Critical Infrastructure Council Vacancies: Shortlisting of candidates for interviews

Meeting report

The Chairperson greeted Members of the Committee. The apologies were read into the record. The Minister of Police and Deputy Minister of Police also sent an apology. The purpose of today’s meeting was to deal with the shortlisting of the Critical Infrastructure Council (CIC) applications. The Critical Infrastructure Council was nominated in terms of the Critical Infrastructure Council Protection Act. It was ascended to and promulgated by the President on 28 November 2019. The Act replaced the old National Key Points Act, 102 of 1980. The Speaker had referred the appointment of private sector and civil society members of the CIC to the Portfolio Committee on Police for consideration and report back on 4 November 2020. The CIC was made up of officials from government, at the level of chief director, and experts from the private sector and civil society. The Portfolio Committee on Police was requested to nominate ten candidates through an appointment process to then be forwarded to the Minister. The Minister would then appoint five members to the Council. The Committee was expected today to shortlist 20 members. The 20 members would be presented for interviews with the Committee. After the interviews the Committee would select ten candidates which would be presented to the Minister. The Chairperson asked the Content Advisor to make a short presentation on the applications.

Briefing to the Portfolio Committee on Police on the Critical Infrastructure Council applications

Dr Irvin Kinnes, Committee Content Advisor, briefed the Committee on the Critical Infrastructure Council applications. He said that after the Committee shortlisted the 20 candidates in today’s meeting, those candidates would be sent to the parliamentary security to go through a vetting process.

The presentation detailed key points about the advertisement that was sent out. A breakdown of the applications was given. A summary of the profiles of the candidates was also presented. This detailed the candidates’ race, gender and qualifications. All of the CVs and summary of the experience of each candidate had been sent to the Members.

Key points about the advert

Knowledgeable and experience in fields that include:

• critical infrastructure protection
• engineering
• risk management
• disaster management
• basic public services
• Security policy
• Cybersecurity
• Shortlisted candidates will be subjected to positive security clearance by the South African Police Services and State Security Agency, citizenship and qualification check.

Applications

The Committee received 42 applications. Two applicants did not meet the deadline for applications. One applicant passed away during the period since applying and shortlisting. 37 applicants met the minimum requirements. 20 applicants were recommended for shortlisting.

Profiles of the candidates

Race and gender:

• 30 African males
• 6 African females
• 3 Coloured males
• 3 White males

Qualifications:

• 5 candidates with PhDs
• 7 candidates with Master’s degrees

Discussion

The Chairperson said that today the Committee would look at the people who qualified. It was senseless shortlisting people who did not qualify. The functions of the Council were subject to subsection two of the Act. The Committee had to consider any application for declaration of infrastructure as critical infrastructure, referred to in chapter three, and make recommendations on such applications to the Minister. The Council would be responsible for implementation of the prescribed system, policies, protocols and standards regarding any matter necessary to achieve the purpose of the Act, which was the promotion of public-private sector cooperation in the protection of critical infrastructure. The Council had to perform any other functions which may be assigned to it by the Minister. An official at the level of chief director, or equivalent, would still be included from the Department of Defence, Home Affairs, Public Works, Disaster Management, Local Government, SALGA, SAPS and State Security. The qualifications of the candidates had been put to the Committee. The scheduling and advertisements had been done. All Members had received a package of documents by 12 March. Interview packs were emailed to Members. The hardcopies were couriered to Members. The Chairperson had double checked to see if the hardcopies were couriered to Members’ physical addresses. No member indicated that they did not receive the hardcopies. The Committee needed to shortlist 20 candidates and then do the interviews.

The Chairperson proposed that the Committee take the names of those who applied who do qualify to be shortlisted. Today’s meeting was for Members to look at those candidates who had qualified even if that meant that the Committee had to come back for another session to do the finalisation of the shortlisting. She opened the floor for Members to make recommendations. The criteria had been set out. The Committee needed to consider gender representation, the different national groups, youth and if necessary the Committee would also look at the demographics. The candidates needed to qualify and meet the criteria. The Committee then needed to look at gender, national groups, youth and demographics. Members needed to motivate the names of any candidates they wanted to nominate.

Mr K Maphatsoe (ANC) said that he had a proposal for the Committee. He said that having received the presentation from Dr Kinnes, he understood that the Committee only had 24 people who met the requirements. He was not sure if Dr Kinnes had the names available or not. He proposed that the Committee only look at those 24 names that had been presented that met the requirements. The Committee had been given an opportunity to look at the candidates. Members had gone through the hardcopies and had their own preferences. He asked if it was possible, if the members agreed, for Dr Kinnes to present those 24 names for the Committee to go through and have the Committee compare it to their preferred candidates? He said that maybe the Committee could then finish the meeting early instead of going through a list of people who did not qualify. That was his proposal.

Ms P Faku (ANC) supported Mr Maphatsoe’s proposal. She said that the Committee needed to select ten candidates. Was it possible for the Committee to shortlist 20 and not the whole 24? Or was it a prerequisite that the Committee had to shortlist all of the 24 names?

The Chairperson said that the Committee was supposed to shortlist 20 applicants. The Chairperson agreed with Mr Maphatsoe’s proposal that the Committee should take the names of the 24. The Committee could not go beyond the 24 because those people would fall outside the ambit of the specifications. The Chairperson seconded Mr Maphatsoe’s proposal that the Committee look at the names of the 24 that qualify. The Committee would then take its inputs from there. The Committee would then see, of the 24, who it approved of. Members had their preferences but those preferences needed to qualify. She said that was the position and that the Committee should consider the 24 names. She asked if there was any opposition to the proposal.

Dr Kinnes said that the Committee needed to consider all 37 candidates who qualified. He clarified that there were 37 who qualified and not 24. The Committee needed to consider the lot of the applications. Through the process that the Committee was doing it needed to consider the 37 applicants and not 24. Thereafter, the Committee needed to shortlist 20 people today.

Mr O Terblanche (DA) thanked the Committee Secretariat from providing all of the documents to the Members. He received his documents early in the process and he was grateful for that. The Committee was already saying that some people did not qualify. He said that this Committee would have to satisfy itself that certain applicants did not qualify. He was not suggesting that the Committee should go through all of the applicants. He did think that the Committee needed to get some explanation as to how the people who came to this decision arrived at that decision. How did the Committee arrive at the decision that a certain person did not qualify? If the Members were satisfied with the explanation then they could work with the rest of the applicants. This was the first point that he wanted to discuss.

The Chairperson asked Dr Kinnes to provide the Committee with the 37 names who did qualify with the reasons why they did qualify? She asked him to provide the guidelines he used to get to the list of applicants who qualified.

Dr Kinnes said that the individuals who would qualify must have experience in the fields in terms of what the Act said. Those fields were in engineering, cybersecurity, policy, security and in critical infrastructure. He said that the parliamentary staff could not tell the Committee that it could not consider anybody. He said that Mr Terblanche was correct that the Committee had that power and authority. He clarified that when he said certain applicants have not qualified it was because certain individuals only had a matric certificate and that there were individuals who were not in the appropriate field. He proceeded to show all the applicants and their respective qualifications. He showed an individual who only had a matric certificate and no experience. He went down the list of applicants and said there were many applicants with experience. He said that there was a certified boilermaker who had a matric certificate. The Committee had to consider all the applicants and decide to keep certain applicants or not. He highlighted how certain applicants only had a matric certificate. There was an individual who had a Basic Education and Training Level Four who applied. The Committee should be looking for individuals with experience in the necessary fields that were outlined earlier. There were about four individuals who had senior certificates. There was also an individual who only had a qualification in Public Relations. The staff could not decide who was disqualified. It was the Committee that had to decide. He went through the list of applicants and named all of the applicants who only had a matric qualification. He urged the Members to also look at the CVs that had been provided in the event that the staff had made a mistake.

Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) asked, by looking at the qualifications first and not their names, that those individuals who only had a grade 12 and not the necessary qualifications be removed from the list. Those left would have the specific qualifications and then the Committee could start looking at specific names. This should be done so that there were no accusations that certain applicants, who did not qualify, were favoured because they had connections with prominent individuals. He asked the Chairperson to consider removing those applicants from the list who obviously did not have the necessary qualifications.

Ms Z Madjozi (IFP) said that the Committee was comparing names and busy with the shortlisting process. She had a problem. The Members received the documents a long time ago. She had gone through all of the documents and had looked through the CVs. She thought that the Members would state the individuals that they had shortlisted. The Members would then compare the names of the individuals on their respective lists. The Members would then see if there was any similarity between the names on the lists. Those who were not on any lists could then be put aside. The Committee would then be able to get to the 20 names that it needed. She had not been able to select 20 names to shortlist but she did have a list of people who qualified to be shortlisted. She thought that the Committee would go according to that process so that it saved time. The Members had these documents for a long time and knew everything that was in the documents. She thought that the Members would call out the names and see if those names appeared on the lists of other Members. It would make the process easier. The Committee could then list the preferred names numerically up until 20.

The Chairperson said that there were two proposals on the table. The first proposal was for the Committee to eliminate those individuals who only had a matric qualification. The second proposal was that the Committee look at the nominees that the Members already had.

Mr Terblanche supported the proposal made by Rev Meshoe. That was a very responsible way of going through the process. He supported that proposal.

The Chairperson asked Dr Kinnes to provide the Committee with the list of applicants minus those who only had matric certificates so that the Committee could eliminate those who did not qualify. The first level was that the Committee eliminated those applicants who only had matric certificates.

Mr H Shembeni (EFF) agreed with Ms Madjozi that the Members had their own lists of nominees. If the Members could compare their lists then it would make the process very fast. He also agreed with Rev Meshoe but thought this might be longer. It was not only those applicants with just a matric qualification that needed to be eliminated. He saw some with a matric qualification and senior certificate. Other applicants did not qualify with the qualifications that they had. He thought that the Committee needed to follow the proposal of Ms Madjozi first. The Members needed to compare all of their lists of nominees. If there was a name that appeared on every list then that person would be ranked number one and so forth. The Committee could do that until number 12 and then would look at the remaining candidates. The Committee also needed to take into account the issues of gender and race which was important.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had two proposals. She did not think that the two proposals were mutually exclusive. It was important that the Committee eliminated those that did not qualify. She asked the staff to eliminate those who did not qualify and then she would take proposals. The Committee would then know who qualified and those who did not qualify. The first level of criteria would be qualifications. The Committee would then have the criteria of gender, national groups, youth and if possible the Committee would also look at demographics which meant the different provinces that the individuals came from. She asked the Members if they could agree on that. She opened the floor for discussions.  

Ms Madjozi said that the Committee could go with the route of eliminating those who only had a matric qualification first. Then the Committee could move into the second part of looking at gender, race and other factors like representation of young people. She said that the Committee could eliminate those who only had a matric qualification. The Members could then compare the list of nominees that they had and see if there were any similarities of names within the lists.

The Chairperson said that the Committee agreed that the two proposals were not mutually exclusive. The Committee would not only eliminate those who only had a matric qualification but also eliminate those who did not have the prerequisite qualifications. She asked if the Committee was in agreement.

The Committee voiced their agreement.

Mr Shembeni asked Dr Kinnes to display the list of applicants, from the top, so that the Committee could see those who were being eliminated.

The Chairperson said that was exactly what the Committee would have to start doing. She wanted to first get consensus in the meeting that the Members agreed on the process.

Mr Terblanche said that he agreed already that the Committee eliminate those individuals who obviously do not qualify. He said that he had not necessarily compiled his list of preferred candidates because he thought that that was the role of the Committee. He had just made a list of all the people that he thought the Committee should consider. He did not take all of the other stuff into account. He emphasised that he did not have a preferred list at the moment. He maintained that that was the responsibility of the Committee.

Mr Maphatsoe said that he agreed with the speakers and with the Chairperson’s summary. The two proposals were not mutually exclusive. He said that the Committee should follow the process that Mr Shembeni had proposed. He said it would accommodate the concerns of Mr Terblanche because this process would be done openly in the meeting and all of the Members would have consensus.

The Chairperson asked Dr Kinnes to put all of the names on the screen. As the Committee went along it would take out those who did not have the prerequisite qualifications.  

Dr Kinnes said that the staff had done that. He had taken out the names of those who only had a matric qualification. He displayed the names of those who remained on the list and qualified. There were seven individuals who only had a matric qualification and did not qualify. There was also an individual who died during the application process so his name was also removed.

The Chairperson asked how many names the Committee was now left with.

Dr Kinnes asked for the other staff for assistance. The Committee was left with 34 names.  

The Chairperson said that the Committee was now left with 34 names. She asked the Members if the Committee could now move on to the next phase?

Dr Kinnes said that he was able to reorganise the list of names.

Rev Meshoe asked for the list of the qualifications to be displayed again to see if there were any other qualifications that were not in line with what was needed.

The Chairperson said that that was exactly what the Committee was doing. The first criteria were qualifications. The Committee had reduced the number to 34 and if the Committee looked again at qualifications then the number could be reduced even further. Dr Kinnes had taken out the first round of qualifications. The next round of reductions will be on the basis of further qualifications. There was nothing that anyone could argue against because the response would be that those individuals did not make the grade because of their qualifications. The Committee was removing those people with qualifications which would obviously not make the grade. Dr Kinnes was rearranging the list. The Chairperson asked Dr Kinnes to reduce the list publicly so that the members of the public did not question the process. The Committee agreed with the Chairperson. The Chairperson said that Dr Kinnes should also take out those applicants who did not have the prerequisite qualifications.

Dr Kinnes said that the Act did not provide a guideline on qualifications but it did speak about experience. The experience relevant would be experience in specific fields. The Committee needed to consider people who had the necessary experience. While there may be an individual with a low qualification, they might have experience. He said that there were 34 who had qualified.

The Chairperson said that the Committee took out those who were completely not aligned to the positions that the Committee had to look at. She said that there might be a matriculant who had experience but that people were still not suitably qualified.

Mr Terblanche said that the Committee was on the right track. He said that obviously the professor who died had to be removed. He said that even if a person had a doctorate degree but it was in medicine or education then it was not a relevant qualification. If it was not a relevant qualification then the Committee should consider, if the other Members agreed, to remove those individuals as well. That was his proposal.

The Chairperson said that once the staff removed those without the necessary qualifications then the list would be displayed for the Committee again. The Committee would then eliminate people according to the prescribed job description. If the applicants did not meet the job description the Committee would eliminate them. Obviously the Committee could not shortlist a teacher or a nurse. The Chairperson had no problem with teachers or nurses but the Committee had to look at whether the individuals matched the criteria that it had. Dr Kinnes was to finish off the first round of elimination and then the Committee would continue with the second round of elimination.

Ms Majozi said that she did not hear what had been said.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was currently busy with the first round of elimination. The Committee’s processes were being recorded and it needed to be legitimately and legally recorded. The first round of elimination would be those with a matric level qualification. Those individuals would be eliminated and the Committee would receive that list. The Committee would then take out those who did not have the matching skills and requirements. The Committee would not consider that name. If there was a matriculant who was a trade unionist then the Committee might consider that name. The Committee was doing its first round of eliminations and then those names will be put on the screen. The Committee would then do a second round of eliminations. The Committee would then look at names that had common interest from the different Members.

Dr Kinnes said that he had a new list that was numbered. The Committee now had 34 names. He displayed the 34 applicants with their qualifications.

The Chairperson asked of the 34, were there still those who did not have the relevant qualifications?

Dr Kinnes replied that it depended on the Committee. He had made a summary of all of those qualifications and sent it to the Members. He appealed to the Chairperson that the Members use that document while they went through this process. It contained a summary of the applicants’ experience that was sent to all of the Members. He displayed a summary of the applicants’ experience.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would come to that at a later stage when the Committee motivated the names that it wanted. The Committee was currently eliminating those who did not have the relevant experience. First, the Committee took out the matriculants. The Committee did not need to go through the names number by number yet.

Dr Kinnes said that this was the list the Committee requested with the qualifications. The Committee would have to go through each individual.

The Chairperson provided the example of an individual with a matric certificate with a certificate in a leadership course was not someone who would qualify. The Chairperson asked for all the names to be displayed so that the Committee could go through the list name by name.

The Committee went through each of the names on the list and looked at their qualifications. The Committee eliminated those individuals it thought did not have the necessary qualifications. All of the women on the list were kept as there were only six female applicants.

The Chairperson said that Dr Kinnes needed to reorganise the list so that the Committee could see how many names now remained. The Chairperson said that this was an open and transparent process. The Committee was on live television. No one could disagree with this open and transparent process. The Members did not know the list of names and only used the qualifications to make the eliminations. The Committee was in agreement with what the Chairperson said. She asked if there was any Member who disagreed with her.

There was no Member who disagreed with the Chairperson’s summary of events.

Mr Terblanche said that he was in agreement with the Chairperson but said that at a later stage the Committee needed to look at the applicants names as well. He agreed that for now it was better not to see it.

The Chairperson reminded Mr Terblanche that this was only the second round of elimination. There was first 34 names. Now of the 34, the Committee needed to see how many were eliminated. Then the Committee needed to go into the details. She asked if the Committee was in agreement.

The Committee was in agreement with the Chairperson’s proposal.

The Chairperson asked the staff to rearrange the names of the applicants who were left on the list.

The list was rearranged.

Dr Kinnes said that he was ready with the new list. There were 22 applicants in total after the other candidates had been eliminated.

The Chairperson informed the Committee that there was now a list of 22 people and asked the Members to look at the list.

Mr Terblanche suggested that individual numbered six on the list, Mr Lawrence Mrwebi, should also be eliminated. The reason for this was because he was found to be guilty in an inquiry headed by the former Constitutional Court Judge Mokgoro. The individual was found to be not fit to hold his office at the NPA. It was on those grounds that Mr Terblanche thought he should be eliminated.

The Chairperson said that Mr Mrwebi’s name should be removed from the list immediately. The Committee now had a list of 21 names. The Chairperson asked if the Committee could leave the list at 21 names. These individuals would be scrutinised through the parliamentary vetting.

Dr Kinnes said that the Committee needed to submit 20 names and not 21. It would be helpful for the Committee to eliminate another name.

Mr Shembeni suggested that the Committee go back and look at the qualifications. He said the Committee should look at the individual who had an MBA.

The Chairperson asked if the Committee wanted to keep the individual with the MBA. The Chairperson said that the individual had to be kept in terms of the national question. The next individual had a BTech engineering qualification.

Mr Terblanche said that was a relevant qualification. He made another suggestion. He was aware that the Committee had to be very cautious in eliminating women. He said there were a few on the list and some of their qualifications were not very relevant. He said that maybe the Committee should look at eliminating one of them.

The Chairperson asked if the Committee could eliminate one woman with the most radically inappropriate qualifications.

Mr Shembeni asked how many women were on the list.

The Chairperson asked Dr Kinnes to look at the gender of the applicants.

Dr Kinnes responded that there were six women on the list.

The Chairperson said that she saw seven women on the list.

Mr Shembeni said that he also saw seven women on the list.

Dr Kinnes apologised as he was incorrect.

The Chairperson asked that the Committee keep Ms Keletso Lefothane because of the youth criteria. The Chairperson also highlighted another individual that needed to be kept because she was a union representative. She asked that the Committee keep those two individuals. She asked if there were any objections.

Mr Terblanche asked if that was a qualification for the post. If not, why was the Committee taking her youth into account?

The Chairperson responded that the Committee was going through different levels of criteria. The Committee did say that it would look at youth as a criterion. She was asking the Committee that Ms Lefothane be kept because she was 30 years old and the rest of the names on the list were much older. Ms Lefothane qualified and she was young.  

Ms N Peacock (ANC) seconded the Chairperson’s proposal.

The Chairperson asked Dr Kinnes to display Ms Lefothane’s qualifications. On the list it was displayed as a man but the Chairperson said that Ms Lefothane was a woman.

Ms Majozi agreed with the Chairperson that the Committee should keep Ms Lefothane and not because she was young and a woman. She was qualified and her current employment was as a credit risk analyst. With regard to her qualifications she had a diploma in risk management and that was one of the key things that the Committee was looking for. In her previous employment she was a risk underwriter. There was no problem with keeping Ms Lefothane because she qualified.

Mr Terblanche said that he now agreed with the Chairperson’s view.

Mr Maphatsoe said that the Committee had the guidelines that it had also been given. He seconded Ms Madjozi and Mr Terblanche that Ms Lefothane was competent and her experience met the requirements of the task.

The Chairperson asked if the Committee had any female candidate that it would like to remove who did not meet the criteria. The Chairperson clarified that the Committee needed to remove one more individual and that individual could be male or female. She was looking for a candidate who did not meet the criteria.

Rev Meshoe asked if the Committee could look at the qualifications of individual number four on the list.

The Chairperson asked why there was a problem with that individual as she was very qualified. The Chairperson said the Committee was not removing that individual as she was highly qualified.

Ms L Moss (ANC) said that that individual was actually overqualified.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was keeping her. The Chairperson proposed that the Committee keep the 21 and then look at any extreme circumstances in which one needed to be eliminated. The Committee would find an extreme circumstance and then the Chairperson would communicate to the Members what extreme circumstance once the names were gone through again. The Chairperson asked if the Committee would like to go through the list name by name.

Mr Maphatsoe said for the sake of transparency that maybe the Committee should go through the list name by name. He said that the Committee might find that there were other individuals on the list who had problems like the one Mr Terblanche raised about Mr Mrwebi. Through the vetting process more individuals would be eliminated because vetting was not any easy thing. He supported the Chairperson that the Committee should leave the list of names at 21.

The Chairperson asked the Members if they wanted to eliminate one name or as with Mr Terblanche, the Committee found an extreme circumstance where a name had to be eliminated? The Chairperson asked that the Committee leave it at 21 in case someone else was eliminated because people would fall out through the vetting process.

The Committee agreed with the Chairperson’s proposal.

The Chairperson said that there would be one or two of the shortlisted individuals who not make it through the vetting process. Then the Committee would have to look at another candidate that needed to be interviewed.

Mr Shembeni said that all the Members agreed on the process. There was no disagreement on the process that the Committee had followed. He wanted it to be recorded that all of the Members of the Committee went through this process, it was a fair process and all the Members endorsed it.

The Chairperson thanked the Members for their comments as it assisted her with the conclusion. It will be recorded that the first round of eliminations was due to broad qualifications. The second round of eliminations looked at specific qualifications, gender and the national question. The last round of eliminations took youth into consideration. All of the Members agreed on this. This list was a broad list. There was no preference per individual. The Committee used the set criteria or relevance, qualifications, gender, youth and the national question.

Mr Shembeni asked that the staff email the Committee with the final list of candidates.

The Chairperson said that the Members would be sent the list of 21 with the summarised CVs.

The meeting was adjourned.