Commission for Gender Equality vacancies: Interviews day 1

Meeting report

Process for filling CGE Commissioner vacancies
The Chairperson explained that six vacant CGE Commissioner posts are to be filled. Four positions need to be filled by 1 November. The other two needed to be filled with immediate effect. The Committee had received 158 applications in total and 24 candidates were shortlisted. The interview process would last four days from 20 to 23 September. Members would deliberate and select their recommendations on 27 September 2022.

The Committee received 656 public comments on the 24 shortlisted candidates. The Committee had duly responded to concerns raised by organisations. The responses were guided by the National Assembly Rules, legislation, and the mandate of the Portfolio Committee. OUTA had sent a separate version of submission to the Committee on its comments on the candidates.

The CVs of the candidates were sent to the State Security Agency for vetting and their qualifications sent to Parliament’s Human Resources for verification.

Since the panel is interviewing candidates for an entity under the Committee’s oversight, only Committee permanent members may be on the panel according to proportional representation. She was unsure of the ATM political party but was certain that all means had been tried to reach out to that party. Since the Committee consisted of eleven permanent members, not all members would be asking questions to each candidate. Only two Members from the ANC and two from the opposition parties are allowed to ask follow-up questions. The interview would last about 45 minutes for each candidate. Committee members were free to ask candidates should there be a concern such as a criminal record arising from those public comments. Candidates are allowed to bring in their preparatory notes but are not permitted to read off their notes. A candidate must fully understand the content of the CGE Act.

The Committee’s Content Advisor explained that there were 14 days for the public to comment on the shortlisted candidates. Overall, the Committee received 656 public comments about 22 of the shortlisted candidates. The majority of those comments (630) were positive comments.

The Content Advisor indicated that Adv Gumede had received 99 comments, Ms Joy Lange had received eight comments, Mr Bongani Ngomane had received one comment, Ms Bernadine Bachair received 98 comments, Ms Lindiwe Khonjelwayo received three comments and so on.

Areas of concern about the public participation process
Dr Herman Tembe, Legal Officer: Office of Institutions Supporting Democracy (OISD), informed the Committee that he had received six letters flagging areas of concern. He highlighted the key issues in the letter of demand from Corruption Watch: insufficient time for public comments; insufficient information provided in the redacted CVs; two-page limit for public comments.

Insufficient time for public comments
Corruption Watch objected to the short period given to public participation. The timeframe did not allow civil society a reasonable opportunity to comment on the 24 shortlisted candidates. Corruption Watch interpreted the given 14 calendar days as ten business days.

The Chairperson interjected and pointed out that in the advertisements, the Committee had used calendar days and not business days. Thus the public could make submissions on weekends too. There is precedent to follow as in the appointment of the NYDA board, the Committee had used calendar instead of business days for public comments. Those organisations also need to consider the programming of Parliament. The fourteen calendar days were determined by Parliament’s programme and schedule for the interview process. The fact that the Committee had received more than 600 public comments showed that the Committee did not close the door to consulting the public and that the given time period was sufficient.

Insufficient information provided in the redacted CVs
Corruption Watch stated that the redacted CVs contained only the candidate name and qualifications were insufficient for members of the public to know more about those candidates

The Chairperson indicated that the Protection of the Personal Information Act (POPIA) outlines which information can or cannot be published. This issue had been addressed in the Committee’s previous meeting. It was Dr Tembe’s legal opinion that the Committee could not publish private information of the candidates because of POPIA. Members of the public should remember that the Committee would screen all the candidates. There are mechanisms such as the State Security Agency and Parliament’s human resources to ensure that all fraudulent activities would be caught.

Dr Tembe reaffirmed the view that the publication of the candidate's qualifications was sufficient for the public to make their comments.

Two-page limit for public comments
The Chairperson indicated that the given two-page length should be sufficient for public comments. However, the Committee had explicitly stated in its previous meeting that the Committee Chairperson or Secretariat would welcome additional information if the two-page limit was insufficient.

Corruption Watch had indicated potential litigation would take place if the Committee did not oblige to its request.

Discussion
Ms F Masiko (ANC) asked if the CV available to the public was the same one which Members were viewing.

Ms Kashifa Abrahams, Committee Content Advisor, explained that the redacted CV for public comments contained only candidates’ names and qualifications.

The Chairperson emphasised that private information of individuals must be kept private in accordance with POPIA. While reviewing the public comments, she realised that she was uncertain if some of the details contained in the public comments had been obtained through legal means.

Dr Tembe agreed and pointed out that POPIA places the responsibility of the control of information on the party responsible for such info going public as there is no way to control the dissemination of private information once that happens.

The Chairperson said that the public must remember that candidates were human beings too and can sue the Committee if it violates POPIA resulting in the unlawful leak of their personal information.

Mr L Mphithi (DA) said he had read the Corruption Watch letter. The main concern was if the redacted version of the CV provided the public sufficient information to comment on the shortlisted candidates. In his view, he believed the answer to that was yes. He also recalled in the previous meeting that the Chairperson had explicitly stated that the public could send an email to the Committee Secretariat or the Chairperson should the information provided exceed that limit.

On the 14 days versus ten working days, Mr Mphithi highlighted that the main purposes for the Portfolio Committee right now were twofold: 1) the current state of CGE cannot sustain as its senior management is not fully appointed due to vacancies and a number of the contracts for current Commissioners are coming to an end; 2) the Committee needs to respond to that stakeholder timeously to avoid putting the Committee in a bad light. Given the urgency to address gender issues in society, the appointment of CGE Commissioners needs to take place soonest to enable CGE to do the job it needs to do.

Hence, Mr Mphithi believed that the Committee’s process was fair and reasonable.

Ms F Masiko (ANC) agreed with her colleague and believed the Committee had ticked all due processes and gave the public sufficient time to comment. Having received more than 600 public comments on the 24 candidates was further proof of that.

The Content Advisor noted that the Committee had not received an update from the State Security Agency. In terms of qualifications, of the 23 shortlisted candidates, 20 had been finalised, and three were outstanding. Two of those were awaiting MIE verification. One candidate had submitted the academic record and the Committee still awaited the actual qualification certificate.

The Chairperson reassured everyone that the Committee aims to promote openness and transparency throughout this whole process.

Interviews
At the beginning of each interview, the Committee Members then introduced themselves. The Chairperson explained to the candidate that the interview process would last 45 minutes and that English should be the primary language for communication since no interpreter was present. However, the candidate may occasionally use a language of their preference to explain certain terms should they struggle to find the exact word in English. Thereafter, the candidates were five minutes to introduce themselves.

At the end of each interview, the Chairperson asked the candidate to ask any clarifying questions. The Chairperson explained what would happen next and that the candidate would be kept informed of the outcome in due course. The Committee’s job was to make recommendations to the President, who made the final appointments.

Candidate 1: Ms Joy Janita Lange
Ms Masiko highlighted the CGE's role in strengthening constitutional democracy, particularly the attainment of gender equality in all spheres. She asked the candidate what her understanding was of the mandate, powers and functions of CGE as a Chapter 9 institution in terms of the Constitution and its enabling legislation.

Mr Mphithi asked the candidate to provide an assessment of the work CGE had done. He asked her to identify at least two instances demonstrating the strength or weakness of CGE’s work. If appointed, what key areas did the candidate plan to work on?

Ms Masondo (ANC) stated that a key CGE strategic outcome for 2019-2024 states that CGE intends to protect gender equality through public awareness education, investigation and litigation. She asked the candidate to assess if it had been done successfully and what innovative methods the candidate would adopt to promote public awareness of and access to the CGE.

Ms B Marekwa (ANC) asked the candidate why the Constitution required all Chapter 9 institutions to be independent and impartial. She asked if she regarded herself as an independent-minded and impartial person. If the response was yes, she asked the candidate to demonstrate why.

Ms A Hlongo (ANC) asked the candidate to explain her understanding of corporate governance for the CGE, especially in her potential role as a CGE Commissioner.

Ms N Sharif (DA) described gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF) as a pandemic in South Africa and thus, CGE had a huge role to play. Ms Sharif described gender-based violence and femicide as a pandemic in South Africa. She asked the candidate three questions:
- to elaborate on the details of the government’s plan to tackle this and to identify relevant legislation to combat GBVF;
- how CGE can give effect to the plan and the legislation to combat GBVF;
- her view of the activities CGE could undertake to create awareness and combat GBVF.

Ms N Hlonyana (EFF) commended the candidate that she had succeeded in making up the shortfall of her higher education with extensive work experience. She asked the candidate if she had any experience in legislative or policy review and, if so, to give more details.

Ms Hlonyana was confident that the candidate should possess the conflict resolution skills since she came from a family of nine siblings. She thus asked how the candidate how she would resolve a conflict situation involving her colleague Commissioners.

The Chairperson asked the candidate to be more specific in reply to Ms Hlonyana’s question. Since CGE is a public institution, which legislation or policy would the candidate use to resolve conflicts with other Commissioners?

Ms M Hlengwa (IFP) asked the candidate to provide instances of when she had successfully exercised her leadership skills.

The Chairperson asked the candidate why she believed that she was a suitable candidate.

Candidate 2: Prof Nokuthula Caritus Mazibuko
Ms Marekwa asked the candidate what her understanding was of the mandate, powers and functions of CGE as a Chapter 9 institution in terms of the Constitution and its enabling legislation.

Ms Marekwa asked the candidate to explain the role of a CGE Commissioner.

Mr Mphithi asked the candidate, if appointed, what her mitigating strategies would be to address the challenges facing CGE over the past two years.

Ms Hlonyana noted the candidate’s expertise in policy drafting as she had been involved in drafting the Swedish sexual harassment policy and GBV policy. She asked if the candidate had any policy review experience.

Ms Hlonyana asked the candidate if she had managerial experience. If so, she asked the candidate to provide details and highlight her specific management skills.

Ms Hlonyana asked if the candidate had any advocacy experience and to provide details if the candidate had.

Ms Sharif described gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF) as a pandemic in South Africa and thus, CGE had a huge role to play. Ms Sharif described gender-based violence and femicide as a pandemic in South Africa. She asked the candidate three questions:
- to elaborate on the details of the government’s plan to tackle this and to identify relevant legislation to combat GBVF;
- how CGE can give effect to the plan and the legislation to combat GBVF;
- her view of the activities CGE could undertake to create awareness and combat GBVF.

Ms Hlengwa asked the candidate, in terms of leadership and skills, why the candidate believed that she was the best candidate for the position. She asked the candidate to give an instance in which she had successfully demonstrated leadership qualities.

Ms Phiri stated that s187 of the Constitution and section 11(1) of the CGE Act empower the CGE to monitor compliance with international human rights treaties. She asked the candidate what she believed CGE's role should be in ensuring South Africa’s compliance obligations with ratified international treaties.

Ms Hlongo emphasised that the Constitution stipulates that all Chapter 9 institutions must be impartial and carry out their functions without fear, favour or prejudice. She asked why the Constitution required all Chapter 9 institutions to be independent and impartial.

Ms Hlongo asked the candidate if she regarded herself as an independent-minded and impartial person. If the response was yes, she asked the candidate to demonstrate why.

Candidate 3: Ms Subrayan Naidoo
Mr Mphithi asked the candidate to assess which areas CGE had failed to fulfil its mandate in the past few years. What mitigating strategies would she adopt to deal with those particular issues if appointed as a Commissioner?

Ms Sharif described gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF) as a pandemic in South Africa and thus CGE had a huge role to play. Ms Sharif described gender-based violence and femicide as a pandemic in South Africa. She asked the candidate three questions:
- to elaborate on the details of the government’s plan to tackle this and to identify relevant legislation to combat GBVF;
- how CGE can give effect to the plan and the legislation to combat GBVF;
- her view of the activities CGE could undertake to create awareness and combat GBVF.

Ms Hlonyana noted the candidate’s litigation experience and managerial experience as she had owned a legal practice for eight years. She asked if the candidate had experience in legislative or policy review and, if so, to give more details.

Ms Hlonyana asked if the candidate had advocacy experience and to provide details if the candidate had.

Ms Hlonyana asked the candidate her view on how CGE could strengthen its monitoring and evaluation system if she was appointed a Commissioner.

Ms Hlengwa asked the candidate to convince the panel by describing one instance that showed her leadership skills in organising and doing things professionally.

Ms Marekwa asked the candidate why the Constitution required all Chapter 9 institutions to be independent and impartial.

Ms Marekwa asked if the candidate regarded herself as an independent-minded and impartial person. If the response was yes, she asked the candidate to demonstrate why.

Ms Phiri stated that s187 of the Constitution and section 11(1) of the CGE Act empower the CGE to monitor compliance with international human rights treaties. She asked the candidate what she believed CGE's role should be in ensuring South Africa’s compliance obligations with ratified international treaties. She reminded the candidate that there were nine treaties and asked her to deliberate on that.

Ms Phiri asked the candidate a follow up question to indicate which policy she had helped to improve when she was serving on those professional committees she had mentioned and what the gap had been.

Candidate 4: Ms Gretta Nonhlanhla Govender
Ms Hlonyana asked the candidate if she had any managerial experience and, if so, to provide details and highlight her specific management skills.

Ms Hlonyana asked if the candidate had legislative or policy review experience and to provide details if she had.

Ms Hlonyana asked the candidate if her current position at the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) would have any effect on her conducting her duty as a CGE Commissioner.

Ms Phiri indicated that one of the key roles of CGE was monitoring and evaluating of gender equality across all sectors in the country. As a Commissioner, how would she go about this duty?

Secondly, as a Commissioner, how would the candidate assist the oversight role of Parliament in dealing with gender equality in the country?

Mr Mphithi asked the candidate to identify CGE’s challenges and how as a potential Commissioner, she planned to address those challenges.

Ms Hlongo asked the candidate to explain her understanding of corporate governance for the CGE, especially in her potential role as a CGE Commissioner.

Ms Masiko asked the candidate what her understanding was of the mandate, powers and functions of CGE as a Chapter 9 institution. She asked what her understanding was of the role of a CGE Commissioner.

Ms Marekwa asked the candidate what the role of CGE should be in ensuring the country complies with international treaties and obligations.

Ms Sharif described gender-based violence and femicide as a pandemic in South Africa and government had put in place a plan to tackle this. She asked the candidate three questions:
- to elaborate on the details of the government’s plan and to identify relevant legislation to combat GBVF noting that 153 women were raped daily;
- how CGE can give effect to the plan and the legislation to combat GBVF;
- her view of the activities CGE could undertake to create awareness and combat GBVF.

Ms Sharif noted the candidate’s experience at SAPS and asked her to name the three GBVF bills.

Ms Hlengwa asked the candidate what her most valuable leadership skill was and give instances of being able to organise, do things professionally and educate people.

That concluded the interviews for the day and the Chairperson adjourned the meeting.