02 Jun 2021: Follow up meeting with SIU on investigation into COVID-19 PPE procurement by state institutions
10 Feb 2021: SIU investigations into Covid19 PPE procurement by state institutions
Proclamation R23 of 2020
In this virtual meeting, the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) briefed the Committee on the progress in the ongoing investigations into procurement of Personal Protective Equipment for the Covid-19 pandemic and the Digital Vibes contract. The total actual amount of Covid-19 expenditure was R138.8 billion. The total value being investigated by the SIU was R14.8 billion. Of the R14.8 billion under investigation about R1.39 billion had already been referred to the Special Tribunal to recover losses. The SIU reported that there were no new limitations compared to the previous report. There were also no new observations compared to the previous report. The number of PPE contracts awarded for Covid-19 related services under investigation by the SIU was 4 302. These contracts were awarded to 2 421 service providers. By number of contracts, 30% of these contracts had been finalised while 62.1% were being assessed and 7.9% have yet to commence. The presentation provided the number of matters finalised per province as well as ongoing matters under investigation per province. An update was given on new civil litigation matters since the previous report. The presentation also provided information on orders granted in the Special Tribunal and the outcomes that had been taken.
The presentation detailed progress made in the Digital Vibes investigation. The former Minister of Health, senior management, middle management, junior officials and private individuals had all been implicated. The presentation stated that the former Minister of Health may have committed actions of criminality. The SIU identified R22 million contained in several bank accounts resulting from cash flows from the Digital Vibes Nedbank account. A Preservation Order was granted to the SIU by the Special Tribunal on 17 June 2021. The SIU submitted and filed its Review Application on 29 July 2021 to set aside the contract and to recover the full value paid out on the contract. The final report in respect of the finalised investigations would be submitted to the President by 30 November 2021.
The Committee noted with concern the amount of money Government had to spend to investigate corruption. There was an absence of patriotism, of conscience and duty which characterised the public service if one looked at the extent of the allegations that had been unearthed. These acts had been done by people who were entrusted with the responsibility of improving the lives of others.
The Chairperson characterised PPE corruption as a crime against humanity. People saw an opportunity to loot amidst the worst global health pandemic of their lifetime. In the light of recent events the Committee noted that it needed to have a particular focus on the protection of whistle-blowers.
The Committee raised concern with the number of allegations where no irregularities had been found. These were 62% of the allegations. This was raised on the backdrop of Government having spent around R300 million investigating these allegations. In the instances where no irregularities were found was there justifiable cause for concern to report those cases? Or was it just propaganda? Government could not spend so much money and at the end of the day only 38% of the allegations had irregularities.
The Committee also discussed the issue of administrative actions. There were instances where cases had already been concluded but no administrative action was taken. Companies found guilty of wrongdoing needed to be blacklisted as soon as possible. At this stage there were many companies that had not been blacklisted. The Committee asked how it could assist the SIU in those instances where there were slow responses from the responsible offices regarding the referrals made by the SIU.
The Committee discussed the quality of the investigations and cases. Did the SIU have some platform for quality assessment similar to the Auditor-General? When audits were concluded the AG would subject those audits to a quality assessment. Did the SIU have a similar mechanism? The Committee also asked questions in relation to the Digital Vibes investigation. Had the matter been concluded? It was asked if the resignation of the former Minister of Health would hamper the case? Would the investigation proceed unhampered?
The Chairperson was satisfied with the work and progress that had been done by the SIU in these investigations. He indicated that the Committee would be in a position to report to the House by the end of September. He advised that the Committee also needed to frame an approach to interacting with the Presidency as the people who ultimately received these reports. The Presidency remained fundamentally responsible as the Committee would be in contact with all those who needed to ensure consequence management to ensure that these things happened. Otherwise, that would be a dereliction of duty if the Presidency did not process these reports with the seriousness that they deserved.
The Chairperson apologised for the 20-minute delay at the start of the meeting. The delay was caused by an ongoing matter that the Committee was dealing with and he needed guidance from the members. He also apologised to the Chairperson of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. The Committee’s meetings were open meetings and he had just needed to consult on a matter that colleagues had raised. He welcomed the members to the meeting which was with the SIU. The SIU delegation was led by the Head of Unit, Adv Mothibi. The SIU was to present an update on the PPE investigations. The Committee had received the 117 slides which would be presented this morning. He requested that the SIU covered the salient points. Thereafter, the members would interact with that presentation at the end. The Committee had been briefed by the SIU on these matters previously and the Committee had been collating information. He was certain that by the end of September the Committee report would be sent to members for consideration. All the members would make inputs. The Committee would adopt a report on this matter by the end of September. Today’s meeting was very important because it tied down on certain loose aspects. The Committee would then be able to report to the House accordingly on this very tragic state of affairs of corruption related to PPEs.
The Chairperson described the PPE corruption as a crime against humanity. The Committee appreciated the work that the SIU had done and continued to do in investigating these matters. The Committee would be in a position to report to the House by the end of September.
The Chairperson again welcomed the delegation from the SIU. It was a lengthy presentation.
The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretariat to enter in the record the apologies of the members who were not present in the meeting.
The Chairperson handed over to the SIU to make the presentation to the Committee. He would guide the meeting regarding time as the presentation covered the salient points.
Briefing by the Special Investigating Unit on the Procurement of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for COVID-19 pandemic and the Digital Vibes Investigation
Adv Andy Mothibi, Head, SIU, briefed the Committee on the progress the SIU was making on investigations into PPE allegations of irregularity, corruption and maladministration. The presentation also updated the Committee on the progress of the Digital Vibes investigation.
The SIU had invited all the provincial heads and executives to be present in the meeting.
The total amount of Covid-19 expenditure from April 2020 to June 2021 was R138.8 billion. The total value being investigated by the SIU was R14.8 billion. Of the R14.8 billion under investigation about R1.39 billion had already been referred to the Special Tribunal to set the contracts aside and recover losses. The SIU reported that there were no new limitations compared to the previous report. There were no new observations compared to the previous report.
The presentation detailed a summary of the contracts under investigation. The number of PPE contracts awarded for Covid-19 related services under investigation by the SIU was 4 302. These contracts were awarded to 2 421 service providers. By number of contracts, 30% of these contracts had been finalised while 62.1% were being assessed and 7.9% have yet to commence. The presentation provided the number of matters finalised per province as well as ongoing matters under investigation per province.
An update was given on new civil litigation matters since the previous report. The presentation provided information on orders granted in the Special Tribunal and the steps and outcomes that had been taken.
National Department of Health: Digital Vibes Contract Investigation
On 23 February 2021, a whistleblower reported various allegations to the Siu relating to a R150 million contract, allegedly irregularly awarded by the National Department of Health (“NDoH”) to a company known as Digital Vibes (Pty) Ltd (“Digital Vibes”).
The presentation detailed how supply-chain management and correct tender processes were not followed. The previous Minister of Health approved two budget applications for Digital Vibes for the National Health Insurance communication. The two budgets totalled R132 million.
The SIU identified R22 million contained in several bank accounts resulting from cash flows from the Digital Vibes Nedbank account. A Preservation Order was granted to the SIU by the Special Tribunal on 17 June 2021 based on the SIU’s findings. The SIU submitted and filed its Review Application on 29 July 2021 to set aside the contract and to recover the full value paid out on the contract.
Most of the investigations in respect of R23 of 2020 will be finalised by 31 August 2021.
The report will cover following:
The background to the Proclamation that was issued
The approach that the SIU adopts in fulfilling its functions and discharging its responsibilities will be outlined
The allegations that the SIU has been tasked to investigate
The investigations that have been finalised.
The investigations that will still be ongoing after 31 August 2021
The steps that have been and are being taken to ensure that officials who are suspected of misconduct are disciplined, that persons suspected of having committed criminal offences are charged, and that civil recoveries are made from those who have benefitted unduly from invalid actions or inadequate performance or culpably caused loss to the State
The limitations and observations that have arisen in this investigation
The final report in respect of these finalised investigations will be submitted to the President by 30 November 2021
The Chairperson thanked the SIU for the comprehensive presentation. He noted that the R351 million Government had to pay to investigate corruption could have been better used if people had actually done the right and correct things. There was an absence of patriotism, an absence of conscience and an absence of duty which characterised the public service if one looked at the extent of the allegations that had been unearthed. Sadly, this had been done by people who had been entrusted with the responsibility of improving the lives of others. That was why he characterised this PPE corruption as a crime against humanity. People saw an opportunity to loot amidst the worst global health pandemic of their lifetime. There were a series of shortcoming which emerged which the members had observed over time. The Committee would need to have a particular focus, at some point, on the protection of whistle-blowers. The Committee needed to discuss that further with the law enforcement agencies. It was one of the key areas where people might not volunteer information if their safety was not guaranteed. What was seen over the past few days was an indication of the extent of how daring criminal elements were to protect their turf of looting and thieving of State resources. It needed to go beyond the point of lamentation. There needed to be a concretisation of protection measures put in place to ensure that whistle-blowers were actually protected.
The Chairperson opened the floor for comments and questions that the members might have.
Mr B Hadebe (ANC) asked a question in relation to junior officials and senior management. Adv Mothibi state more than once the need to conclude the cases of senior management expeditiously in order to send a clear message of zero tolerance for corruption. Did the SIU find it difficult to conclude cases of senior managers expeditiously as compared to those of junior officials? His second question was about the new cases that were continuingly being received. Were these cases new contracts or old contracts? By old contracts he meant from the time the SIU had started with its first investigations. Had these tenders already been awarded? Or were these new cases received cases of tenders that were recently awarded? He had a concern about cases where no irregularities had been identified. These were 62% of the cases. He raised this on the backdrop of having spent around R300 million investigating these cases. Was Adv Mothibi in a position to indicate where there were no irregularities found was there justifiable cause for concern to report those cases? Or was it just propaganda? Government could not spend so much money and at the end of the day only 38% of the cases had irregularities. Was there justifiable cause for concern in terms of those cases? He then discussed the referrals made for administrative actions. The understanding was that these cases were cases that had already been concluded. Looking at the date in which these cases were reported some were reported in March, April and May. Five months down the line those cases had not been concluded. What extra processes were being undertaken by these entities that were meant to blacklist these companies if the cases were referred to them five months back? At this stage there were companies that had not been blacklisted. Did these entities also embark on their own investigation? Once the SIU concluded its investigation and recommended for blacklisting the matter ought to be concluded expeditiously. He wanted a better understanding on that matter.
Adv Mothibi discussed consequence management. The SIU did call on disciplinary actions to proceed against all levels, including senior management, speedily. On the investigation side there was no indication that the SIU was finding it difficult to investigate against senior management compared to lower management. The SIU had not made that observation. The investigation against anyone involved went according to how the SIU envisaged it. If there were any obstacles that the SIU observed then the SIU would have recorded them as new observations.
He responded to the question about old and new contracts. If the SIU received an allegation in June 2021, it called the allegations new because they were reported to the SIU at a certain point during the overall investigations. Those allegations may refer to a contract that was concluded a few months back. In that case the investigators would then have to go back and get the evidence that related to that specific contract. It did not follow that if it was a new allegation that it referred to a new contact. It may refer to a new contract or it may refer to an old contract.
He discussed the outcomes and whether the SIU found irregularities or did not find irregularities. In all instances, when the SIU received allegations it was expected to assess and make sure that those allegations fell within its mandate. Then the allegations were due to be investigated. The SIU did that with every allegation without any variation or exception. Where the SIU found that there was substantive information that had been provided to begin the investigation then it was expected to expand effort to investigate. That effort was done at various levels of the investigations. The SIU put various investigators in place. That was the effort that the SIU charged. The SIU charged for the effort to investigate. That effort, in many instances, did lead to findings of irregularity where the SIU had to follow the steps of outcomes. In other instances, in 62% of the allegations, the SIU had found no irregularities. These investigations were based on the allegations that the SIU received. That meant that where the SIU said it did not find irregularities it eventually meant that the allegations could not be substantiated. In many instances the allegations would state that there were irregularities related to the procurement process and then it was indicated to the SIU what the allegations were based on then the SIU had to go through the procurement process test it against the regulations and the legislation. When the SIU made a finding that the allegations were unsubstantiated that there were no irregularities it meant that for example if it was procurement based the SIU would find that it complied with the PFMA where it made regulations for procurement. Ultimately, it would have complied with Section 217 of the Constitution. The SIU was expected to do an effective investigation and question the witnesses such that it reached a credible outcome based on credible evidence. This evidence had to withstand the scrutiny of the courts including the Special Tribunal. Where the SIU found that there was no evidence to support that allegation it made that finding. When the SIU found irregularities it was when it did investigations and it was found that procurement processes were not complied with. For example, there could have been a conflict of interest where families were involved who were favoured. There would be criminal actions of bribery. There would be management disregard of the processes. There were various issues that were looked at in order to make the pronouncement whether there were irregularities, or no irregularities given the legal framework that was applicable to each and every investigation.
He discussed the amount spent to investigate which was just over R300 million. The SIU based the assessment of the cost on the efforts and the resources that were put in, in terms of investigating. The matters that were at the Special Tribunal, as at the date of this report, totalled about R1.3 billion. If the SIU ensured that it followed up on those processes and made sure that it recovered, through the Special Tribunal, then it would be able to at least on the civil litigation side show that the R300 million spent would compare well to what had been recovered. The other outcomes, although they did not refer to recoveries, were the outcomes that were required. That R300 million, amongst others, had produced more than 100 findings of officials that needed to be disciplined. When the disciplinary process took place and took place effectively and the sanctions were imposed, in many instances dismissals, then the SIU was contributing effectively to the cleaning of the system. The SIU made sure that those sanctions were deterrents. The SIU deterred those officials who wanted to be a part of those irregularities. The other part was the prosecution side. The overall view of the investigations and outcomes compared to the amount that had been spent to conduct those investigations, in the view of the SIU, was comparable.
He discussed the blacklisting. The SIU identified those entities that had committed irregularities and those entities needed to follow an administrative justice process. It was the responsibility of the accounting authority at the entity where it had referred this company and the entity had to embark on a process. The entity was often advised by National Treasury and the SIU also came in to provide the evidence. There was a subsequent process that was followed to blacklist a company. There were administrative procedures that were prescribed. The SIU would continue to follow up with the view that ultimately it wanted the companies to be blacklisted and that they should not do business with the State because of the findings that the SIU had returned against them.
Mr Hadebe said that in Adv Mothibi’s opinion then the Committee should not be alarmed about the 62% of allegations of no irregularities having been found. Was Adv Mothibi saying that the R300 million spent was worth it in terms of making sure that issues of corruption and maladministration were dealt with decisively? So, the Committee should not be alarmed? He had been concerned when he saw the figures that more than 60% of cases that were referred to the SIU were cases with no issues of irregularities. Adv Mothibi reassured the Committee that the money spent was worth it in dealing with corruption. He was comfortable with that. He was still not sure about how long the process of blacklisting took. Was it a reasonable amount of time that five months down the line some of these cases were still waiting to be concluded? For Adv Mothibi, was that a reasonable amount of time? He was sure Adv Mothibi had dealt with similar cases before. How long did it take to conclude this necessary administrative process? The Committee was worried about the amount of time it took.
Adv Mothibi shared Mr Hadebe’s concern around the huge percentage of matters where there were no irregularities. The SIU would have concluded the evidence and found that the allegations were not substantiated. The concern would be if the allegations were propaganda. The SIU was not in a position to say whether it was propaganda or not. More often it was whistleblowers that initially would come with allegations that were supported but when the SIU went and tested the allegations it was found that they were not substantiated. The figures showed that it was quite a high number of unsubstantiated irregularities. It could cause the SIU to go back and do a postmortem so that it could respond in an informed manner to Mr Hadebe’s question. To answer what was at the root of this. The SIU assured the Committee that it had looked into the allegations effectively in all the provinces. In those where the SIU did not find irregularities the investigating teams had pronounced effectively. The SIU had been reviewing nationally. The SIU had a nation review of investigations and went into details. In provinces the provincial heads were conducting reviews of the investigations. The provincial heads questioned the investigators with regard to each and every investigation. He had no doubt that the SIU had gone into detail. He said that the matter might warrant a post-investigation review of the findings with no irregularity. The SIU could then report back to the Committee on the findings of what contributed to the high percentage of matters where there were no irregularities. He discussed the blacklisting process. Blacklisting was an administrative process. The SIU had seen various instances. In some instances it did not take more than a month. The accounting authority would receive the SIU’s referral and would immediately begin the process of giving the parties concerned an opportunity to comment. Once the parties had commented a decision had to be taken so that matter should not take long really. The SIU needed to go back and find out the real reasons why the matters were delayed.
Mr S Somyo (ANC) said he supported what Adv Mothibi said. Did the SIU have some platform for quality assessment? He was asking that because of his experience with the Auditor-General. When some audits had been conducted the AG would subject those audits to a quality assessment. Especially on those areas that gave rise to some form of investigations and results which did not find anything insofar as such investigations were concerned. What could the Committee do to ensure that these areas that had been identified by the team as lacking speed to resolve matters of discipline were improved? What could the Committee do to approach those authorities which had that right of disciplinary processes to fulfil the actual results of a full circle of investigative outcomes?
Ms N Tolashe (ANC) appreciated the report that was presented. It was a very informative report that told of the kind of work that was being done by the SIU and other components. The report was straightforward and very clear. She raised the matter of the Committee assisting the SIU in those instances where there was a slow response from the responsible offices with regard to referrals. The PFMA and MFMA did instruct the people who occupied strategic positions to act on areas where there were allegations of corruption. She saw from the report that even after the SIU had come in, investigated and made findings not everyone was looking forward to implementing the recommendations. She wanted to know what else the Committee could do in assisting the SIU in this regard. Could the SIU present and bring the responsible people to take the Committee through on why they were not acting? The Committee would ask why action should not be taken against them. A lot of money had been spent and those authorities should have found that out themselves. This resulted in the SIU coming in and doing a sterling job. She wanted the Committee to find a way to assist the SIU in this regard. The Committee needed to find a way to deal with these voluminous reports that spoke volumes of the work done by the SIU. There had to be a way to deal with this as the Committee usually did with the reports from Eskom and other huge entities.
Mr Hadebe asked a question in relation to the Digital Vibes investigation. Had the matter been concluded? Would the resignation of the Minister hamper the case if it had not been concluded? Would the investigation proceed unhampered in terms of the resignation of the Minister?
The Chairperson discussed the issue of Digital Vibes. There was a line that stated, ‘may have performed criminality’. That line was in relation to the former Minister of Health. That line provided a lack of clarity. He wanted clarity on that and for that to be unpacked. If Adv Mothibi would be referring to the matter with regard to the Special Tribunal or court in the papers cited and was a work in progress then the matter could be left for now. The Chairperson requested that the Committee Secretariat draft correspondence to all the Departments and municipalities that had been cited in the over 100 officials. Each one of those entities should provide the Committee with a progress report with an explanation on the disciplinary processes. The Committee needed to support the interventions of the SIU on that issue. The Committee would give the entities 14 days to respond to that correspondence so that the open-ended investigations and disciplinary processes could be dealt with.
The Committee needed to exert the necessary pressure. The Committee would also file a progress report to the House as the Chairperson indicated earlier on. It also needed to be noted that the final report was coming out on 30 November. Some of the salient points that had been raised would be in that report. The report would also offer some perspective of what needed to be dealt with. It was clear that these investigations continued to be a work in progress.
The Chairperson asked Adv Mothibi to respond to the questions and provide concluding remarks.
Adv Mothibi responded to the issue of quality assurance. In the value chain, the business process of the SIU, after the investigation was done there was somewhere in the value chain where the SIU evaluated the investigations. By evaluating the investigations, the SIU would also anticipate that there would be an element of quality assurance there. The SIU would consider how quality assurance was implemented for the purposes of these investigations. The SIU would provide a report that would also cover the concerns of Mr Hadebe in terms of the new allegations. There was an equivalent of the quality assurance function which the SIU called the evaluation of the investigation once it was done.
The SIU was thankful that the Committee would consider assisting in ensuring that the consequence management happened. The SIU’s observation was that the rampant corruption that was seen has, amongst others, resulted from the culture of impunity. That ‘nothing will happen to me’ culture has to be ended by ensuring that action was taken on all fronts in line with the outcomes. If the SIU had to recover money from anyone then it would have to do that. If the accounting officials had to hold anyone to account then they had to do so. The same applies from the prosecution side and the regulatory side. This included the administrative action of blacklisting. If all the parts of the system worked and worked well and all showed results then everyone would see the impact on corruption. He was referring to all aspects, all parts of the system in the fight against corruption had to work and work well.
He agreed with Ms Tolashe that consequence management had to be executed. The SIU would appreciate any assistance from the Committee.
He responded to Mr Hadebe’s question about the resignation of the former Minister of Health. That resignation would not hamper the investigations. Like with all other allegations, the SIU continued to gather information. Even after the SIU submitted the final report on the Digital Vibes investigation to the President at the end of June there were still allegations that were coming in. The SIU was looking into those allegations. In the final report the SIU did qualify that although that was the final report, should evidence come its way which indicated to other areas, then it would look into that. He responded to the statement in the presentation that said, ‘may have committed a criminal act’. The SIU said so because it found evidence pointing to criminal action. That evidence was then referred, by law, to the NPA. The SIU made about 19 criminal referrals. All the parties that were referred the evidence would be evaluated by the NPA. The SIU hoped that the charges indicated on slide 97 of fraud, corruption and money laundering would be sustained and charges would be returned. There was an inter-agency team that included the SIU, NPA and Hawks. The inter-agency team met regularly to investigate these matters and very soon the results of those investigations would be seen. He could not go into details about those investigations.
When the SIU said ‘may have committed’ it was because of the evidence that was found. The SIU wanted the evidence to be further verified and then it could be actual so that charges were returned.
The SIU had presented evidence at the Special Tribunal. That was where the SIU was able to issue the papers. The SIU was of the view that the evidence it had was sufficient and pointed sufficiently, had a legal basis, for the SIU to challenge and get the contract set aside. The SIU was confident it would be able to recover the monies that Government would have lost. A preliminary action to freeze the accounts had been taken. To freeze the accounts there was a legal basis that was required and it was very comprehensive. The judges required that the SIU met that standard before the accounts could be frozen. The SIU managed to meet that standard, the accounts were frozen and the hearing would follow. The SIU appreciated that the Committee would send correspondence to the affected State institutions. That showed that the SIU wanted to make an impact on the findings and that those who were found to be in the wrong should be acted upon. After a fair process a sanction should be made to then punish those and take them out of the system.
He discussed the referral that was made on the Spokesperson of the President. He made a correction to slide 52 of the presentation. The SIU received an update after the presentation was sent. On slide 52 under the Gauteng Department of Health matters. The progress to date that the SIU gave was that the ‘SIU awaits the outcome of this process’. The SIU had been given the outcome now. The outcome was that the disciplinary process was finalised. The charges that were handed over to the Presidency was that the former Spokesperson failed to declare her financial interest. She was charged based on that, internally. She was given a warning that would last for six months. He wanted to provide that specific update.
In closing, Adv Mothibi thanked the Committee for the opportunity for the SIU to present its progress to date. The next report should show some significant improvement in terms of the percentages. The current report just showed that progress had been made and findings reached. What was remaining was to ensure that those findings were acted upon without failure. If the SIU did not do so then it would be efforts and money spent in futility and the SIU did not want that. The SIU’s responsibility was to ensure that the findings that had been made and the referrals that had been made were given the appropriate attention. The end to end of these investigations needed to be looked into and acted upon. He thanked his colleagues who were attending the meeting today. He indicated that there were also colleagues from the Northern Cape. The Northern Cape was a new office which was opened on 1 April 2021. That did not mean that the Northern Cape Province was not attended to. It was serviced from the Free State office but now it had a formal office there. There were already matters in the Northern Cape which had been received lately in the investigation. The SIU would at the next meeting make sure that that province was also included. He thanked his colleagues who continued unfailing to ensure that these investigations received attention at the speed at which the Committee and public expected. In these investigations the SIU demonstrated that it could attend to these investigations with a turnaround time that was expected but without compromising the quality.
He agreed with the point Mr Somyo raised that the SIU should not compromise on the quality of the investigation while it should also not lengthen the turnaround times. It was a balancing act that the SIU needed to do. The SIU needed to ensure that the investigations were done speedily, findings were based on credible evidence and actions were taken based on the referrals. In that way the SIU would see the impact that everyone anticipated.
The Chairperson thanked Adv Mothibi and the heads of provinces. The Committee welcomed the establishment of the Northern Cape office and looked forward to interactions with them. The Committee welcomed the SIU’s progress report leading up to the deadline of 30 November to guide the work that was being done. The Committee needed to have a sterner and more frank interaction with the NPA to impress on them the need to deal with referrals with the necessary urgency of the situation. The Committee did not want these cases going cold and prosecuting for the sake of prosecuting ten years done the line. The Committee appreciated the fact that there was collaboration between the SIU, the Hawks, SAPS and the NPA. He also noted that the resuscitation of the anti-corruption task team was of equal importance. Knowing the limitations of the Committee within the Parliamentary space, particularly because the Committee came in at the end after things had happened, the Committee needed to ensure that the coordination of these entities happened. Everyone in their respective spaces needed to do what was expected of them so that the outcomes of consequence management could be achieved. The Committee was satisfied with the progress report that had been given. It spoke to the very thorough work that the SIU had actually done. This was work on PPEs and not the other investigations that the SIU was dealing with. The Committee would have to interact with those investigations as well. The Committee needed to focus on these investigations and then bring it to a logical legal conclusion. Then the Committee would deal with the other matters.
The Chairperson noted that the Numsa Constitutional Court papers had been circulated to the members. It cited the Committee and concerned Denel and SA Express. He had received the correspondence from Ms Van Minnen on Denel, and he would respond to her by the end of the day. The issues she raised were also important in dealing with these matters. The Committee would receive a briefing next week on those matters. He asked members to go through those papers that had been filed.
The programme and issues next week would be circulated to members. He thanked members, the SIU and all stakeholders.
The Committee remained satisfied with the work and progress that had been done by the SIU in these investigations. Everything would come full circle once the report had been concluded. The Committee also needed to frame an approach to interacting with the Presidency as the people who ultimately received these reports. That outstanding matter could not fall off the radar. The Committee needed to come up with creative ways in how it structured that. It could not be submissions in a vacuum. It needed to be submissions that resulted in process and progress otherwise these reports just gathered dust. The Presidency remained fundamentally responsible as the Committee would be in contact with all those who needed to ensure consequence management to ensure that these things happened. Otherwise, that would be a dereliction of duty if the Presidency did not process these reports with the seriousness that they deserved. The members needed to brainstorm around that and then the Committee could find an approach.
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.