Commission for Gender Equality 2020/21 Quarter One Performance

Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities

20 October 2020
Chairperson: Ms C Ndaba (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

In a virtual meeting, the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) presented to the Committee its quarter one performance report for the 2020/21 financial year. Financially, as at 30 June 2020, the Commission’s financial position is sound, healthy in terms of the solvency and liquidity test.  These measures are favourable with a net asset position of R22 million mainly represented by cash in the bank. It is asserted that the CGE is a going concern and able to service its debt and obligation in the short to medium term despite the budget pressures that are envisaged to compromise on financial viability in the medium to long term. Immediate material financial obligations to discharge are for the payment of staff performance bonus estimated to R3.1 million. This relates to the 2019/20 performance cycle

The National Lockdown meant changing the strategies of implementation of the Annual Performance Plan which was reported to the Committee. Mechanism such as virtual meetings and the use of media became critical to ensure that the organisation implemented its planned targets and it had had an impact on performance

For the current reporting period, 71% of planned targets have been reached. The biggest contributor is the fact that lock down as per the Disaster Management Act was implemented in Quarter 1 which hampered activities. In some instances, alternative ways had to be found to implement targets. Since the commencement of the lock down due to the Covid19 pandemic, the Commission received numerous complaints and enquiries regarding gender-based violence, gender blindness of the Regulations pertaining access to sanitary pads and baby clothes and lack of healthcare services for women to exercise their reproductive health rights. Despite the Regulations stipulating that sanitary pads were essential goods under level 5, the CGE received complaints that supermarkets classified sanitary pads as nonessential goods. The CGE engaged the supermarkets and subsequent to the engagements women were able to purchase sanitary pads.

The CGE received an influx of complaints during the level relating to the purchase of baby clothes, as baby clothes were not deemed essential. The CGE intervened and the baby clothing has subsequently made essential goods. The CGE entered as amicus curiae in an application of DA vs President of RSA relating to whether the Minister should use race, gender and disability as areas of prioritisation in the allocation of funds. The DA adopted a stance that the use of gender as a consideration in the allocation of relief is unlawful. The application was dismissed. There was also joint collaboration between the CGE and SA Human Rights Commission relating to the judgment by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court relating to Caster Semenya. Strategies are undertaken in support of Caster Semenya. The Commission developed an advocacy strategy for raising awareness on the essential services of the CGE during lockdown

Members asked questions regarding the status of the appointment of CGEs new, as well as the appointment of the two personal assistants. Members also asked which positions were currently vacant. A question was raised relating to why CGE was outsourcing services, particularly given the government’s financial constraints. The Portfolio Committee requested clarity regarding the pending complaints from the previous financial year and the status thereof. Concerns were raised about the sterilisation of HIV positive women and the Committee asked for an update regarding this issue.

Members asked why there were Commissioners who did not submit quarterly reports and what the consequence management process was for those Commissioners.

 

Meeting report

The Chairperson of the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE), Ms Tamara Mathebula, said the CGE team would present on the first quarter performance from the 1 April 2020 to 30 June 2020, a period coinciding with the national lockdown.

The Chairperson asked the Acting Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Commission for Gender Equality, Ms Marissa van Niekerk, why an incorrect report was presented to the Committee.

The Acting CEO asked if the Chairperson was referring to strategic objective four.

Chairperson Ndaba said she was.

The Acting CEO apologised and said she would advise the incoming CEO to include strategic objective four.  

CGE First Quarter Report 1 April 2020 – 30 June 2020

The Acting CEO presented the first quarter report for the period 1 April 2020 to 30 June 2020. For this reporting period, the focus was on drafting concept notes and guiding documents for the work to be rolled out by provinces and departments for the financial year. The period under reporting coincided with the national lockdown to flatten the curve of COVID-19. She provided an overview of the link between the Annual Performance Plans (APPs), National Development Plan (NDP), and the Medium Term Strategic Frameworks (MTSF).

For the reporting period, 71 percent of planned targets were reached. The biggest contributor was the lockdown, which was implemented according to the Disaster Management Act in Quarter One. It hampered activities. In some instances, alternative ways had to be found to implement targets.

The CGE entered as amicus curiae in the application of DA vs. President of Republic of South Africa (RSA). The case relates to the question of the Minister using race, gender, and disability, as areas of prioritisation in allocating funds. The DA adopted said using gender as a consideration in the allocation of relief is unlawful. The application was dismissed. There was a joint collaboration between CGE and South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), relating to the judgment by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court on Caster Semenya. Strategies are undertaken in support of Caster Semenya. The Commission developed an advocacy strategy to raise awareness on the essential services of the CGE during lockdown.

The presentation went on to look at progress and performance information for all four objectives. The annual and quarterly targets for these objectives were presented.

Key Issues raised at the gender mainstreaming interventions

Municipalities did not include gender transformation principles and objectives in most of its policies, plans, and strategies. The municipalities’ plans and policies were outdated, and some were in draft form. The location of the gender focal person in the political office of the municipality is not assisting the municipality. This is because the internal and external operations of the municipality both need this person’s advice and support. There is a lack of gender transformation objectives and performance outcomes of municipal directors and managers, including the municipal manager.

Municipalities lack commitment to giving feedback on the assessment tool. Some municipalities are a coalition municipality, therefore there are potential internal challenges which hamper progress. Generally, there are insufficient human and financial resources to kickstart gender mainstreaming in the identified municipalities. Internally, there is not adequate implementation on gender mainstreaming programmes.

Key issues Raised at the Stakeholder Engagements

The lockdown hampered service delivery, especially where courts were not rendering services and no plans were in place to render essential services. There are major gaps in the efficiency of law enforcement, especially the South African Police Services (SAPS).

There is no visible policing in informal settlements. Where SAPS conducted monitoring for compliance with Covid-19 regulations, cases of domestic violence did not receive prioritised attention. Community members are not aware of remote means to report violence without the perpetrator being aware of it, or without leaving the home. The lack of public transportation is a challenge, whereby victims in far-flung areas cannot access various departments and services. To be able to assess safety levels in homes and identify any persons who may be at risk, or who are victims of gender based violence (GBV), there needs to be increased capacity and resources for community health workers who conduct home testing for COVID-19. Non government organisations (NGOs) are at times aware of incidents of abuse in certain homes but its ability to act is limited to reporting to the relevant institutions. The progress relating to the systematic violation in shelters was discussed as well as forced sterilisation.

The Report on Financial Management for year 1 April 2020 to 30 June 2020

Mr Moshabi Putu, CGE CFO, presented the first quarter report on financial management. The Adjusted Annual Budget was presented for 2020/21, following the National Adjustment Budget. The Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) budget was reduced for the 2020/21 period by a net amount of R10.3 million.

The sub-programmes Adjusted Budget was presented. The Commissioners allocated budget went from R15.3 million to R11.3 million, and corporate services went from R23.6 million to R22.5 million. The main/core service delivery went from R51.3 million to R45.7 million.

Over the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) period, National Treasury (NT) announced projected budget reductions of R14.4 million (2021/22) and R18.8 million (2022/23). These allocation reductions are not in force until Cabinet’s decision for government-wide budget allocations.

For the quarter under review, income comprised transfers of R20 million, and recorded interest and sundry income to a total of R20.26 million. The expenditure incurred for the period was R16.3 million, lower than the adjusted budget for the quarter by R3 million. Hard lockdown depressed activity, saving on operating overhead expenditure (office related running expenses), plus unspent money on salaries resulted in a saving of R1 million from vacancies yet to be filled. The spending rate will catch up in succeeding quarters as the lockdown is eased, vacancies are filled, and the Annual Performance Plan activities are implemented. It is therefore projected the full R80 million available budget will be spent by the end of the financial year. Monies will be defrayed as the CGE navigates its operations in the delivery of services amid funding challenges.

The presentation then looked at Supply Chain Management, Logistics, relating to Fleet and Facilities Management, Corporate Governance, and Risk Management. The presentation then focused on Audit, Action plans, and Reporting.

Discussion

The Chairperson began by addressing the most critical issues covered in the previous meeting. She asked for clarity on the status of appointment for the new Chief Executive Officer (CEO). She referred to the last meeting when the process unfolded. There were issues discussed at the previous meeting relating to the appointment of the personal assistants (PAs).

She asked for clarity as to why the PA’s contracts were three months long when the Commissioners were appointed for a five-year term. She referred to the Chief Financial Officer’s (CFOs) reference to outsourcing, and asked for clarity on reasons for outsourcing, when the government was currently struggling with finances. She asked why CGE would outsource, when Commissioners have this expertise.

The first Commissioners appointed were strategic planners. There is no need for CGE to outsource those services, because there are people in the institution to do this.

She referred to the key performance indicators, specifically policy to regulate the interface between the Commissioners and staff. She asked for clarity regarding the statement in the presentation on the interface which is addressed in the Commissioners handbook, which was consulted on. She asked what this means. The Chairperson did not understand if CGE has or has not concluded its handbook.

The Chairperson referred to the draft Monitoring and Evaluation plan. The presentation said this target was not met. She asked how CGE is tracking the implementation of other departments and entities if it has not concluded its monitoring and evaluation plan. She said the Portfolio Committee praised CGE as being the best in monitoring and evaluation, but when she read objective four, she questioned this.

She said she is not encouraging CGE or the department to use Information and Communications Technology (ICT), when there is the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) to assist.  

Ms B Maluleke (ANC) said she agreed with the issues raised by Chairperson Ndaba, particularly relating to outsourcing consultants. She referred to the intervention report by the commissioners. There were some commissioners who did not present or submit reports. She asked what the reasons were for Commissioners not submitting first quarter intervention reports.

With reference to the First Quarter report, she said CGE must go back and check what was said in the past reports. She referred to the Fourth Quarter report of 2019/2020, there were 493 pending complaints, and this was said to be carried over to the following year. The Committee was dealing with the First Quarter now. Ms Maluleke asked how far CGE is with its pending cases; and how many vacancies there are within CGE currently.

Strategic objective number four deals with monitoring and evaluation. She asked if CGE could not identify areas of focus for the monitoring and evaluation plan because it did not meet its target.

She asked CGE to explain to the Committee why it could not meet its target. Lockdown is not a sufficient excuse for this.

Ms F Masiko (ANC) noted concern relating to the performance information given. She said she was unable to ascertain which seven of the 24 targets were not met. The presentation referred to a total of seven unmet targets, which comes to 29%, but it does not state which seven are referred to. CGE needs to specify under which strategic objectives the targets are not met.

Regarding the previous financial year, by the end of the financial year there were five targets which were not met; one target under Strategic Objective One, and four targets under Strategic Objective Four. She asked what progress there was in addressing the outstanding targets from the 2019/2020 financial year.

Referring to Quarter One, under Strategic Objective One, she asked what the outstanding bills are which need to be completed in quarter two. She referred to the second objective under Strategic Objective One, and asked what CGEs input was toward the Public Procurement Bill.

She also asked what system CGE is using to respond to what emerged in the stakeholder engagement sessions hosted by CGE. She referred to Strategic Objective Three, and asked where the project on male circumcision will be held, noting it is particularly focused around KwaZulu Natal (KZN) and the Eastern Cape.

She referred to forced sterilisation of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) positive women. She noted the report in the previous meeting about awaited engagements with the Department of Health, and asked what the progress is with engagements with the Department of Health since the last meeting.

She said the country is moving toward the local government elections 2020/21 at the end of the year, and asked what work CGE will do regarding the upcoming local government elections. She asked what progress is made to fill all the vacant positions in CGE.

Ms M Khawula spoke in another language [1:55:28 of the audio]

Mr L Mphithi (DA) said he agreed with what was said so far by the other members. He referred to the forced sterilisation of women who are HIV positive, and said there has been a lot of concern around this issue, not only within this Committee but amongst ordinary South Africans.

Investigating this particular issue has taken long and has not been able to really get down to the actual issues and problems faced, particularly in the Department of Health. From the presentation, he noted there were 30 complaints received.

He wanted to know where the hotspots and problematic areas are, where this ‘disgusting’ thing is being done to women across the country, who are being sterilised without consent. He asked if the Committee can find out the geographical spread from the Department.

He also asked for feedback regarding communication between CGE and the Department of Health in trying to get down to the bottom of the issue.

Mr Mphithi asked for an update of where those conversations are; and what the next steps to be taken by CGE are. He also asked who the potential stakeholders are, who CGE is looking at working with to ensure this issue is remedied.

He referred to the complaints taken over to the 2020/21 financial year from 2019/2020. He noted it was very concerning to look at such a high number of complaints, as a lot of people come to the CGE with hopes to receive some kind of advice, guidance or support. It becomes incumbent upon CGE to ensure these complaints are not just lying around and not dealt with. For many people in communities or areas where there is not access to legal advice/representation, or where people might not have a proper understanding of what exactly is required, CGE is, for many people, the only door people have for recourse. He asked what actions were taken to ensure CGE brings down the very high number of complaints submitted. He referred to a meeting which took place last year, and said this was one of the questions he raised. It is not right for CGE to be sitting with hundreds of complaints which are not closed, or have not really received the attention/work it needs to receive.

He referred to the role of Commissioners in particular, with mitigating some of the provincial and national complaints. He asked what the Commissioners did to deal with some of the systematic issues which continue to be prevalent, particularly when it comes to not being able to close some of the cases amongst provinces in the country.

He asked what the relationship is between CGE and the Department. It is becoming increasingly concerning to realise the Department is moving in a particular direction, particularly on gender mainstreaming, and a number of other things, and CGE is not on the same page.

He wanted to know what the relationship is currently between the Department and CGE; which gaps still exist; he does not believe at this stage in time CGE built a synergy with the Department, or at least a successful stakeholder type of relationship to be able to look at each other as stakeholders in terms of the work done on the ground.

He said there is an indication in the report, regarding looking at municipalities and the way it mainstreams gender. Two municipalities Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) were looked at. He asked why only two; and why was there not an attempt to have a consolidated picture of municipalities across the country, and exactly what it is doing to look at the particular mainstreaming initiative to ensure uniformity.  He asked if these two municipalities are just a microcosm of the CGE looking at what is actually happening. He asked for an indication on this.

He raised the issue of the quarterly report not being submitted by the Commissioners, and said he would really like to know how the Commissioners are being assessed; how Commissioners performance is being assessed; how to make this role meaningful, particularly for Commissioners who are there, who were appointed to lead and to assist South Africa on these issues; how to ensure the Commissioners are getting the support needed to do the jobs to the best of their ability; what the relationships are between Commissioners and the provincial South African Police Services (SAPS); what the relationship is between the Commissioners and the Department; how these types of relationships can be cultivated; and what kind of support Commissioners need to deal with the gaps in their work. CGE needs to strengthen the arm of the Commissioners, to assist with gaps where it exists.

He referred to Strategic Objective One, where it states one of the targets is rngagements with Parliament, and asked if there is perhaps a gap where CGE is not understanding how it needs to relate to this particular Portfolio Committee.

He particularly referred to reporting on its work or any information necessary to ensure all Members who have constituencies to report back to, are able to do so with the information received from CGE, as the Members are accountable to the constituencies. The fact of this target not being met, the fact of this target not requiring much effort from the Department, needs to be rectified as soon as possible.

Ms N Sharif (DA) referred to a question raised by Mr Mphithi relating to the relationship between CGE and the Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities. She said one of the issues is, sometimes CGE is expected to go above and beyond its scope and budgetary requirements, noting CGE is one of the least funded Chapter Nine institutions in this country. The Portfolio Committee often wants CGE to do more than what it should be doing, when in fact the Department should be taking on more responsibility because it has a bigger budget and a bigger staff capacity. The Department needs to be taking on more of the work. She thanked CGE for its efforts, especially given it is underfunded. 

During Level Five and Four lockdown, there were shelters simply not taking any women in, not even with a negative test. The shelters said it was Corona virus, and did not take women in. This left many survivors of gender based violence and femicide (GBVF) stranded, it left many women with no opportunity to leave the perpetrator, and women found themselves having to stay with abusers. To put it on a report as a fact, full-stop, was unacceptable. It is the responsibility not only of MPs, but CGE, to monitor, report, and investigate, and hold government accountable when it comes to such things. Ms Sharif said she could not accept CGE coming to committee meetings, saying this was what happened, without providing mitigating solutions.

She referred to Slide 25 of the presentation and the reference to unemployment and the lack of income being one of the main causes for GBVF. This seems to mean one of the main causes of GBVF is women not having access to the economy. This sentence needs to be restructured, so there is a better understanding of what exactly CGE means, because it was very open-ended and did not provide enough clarity.

When going through the report, Ms Sharif was very disappointed with the format and how the report was put together. She referred to where CGE speaks about the response to gender mainstreaming, it also speaks about GBVF. This was very confusing and there was no real showing of where the targets are.

She referred to the forced sterilisation, and said Mr Mphithi covered most of her concerns. She asked if the CGE will expand the investigation nationally, and what the status of this is.

She referred to the Emergency Reaction Action Plan (ERAP), and the National Strategic Plan (NSP), and said she was disappointed not enough information was given in the presentation nor adequate reporting.  She wanted to know which departments did not report adequately according to ERAP; if CGE has gone through the report presented to the President; and when CGE will compile the final report and submit it to the Committee. Even though ERAP was replaced by the NSP, it was still the Committee’s responsibility to come up with the report on the status and response by government.

She referred to the NSP, and asked how CGE is monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the NSP; if CGE looked at the government’s overall response to GBVF; and if it has monitored it, and is able to report on it, as far as its mandate as a Chapter Nine institution. She asked this question in reference to the Special Assignment Report on the government’s response and the many issues the government is facing. She also asked what the status is of CGEs monitoring and evaluation on government’s response to this.  

The Chairperson referred to the Sanitary Dignity Project and asked if CGE monitored the provinces according to the money allocated to it.

Mr S Ngcobo (DA) asked if there was any progress working with the Department of Health on forced sterilisation, since the previous meeting; how each Commissioner is assessed; what the consequence management for Commissioners is who do not submit; and if there are Commissioners able to engage with the provincial service structures to deal with complaints regarding GBV. He referred to the vacancies and requested clarity on which positions were currently vacant.

Responses

The Chairperson of the Commission for Gender Equality replied to the Chairperson of the Committee’s question on the appointment of the CEO of CGE. She said, since the previous meeting where CGE reported on the progress unfolding, it finalised the report on the appointment of the CEO. The plenary decided to engage and adopt the report on 14 August 2020. Based on its recommendation, the first candidate was offered the CEO position. A letter was issued to the candidate and she accepted the position, however she wanted to negotiate with CGE regarding the proposed salary. The process was conducted and she declined after extensive salary negotiations took place, as CGE could not meet her requested amount.

CGE gave an offer of employment to the second preferred candidate by the name and she accepted the offer in the form of a letter. She is serving notice where she is currently employed, and will be ready to serve from 1 November 2020 onwards. CGE is currently looking at a robust induction process, hoping by 1 November 2020, it will have a CEO for CGE.

The Portfolio Committee gave CGE two weeks to handle the appointments of the two PAs. CGE looked at its internal policy which deals with differently-abled persons, it identified some gaps in the policy, those gaps related to the reasonable accommodation by Commissioners and staff members. A review took place, the policy was subjected to the Human Rights Commission, who brought it back to the plenary, and the policy now accommodates differently-abled people. This took longer than the two weeks it was given in July. From July to the 14 August, CGE really made progress with reasonable accommodation of differently-abled persons within the policy.

The second phase involved doing an assessment of the individual needs of the two Commissioners. This was done to ensure a blanket approach was not applied regarding PAs. Based on the assessment of the Commissioner’s individual needs, a report was produced with recommendations. This report was submitted to the Office of the Chairperson on 31 August 2020. On the very same day the Chairperson was able to issue a directive, which was issued to the Secretariat, the Acting CEO, to appoint with immediate effect the two PAs to Commissioner Mbuyiselo Botha and Commissioner Nomasonto Mazibuko. On the same day and time, the two Commissioners were called and were formally informed the two appointments of PAs were to be done with immediate effect, from 1 September 2020.

The function of appointing PAs, is the function of the Secretariat, however the Acting CEO was given the responsibility to draft the letters of appointment and share it. The letters stipulated a three-month period, until December. The PAs appointments can be from level four, five, six, seven, and eight. The parties went back and forth to make sure it corrected the length of appointment, from the three-month period to a period equal to the appointment of both Commissioners. Appointment is with immediate effect, September, until the end of the Commissioners term. That was corrected. The second thing corrected is the levels. There were negotiations, and the levels at which the two PAs were pitched at, were corrected.

The Chairperson interrupted CGE Chairperson Mathebula, saying the Chairperson of CGE ensnared the Commissioners. CGE referred the matter on the thirty first, when CGE knew the Commissioners were coming to the Portfolio Committee. CGE must accept where it faltered, it must learn to correct itself and apologise if it misrepresented facts. CGE did not track the resolutions taken by the Portfolio Committee. CGE does things when it knows it is coming to the Portfolio Committee. This is not right. CGE is a government structure. The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson lacked leadership, the resolutions taken at the Portfolio Committee must be implemented. Chairperson of CGE, Ms Mathebula owes the Committee an apology.

Ms Mathebula said the time given to CGE to implement this was very short. When it went back to the institution, it realised there was more to be done than just meets the eye. It was not just a matter of appointing, it was a matter of closing the gaps CGE saw in its policies, instruments, strategies, and plans. This is why it took longer. Based on the assessments, the process was finalised just a day before the Portfolio Committee met, which was why the appointments and announcements were made a day before CGE came to the Portfolio Committee. CGE ran a bit late in comparison to the two weeks expected, it realises the process took longer than anticipated.

The Chairperson said Ms Mathebula misled the Committee. She saw the letters of appointment, it was after CGE was there at the Portfolio Committee. The Chairperson said CGE misled the Committee because that day it said confidently itappointed the PAs. The decision was made a long time before the Committee gave an ultimate time of two weeks. It shows the sequence of events. When decisions are taken in the Portfolio Committee, one does not go back as Commissioners and assess the things which need immediate attention, and the things which need long-term implementation. Ms Mathebula owes the Committee an apology. The Committee does not have a legal opinion. The next letter received by the appointed PAs was around 20 September. All the facts presented before the Portfolio Committee were incorrect.

She referred to the Commissioners who did not declare doing other work outside the Commissioner’s primary job. In the Portfolio Committee CGE presented the report on one Commissioner. When CGE hears the Committee asking things it must know the Committee has information. There are whistle blowers who write in this information and send it to the Office of the Chairperson, so nothing is hidden. The Commissioners are like Members of Parliament; whatever Commissioners do is in the public domain. People write to the Chairperson saying how come Chairperson Mathebula is doing such a job, but she is appointed as a full time Commissioner. Sometimes the Committee wants to cover Ms Mathebula, but she must assist the Committee also, to make sure she is doing the right thing.

Immediately when the Committee raises issues with CGE, it must go back and correct it. The Committee was not fighting Chairperson Ms Mathebula, but wants a good working relationship. The Committee prides itself on the work it does with CGE. The Committee no longer has confidence in CGE, as it did in the past. The way CGE is allocated a budget is not adequate enough, but from the trends and looking at how things are done in the CGE, it is no longer convinced. CGE must do the right thing. There is nothing wrong with admitting something was not done or not checked before presenting.

The facts presented to the Portfolio Committee were not correct. The facts presented in the Portfolio Committee meeting were not correct. The Portfolio Committee does not want to dwell on things done administratively. It wants to deal with strategic things, policy matters, how departments are monitored, and advocating issues on behalf of women. It is not afraid to motivate for more money, given this time of gender-based violence and femicide, for CGE to be able to do other activities in other projects. Representing women, poor women in courts, Commissioners and even CGEs legal advisor was there. This is appreciated by all of the Committee Members.

Ms Mathebula thanked the Chairperson. She said CGE is doing its best to do monitoring and oversight work. The Chairperson is correct in saying these are small administrative issues which sometimes stand in the way. In future CGE will improve how it does things. It is a learning curve for everyone and it will be avoided in future. She hopes this will not happen again, CGE has a strong policy which can stand the test of time. If faced with another issue like this one in the future appointment of Commissioners or staff members, it will make sure it addresses issues as speedily as possible.

The Chairperson asked the CGE Chairperson to reply to the reason given by the Acting CEO who could not come to the Committee to present. The reason given was because the target was not met. This reason was not acceptable. If there is an issue, CGE has the contacts of the Portfolio Committee Members.

There is nothing stopping Ms Mathebula from calling the Chairperson directly, because this was done in the past. The Chairperson said she never stopped Ms Mathebula from using these channels. CGE does not have to wait for the Portfolio Committee to invite CGE to present to Parliament. CGE has a responsibility. The Portfolio Committee cannot be a scapegoat for CGE not achieving its targets. She asked Ms Mathebula, or the Deputy Chairperson to reply to this, as it is not acceptable to the Committee.

The Portfolio Committee cannot be the ones correcting CGE’s reports when CGE sends reports to Parliament. She assumes CGE read the reports, specifically the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson have read the reports. The Committee cannot have a report containing errors which the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson have not seen, because this is an issue of leadership. These things are not acceptable.

Ms Mathebula said she hears loud and clear what the Chairperson said. The Acting CEO did not fully explain what was expected under Strategic Objective One. CGE usually gives its targets, or CGE targets, to submit on different bills. Sometimes, out of the four quarters, it will submit on the first quarter or make a submission on particular bills. What is missing here, is it did not clearly clarify the submissions were for other portfolio committees, and not this one. The Chairperson was quite correct in saying she is accessible, CGE can pick up the phone and say there is something it needs to discuss, or call a portfolio committee meeting.

This is something CGE needs to do. It is about submission of bills either to the Portfolio Committee responsible for Justice and Constitutional Development, or a Portfolio Committee on Health, it is based on various portfolio committees. The Acting CEO and CFO can correct her if she is wrong. CGE is lagging behind in making submissions, lagging behind in terms of quarter one, but it will make sure by the end of this financial year, it is able to augment the bills supposed to be submitted. It made only one submission on a bill, which is the Public Procurement Bill, to a particular portfolio committee. It will come back and indicate to the Committee, what it has done regarding augmenting what was meant for quarter one. It should have a strategy which speaks to how it is going to cover up on the work which was not done as a result of COVID-19.

Regarding the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, the Acting CEO said CGE appointed a service provider to help it to draft the plan. The tracking tool was drafted, and the Deputy Chairperson assisted CGE in drafting it. The tool is being utilised to ensure its findings and recommendations are implemented, and for monitoring of implementation of it.

Regarding pending cases, when CGE monitors cases, such as the one in Springs, it is also dependent on the Court and its processes to see how long takes to finalise. This is a matter CGE discussed in the last plenary, and it is coming up with a plan on how to deal with pending cases, and how provinces will be able to liaise with provincial commissioners relating to these cases. This is a working-plan the Department is currently drafting. It will then submit this to the legal committee for approval.

In relation to vacancies in the Commission, currently there are ten vacancies. Appointments include two legal officers, an information technology specialist, provincial administrator in the North West, office assistant in the Northern Cape, the PA to the CEO Provincial Manager in the Northern Cape, communications administrator, and the Provincial Manager for the North West province.

CGE also recently had a resignation from the Provincial Manager in the Free State. This position was added, but is not part of Quarter One. It is part of Quarter Two.

The Chairperson asked if the CGE is going to extend its advertisement, as the closing date for a position one of the Members circulated, may be the week before. She said she was thinking, when the Chairperson discussed the new CEO, the Acting CEO will take on board the vacancies it has, even vacancies of senior managers within the organisation. Some of the contracts will expire around October. Logically, the new CEO must also be brought on board, so the CEO does not come in and find she cannot be accountable to what was happening. It is a point of concern.

The Acting CEO said there was a resolution CGE is following through on, according to which appointment positions will not be taken on until the new CEO commences her duties. This is specifically because the provincial managers, where there are vacancies, will report directly to the new CEO. Those appointments will not be finalised. There is no senior management position that has been advertised or is vacant currently. The provincial managers do report directly to the Office of the CEO and the process is being held in abeyance until the CEO commences her duties.

The Chairperson said the position referred to in one of the reports, is one of the positions relating to senior managers expiring around October/November, if she was not mistaken. She said she will double check the information.

The Acting CEO addressed a question raised by Ms Masiko regarding the outstanding targets for the previous financial year. The three targets not achieved related to Strategic Objective Four, and all three of those targets were carried forward into the new Annual Performance Plan (APP), so it is not lagging behind. CGE is still giving attention to it. It relates to knowledge management, the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, and the Commissioner’s Handbook. All other targets were met, Strategic Objective One, Two, and Three were met in full. It carried over the ones which were not met, relating to Strategic Objective Four, to ensure those targets will be met.

Legal clinics had some trouble with Government Communication and Information System (GCIS), regarding procuring some of the slots. Provinces of its own accord got its own slots from radio stations. The provinces which lagged behind, struggled with the community radio stations in giving it an opportunity. Once CGE come to reports on Quarter Two, there will be an improvement relating to it, as there was quite an effort to foster relations with the community radio stations to ensure it gets the slots.

Addressing a question raised by Ms Masiko, relating to the projects on male circumcision, and where it will be held, she said it will be held in the Free State, Eastern Cape, Limpopo, and Gauteng.

The CGE has drafted an Annual Plan which will be updated annually, and speaks directly to the five-year strategy.

Regarding the forced sterilisation, the hotspots were KZN, Gauteng, and the Eastern Cape. The Department did not respond to it on time. It did eventually respond, however its response was not comprehensive enough, so it engaged with the Department and asked for an extension to ensure it submits comprehensive information to CGE. There is continuous engagement with the Department to ensure it continues with this process.

Replying to the question on why CGE is only working with two municipalities per province, she said the previous financial year, each province worked with three municipalities on the same process; this process is being carried forward to this year. Although it is not a target in the APP, it is part of implementation and monitoring to ensure CGEs recommendations are implemented. Those three municipalities per province are carried over to this year. This year it is looking at two additional municipalities per province.

Regarding the assessment of Commissioners, the Commissioner’s handbook makes provision for the oversight committees to undergo a process where effectiveness is monitored. The Chairperson of CGE would be the best person to respond to this question. The appointment is not necessarily from Secretariat’s side, it is from the Presidency and Parliament.

The Acting CEO replied to Ms Sharif’s question relating to the shelters. She said it was true, it did find shelters where many women were left stranded during the lockdown period. CGE was actively involved in placing women in distress into shelters, especially during the hard lockdown as it is an essential service. In provinces it tried hard to assist women to enter shelters, where it was necessary and where women were refused entry. This links with the systemic investigation into shelters. Two financial years ago it did a full investigation on shelters, the state of shelters and the protocols it follows. Last year it had a hearing and a report on the implementation of those recommendations. This year the process is still continuing to ensure shelters implement the recommendations put forward. The process is continuing.

Regarding the question raised by Ms Sharif on the sentence on page five; she apologised for this. One of the issues which came out of these engagements was women are often dependent on men as the breadwinner, as the women are unemployed. The women do not have the capacity to leave, financially. This is one of the issues raised. The unemployment rate and the layoff of workers during lockdown also relates to this. From the complaints, the Acting CEO saw, where men are retrenched, it raises stress levels in the home and it plays out on the woman. The woman is then also affected by this. She suggested CGE provides a full brief to the Committee in writing in terms of this.

The Acting CEO said there were two departments which did not respond properly to the CGE. One of it was SAPS, the other one was the Department of Health. CGE wrote to these departments and said it will invoke processes against the departments.

The report is almost finalised. The current status of this is CGE is now in the second draft of the report. This is what happened in Quarter One, regarding the monitoring of the NSP. This forms part of the APP. CGE will also monitor the implementation of the NSP which forms part of it.

Ms Khawula interjected in another language [3:09:47 in the audio]

The Chairperson addressed the Acting CEO, asking if she responded to Ms Khawula’s questions, specifically relating to Special Assignment and if CGE did something in relation to it or not. 

The Acting CEO said she could not understand Ms Khawula, as she is not familiar with the language. She said she would appreciate it if either of the Commissioners could respond or if she could understand what the questions were.

Commissioner Botha replied [3:11:12 in the audio]….Sometimes, there are clearly defined areas where CGE can only engage with different stakeholders but to take stakeholders head on, becomes difficult…The majority of the issues were relating specifically to service delivery, toilets, and ablution facilities not up to standard.

He said he can safely say what CGE’s response would be when it, for example calls the Ministry of Basic Education. It would then direct it to issues of sexual harassment in the schools which it thinks fall directly within CGEs mandate, as the Commission. It will also touch on how the conditions are not conducive to learning and teaching, for example, in KZN, there was an incident where a young student, a girl, was sent back because she did not have a face mask. In the process she was raped, sexually assaulted, and abused, and that is when CGE would then call the Department of Education and ask it to account before CGE.

There were also questions relating directly to what it does in the different provinces. The majority of the Commissioners established relationships with stakeholders and with government officials. One of its key roles is to make sure it opens doors for the Secretariat, of the province it works in. For example, if a Commissioner works in Limpopo, the Commissioner would make sure, like other Commissioners, the Premier is available to meet with the Commissioner, the Director- General is available to meet with the Commissioner and different MECs too.

When Commissioners do oversight, a Commission must be part of the oversight, so it can raise issues of concern. For example, if in Limpopo, there is a problem with GBV, Commissioners would then come together with the office of Limpopo, approach the DG and the relevant MEC, and Social Development MEC in the province, to act on it. The point being made was, it is one of the core functions in the different provinces. Commissioners hold the duty bearers accountable in each province and do it in various ways. As a Commission, there are instances where it wants to litigate, but are loath to run to the courts, as it believes in persuasion and engaging the different stakeholders, Premiers, and MECs. Litigation becomes a last resort for one major reason, concern about financial situation.

He addressed a question raised by Mr Ngcobo, relating to stakeholders, police, and the boy child. CGE do have major problems with SAPS. He referred to his province of Limpopo, where the rate of response is lacking. Those are some of the challenges raised by the members of this committee. The time it takes to respond, engagement, there are instances where, for example it is doing a study on illegal initiation schools in the different provinces which are hot beds, for example the Eastern Cape and Limpopo. When the Commissioner speaks to the Provincial Police Commissioner, and says CGC is doing this research study where it wants to find out what its approach is, how it deals with illegal initiation schools, and so on.  The Commission is always sent back to the national office. It is told by the national office it does not encourage people to do research, it does not encourage people to be on the ground with a different police station. It has deep seated problems with the various government departments.

Commissioner Botha said previously, he reported doing training in all the nine provinces, which will be from the Commissioners’ side, to run this training, to make sure each and every province within the City offices has a program specifically focused on working with the boy child. Next year as it does its APPs, it is also of the view it wants the program to become its own.

Ms Khawula spoke in another language [3:19:56 in the audio]

The Chairperson asked Commissioner Busiswe Deyi if she was deployed in the Eastern Cape.

Commissioner Deyi said she was, and she had some knowledge of the cases Ms Khawula mentioned. Her knowledge was based on her past work as an activist and working with the Legal Resources Centre in the region.

She said it is important for Ms Khawula to understand when it engages with the various departments, CGE has a right to require and ask where in the mandate the other party’s authority comes from. If CGE cannot justify the engagement, it often puts it into a situation where it acts outside of the constitutional mandate. She took note of Ms Khawula’s concerns about theoretical or legalistic argument, and CGE does need to engage with people on the ground. It has been in the works in relation to planning. Even the hearings are in line with understanding what was done in relation to departments making sure to adhere to court rulings and court judgements. Recently she (the Commissioner) was in conversation with the Office of the Chairperson who is working on getting a hearing on judgements, to find out how departments implement the judgements from courts.

Ms Khawula interjected in another language [3:23:46 in the audio]

Commissioner Deyi said she understands Ms Khawula’s frustrations. Her response was provided in another language [3:26:05 in the audio]  

The conditions Ms Khawula spoke about, Commissioner Deyi said she experienced. There are judgements against the Department of Education which were made with regards to these very conditions. This is not a new issue. The issue is not something CGE can intervene in if it is outside of the mandate. It has to act within the prescripts of the Constitution.

There are issues which need to be addressed with regards to the human rights violations, particularly access to education. The human rights are something best addressed by the South African Human Rights Commission, because it is within its mandate broadly.

Commissioner Deyi said she is one of the Commissioners who did not submit a report for the first quarter of the year. The Chairperson of CGE wanted to handle the matter confidentially, with respect to her need for confidentiality. She briefly wanted to inform Parliament her mother was diagnosed with cancer in December of last year. She struggled with treatment. In March of 2020 she went to Port Elizabeth to be with her mother, subsequently she was infected with COVID-19, as well as her whole family. She spent a significant amount of time taking care of her family. In May 2020, her father passed away and two weeks later her mother followed. These are the issues which were on her table on a personal level and she is dealing with those.

The Chairperson said she wanted to stop the Commissioner, as she is aware there are other Commissioners who were hospitalised. She wants these cases to be dealt with differently. At least the Chairperson will write a report, not to get into details, as the intention is not to embarrass the Commissioners. All that the Committee wants to hear from Commissioners is the work done in Quarter One.

Personal issues do not need to be exposed to the public like this. She understands how the Commissioner feels now, this is why she wanted to deal with the issues Ms Khawula raised, because she watches Special Assignment, and there are issues seen there several times. With engagements with some of CGEs Commissioners, the Committee tries to make interventions in a different way.

It was suggested to deploy Commissioners to deal with certain matters, and then others will be referred to the Human Rights Commission. The issues Ms Khawula raised, was suggested to be raised with the Human Rights Commission.  Members can say those issues were given attention by institutions of participatory democracy. It was suggested the Chairperson find a way to engage with the relevant departments on some of the issues seen in the media.

Some of the questions were not responded to, and those answers must be sent in writing. If the Chairperson thinks some of the issues should be explained in a presentation, the Chairperson should make contact and the Portfolio Committee will see how to schedule this into its program

The Chairperson asked if CGE made a submission to the Portfolio Committee on Justice, in relation to the three Bills on gender-based violence.

Commissioner Nomasonto Mazibuko said it is not right to have a Portfolio Committee and some of the Members go back not satisfied. The rest of her comments were made in another language [3:33:14 in the audio]

The Chairperson said she agreed with Ms Khawula’s concern. What she saw is CGE is limited…. The rest of her comments were made in another language [3:35:37 in the audio]

The Chairperson said she appreciates the work done by Commissioner Botha in Limpopo, but she said Commissioner Botha was failed by the complainants, because he was asking for a meeting and it is being delayed.

Ms Mathebula said she is covered by what Commissioner Mazibuko said. The rest of her comments were made in another language [3:37:36 in the audio]…The Office of the Chairperson, or individual Commissioners in all those provinces, must let the Committee know, and can feel free to contact the Chairperson. The Chairperson and Members are free to communicate with CGE outside of the formal meetings to pick up issues and run with it immediately.

A response will be communicated in writing regarding the issue of Commissioners not submitting. Regarding the relationship with the Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities, it engaged and wrote a letter last year wanting a meeting. It asked for a meeting, and is glad to note there is an appointment with the DG, having communicated with the DG on the need, urgent need, for a meeting on what CGE can do. CGE will reply on all questions not answered in writing.

The Chairperson said she got cut-off as a result of a network problem, and suggested questions not addressed in the meeting should be addressed in writing. Where it is felt the CGE should make an oral representation, the CGE will be invited to a meeting.  

There are no questions about the financials. The Chairperson will communicate with the Deputy Chairperson about the discussions which took place in the meeting, as it seemed the Deputy Chairperson could not enter the meeting again.  She asked the CGE to update the Committee on the monitoring and evaluation plan, and the strategy plan. A progress report was suggested regarding sterilistion.

The meeting was 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: