06 Mar 2019 Legacy Report of Ad Hoc Committee to Inquire into North West Section 100 Intervention
09 Sep 2020 North West Section 139 interventions; Bojanala District misappropriation SCCoop
25 Nov 2020 S139 interventions in North West: COGTA MEC briefing PCCoop
The Ad Hoc Committee elected Mr Thamsanqa Dodovu as Chairperson. Committee members asked if a legacy report from the same Committee in the Fifth Parliament was available or other documentation from presentations to other Committees. It was suggested that the Committee ensure it has the necessary support staff with the requisite legal and research expertise about cooperative governance. A decision also needed to be made about a visit to North West during lockdown. The comment was made that if the right people were deployed as public representatives and in the executive of provinces and as the officials then half of the problems could be solved.
Election of Chairperson
The Committee Secretary, Mr Nkululeko Mangweni, said that the purpose of the meeting was to elect a Chairperson for the Committee. The Rules require that a Committee must elect one of its members as the Chairperson of the Committee. He opened the floor for nominations for the position of Chairperson.
Mr Y Carrim (ANC, KwaZulu-Natal) nominated Mr Dodovu to be Committee Chairperson. Mr Dodovu was a person ideally suited to chair this Committee as it dealt with cooperative governance and because of his considerable experience in the North West province and the NCOP. He was delighted to nominate Mr Dodovu to be Committee Chairperson.
Mr K Mmoiemang (ANC, Northern Cape) seconded the nomination of Mr Dodovu.
Mr T Dodovu (ANC, North West) accepted the nomination.
There were no other nominations and Mr Dodovu was elected as the Committee Chairperson.
The Chairperson thanked the Committee Secretary for facilitating the election. He expressed his appreciation for the honour and privilege of being the chairperson of this important Ad Hoc Committee on the Section 100 Intervention in the North West. An important task of the NCOP in terms of section 100(2)(b) which states that on a regular basis the NCOP will review the work of the intervention once the Executive has invoked section 100(1)(b) of the Constitution for an intervention in a province. The NCOP has given the Committee this mammoth task to ensure that within a very short space of time it is accomplished.
The Committee needs to do whatever it can to understand the situation properly and find out the progress in the North West intervention. What are the lessons to be learned from that process? What were the successes and the stumbling blocks in completing this work?
He once again expressed his appreciation for the opportunity given to him to chair the Ad Hoc Committee. He would do everything in his power to ensure that he competently and professionally coordinated the work of this Committee. At the end of the process he wanted the Committee to present a very clear report to the House with clear recommendations. The Committee would interact with the relevant stakeholders such as those who were responsible in line with the report presented to the House by the Minister as well as the North West provincial government. He would try his best to be impartial, fair and independent in the work that was going to be done. He was happy that all the political parties expressed that he was facilitating this kind of work. He was going to look at the terms of reference which indicated what was expected of the Committee and then develop a plan to accomplish the task set for the Committee.
The Committee mandate stated that they were to report before the House by 26 or 27 Match. That meant that the Committee needed to hit the ground running and systems and structures needed to be put in place. The Committee needed to finalise its programme and decide when it was going to visit the province. The Committee needed to develop a strategy for accomplishing all of this.
The Chairperson would lead from the front in coordinating this work. He invited Members to make submissions and necessary inputs to ensure that within this very short space of time the work was done diligently, competently and professionally. Then a report would be forwarded to the House. He opened the floor for Members to have a brief discussion on what the starting point of the Committee should be.
Mr S Du Toit (FF+, North West) said he hoped the Committee would get positive results in its interaction with the province. He said that no legacy report from the Fifth Parliament had been tabled to this Committee. He asked the Committee Secretary if there was other documentation submitted to the House when the Minister presented previously? If yes, then the Committee could be supplied with that to prepare for the mammoth task ahead.
Mr S Zandamela (EFF, Mpumalanga) said that he was partly covered by Mr Du Toit. Could the Committee be provided with detailed information on the progress that has been made? Some Members were new to this Committee so he asked for documentation dealing with the North West intervention be provided.
Mr Mmoiemang said that the Committee would rally its support behind the Chairperson to ensure that this matter was brought to a finality. He referred to the presentation made last year by Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma and the Administrator. He noted the reflection made by the Premier on the work of the Administrator. There were a number of issues that were raised. It was important for the Committee and its research team to consider those presentations. The research team would need to flag the key issues raised in those presentations and make a reflection on the progress made to ensure that Members are ready to report back to the House in March.
Mr Carrim said that there was a Committee in the Fifth Parliament. Did that Committee make a report because this Committee did not want to reinvent the wheel? This Committee wanted to pick up from where that Committee left off on its oversight of the Section 100 intervention. What did that Committee do? Did it do a formal or informal report?
Mr Carrim thought that the Committee needed a content advisor and a researcher. In the past in the NCOP, and especially over the Sixth term, there was a lack of clarity on what was being dealt with. There were new members in this Committee so perhaps it would be useful for somebody to explain to the new members what a section 100 intervention was and the role of the NCOP. That might be a useful introduction if somebody from the Legal Services unit of Parliament might explain. Until now, the problems in the province mainly around Finance, Human Settlements or Public Works are ultimately about governance. The province has cooperative governance challenges. There is a failure whenever there is a provincial intervention required of the National Government and Parliament to play a role. When there are negotiations about who should assist then perhaps the assistance of the Cooperative Governance Select Committee staff should be sought as its researcher and content advisor know more about cooperative governance – rather than taking people from different committees.
He did not know everyone on the Committee and their pasts but with a Member like Mr Mmoiemang around, who has been a SALGA Vice-President, there was a lot of experience present. He would like to see more Cooperative Governance Select Committee members here. Finances and other things could be sorted out. If the right people were deployed as public representatives and in the executive of provinces and as the officials then half of the problems could be solved.
The Chairperson thanked Members for their contributions. This was the Committee’s first meeting and the Chairperson had just been elected. The contributions were good as these considered what the Committee needed to do. As a starting point the Chairperson would have a discussion with the originators of this process to check what documents are available and if the previous reports were in place. He would also check if this Committee has got the necessary capacity with people with the requisite skills and expertise. This included legal and research expertise. Once that was satisfied, he would report back to the Committee.
There would have to be another short meeting where the necessary information and documents would be presented to Members to allow them to have some discussions. In that meeting a draft framework would also be presented on what the Committee needed to do, what stakeholders needed to be engaged with and based on the documentation available, Members would make good contributions about what needed to be added or omitted. The Committee also needed to discuss if it was going to visit the North West and when it would do that in line with the lockdown regulations – what was the best method to accomplish this task in the context of lockdown? This was the better way to unfold this particular process. The Chairperson would take into consideration all the points Members have raised. The Committee would need to convene another meeting with all the necessary information.
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.