SIU Quarterly performance

This premium content has been made freely available

Justice and Correctional Services

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

Meeting Summary

Video: Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services (NA) 09 Oct 2020

Due to all Annual Reports being delayed by the pandemic, the Committee was virtually briefed by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) on its 2019/20 Quarter 4 and 2020/21 Quarter 1 performance. The report covered financial information, legal counsel, governance, strategic risk, audit outcomes, administrative issues, human capital and its performance indicators.

Overall, the Committee applauded SIU on their good work and repeated clean audit. The Committee raised its concern that SIU was not declared an essential service under Lockdown Level 5. The Committee pledged its support in preventing any cuts to SIU budget due to the impact this could have on the its ability to fulfil its mandate. The Committee requested an update on all of SIU’s investigations at the end of this term.

The main concerns of the Committee were the administrative problems that SIU is experiencing such as high vacancy rate, non-timely payment of invoices, performance agreements not signed, recovery of debt. Members highlighted the flaws of the current funding model which requires the entity under investigation to fund SIU investigation. They asked about time frame for the implementation of an electronic notification system for invoice payments. SIU gave assurances that the notification system would be implemented within the next four to six months.

Meeting report

Special Investigating Unit on Quarterly Performance
Adv Andy Mothibi, SIU Head, reported on 2019/20 Quarter 4 and 2020/21 Quarter 1 performance. The report covered financial information, legal counsel, governance, strategic risk, audit outcomes, administrative issues, human capital and performance indicators. He was assisted by:
- Mr Ziphozenkosi Mguli, SIU Head of Strategy, Monitoring and Reporting
- Ms Boaratwa Leshope, SIU Chief Audit Executive
- Mr Andre Gernandt, SIU Chief Financial Officer
- Ms Neptune Mashego, SIU Chief Human Capital Officer.

Ms Mashego said  SIU had began the recruitment process to reduce the vacancy rate which was a concern.

Adv Mothibi said that SIU performance in Quarter 1 was affected by the pandemic as the Unit was not declared an essential service under Lockdown Level 5. It has since put in measures to overcome that and the SIU has seen significant improvement in Quarter 2.

Ms Nandi Madiba, SIU Audit Committee Chairperson, commented on the 2019/20 audit outcomes and pointed out that the SIU had for the past five years obtained a clean audit. From and Audit and Risk perspective, the Audit Committee had no concerns about weaknesses in the environment. The Audit Committee was aware that the performance agreements were not in place but it is cognisant that consultation on this has to take place so that there are no legal disputes. It is also aware of the reduced performance due to COVID-19. The SIU mandate must be reconsidered as part of essential services as this directly impacted on the COVID-19 procurement investigations by SIU. Delays make it more difficult to recover assets from wrongdoing. The Audit Committee commended SIU management especially the Head who has a sensitive and complex role to play as he has to wear two caps - both as the accounting officer leading the executives and acting as the board and overseeing himself since the Act does not provide for this. The Audit Committee recognises that management is working under pressure but is happy with the performance.

The major challenges faced by SIU were departments and institutions not paying on time, lack of cooperation by those under investigation to pay, and lack of budget put aside for the proclaimed investigation by SIU clients. However, she did say that SIU management had made strides by having bilateral discussions with the debtors. SIU has escalated this over the past two years to the Auditor General SA asking why it does not make a finding when it finds that SIU as a creditor has not been paid by the auditee. AGSA has replied that the auditee does not see it as a valid invoice and states it was not planned for in the budget. There needs to be strengthening of understanding and awareness created amongst all accounting officers that the SIU invoice is valid and must be paid.

Discussion
Mr S Swart (ACDP) commended SIU for the clean audit and their incredible hard work fighting corruption. The Committee is concerned that SIU was not declared an essential service under lockdown level 5. He has expressed before about concern on the funding model, particularly the reliance on SIU’s clients to pay debt. He noted SIU’s indication that this was being addressed, but he was concerned about the whole funding model. He noted that SIU’s debt book is at R367 million, particularly from state institutions which may increase now due to budget cuts. This was described as a massive concern for the Committee. He noted the need to keep this in mind and for the Committee to assist the Unit wherever possible. He asked whether SIU expected a decrease in their budget over the medium term. The Committee would not support such a decrease due to the massively important work done by the Unit. The President and the Minister of Finance have accepted that the Unit plays a critical role. They have indicated that they have heard the concerns raised by the Committee and that they will ensure that the Unit is properly resourced in order to collect billions of Rands if it is sufficiently resourced.  Thirdly, he asked about the impact and efficiency of working with the Fusion Centre. He asked how the Unit was finding working with the Fusion Centre and whether it was assisting.

Mr Swart said that previously the committee had heard concerns of the Unit’s cases being submitted to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). He asked whether the memorandum of understanding (MOU) had been resolved. He referred to the COVID-19 corruption which the Unit is investigating. The Unit has indicated that over 700 companies were being investigated. He requested a general update on the COVID investigations including the possible freezing orders in cooperation with the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC). He asked if SIU had followed up with the Auditor-General and how cooperation was with the NPA. The Committee understands that the Unit has specific powers which they have used to freeze bank accounts via the Special Tribunal. He asked if the Unit expects to perform more freezing of bank accounts. This is important to the Committee since the R500 billion in COVID-19 funding is now having to be additionally funded. Any corruption related to the COVID-19 relief funding needs to be urgently addressed.  The departments implicated must fund SIU investigation. “What is the level of cooperation of these departments?” The internal audit raised the issue of departments resisting being invoiced for investigations that they themselves have not requested. “How can the Committee assist the Unit in ensuring cooperation?”

Adv Mothibi replied that the funding model has been identified as a challenge going forward and it will be addressed. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) met with Treasury officials recently. The Chief Legal Counsel have finalised the proposed amendments to SIU Act which will go through the legislation approval process and culminate in the tabling of the Amendment Bill in the Portfolio Committee. SIU would like to ensure that this provision is clearly articulated in the legislation so that improves the funding model and SIU is continually guaranteeing that it is getting input from Treasury. When the amendments are articulated in law there will be measures to implement them. Currently, SIU is making certain that all entities who owe it are identified and progress reports are submitted. SIU has instituted a process of sending debtors progress reports which indicate what has been delivered and what the debtor is paying against. SIU has seen improvement in implementing progress reports but believes that it can do more. Treasury has informed SIU that it too will direct messages to these entities which owe SIU money. The Audit Committee Chairperson has noted that the AG could play an important role when these entities are audited. There is no substantive reason that these entities are unable to record SIU as a creditor. Payment terms apply to SIU as well.

Adv Mothibi replied about whether SIU expects budget cuts, saying that SIU has indicated and demonstrated to National Treasury that a budget cut would have a big negative implications in that SIU will be unable to fulfil its mandate in the long-term. SIU presented its requirements to both Treasury and the Department of Justice in the process that would go into Treasury’s October Adjustments Budget. He asked the CFO to indicate the amount by which the SIU budget may be cut. SIU leadership hopes that in the Adjustments Appropriation that its budget and that of other law enforcement agencies are not cut.

On the impact and efficiency of the Fusion Centre – established to improve collaboration in the COVID-19 investigations – SIU has seen significant benefits. An example of an area that has shown benefits is in investigations in Gauteng to ensure the criminal part of the investigation is dealt with speedily. The Fusion Centre was a great help in doing so. The Hawks, FIC and SIU have been collaborating successfully and the joint investigations should result in arrests soon.

On the question about civil litigation, FIC was critical in allowing SIU to trace all the monies and ultimately enabled the freezing of the accounts in which the monies had ended up. The Fusion Centre has been important in these processes. He asked the Committee to bear in mind FIC has been flooded with requests but assured the Committee that the urgency of the COVID-19 investigation has been raised with FIC.

There has been good collaboration with the NPA when it comes to prosecution-led investigations. The NPA has been involved in the criminal processes. The MOU with the NPA was showing good results and SIU was glad that it was resulting in traction. The NPA has rightly stated that the MOU should be “tripartite,” and so SIU was improving on this by including the Hawks as another signatory. While the law requires SIU to refer to the NPA, it is not contrary to immediately bring the Hawks on board, register the docket, and complete all administrative duties. If further investigations are required, they are done quickly. He described this as a “convergence of efforts” by the three agencies to produce “quick, quality results".

On the COVID-19 investigations, SIU is having good co-operation with the Auditor General South Africa (AGSA) and a MOU exists between the two entities about access to records. AGSA held a session with all the Fusion Centre members and law enforcement agencies and presented its interim COVID-19 audit report. AGSA has indicated that its second report deadline is November and therefore SIU needs to ensure that all referrals by AGSA are dealt with. There is a need to ring fence the COVID-19 investigations. Over and above fraud and misrepresentation, there are many cases of noncompliance with the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). These are the prosecutions which SIU wishes to see conducted. The PFMA creates an offence and this was created for a purpose. Sound financial management in government is very important. SIU would like to see prosecutions made at all levels. To this end, SIU has made referrals and hopes to see prosecutions based on transgression of the PFMA or common law offences. There will likely be more bank account freezes as investigations continue. The Chief Legal Executive would indicate the list of cases.

Adv Mothibi said SIU reported that the contract value of matters enrolled at the Special Tribunal is more than R5 billion. There has been quick progress made on this. As investigations continue, findings will be made, and accounts will be frozen. In fact, on 8 October a case was held on the Beitbridge border fence, where a restraining order was required to freeze the bank account of the companies involved. The legal process is underway and SIU hopes for “an order in that case".

As mentioned earlier, the use of progress reports for department clients has shown a marked improvement on the matter of payments. The progress reports detail the goals achieved by the SIU investigation on which the department can base its payment. Overall, the number of state institutions which have outstanding payments to SIU is quite worrying. He asked the Committee to assist in any manner to ensure that departments pay their SIU fees. Non-payment and the current funding model can eventually affect the SIU operating capacity.

Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) welcomed the report and congratulated SIU on the clean audit and their work. It was comforting and refreshing to hear the Audit Committee Chairperson's comments about her lack of concerns about SIU and her satisfaction with SIU’s institutional practices. She commended SIU on its Programme 2 work on investigations and legal counsel. She proposed that SIU focus on administration, specifically when undertaking recruitment to “get real administrators". She warned against using lawyers and investigators to do administrative work.  She asked SIU to consider involving paralegals to conduct its administration. Administration cannot be overlooked. She asked for clarity on Adv Mothibi’s comment that SIU would like to fast track rectifying the vacancy rate.

Ms Maseko-Jele referred to SIU’s Information And Communication Technology (ICT) Committee and the planning problems. The ICT Committee must assist SIU immediately to address the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). She stressed the need for South African institutions to catch-up on ICT and requested the SIU ICT Committee to work hard to correct the situation. SIU cannot set ICT targets that are not be achieved. SIU must meet its ICT targets so as not cause problems.  She noted the good work done by SIU but warned against the consequences of not resolving key challenges such as implementation of a legal compliance framework and the recovery of debt. She asked SIU to not complain to the Committee about lack of finances the next time they meet if these challenges were not resolved. The 0% implementation of the legal compliance framework cannot be tolerated. She asked about recovery of debt and referred to the work done by SIU in the case of the VBS Bank. She noted the harsh sentence given to the VBS Bank CFO. She asked if any money recovered was by SIU in the VBS case as this money is the “money of the poor". The recovery of stolen funds should not be overlooked regardless of the sentence issued to the bank’s former CFO.

Adv Mothibi thanked Ms Maseko-Jele for her congratulations and raising the point about administration. The administrative problems have been prioritised and SIU would not wish to have this conversation with the Committee again. The implementation of the electronic notification system to improve the SIU payment cycle would take four to six months according to the CFO’s feedback.  SIU would explore ways to fast track this implementation. Only personnel with relevant skills are being considered to fulfil the requirements of the administrative positions to enhance investigations and the core business.

He noted her comments about recruitment to enhance the Administration Programme which SIU refers to as the “enabling functions". He confirmed the need to recruit candidates with the appropriate skills in human resources (HR), information technology (IT) and risk management to ensure those areas are capacitated appropriately. SIU has noted the benefit of recruiting paralegals who have a sense of the SIU legal framework and therefore add value. He agreed that SIU cannot set targets that it cannot achieve and said that going into the new strategy review, SIU will ensure that its targets adhere to SMART principles. On implementing a legal compliance framework, he assured the Committee that SIU would move with speed in its implementation.

The VBS Bank case is being handled by the Hawks and NPA. Where SIU is called to cooperate, it will do so effectively. He suggested that the NPA and its Asset Forfeiture Unit may be in the process of ensuring that any assets that need to be attached and forfeited receives attention. The principal agents in this matter are Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) and the NPA, with whom SIU continues to cooperate.

Ms J Mofokeng (ANC) thanked Adv Mothibi and his team. She applauded the effective communication of the SIU spokesperson to citizens, who explained what was happening on the ground. SIU’s coordination with the Hawks was commended and noted as being long overdue. The Committee believed that this coordination would grow as SIU had done the same with cooperation with the Asset Forfeiture Unit. SIU must present the Committee with information about the assets confiscated and what is going on in these cases. Cases which involve people’s assets cannot be prolonged as this could make the government liable to lawsuits. The recruitment adverts for human resources are welcomed. She asked to what extent SIU has outsourced capacity from private forensic organisations and if this was costly. SIU had referenced the 10 vacancies and she asked how far SIU was in filling these. She stressed the need to get suitable candidates as not having skilled people causes problems.  She asked how many criminal referrals to the NPA and disciplinary referrals have been made in the Master’s Office investigation.

Adv Mothibi replied that SIU has worked hard on their communication strategy and will continue to do so. SIU would like to ensure that the work that it does is communicated appropriately to the public. On Ms Mofokeng’s commendations about the SIU coordination with the Hawks, SIU is thankful and their partnership has worked very well. The asbestos investigation was an example where it started with an SIU proclamation but the NPA and the Hawks were swiftly brought on board once criminal activities were identified. The results have been seen, the investigations are continuing, and SIU is frequently briefed on progress made. Further action may come out of this, but SIU wishes for prosecution to follow. Mr Sodi has gone to court to claim he is still owed an outstanding amount of R25 million. SIU refutes this claim and will defend against this claim with the Department of Justice. SIU is coordinating with NPA’s Asset Forfeiture Unit and both entities have similar provisions, but SIU will focus on the civil recovery part. Coordination between both units occurs with no compromise to either unit’s processes. Coordination must ensure that the appropriate legal outcomes are produced.

On the insourcing of private forensic investigation services, SIU has a panel of service providers, but emphasis has been placed on building internal capacity. In this way SIU has a dual resourcing strategy in its restructuring. There are specialists which SIU does not ordinarily employ, such as engineers and quantity surveyors. SIU has forensic project managers which it checks in with from time to time. However, SIU would like to build appropriate forensic investigation project management within SIU so that it can lessen its use of the panel of private service providers. Although the services were expensive, he assured the Committee that all service providers had gone through a competitive screening process to ensure competitive pricing. SIU will continue to prioritise employing persons with disabilities as well as the previously disadvantaged.  He asked his colleague to comment on the Master’s Office referrals.

Mr Leonard Lekgetho, SIU Chief National Investigation Officer, confirmed that SIU had referred one case for criminal prosecution to the NPA as well as two disciplinary action referrals. There are many other disciplinary code (DC) referrals that are being prepared.

Mr W Horn (DA) congratulated SIU on its clean audit and the recent news about SIU’s speedy investigation into COVID-19 corruption. He commended SIU on its progress in becoming more effective over the last few years. He described the advent of the Special Tribunal as being a positive aspect of SIU. However, he expressed concern about the language used about the Special Tribunal, stating that it implies an inadequate distance between SIU and the Special Tribunal. This inadequacy may have arisen due to SIU and the Special Tribunal being established within the same Act. There is a misperception that exists that the latter is seen as an extension of the former. He suggested that actions should be taken to avoid potential accusations being made that the Special Tribunal lacks independence. Moreover, the Special Tribunal’s website is contained within that of the Department of Justice and Correctional Services. He suggested that the Tribunal be housed in the Office of the Chief Justice.

In another briefing mention was made of a full list of proclamations and investigations. Although, this agenda item is not contained  in the Committee’s draft fourth term programme, this list is important for the Committee. He asked SIU to comment on the danger of allowing the focus on COVID-19 corruption and maladministration to overshadow other investigations. He therefore requested SIU provide the Committee with a full written update on the status of all investigations – where sensitivities allow for their status to be shared and do not impinge on the investigation's efficacy.

He noted the fact that in the past investigations have taken a prolonged period to finalise and urged SIU to submit a written report detailing all proclamations, dates issued and the progress of these proclamations.  

On ICT, he referred to slide 50 and asked if recruiting candidates for the senior cyber forensic investigator position and related positions has been addressed successfully. Previously, the Committee was told that the current ICT environment of SIU was unsuitable and would not enable a proper forensic investigation agency.  He asked if this has been addressed and if SIU platforms are now able to support the forensic and cyber forensic arm of SIU.

On the topic of principal, chief and senior recruitment, the Committee had previously been told that due to recruitment challenges, SIU would embark on a process of “growing its own timber". He asked if this training programme has materialised.

Adv Mothibi replied that although SIU is busy with COVID-19 investigations, he has spoken to Mr Lekgetho, who oversees all investigations, to remind him not to “drop the ball” on other ongoing investigations. Therefore, SIU will ensure that all other investigations progress such as the Masters Office investigation.

On Mr Horn’s comment about the Special Tribunal, he described the Tribunal as being an important tool in the SIU arsenal for fighting corruption. He thanked the Committee for their help in the establishment of the Tribunal. Mr Horn’s point about the distance between SIU and Tribunal is critical and asked the SIU spokesperson to comment on this. SIU has observed that there is an unintended perception of the lack of distance between the two entities. He acknowledges the view that the independence of the Special Tribunal may be impacted. A meeting is arranged with the Special Tribunal’s President next week. The meeting will include spokespersons from both entities and the SIU legal personal to address this misperception and the location of the Special Tribunal’s website. 

About other proclamations, SIU continues on the cases with municipalities and he has spoken to Mr Lekgetho about this. Were the Committee to invite SIU to present on the status of the proclamations, it would do so. The investigations into state-owned entities were described as a critical space and the Committee was assured that SIU would continue to make progress into departments while simultaneously conducting the COVID-19 investigations.

Adv Mothibi responded that SIU does have cyber forensic capacity but it requires improvement. Therefore SIU has advertised for a cyber forensic investigator. The IT part of the improvement has come from the effort SIU has made to benchmark itself with other anti-corruption agencies to identify the tools that it requires to do excellent work. The Cyber Forensic Manager and the IT Manager are working together to improve this space but currently there is significant capacity. On human resources, he reminded the Committee that SIU had reported on the Master's Office. SIU had used a panel of private service provider panel when it would do this computer task more quickly. The recruitment of HR is to ensure that SIU can build that capacity. On the SIU “growing its own timber”, he spoke about the SIU internship programme of young graduates and SIU’s eagerness to retain the interns as far as the budget allows and following due process.  

Mr X Nqola (ANC) asked about the 30-day payment of invoices and noted the SIU report mentions that there is no electronic notification and reporting system for payment of invoices. He suggested that this may be the reason the percentage of valid invoices paid is not at 100%. The report lacked an estimated timeframe for the electronic notification system. He asked when this system will be implemented. He warned that this administration issue could negatively impact the good work done by SIU. He highlighted vacancies and referenced the comment on slide 8 that “the conclusion of the Agreement with recognised Union was delayed due to the complexity of issues, which affected recruitment". He asked for clarification of this complexity of issues.

Mr Nqola referenced the report’s mention of “billions of rands paid to the legal counsels". He expressed his hope that priority is given to the previously disadvantaged counsel because this Committee champions the transformation of the legal sector. He congratulated the SIU audit outcome and asked them to keep up the good work. He referred to slide 49 on the racial and gender breakdown of the SIU labour force. He commented on the lack of specification about the number of youth and persons with disabilities employed by SIU. He urged SIU to focus on representation in these two areas. On the recovery of money and assets that were interrupted during the national lockdown, he noted that government operations across the board have been interrupted and asked what was the recovery plan to ensure that this work is not left behind.

Adv Mothibi reiterated that the notification system will be in place within four to six months to rectify the payment of invoices. He assured the Committee that the process was underway to ensure that it is procured appropriately. About the delays in the National Consultative Forum, there have been engagements which have been as robust as possible but that there have been demands that have been made by colleagues in the recognized trade unions. SIU’s primary concern is to ensure that it meets the organization’s employment equity plan. This is a thing of the past and SIU must merely fast track the recruitment processes. On the question about prioritization of previously disadvantaged persons in the appointment of legal services, when appointing legal services for civil litigation, SIU works closely with the State Attorney and it is clear that it will ensure that the previously disadvantaged are prioritized. The Chief Legal Officer has a brief to ensure that this is observed. SIU’s current recruitment strategy prioritizes the employment of youth and persons with disabilities. SIU is working with National Treasury to fast track the recovery of money interrupted by lockdown.

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) added her congratulations on its audit outcome. She was covered by Mr Nqola on the electronic notices for payment but asked the timeframe for putting the electronic notification system in place. She expressed concern that the achieved target for signed performance agreements was 0%. The SIU report references "key building blocks". What are these key building blocks which prevent you from signing the performance agreements? She expressed concern that the signing of performance agreements could not be done without deciding on end of year bonuses. She requested more explanation on this. How is SIU ensuring its staff are protected in line with the remaining restrictions of Level 1 Lockdown?

Adv Mothibi said that employee performance agreements are on the top of SIU’s agenda to ensure that it complements the new performance management system. SIU would like to avoid grey areas that exist in the current system which is “input based". Performance bonuses that are paid out are based on how the organisation and the teams in the investigations have performed. This system has been demonstrated to the Auditor General and gives a satisfactory sense that employees have achieved “but of course it can be improved by having the performance agreements". SIU has comprehensive programme coordinated by the Chief Risk Officer to ensure that all SIU employees are protected against COVID-19. It has ensured that protective equipment and infrastructure is in place. To ensure physical distancing, a rotation system was implemented. This has subsequently ceased when the country moved to Lockdown Level 1. Vulnerable employees are working from home. SIU has taken counsel from the Department of Health and the National Coronavirus Command Council (NCCC). Additionally, SIU has benchmarked itself against the actions taken by Department of Public Service and Administration. SIU will continue these measures until the risk level is clearly mitigated. There is a programme in which feedback is received about the measures taken in SIU.

Ms G Breytenbach (DA) indicated that she was covered by her colleagues and congratulated the SIU “who by all accounts are doing a very good job".

Adv Mothibi replied that “with humility” SIU appreciates the Committee’s congratulations on its audit outcome. SIU would like to ensure that it continues this trajectory of a clean audit. SIU takes governance, prudence in decision-making and risk and finance management seriously. Where improvements are required, they will be implemented. To this end, SIU intends on implementing the Audit Improvement Plan through the Chief Audit Executive and monitored by the Audit Committee. This involves all executives. All the audit findings are monitored over time to ensure that improvements are made.

Ms Nandi Madiba, Audit Committee Chairperson, added on the topic of SIU being grant funding dependent, that based on a budget analysis, particularly on income, the proportion of project per grant funding does not differ greatly. In the long-term, SIU wishes to be self-sustainable in that it funds its operations from projects. SIU’s long-term impact “will be a qualitative measurement which does not necessarily translate into monetary terms". This impact is two part. Firstly, the impact is on entities and departments which were robbed of taxpayer money through unethical conduct and irregular expenditure. The quantitative part is recovered monies which “will go back into the fiscus without showing in SIU books as collections". SIU pursues non-compliant and transgressing entities, and the outcomes of the Asset Forfeiture Unit will not reflect in the SIU books. It will not appear as income generation, but this money goes back into the fiscus and there is a performance which does not translate into quantitative measurement. Secondly, the impact of SIU which is qualitative is its role in instilling a culture of compliance and ethical conduct. The impact of SIU in the long-term results in potential transgressors witnessing the consequences of those involved in criminal activities and thus being less likely to transgress, so SIU’s market for income generation would reduce. Society would be positively impacted by greater levels of ethical conduct. If this occurred, the number of SIU investigations would diminish and so would SIU’s income source. For example, if people in Johannesburg changed their culture and did not get fined then it would reduce the revenue for the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department (JMPD). The JMPD mandate still stands and therefore needs to be cross subsidised by other entities.  Long-term, SIU may appear to be not generating income, but the measured impact would be a qualitative change in culture as well as increased awareness about SIU’s mandate and services.  This is meant to ensure that people change their culture, respect taxpayers’ money, and become compliant. This would mean fewer activities which would generate income for SIU.  The business model might need to be changed in the long-term and the funding model would be informed by how far SIU has gone in its impact.

The Chairperson commented on the fruitful engagement between the Committee and SIU and added his congratulations on the SIU clean audit. He noted the relationship between the SIU clean audit and its impact on the fight against crime and corruption. It is possible to have a clean audit without having a substantial impact, but SIU has demonstrated both. He agreed with Ms Madiba's remarks on the creation of an ethical society and ethical government whose sole purpose is to meet the needs of the people. The Committee is encouraged by SIU’s work and admitted that the Committee has marvelled at how SIU copes with the number of referrals and proclamations that it receives. The Committee will invite SIU back before the end of the term to brief the Committee on the status of all investigations – after the Committee has processed the three gender-based violence (GBV) bills. The Committee would also need to be briefed on the remedial actions taken to deal with its administration discussed in this meeting. The Committee does not wish for an imbalance in that SIU cannot have a high impact in its investigations and have administrative problems. The Committee requests that SIU deals with these issues. It is important for SIU to continually achieve a clean audit to maintain its moral high ground.

The Chairperson asked SIU to submit to the Committee in writing a list of service providers on its panel so that the Committee could evaluate how transformed these service providers are. Additionally, the Committee requested a list of advocates that SIU has briefed over the last three years to assess the number of women and previously disadvantaged persons. This should include the cases that the advocates were briefed for. This information should be submitted before the end of the year. The inclusion of persons with disabilities in the labour force is government policy with a target of 2%. SIU needs to meet this national target. The Committee stresses the inclusion of women in positions of senior leadership and youth to “continually revive the organisation". Sometime next year, SIU and the Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) will be invited to present on the extent of their collaboration and how the two units share resources. The AFU is in the process of rebuilding itself so how is SIU helping in this process. SIU is one of the institutions whose budget the Committee urges Parliament and National Treasury not to cut. SIU is meant to “bring money back to the state,” so SIU’s role is not only to help create an ethical society, but it is also a revenue generating institution.

The Chairperson emphasised that the Committee believes that SIU should develop targets based on the challenges facing the country. The country is losing a lot of money to corruption. For government departments to be resourced adequately, the National Revenue Fund must be sufficiently financed. However, this cannot happen with the current level of corruption. SIU is an institution which they rely on to reverse this scourge facing the country. Based on this and past meetings, it cannot be said that there is a complete state of despair. SIU gives the country hope that there is a fight which is sustainable. The Committee pledges its support to SIU and it eagerly awaits the SIU Amendment Bill to ensure that SIU has greater capacity to collect unpaid fees. SIU should be clear how it wants the Committee to assist it. Currently, the Committee will assist SIU in passing the bill and will incentivise organs of state to pay SIU what it deserves. The Committee thanked the Audit Committee Chairperson, Ms Madiba, and noted that whenever an institution reports to the Committee, it is required that its Audit Committee Chairperson be present and submit a report. This is to ensure that the Committee strengthens its oversight capacity. The SIU report noted an investigation into the Department of Correctional Service. When SIU meets with the Committee again this need to be presented along with the status of all other investigations.

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: