her experience had enabled the institution to function adequately.

Members were informed that the PPSA had been investigating Covid-19 corruption. They asked why as the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) had been investigating this and this would lead to an overlap in work. The PP clarified that the mandate and investigative functions were different to the SIU as PPSA focused primarily on the root cause of problems. It had engaged with other law enforcement agencies and agreed that they would assist one another during the investigations.

Members were concerned about the lack of respect for the Public Protector as many organs of state had failed to implement the remedial actions. They agreed more needed to be done to ensure compliance.

Meeting report

Public Protector 2019/20 & 2020/21 Quarter 1 performance
In her introductory remarks, the Public Protector indicated the vision of the Office was to take its services to the grassroots communities. Further, the mandate is anchored by eight pillars, all of which speak to the empowerment of the country’s citizens.

To date, the PP had received 1 602 Covid-19 related complaints. Most of which to do with the R350 Social Relief of Distress Grant. The Office had launched an investigative initiative into the state of the country’s health and education system. This was done to establish how they had coped with the devastation caused by Covid-19.

She appealed to the Committee to assist the Office with obtaining additional funding, to ensure that it was able to effectively implement its mandate. To ease its case load, it appealed to organs of state to establish in-house complaint units. It anticipated that this would drastically reduce the number of complaints the Office received, and it would allow investigators to focus on complex matters.

Overview of the 2019/20 (Quarters 1-4 performance)
PPSA CFO and Acting CEO, Ms Yalekile Lusibane, presented the overview of the 2019/20 (Quarters 1-4) performance to the Committee.

Key highlights
• Three systemic investigations were identified
• 10 dialogues with organs of state on systemic challenges
• It implemented an approved clean audit strategy
• It conducted 9 road shows by 31 March 2020.

The Office was able to achieve an institutional performance of 79%. During the four quarters, it had three programmes: Administration; Investigations; Stakeholder Management.

Administration:
The Office had three targets for this programme, and it was able to fulfil two of them. It was able to implement its funded organisational structure. In addition, it was able to review and implement a clean audit strategy. However, due to budgetary constraints, it was not able to secure two stated-owned buildings that were identified in Umtata and Thohoyandou.

Investigations:
The Office had six targets for this programme, and it was able to exceed three of them and achieve one. It had planned to finalise 7 000 cases per annum, however it was able to finalise 11 643 cases. This was achieved due to the additional capacity of interns who assisted in finalising more cases. It had also planned to publish 56 investigation reports by 31 March 2020; however, it was able to finalise 137 reports. It was not able to achieve its target of finalising 100% of cases two years or older, by 31 March 2020. It was only able to finalise 86% of them, as many of the cases were complex and it had capacity constraints.

Stakeholder Management:
In this programme, the Office was able to achieve all five of its targets, two of which it exceeded. It was able to exceed its target of conducting 208 clinics across the country (to inform citizens of its services), by 29 – bringing the total to 237. In addition, 45 radio slots were conducted across the provinces, which was more than the 18 slots planned.

2019/20 Expenditure review
Of a total revenue of R368.013 million, the majority of its expenditure went to Compensation of Employees (COE) of R252.818 million. R108.961 million was spent on goods and services. Other expenses included cleaning services, rental of office buildings and bank charges.

Overview of 2020/21 Quarter 1 Performance
The Office was able to achieve 70% of its targets for the first quarter. The Office was able to reach most of its targets in all three programmes. Only three targets were not achieved due to the national lockdown.

Administration:
The Office was able to achieve both targets. One of which was its review of the clean audit strategy.

Investigations:
All three targets were achieved. In fact, it exceeded in two of the three targets. One of which was its 100% finalisation of 560 cases within their turnaround times.

Stakeholder management:
The Office was able to achieve three of the five targets. It was unable to conduct both clinics and road shows across the country, due to the national lockdown.

2020/21 Expenditure overview
In quarter 1 of this financial year, total expenditure was R73.5 million (21% of the total budget). Expenditure on COE was R59.8 million and on goods and services was R13.671 million. The Office recorded R1.8 million of savings during the first quarter.

Financial performance
The Office indicated that irregular expenditure during 2019/20 was R201 million. The biggest case amounted to R84.6 million. However, in the first quarter of 2020/21 no irregular expenditure was recorded. Fruitless and wasteful expenditure amounted to R30.1 million for 2019/20. Much of this expenditure was spent on expensive travel costs, which were deemed unnecessary. No fruitless and wasteful expenditure was recorded in the first quarter of 2020/21.

The Office was concerned by the anticipated budget cuts amounting to R209.4 million between 2020/21 and 2023/24. COE would suffer the most from the cuts as that budget would be reduced by R160.6 million over the same period.

Audit report findings for 2019/20
Internal audit identified major issues during 2019/20, some of which were:
• Incorrect reporting of performance information
• Inefficiencies noted with regards to recruitment and selection
• Non-compliance with PAIA requirements.

Due to the both the budget cuts and the lockdown, the Office has had to revise many of its targets in its programmes. It hoped that this would not affect its performance in meeting its targets. PPSA appealed to the Committee to assist it with obtaining additional funding to carry out its functions. Additional resources are required for the funding of critical positions and the hiring of subject matter experts.

Questions
Ms G Breytenbach (DA) asked for a list of the costs of each litigation and that it be specific.

She asked for comment on the judgement made in the Government Employees Medical Scheme vs PP (GEMS matter). In particular, she asked for comment on the finding by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) that the PP misconceived her powers. In addition, if they could comment on the finding by the SCA that the Office “eschewed reason for coercion”.

She asked what had persuaded the PP to investigate Section 69(1) of the Tax Administration Act, 2011, as the matter had been more than two years old – bearing in mind that the Office had just indicated that it had a shortage of funds and human resources.

The Constitutional Court found in the Reserve Bank case, that the PP has a heightened duty to respect the law and to fulfil procedural requirements; and to tread carefully when dealing with rights. She asked for her comment on this.

The Chairperson asked if she wanted the list of litigation costs in writing.

Ms Breytenbach said that she would prefer that it be provided in writing if it is done in a reasonable period.

Mr W Horn (DA) mentioned that the Committee had previously requested the PP provide a list of the review applications she was defending, and the costs of each. He asked why the undertaking had not been met.

The Committee had been told by the Office that it would fill the vacant positions and put an end to Acting positions. He asked why no appointments had been made to date.

The Committee was also informed by the Office that due to budgetary constraints, the State Security Agency (SSA) assisted with the development of a case management system. Yet the internal audit committee made findings that the system was not working; as there were large delays in registering new cases, communicating with complainants and commencing with investigations. He asked for an update on the progress in case management, as it had been a perpetual problem for the Office.

In previous briefings, the PP mentioned that she is tough on discipline of officials. He asked how many officials in the Office had been suspended and for what period. Further, how many disciplinary cases did the Office institute and how many of them had ended in the termination of employment?

In a media statement, the PP mentioned that she had experienced frustration with individuals she had requested information from – relating to Covid-19 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) corruption – as they indicated that they are only answering to the SIU. The Committee had been constantly informed that due to budgetary constraints there are specific systems in place to prevent an overlap in investigations between different role players dealing with possible corruption and maladministration. He asked why the PP had, in a parallel way, decided to embark on an investigation of Covid-19 expenditure, especially since the SIU was designated with this task.

It was not clear if the vacancy rate had been calculated based on the 582 positions shown on the revised organogram or the 360 funded positions. If it was the latter, then the vacancy rate was 61% and not 38%. He expressed concern and questioned if the institution would be able to function with such a high vacancy rate. He asked how the Office was able to dispose of all the budget set aside for personnel costs, when there had been such a high vacancy rate.

At a Committee meeting in April 2018, the PP was criticised for not looking at the role of politicians in the Estina matter. This matter had not been resolved yet. In January 2020, the PP informed the country that the investigations into politicians was at an advanced stage. However, in this meeting, she mentioned there had been a delay in the process because the implicated politicians had asked for extensions to respond. He asked why she had informed the public that the matter had been finalised, when in fact it was not.

He asked what the personal involvement of Ms Mkhwebane was in the investigation. It was reported that Mr Mosebenzi Zwane (former Free State MEC of Agriculture) was a guest at her birthday party. He asked if the PP should not have recused herself from the investigation, after she had invited him to her birthday party.

Ms Y Yako (EFF) said she had been Acting Chairperson of the Municipal Public Accounts Committee (MPAC) in Nelson Mandela Bay and the matters highlighted by the PP are the same ones that Ms Yako had been dealing with then.

Most of the issues faced by citizens occur at the grassroot level and she was pleased that the PP was looking at it in that way.

She was pleased that the Office had appealed to the Committee to assist it with increasing its budget, to ensure that it is able perform its mandate. She recommended that all the items the PP had highlighted should be put in writing, and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) would be willing to take the matters up in Parliament, on behalf of the PPSA.

With the many instances of maladministration in municipalities due to political interference, she suggested that there had to be political will from politicians to implement the PP findings. Further, it would be beneficial for Parliament to take the Office more seriously and for it to look particularly at supply chain management (SCM). Digitising SCM would assist in preventing individuals from burning evidence that showed wrongdoing. This would also allow for regular access to the information. Parliament should enforce respect for the Office, to ensure that there is accountability.

She was concerned by the staff vacancies. The Committee should look to assisting the Office with obtaining increased funding, so the vacancies could be filled. The mandate of the PP is important.

Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) thanked the Auditor-General South Africa (AGSA) for the audit report. She indicated that AGSA should have been a part of the meeting. The report presented was important as it indicated that PPSA had faced several challenges.

She expressed disappointment that organs of state had not implemented the remedial action recommended by the PP. The Committee should look at how they can improve compliance. It would be important for the Committee to continue to support PPSA in its mission to take care of the interests of citizens.

Budgetary constraints had made it difficult for PPSA to appoint individuals to critical vacancies. She recommended that the Committee look for methods to assist the PP with increasing its budget.

She asked what the status of disciplinary cases were. It was important to know who the guilty parties were.

She was pleased that the officials were willing to listen when they were corrected, and they were able to make recommended changes. It was comforting for the Committee to know that its recommendations would be considered by PPSA.

Mr X Nqola (ANC) noted that PPSA had exceeded the targets set for stakeholder management and its investigations. This should be used as a benchmark for reaching targets in other areas.

The AGSA findings indicated that management had been able to resolve the matters it had flagged. He asked if the issues flagged included the consequence management taken against those who were at the centre of the transgressions. Further, how had each of these been resolved.

There was a special Committee meeting that had approved the organisational structure of PPSA. He asked if there had been an engagement between PPSA and  Treasury on the filling of vacancies. If there had been, what was the response of Treasury. It would assist the Committee if it knew where the process stood.

During national lockdown, government implemented several measures to curb the spread of Covid-19. He asked if information could be provided to the Committee on the Covid-19 corruption cases.

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) noted that deaf people are not able to access information about the Public Protector's functions over the radio. They require information to be displayed on either TV or webinars. She recommended that if PPSA decided to use webinars, it should employ a sign-language translator.

She asked why posts had been downgraded or had this only occurred after the post was vacant.

She asked about the Employee Health and Wellness budget and its programmes.

There were several complaints made about R350 social relief grant. She asked if the PP had met with Department of Social Development (DSD) on this matter and what the outcomes were.

Mr R Dyantyi (ANC) said that what had been presented at this meeting was information contained in the PPSA Annual Report which the Committee had not yet received. AGSA would only finalise its audit report at the end of the month. It was important to combine the AGSA report, the management report of PPSA and the Audit Committee report, for the Committee to better deal with what had been noted.

PPSA’s performance plan for 2019/20 rested on eight pillars and one of them was “projecting ourselves as a safe haven for the poor”. He noted that this had been changed by in the presentation to “projecting ourselves as a stronghold for the poor”.

The PP had complained about several issues, and he recommended that the Committee should not ignore the concerns noted. The Committee would commit to attend to each of the complaints. It would be important to get a list of the organs of state which do not take PPSA seriously.

He suggested PPSA convene a meeting with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to thrash out its problems.

He was concerned that PPSA wanted an enforcement of the forensic investigations conducted by government departments. It would struggle to do so, as it had a limited budget.

He recommended that the Committee should name the organs of state which had ignored the remedial actions of the PP.

In the Public Protector v South African Reserve Bank judgement, the Constitutional Court said that PPSA’s entire model of investigation was flawed. This was concerning as investigations are at the centre of its duties. He asked for further details on the officials who had been suspended.

He asked what skills set was required for PPSA investigators and what the caseload is per investigator. Had there been instances of investigators who continued to investigate reports that had been set aside by the courts. What bonuses and promotions had been offered to investigators and how many investigators had been suspended.

In previous meetings, the Committee said that it was concerned by the litigation costs and it had asked for a list of the litigation costs, yet it had still not received this.

He asked if all the findings presented, was all the information that its audit committee had found.

It was not clear how the PP was able to achieve 70% of its targets in Quarter 1, as this period coincided with the hard lockdown. If that was a true reflection, it must be commended.

There had been no progress on the filling of vacancies in PPSA. Certain officials have been acting for several years He asked how many executive managers were serving in an Acting position.

Mr S Swart (ACDP) thanked PPSA for the report. It was noted in the report that there would be an additional funding of R10 million for subject matter experts. He asked for an explanation of what this meant.

More than 1 600 complaints had been laid about Covid-19 social relief funding. He asked to what degree PPSA is cooperating with the SIU and other institutions, particularly on the R350 special grant and if there had been a meeting with the Minister of Social Development. Whilst there had been overlap with the SIU, this should be expected as these issues also deal with maladministration.

He requested that the PP make a submission on the Public Procurement Bill.

There had been severe indictments made by the courts. He asked what legal advice the PP had received from counsel, particularly in the GEMS matter, with the judgement suggesting that PPSA was not getting the best legal advice.

Ms J Mofokeng (ANC) asked how far the process was in providing PPSA with security. In addition, how far was the process in increasing the security personnel for the Deputy PP.

She agreed that organs of state should be named and shamed for not implementing the remedial action of the PP. It was important that PPSA improve its communication strategy, as there is confusion on why some reports have been released whilst others have not.

She asked that the PP provide details on when the reports were sent to the institutions.

The Chairperson noted that the legal firm, Adams and Adams, had been briefed twice, and asked why only one firm had been briefed. Why had the PP not briefed black-owned firms?

Public Protector responses
Adv Mkhwebane apologised to the Committee for PPSA not updating them regularly on the litigation matters. She would provide the list of litigation and the cost of each to the Committee.

On the GEMS matter, she noted that PPSA had requested that junior counsel provide them with a memorandum on what they had to look into. She clarified that when PPSA opposed matters, it was either to assist the court or where the matter impacted the mandate of the PP.

The PP has the discretion to investigate matters if there are special circumstances and that is why it had investigated a matter that was over two years old. Other criteria apply if PPSA wants to rectify systemic problems in state administration. In addition, if the matter can be successfully investigated, there are alternative remedies available to complainant, and remedial action will address imbalances or prejudice suffered by that person.

Referring to the Reserve Bank matter, she noted that PPSA relies on the judgements of the Constitutional Court and follows the legal prescripts when it conducts its investigations. The Constitutional Court said that the PP, when taking action to investigate, must always want to cure incidents of impropriety, prejudice, unlawful enrichment or corruption in government circles. The main objective of the PP is to cure the root causes in complaints that it is investigating.

The investigations on the Vrede Dairy matter had indeed begun in 2018. This investigation will fall under good governance and integrity – and those types of cases involve conduct failure matters. The Office committed to communicate with the Committee more regularly on such matters.

The Office had advertised the CEO position, however, fewer candidates applied and were interviewed. It had faced challenges during the security checks and other assessments of possible candidates they wanted to appoint. As a result, the officials decided to re-advertise the position. The current CEO has been in an acting position since February 2020. The Office would provide more clarity on the appointment process.

When PPSA approached the SSA, it requested assistance to develop a security system. SSA informed them that they would incur expenses to develop the system on their behalf. Due to an inadequate budget, the PP had to request a system which is web-based.

The Office would submit a list detailing which officials had been placed on suspension. This list would also include which contracts were terminated and who was still facing disciplinary charges.

The mandates of the SIU and the PP are not the same. The Office is the only constitutional institution responsible for investigations, remedying and issuing of reports. According to a Constitutional Court judgement, PPSA is required to cure and remedy systemic failures in the system, to prevent future office holders from committing the same mistakes as their predecessors. Whereas the SIU is a statutory body and only the President can issue a proclamation. In addition, its recommendations are not binding. She added that PPSA has worked closely with both AGSA and SIU during the PPE investigations. It is a constitutional responsibility for institutions to cooperate with PPSA.

She said that she had not invited Mr Zwane to her 50th birthday, he had tagged along with someone else. She believed that there was no conflict of interest and she had not compromised her independence to conduct the investigation. All the implicated politicians have been issued with Section 79 reports and the matter would finalised.

Due to the investigators’ heavy workload, the investigation had been delayed. The Section 79 reports were issued in the first week of September, however the individuals had asked for an extension to respond – which was granted by PPSA. This was in line with their rules, which state that an individual is allowed 14 days to respond.

She expressed appreciation for the support PPSA received from Ms Yako. She added that PPSA had met with Treasury officials to motivate why it needed an increased budget. All motivations it provided to Treasury for an increased budget would be shared with the Committee.

A list of the institutions not complying with PPSA’s remedial actions would be shared with the Committee.

She confirmed that the organisational structure of PPSA had been reduced.

A task team had been appointed to looking into Covid-19 corruption. The Office was currently attending to the complaints received on social grants, the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) and Covid-19 corruption.

She committed to ensuring that PPSA would, in the future, use webinars and TV slots to reach out to the deaf community. In addition, it would also place a sign-language interpreter on its webinars.

It would be clarified later in the meeting why the Annual Report had not been presented alongside the 2019/20 and 2020/21 quarterly reports.

Referring to the modification from a “safe haven” to a “stronghold” for the poor, she said that PPSA would ensure that they stick to what the pillar says, and they would correct the change.

She asked that the Committee assist PPSA with obtaining additional funding, as this had negatively impacted its ability to carry out its functions. She expressed the hope that the Committee could hold the Executive to account.

Referring to the issue between the NPA and PPSA, she said that details on the engagements between the two parties would be provided. She asked that the Committee act as a mediator to assist both parties as they have a similar mandate, which is to root out corruption and maladministration.

Details on each forensic report that had not been implemented by the different government departments would be provided. One report issued to a municipality in the North West, which dated back to 2012, had still not been implemented. Other government institutions rush to appoint a team of investigators and once the report is completed, they keep it and do not implement the recommendations made. For instance, several of the reports on South African Airways were not implemented and a complaint was lodged on the non-implementation of those. The PP does not plan to enforce them, rather, it seeks to find out why the reports have not been implemented.

The Office had previously named and shamed institutions that had either not implemented its remedial actions or that had taken PPSA’s reports on judicial review. It would send the list to both Parliament and the Committee to gain assistance.

Many of the investigators in PPSA who had performed poorly, had been suspended. The Office relied heavily on their work to ensure that its investigations are not conducted poorly. Investigators are delegated powers to analyse the information (according to the PP Act). Once they have completed their investigation, a Section 79 report is sent to the PP. It is now compulsory that when an investigator submits a report, they must also include a paginated record of the evidence. Some of the personal court costs that she was subjected to occurred because not all the evidence had been availed in the reports. Many of the PP reports are set aside by a court based on technicalities and procedural matters, not on factual matters.

Information on the skills required by PPSA would be provided to the Committee. In addition, all information on investigators – who close reports without concluding investigations, who write reports without conducting investigations, who write reports that are set aside, those who received bonuses and the number of investigators who had been suspended – would be provided.

She clarified that the 70% targets reached are from complaints received from January to March, and others were from the previous year. The PPSA was one of the institutions that was working online during the lockdown and it was able to finalise some of the complaints it received.

The Acting CEO had been acting since February 2020. There is only one acting Executive Manager, as the other one had been suspended – due to the investigation on records that had not been availed whilst a PP report had been taken on review.

Referring to the R10 million budget set aside for subject matter experts, she noted that this included forensic investigators and actuaries. The specialists would be required when investigating technical matters. For instance, a complaint lodged against Eskom on the Kusile contract, contained several contracts which required specialised people to understand the contents.

Both the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) and SIU had worked with the PP during the investigations on Covid-19 corruption and more details would be provided.

The PPSA would submit suggestions for the Public Procurement Bill. It planned to share information on procurement irregularities, to avoid similar mistakes found in previous bills.

Many of the PP reports are not taken on review. It would share a written list of the PP reports that had been taken on review, how many are awaiting judgement and those waiting for the court case to commence.

In cases where it outsources and appoints junior/senior counsel or an attorney, there are discussions on whether the PP should oppose the matter and on what basis. The GEMS was, at first, not cooperating with the investigation. It did not want the PP to proceed with the investigations. In response, the PP had to discuss if it was conducting a full-scale investigation or if it should inform the complainant on the matter. The central issue was on the power of the PP.

Security is the biggest challenge that the institution is facing. A progress report on acquisition of security detail would be provided to the Committee.

Treasury sent the PP a letter indicating that the budget for the compensation of employees is being reduced by R60 million.

Communications in PPSA is under resourced.

Adams and Adams was appointed by the former PP. There is a panel of attorneys that are looking at the policies of government in relation to transformation. The PP is trying to balance and empower previously disadvantaged individuals.

Deputy Public Protector responses
Ms Kholeka Gcaleka, Deputy Public Protector, said that PPSA had drawn up a list of the total outstanding remedial actions from 2010 to date. This included departments that had not responded to the PP or that had filed for review. A meeting between the Director-General of the Presidency [who is also the Chair of the Forum of South African Director-Generals (FOSAD)] and the PP took place, to ensure that PPSA could conduct a presentation at FOSAD to gain their cooperation. The PP had also engaged with several government departments and noted that many of the remedial actions are not implemented. A list of these cases is being prepared by a PPSA team and it would be sent to Parliament, to ensure that the remedial actions are implemented. Some of the transgressions are being repeated as there is no implementation of the remedial action.

The Office engaged with the CEO of South African Social Security Agency (SASSA). Of a total of 1 544 cases involving the R350 special grant, over 500 cases had been resolved. Many of the other cases were rejected by SASSA on the following grounds: some applicants were registered on the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), some had not provided their banking details, others were existing SASSA recipients, UIF registered, registered on government payroll, IRP 5 (employee tax certificate) registered, and some had not submitted their ID numbers. A process to resolve outstanding matters is ongoing.

A team of ten investigators, led by a Senior Executive Manager and a Chief Investigator had since been appointed. Their task is to look at Covid-19 matters involving various government departments, such as the provision of water and sanitation, PPE procurement, food parcel distribution, access to healthcare and housing; and precautionary measures to mitigate employee health and safety risk. Fourteen of these matters are procurement related. The team meets three times a week, to expedite processes. In a meeting between the PP, SIU Head and AGSA, there were discussions on how all three would work together on procurement-related corruption. It was agreed that all three institutions would tackle this problem. The PPSA Chief Operating Officer meets with the SIU team and both share information to ensure no duplication. Some matters were referred to PPSA by the SIU and are aligned to their task. The PP had also requested information from the Fusion Centre as well, to speed up their investigations.

PPSA Acting CEO response
Ms Yalekile Lusibane said PPSA would provide the details of disciplinary charges and the list of litigation costs. She thanked the Committee for committing to helping PPSA with resolving its funding challenges.

Referring to the case management system, she said that the cost implications for the development of such a system were too much. PPSA is in the process of developing and implementing a web-based system and hoped that it would be implemented before the end of the third quarter of 2020/21. It comes at no cost. Once it was implemented, it would inform the Committee.

The slide that referred to COE did not indicate under expenditure because of the confirmed budget cuts by Treasury in the current year – with a cut of R16.1 million on the COE planned cuts. As a result, PPSA was likely to overspend on the account.

Quarter 1 performance has been audited by the internal audit. Work completed during the first quarter time included complaints received from the previous year. Effects of the lockdown would be seen in Quarter 2, as they had to adjust.

Consequence management had been implemented when required. All cases where financial misconduct occurred, are currently sitting with the financial committee and had been audited by AGSA.

During its engagement with Treasury on its funding challenges, PPSA recognised that it did not have enough bargaining power to negotiate, as the budget cuts were imposed on PPSA. This was unlike previous times when Treasury sought the advice of PPSA to understand what the implications would be. Treasury has confirmed in writing that the COE budget would be cut. There is no room to discuss funding requirements. However, PPSA would notify Treasury that they require security at its offices, as many of them had been robbed. To curb the break-ins, it had since introduced a video-find alarm system.

She assured the Committee that PPSA would advertise all its services on all digital websites, including the PPSA website. In this financial year, the budget did not include money for TV slots.

She clarified that the downgrading of positions was part of the review of the PPSA organisational structure. All positions were evaluated, with assistance from the Department of Public Service and Administration.

R266 000 had been allocated for Employee Wellness and Health to ensure that there is an effective wellness programme for all employees.

The letter that the Committee had sent to the PP had said that PPSA needed to present on all four quarters of the year. She asked if the Committee could clarify if it was meant to present on all four quarters.

Referring to Adams and Adams, she noted that the procurement of their services was irregular, in that the expenditure incurred exceeded the threshold of R500 000 – which is totalled on a quotation basis. In terms of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), procurement above R500 000 should be placed on an open tender, whilst the procurement of Adams and Adams services was not. Therefore this was classified as irregular expenditure. This expenditure was incurred in 2016, which was prior to PPSA contracting a panel of attorneys in December 2017. All expenditure related to legal fees and costs since December 2017, was awarded to firms through the procurement system.

Adv Mkhwebane said there were delays in finalising the Estina investigation and asked the COO to explain the reasons.

PPSA COO response
Mr Charles Mohalaba, PPSA COO, said that there had been delays in the finalisation of the Estina matter and this was caused by a number of factors. Internally, there are a large number of investigations that investigators are dealing with. Thus, PPSA placed focus on specific cases and included them in their Annual Performance Plan (APP).

Some of the external factors delaying the Estina case had to do with the speed of the response by  departments and other institutions they relied on to continue the investigations. There had been allegations that some of the politicians being investigated had travelled abroad. The Office had to then confirm from the relevant institutions and departments to confirm the allegation. It then requested documents required for the case from the Free State Department of Agriculture and Provincial Treasury and some national departments. Notices had since been sent to the implicated individuals in September. However, they asked for an extension until 15 or 26 October to respond. The extensions were granted for both dates. He was confident that the investigation would be finalised by the end of the third quarter of 2020/21 once it had received all responses to the notices.

PPSA Audit Committee chairperson response
Adv Nonkosi Cetwayo,  PPSA Audit Committee chairperson, noted that all the information on the PPSA audit performance would be in the AGSA Audit Report, which goes into the Annual Report. The AGSA report would serve as confirmation of the internal audit processes and verifications that happened during the financial year. All information submitted can be verified by that report. For instance, PPSA management noted that performance stood at 80% but internal audit could only verify that 70% of targets had been reached. Once the AGSA Audit Report was received, the internal audit’s audit report of 70% performance would also be verified. The AGSA Audit Report with the final percentage would be sent to Committee.

She explained that consequence management is first about understanding what went wrong, as this helps with correction of further wrongdoing occurring by dealing with root causes. Whilst institutions such as AGSA are concerned with preventative controls.

When the Audit Committee was formed, PPSA did not have either a CEO or a CFO. As such, she as the Audit Committee chairperson had to report directly to the PP – instead of both officials. With the appointment of the CFO and acting CEO role, PPSA noted improvements financially and in its performance. Risks had been reduced significantly. The CFO has a lot of experience and understands how the organisation functions. This had assisted greatly when there had been no CEO.

In its audit report, AGSA noted several of PPSA achievements. The audit process ran smoothly as the record keeping in PPSA had significantly improved. PPSA would continue to work on improving its performance information. AGSA noted that its finances are improving, even in the face of budget cuts. Greater focus would be placed on the accuracy of record keeping and capturing data.

Chairperson's concluding remarks to PPSA
The Chairperson welcomed PPSA's 25-year anniversary. He said that the Committee is cautiously happy, subject to the AGSA's verification of its audit performance, but it was encouraged by the performance. This showed that PPSA had a sense of urgency to improve its performance. Whilst the Committee was pleased that it was able to achieve 80%, it felt that as a Chapter 9 institution, it should be striving for 100%.

The Committee took a decision previously that they do not support budget cuts, especially for Chapter 9 institutions. It is clear that budget cuts are crippling PPSA as it had to close its offices in the Northern Cape. It was disheartening that their offices do not have security.

With the judgement that PPSA’s remedial actions are now binding, government should have looked at a new budget for PPSA, as this speaks to the quality of its investigations. Which need to be of good quality, to ensure that they are able to stand scrutiny when challenged. The incremental budget system is no longer relevant for how PPSA should be budgeted for. The Committee does support the call for zero-based budgeting. this should address issues that PPSA has, but the business case of PPSA should be proper and should not indicate that it felt entitled.

The Chairperson asked that the Committee be cautious on taking the view that the PP should provide it with a list of the organs of state that have not implemented its remedial action, especially if the intention was to name and shame them without due process. This might put the Committee in danger legally. Instead, they should look at how they would process the list it receives from the PP, bearing in mind that the process would be tedious.

He asked to what extent should the Committee look to facilitate an approach through the Speaker rather than through the Committee. Interrogating the lists would necessitate that the Committee would have to interact with other committees. For instance, if a municipality from the North West is on the list, the Committee would have to communicate with the Portfolio Committee on Cooperative Governance. He cautioned the Committee from overpromising and under-delivering, as this would affect the confidence that the institutions have in the Committee.

There had to be changes to the current PP Act, as it was not in line with the Constitution of 1996. This had been raised by PPSA previously and the Committee should think about how it should process the matter.

Before the Committee assisted in convening a meeting between PPSA and the NPA, it would wait to receive the complaint from the PP in writing. Once it had, it would consider what next to do.

The Committee expected that it would have the list of the litigation costs by the end of November. Thereafter, the PP should report quarterly on litigation costs to the Committee. The Committee requested an update from PPSA once it had received a memorandum from junior counsel.

It should, by next year, inform the Committee – through a presentation – on the measures it had taken to remedy its investigative model. He thanked PPSA for their hard work.

Mr Dyantyi clarified that the naming and shaming should not be done by the Committee. It had already been done by PPSA. Earlier when he had noted it, he was advising PPSA to take that action.

The Chairperson agreed that if the Committee had named and shame the organs of state, Parliament would be at risk of being challenged.

Cannabis for Private Purposes Bill: call for comments extension
The Chairperson said a letter had been distributed from farmers who farmed cannabis in the Eastern Cape, asking for an extension on the submission of comments on the Cannabis for Private Purposes Bill. The deadline was the following day. He suggested that the Committee should consider granting them an extension, as it was an urgent matter. He asked if the end of the November would be fair.

Mr Swart said that the end of November would be suitable as the Committee would be dealing with other legislation in the meantime.

Adv Breytenbach seconded the proposal.

The Chairperson said a media statement should be issued that it was extending comments on the Bill until the end of November.

Meeting adjourned.

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: