Follow up: SASRIA Quarterly reports and challenges in executing mandate

NCOP Finance

26 April 2022
Chairperson: Mr Y Carrim (ANC, KwaZulu-Natal)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary


07 Sep 2021

SASRIA on Quarterly reports, challenges in executing mandate, impact of COVID-19 and recent civil unrest on their program

The Select Committee on Finance met with the South African Special Risk Insurance Association (SASRIA) in a virtual meeting to discuss the quarterly reports and challenges the Association experienced in executing its mandate during the 2021 financial year.

SASRIA said 2020/21 had been its most successful financial year following an increase in gross written premiums and a significant profit amassed after tax. This was attributed to increased prices on products, a cash flow injection from National Treasury (NT) and an increase in investment income. The sizeable amount of fruitless and wasteful expenditure and irregular expenditure were due to penalties for the late payment of employee taxes, suppliers rendering invoices without valid contracts, and no limitations placed on cell phone allowances.  

Following the July unrest of 2021, SASRIA had incurred R36.7 billion in claims, and R24.72 billion had been repaid so far. 85% of the claims had been for less than R1 million. An outsourced model had been adopted to recruit expertise and personnel to handle the huge increase in claims timeously. SASRIA felt that the events of July 2021 would not recur on such a scale, but the effects would be damaging if they did. However, they had improved their liquidity and security and had plans to improve their operational capacity.

Members had many questions regarding the impact of the KwaZulu-Natal floods, the effect that the war in Ukraine would have on SASRIA, operational capacity issues and the outsourced model, assistance for small, medium and micro-enterprises (SMMEs) and plans to handle a situation similar to the July unrest if it were to happen again.

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed the Select Committee on Finance to a briefing by the South African Special Risk Insurance Association (SASRIA) on their quarterly report and the challenges they experience in executing their mandate.

SASRIA Presentation

2021 highlights

Ms Bajabulile Mthiyane, Finance Director, SASRIA, introduced the presentation by highlighting 2021 as the most successful year for SASRIA. Its gross written premiums had grown by 15% from 2020 to 2021. This was attributed to the price increases established across all SASRIA products. 2021 had seen a decrease in claims, following the hard lockdown of 2020.

Other notable highlights of 2021 included a significant profit after tax of R1.5 billion, attributed to low claims, growth in gross insurance premiums and hefty increases from investment income. The increase in investment income resulted from equity markets bouncing back following the lockdown in the last quarter of the year.

Shareholder dividends to the value of R102 million were paid out. Equity and assets under management both grew by R1 million due to the significant profit in 2021. In the last financial year, SASRIA received an unqualified audit opinion, observed a 73.3% achievement of key performance indicators (KPIs), and retained 117 permanent employees. 

The income generated had been distributed to various stakeholders connected to SASRIA. Funds had been allocated towards employee remuneration, shareholder dividends and capital spent on infrastructure, which amounted to a total of R2.197 billion being distributed.

SASRIA had also invested R32 million in corporate social investments consisting of community projects related to COVID-19 relief, bursaries for education and the building of houses.

Financial projections

Mr Mpumi Tyikwe, Chief Executive Officer (CEO): SASRIA, referred to the effect that the July riots had on financial performance, saying that the gross insurance premiums had risen to R3.1 billion. It projected an unprecedented net underwriting loss of over R27 billion. Investment income had decreased to unwind investment positions, and the net reassurance expense had increased.

Explaining the projections for 2022, Ms Mthiyane said that assets under management at the end of the financial year would sit at R16.5 billion, compared to the R9.5 billion in 2021. This was due to the R22 billion in capital investment provided by National Treasury (NT). Some of this amount had been used to settle R22 billion of the R37 billion valued claims. The remainder of the valued claims were expected to be settled within the financial year.

SASRIA still expected reinsurance recoveries in 2022, amounting to R2.8 billion. The capital injected had placed SASRIA in a positive equity position, though suffering some loss from the R27 billion incurred in claims.

(See presentation for financial performance, financial position and cash flows.)

Key performance indicators

Ms Mathiyane said that irregular expenditure amounted to R804 000, while fruitless and wasteful expenditure had been approximately R26 million. The key performance indicator (KPI) of submitting all Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) submissions within the stipulated deadlines was not achieved due to its failure to submit procurement plans timeously.

SASRIA had missed the target relating to the financial sector code for skills development. This resulted from effects of the hard lockdown, such as cancelled sessions and hesitancies in participation. The knock-on effect was that not all claims could be settled in time. It had also received 37 complaints, which was above the target of 16.

Regarding fruitless and wasteful expenditure, the R25.9 million in expenses incurred resulted from penalties and inflation from underestimation and late payment of taxes. 3.7% of this amount was related to penalties incurred from late payment of employee taxes, and R17.5 million had been recovered in the past financial year.

SASRIA had made a concerted effort to avoid further expenditure in duplicate and overpayment of claims, fines by regulatory bodies and overspending on cell phone allowances, as these factors were all attributable to human error. This had included adopting consequence management strategies.

Irregular expenditure, such as expenses on the appointment of non-tax compliant suppliers and bursaries on repeating modules, had not occurred in 2020/21. People involved in the procurement of goods and services had been trained on the processes to follow to ensure everyone complied with the policies. Through this, SASRIA still derived value from the acquisition of goods and services without contributing to irregular expenditure. Proactive management of all transactions ensured that no payment occurred without following due process.

Mr Muzi Dladla, Executive Manager: Stakeholder Management, SASRIA, spoke about removing the KPI to deal with alternative distribution. In 2019, this aspect had been prematurely included in revenue. He explained that this was due to SASRIA needing to conduct a visibility study on the small to medium markets and had to ensure that products and systems were created with penetrating this particular market in mind. In 2021, a product had been released and distributed to these markets. Alternative distribution methods, such as aggregation, were being developed, which resulted in this being included as a KPI.

Impact of the July riots

Ms Fareedah Benjamin, Executive Manager: Insurance Operations, SASRIA, said that the SASRIA dashboard of April 2022 indicated that R36.7 billion in claims had been incurred, though R24.72 billion was repaid. The outstanding balance currently remained at R13.95 billion.

On claims by value band, she indicated that claims below R1 million made up 85% of the total number of claims received, while the highest value claim was over R500 million. Insurance companies operating as outsourced models had been given a mandate by SASRIA in July/August 2021 to extradite payments to clients, increase personnel working with claims, and ask companies to provide their own service providers, such as assessors. This had been done contractually to ensure these matters were dealt with timeously and with expertise.

Bigger agent companies were given mandates amounting to up to R5 million. She explained that only 39.79% of outstanding claims below R1 million had been settled, though this was due to an administration issue. SASRIA had provided an amount to agent companies to settle claims, which did not reflect on its systems unless these values had been reconciled with the audited reconciliation programme.

Regarding lines of business, the biggest percentage of claims involved commercial property, excess loss, business interruption, and light and heavy commercial vehicles. SASRIA offered cover via an excess of loss claims, where the primary coupon was R500 million for anyone insured, though it spanned up to R1 billion. SASRIA’s reinsurance carried 80% of the premium and the claims under a shared portfolio.

Claims distributed to the top 25 affected cities amounted to over R35 billion, with Durban amassing the highest number of claims. Provincially, KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) had the highest number of claims, and the Western Cape and an unclassified category trailed shortly behind. Unclassified and Western Cape claims indicated that the holding companies affected were situated either in the Western Cape or were yet to be geo-tagged. She exemplified this with the Shoprite Checkers Group, saying that while the shops affected were in KZN, the holding companies were based in the Western Cape.

Rebuilding of SASRIA

Mr Tyikwe said that in March 2021, SASRIA had been a strong entity with a healthy balance sheet and a significant amount of assets under management. Shortly after, these resources were decimated. SASRIA claims had risen from roughly 3 000 annually to over 16 000 following the unrest. This had affected SASRIA in numerous ways, such as its operational capacity, which required temporary staff to be brought in for assistance, liquidity falling under pressure, forcing SASRIA to liquidate some long-term investments, and cash flow issues.

SASRIA was required to maintain a solvency rate of 100%, though in November, that had decreased to a minus 347% level. SASRIA had responded to this by increasing premiums by over 60% off a low base. In August, reinsurance agreements had to be rearranged and proportional insurance was introduced. This reinsurance enhanced the capital position, using reinsurers as a source of capital for the reinsurance arrangement. National Treasury (NT) had also injected capital to alleviate the situation.

For financial stability, SASRIA had to develop new scenarios for the future, institute new growth initiatives, ensure that long-term capital requirements were met and undertake investigations into future stakeholder support.

The regulator had instructed SASRIA that the solvency rate must rise from 68% to above 100% by June 2022. SASRIA felt confident that this could be achieved through capital injection and reinsurance programmes. Assuming that 90% of the aforementioned claims were settled, it could raise the solvency rate to 115%. Mr Tyikwe said that fewer than 1% of the claims were responsible for 64% of the amount, so the targets could be reached if it managed to settle this bottom 1%.

SASRIA claimed that some claims remained unsettled due to policyholders being paid out through reinstatements. As some malls were being rebuilt, claims still appeared to be outstanding even though they had been approved. Smaller commercial businesses were struggling to formulate claims due to many losing their financial records. SASRIA had been working with the South African Revenue Service (SARS) as a way to make claims if they could not formulate claims based on their own financial records.

Mr Tyikwe said that if the country went through an event that resulted in a R3 billion loss after June 2022, SASRIA’s solvency ratio would drop from 115% to 91%. This indicated that SASRIA was still in a vulnerable position and that the business must be further built up by continuing premium increases.

On rebuilding SASRIA, he said that SASRIA's top clients were thankful for how their claims had been handled to ensure that they could return to business immediately. He attributed this success to the SASRIA team, NT and Parliament for ensuring that the cash flow injection had been in place to help clients timeously.

(See presentation for details on rebuilding.)

Sustainability and future of SASRIA

Mr Tyikwe indicated that the Human Rights Commission (HRC) was still sharing its findings on the Presidential Report covering the unrest of July. SASRIA existed under the presumption that the police would respond timeously in unrest situations, but the losses had accelerated in this situation when people realised there was no security response.

On risk assessment, if SASRIA were to experience a similar event in the next year or two, they would not be able to withstand it, even with their existing reinsurance arrangements. Clients and big investors in South Africa had asked SASRIA to demonstrate that they would still be able to provide cover for them to invest in the economy. SASRIA had limited clients to up to R500 million per legal entity, which was insufficient. London markets had increased premiums exponentially as they were under the belief that the July unrest would recur in 2022.

SASRIA said that when unexpected world events occurred, premiums and rates increased. It had increased rates and reduced the cover available to clients. In the previous report, the intelligence committee had predicted turbulence within the last year. SASRIA felt that this information should be shared with them to improve its planning where possible.

SASRIA had also noted that clients had taken measures into their own hands to improve security. This included building walls around distribution centres, investing in rubber bullets, and other ways to protect their property. It suggested that the long-term solution to this would ensure that all South Africans participated in the economy. On products, SASRIA had exited the wrap market and sought to penetrate small, medium and micro enterprises (SMMEs) and the under-insured to create alternative distribution channels.

Mr Tyikwe concluded that SASRIA had been in this position before, alluding to the riots of June 1976. It had spent the past 40 years accumulating reserves, paying substantial dividends to the state, and taxes. It had felt that the events of July 2021 would not reoccur to the same magnitude. It was expected that people might protest as it was their right to do so, so SASRIA had an obligation to ensure that they were in a financial position to withstand the losses that might occur while providing big corporations with the confidence to continue investing.


Mr D Ryder (DA, Gauteng) wished Mr Tyikwe the best of luck on his new appointment as SASRIA CEO. He commended the thoroughness reflected in the presentation delivered to the Committee. He was disappointed that 30% of the claims remained outstanding. He acknowledged that certain rebuilding operations were still occurring and hoped that this would alleviate cash flow issues. However, he was worried that SMMEs paying their premiums might still be struggling with their claims. He asked if this number could be quantified, as the small businesses often needed the help the most. What assistance was available for small businesses that had not been around for long enough to have financial resources to rely on? He also asked how much of the overall outstanding amount was related to cash flow issues and how much more the NT and shareholders would have to produce to support SASRIA.

On operational capacity issues, he asked how much of the support supplied to SASRIA was provided by the rest of government. He suggested that government's slow response had exacerbated many of the issues it had experienced.

Regarding the recent liquidity to enable SASRIA to withstand certain events, he did not appreciate the comments that SASRIA hoped it would not happen again and felt that a better strategy should be employed.

On premium growth after July 2021, he asked whether SASRIA had witnessed an increase in the number of people and businesses wanting additional cover. He also asked for confirmation as to whether the war in Ukraine and the recent floods in KZN had insurable issues that could be claimed against SASRIA.

Mr S du Toit (FF+, North West) asked about the basis of agent companies' appointment to assist SASRIA with claims and how these entities were remunerated. He agreed with Mr Ryder about the London markets.

The recent floods in KZN had been accompanied by the looting of some containers in Durban. He also noted unrest flaring up around the country, including areas like Kirkwood. He encouraged the Committee to observe how structures were being developed municipally, with unrest looming in that arena.

Mr W Aucamp (DA, Northern Cape) asked about the limitation of future damage. Under normal circumstances, ordinary insurance companies would communicate directly with their clients or the people responsible for mitigating the risk when big claims were made. Insurers often indicated to clients that if they behaved in certain ways, they might be able to decrease the risk they experienced. He asked what advice had been given to the underwriters to mitigate the currency situation in the future.

Referring to the Zondo Report and the likelihood that well-known politicians may be arrested, he said the probability of unrest recurring was very high if they had a large group of supporters who were prepared to mobilise. He asked what discussions had occurred between SASRIA and the government to assist in mitigating claims in the future.

He commented that after the unrest, there had been a total lack of communication between intelligence, police, police commissioners and the Minister of Police. Those factors contributed to government's inability to respond to the unrest as quickly as possible. He asked what advice SASRIA had been given from underwriters and professionals in that field to assist the Committee in mitigating events of that size and nature. What discussions had been held between SASRIA and the government regarding mitigating or lessening the burden arising from future events?

Ms D Mahlangu (ANC, Mpumalanga) said that many questions raised from the previous meeting with SASRIA had been addressed, but few new and recurring questions arose. She asked whether SASRIA had planned any interventions regarding the floods in KZN, whether it fell within their scope, and exactly what the interventions would be. Would SASRIA require additional funds from NT to settle these interventions?

On the quarterly report, she had been confused when Members had previously said that matters of unrest would recur, but after receiving the presentation, it appeared as though SASRIA was also under this impression. She warned against this happening, fearing the impact it would have on the community's social welfare and the economic ramifications.

She agreed with Mr Ryder regarding SMMEs requiring assistance, as many were still growing businesses. She was happy that there would be less red tape for SMMEs looking to claim assistance on taxes. She asked how SASRIA provided assistance to ensure SMMEs followed procedures when filing for claims.

The Chairperson noted that 85% of the claims were below R1 million, indicating the disproportionate burden on smaller businesses after the unrest. Though it was uncertain when the recurrence of unrest would occur, he felt that the conditions were present for it to happen again. It would involve agencies, resources and capacity. He said that government, civil society and businesses could do a lot to try and reduce the possibility of a recurrence.

He felt that some of the questions directed to SASRIA were outside their ambit and were politically based, including the question regarding the war in Ukraine’s impact on SASRIA. He also cautioned Members on their choice of words when referring to the unrest as "riots," especially given the context of the word used during apartheid. He suggested it should be called "social or civil unrest." as they stem from inequalities and conditions within the country.

Mr Du Toit called for a point of order, stating that the Chairperson was misleading the Committee. He said all reports indicated that the July 2021 unrest had been politically motivated.

The Chairperson said that it was merely a different viewpoint. He attributed the unrest to multiple instigators, including the political motivation following the detention of the former president. He said it was not misleading to have a different point of view.

He asked SASRIA what lessons they had learnt from the July unrest and their plan to manage the situation should it happen again. He asked for a more detailed explanation concerning the duplicate payments and claims caused by human error and negligence. He said SASRIA had performed well considering the unexpected and exponential amount of claims attended to by limited staff and the outside services they had employed.

He also asked for an explanation of what was meant by SASRIA, saying that cell phone allowances had not been retained. He wondered why SASRIA waited until the unrest to institute a cap on cell phone costs and whether it was related to the increased workload or the abuse of this privilege. He asked how performance had been dealing with fruitless and wasteful and irregular expenditure since the July unrest.

SASRIA's response

Mr Tyikwe thanked the Members for their welcome and the outgoing CEO for preparing him for the role. He had been preparing for this role for a long time, especially his involvement with this Committee and Members' questions. He attributed his knowledge in this field to his 35 years of experience in the industry.

Regarding the SMME market, he said that 95% of the claims below R1 million dealt with by agent insurers had been settled. 74% of the claims between R1 million and R10 million had been settled. In a future meeting with the Committee, they could update the Committee on a reconsolidated number of claims. He felt that the SMME market had been handled well by SASRIA.

He exemplified the assistance to SMMEs through an example. The example indicated that if a franchise owner of a grocery store with a claim of R7 million had access to SASRIA for assistance, SASRIA itself would be eager to settle this claim quickly. However, franchise stores' operational and backup systems had not been providing SASRIA with the information required in terms of stock. They were only able to speculate on the matter. They assumed that some franchises might be under-declaring their turnover to whoever gave them their licence to avoid high franchise fees, or it could be due to franchises not declaring the correct amounts to SARS. Small operators who did not make claims above R4 million were covered and were paid, even in the absence of more detailed information.

SASRIA was confident that there were sufficient funds to handle all the claims and meet the capital requirements on cash flow. It felt in a comfortable position given the cash injection from NT. It also expected more income from reinsurers and value-added tax (VAT) received back from SARS.

Concerning operational capacity, Mr Tyikwe said they were looking into redesigning SASRIA. This included half of the staff in future being trained to deal with claims, even if working in another role. This would allow for greater internal assistance for the core claims department when dealing with claims in instances of emergency. The operational capacity model had also been assisted by the outsourced model, in which some of SASRIA’s activities were outsourced to agents, insurers and brokers.

Mr Tyikwe clarified that they were not involved with assistance related to the KZN damage, which fell within the scope of South African short-term insurers. Those who would feel the effects of the flood most severely were those who did not have access to insurance. This involved people in informal settlements and townships. This would be an area of interest for them to be involved in, though only once the entity had managed to fulfil its core mandate. He reminded the Committee that the floods and subsequent looting were ultimately the responsibility of short-term insurers, as the reasons for the looting were not resulting from any of the causes that SASRIA covered.

Mr Tyikwe said he would not be responding to political comments.

Regarding London markets and Lloyds, SASRIA said Lloyds and the South African insurance markets had exited civil unrest cover after they had failed to profit from these claims. Over the past 40 years since then, SASRIA managed to make a profit in this field, except for two years. Before the unrest, SASRIA had a loss ratio of 76%. With this as a backdrop, they had to plan for what was likely to happen. They expected to have to pay some claims in the future, though they would not be as significant as the July unrest claims.

Referring to agent insurers, he said SASRIA operated on an outsourced model where policies bundled the SASRIA cover and the coverage provided through these agencies. Agent insurers then became responsible for issuing the policy, collecting the premiums, and settling claims that SASRIA mandated. SASRIA looked at the capability of agent insurers, ranging from claims of R1 million up to R5 million. It had an existing service level agreement (SLA) with agent insurers where they would be paid an outsourcing fee of 12% to 12.5%. SASRIA did not pay any extra fees for these claims, as they were already in their mandate. After the unrest, these companies assisted SASRIA in dealing with 15 000 to 16 000 claims under R5 million.

Mr Tyikwe confirmed that municipalities had to take out insurance under the Local Government Act. Municipalities contributed to a unique market segment, where they were priced differently from other large entities, and the pricing reflected the risks municipalities faced. SASRIA would try to establish a metric where the performance of municipalities could be measured using quantitative measures, and predictions could be made for future performance. It was suggested that the metric could include measures of infrastructure involvement, salaries, etc. SASRIA had a programme of field agents through insurers, where work was done with municipalities to improve their service delivery.

Referring to the war in Ukraine, he said SASRIA only covered risks within the borders of South Africa, so they did not expect to see any consequences of the war directly impacting their business.

To decrease risk, in terms of the law, SASRIA had to accept each and every risk given to them, affording them monopoly status and facilitating investment in the South African economy. While SASRIA could not decrease risk like other insurers, they had been able to increase premiums when it was noted that the risk was increasing. They were able to look at limiting the exposure they had to a particular client, which was currently sitting at R500 million.

Though the KZN floods did not fall within SASRIA's scope, they were engaging with the board and NT to create solutions to the risks that would face South Africa now and through the future, where possible coverage could occur. This included special risks such as drought and flooding, which would be handled once SASRIA was strong enough to do so.

SASRIA also planned to develop solutions, in partnership with field agents, for uninsured clients. In particular, they planned to empower black brokers operating in townships to raise awareness about SASRIA and conventional insurance.

Mr Tyikwe said he had been an outsider when government support had been provided, though NT had responded really well to the challenges experienced by SASRIA. Support was also received from within the industry, with some executives of insurance companies assisting SASRIA in developing strategies to recover and offering a public relations team to educate SASRIA on dealing with the media.

SASRIA was able to meet their current and future commitments, provided they were below a certain amount of money. If the financial demand increased beyond R3 billion, it would be difficult for them to respond appropriately.

Mr Tyikwe briefly spoke to duplicate payments, saying that the SASRIA system had been improved to avoid duplicate payments. Though they were equally taken seriously, these made up a small proportion of the overall claims paid. SASRIA was committed to being transparent and dealing with duplicate payments as they arrived.

Ms Benjamin added that the systems to deal with duplicate payments were inadequate and required lots of manual processes. Duplications at the time could have entailed invoicing a service provider more than once, and in these instances, SASRIA had managed to recover the funds. The consequence management for those actions had involved a root-cause analysis in understanding what had transpired.

In 2020, SASRIA launched a new claims management system which was integrated with another new system within the finance division. It introduced checks and balances to ensure that all payments were adequately accounted for. The only duplicate payment that could still occur would be when outsourced agreements with agent companies reconciled the claims to SASRIA. There might already have been a payment from SASRIA. SASRIA employed a full audit process to ensure that this would not reoccur. Duplicate payments observed in the presentation were from the previous financial year, which had since been mitigated.

Ms Mthiyane referred to the R1.4 million in fruitless and wasteful expenditure incurred in the previous financial year and said legacy systems predominantly drove duplicate and overpayment of claims. The recent migration of SASRIA to their new systems had resulted in a situation where missed payments could have occurred due to human error and negligence. R1.4 million of fruitless and wasteful expenditure incurred, R1.27 million had since been fully recovered. A significant portion of the R1.4 million was attributed to a supplier that had been incorrectly paid.

SASRIA took out contracts on behalf of employees, especially those involved in stakeholder management, before setting a limit on the monthly allowance regarding cell phone allowances. There should have been control on the service providers' side, where an automatic cap on the allowance or usage could have been in place. Employees often did not have ways to access or detect that the quota had been reached, resulting in irregular spending on cellphone allowances.

Mr E Njadu (ANC, Western Cape) referred to duplicate payments and asked what measures to strengthen internal controls. He also wanted to know the consequences in instances where money could not be recovered.

Ms Benjamin responded that the measures in place consisted of implementing the new claims management system, within which some triggers facilitated the total payment process. She exemplified this by saying that the payment process now included verifying the company registration number. SASRIA had various system integration points with escalations that prohibited certain payments. The checks and balances would be to check for duplicate banking account numbers. SASRIA used a combination of various operational controls and built-in controls within the system. This system was also highly integrated with the financial department's economic recovery programme (ERP) system, which had its own set of internal controls. There were also two levels of authority within the claims department. This included senior claims controllers and team leaders to function as further controls from a human perspective.

The Chairperson concluded the meeting, saying that the Committee was likely to meet with SASRIA again, considering their increasingly important role and the conditions in South Africa currently, which were conducive to recurring unrest. He urged SASRIA to prepare for the possibility that social unrest would be part of South African society for a while at least. He felt that SASRIA should have a more accurate projection of where they were going, taking into account the volatility of the economic and socio-political landscape of the country.

He also urged that the Committees on Finance and Appropriations and NT look at what it meant to allocate resources and funds in circumstances where a budget was over-constrained and the economy was not growing.

He said these circumstances should not dissuade anyone, and felt confident that under the current leadership, SASRIA would be able to address all the issues that had been raised in the presentation.

Ms Kgodiso Mokonyane, Deputy Chairperson, SASRIA, said that SASRIA regularly did its own risk solvency assessment and the whole business and prudential authority. This evaluated the business, the possible risks and the financial means required to be a resilient organisation. This would allow SASRIA to still be financially solvent, even if events such as the July unrest recurred.

The Chairperson appreciated these comments and the overall presentation and work ethic of the SASRIA staff.  

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: