Social Development Portfolio Audit Outcomes; DSD, SASSA & NDA Annual Report 2021/22; with Ministry
12 October 2022
Chairperson: Ms N Mvana (ANC)
In a virtual meeting, the Committee received a report from the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) on the audit outcomes for the Department of Social Development (DSD) and its entities for the 2021/22 financial year. This was followed by the presentation of the 2020/21 annual reports of the DSD and its entities, the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) and the National Development Agency (NDA).
The AGSA presented the Committee with the status of three material irregularities identified at SASSA -- a material financial loss of R74 million, an overpayment of R316 million to a service provider, and payment of R350 social relief of distress (SRD) grant to ineligible beneficiaries. AGSA also noted a total of R2.065 million fruitless and wasteful expenditure (R430 000 at the DSD, R1 631 319 at SASSA, and R4 329 at the NDA). The Committee was informed that the Department’s financial viability was concerning, and that if an accrual basis of accounting was applied, its total liabilities would exceed its total assets. AGSA was applauded for being able to link how irregularities and non-achievement of targets impacted the beneficiaries of certain services.
The Minister said that the Department’s expenditure at the end of the 2021/22 financial year amounted to 92.2% of the final budget allocation of R235 billion. During the year, its social assistance programme cushioned South Africans and established operational efficiencies by decreasing the cost of administering social grants.
The Department reported that its social assistance programmes had reached over 18.6 million vulnerable South Africans. In addition, there were 10.9 million beneficiaries who had benefited from the special Covid-19 SRD grant. Social grants continued to be government’s most effective measure for combating poverty and inequality.
Members were concerned about key targets not being achieved, the extent of fraud at SASSA, and consequence management not being implemented in the Department’s entities. They asked AGSA to provide the Committee with the names of those companies that had been awarded contracts that were found to have irregularities. They questioned whether any criminal charges had been pressed against the service providers linked to the R74 million material financial loss. They raised concerns over the vacancy rate in senior management, the recovery of irregular and wasteful expenditure, and the non-compliance of non-profit organisations. The DSD was also asked to provide the Committee with the names of state officials doing business with the state.
A Member said that the AGSA presentation highlighted the need for the Committee to step up its oversight in real time over the Department and its entities. The Zondo Commission’s findings and its scathing report in Parliament highlighted that Members needed to take that responsibility very seriously. This was especially because the DSD was the lifeboat for South Africans, and its mandate was to get South Africans from a state dependency to independence, which was not happening according to the report from AGSA.
The Chairperson said it was worth noting that October was known as the month of Social Development and Transport, where those who passed away due to vehicle accidents were remembered. It would be great if, as part of Social Development month, the Committee did something nice for the elderly, as it was also their month. One of the things that the elderly appreciated was a sports day, as it made them feel young again and able to participate in sports activities.
The agenda was flagged and then adopted by Members. The new Committee Member, Ms Matshidiso Mfikoe (ANC), was welcomed into the Committee.
Department of Social Development (DSD) portfolio's audit outcomes
The Auditor-General’s Office (AGSA) presented the 2021/22 audit outcomes for entities under the Committee’s oversight ambit. It informed the Committee that it had developed a new strategy called Culture Shift 2030. It wanted to shift the culture of its auditees towards one predominated by behaviour that reflected transparency, accountability and integrity. The culture shift could be achieved through the accountability ecosystem, as everyone had a role to play in the national government accountability ecosystem. This would then result in an environment that would be characterised by performance, transparency and integrity.
AGSA was unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to audit the reliability of the achievement of 57.7% reported by the DSD on children who had access to quality early childhood development (ECD) services during the 2021/22 financial year. The effect of this was that an inadequate system to track the achievement of targets for ECD services may have had a negative impact on the quality of ECD services provided since the Department was unable to ascertain the nature of curriculum provided by the ECD centres. As a result, the DSD may also be unable to confirm whether funds were being spent correctly for the services rendered by ECD centres.
The South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) had a target of 390 880 social relief of distress (SRD) grant applications awarded at a cost of R391 million, but only 167 802 SRD applications were awarded at a cost of R191.755 million This represented a 42.93% achievement against the planned target. 580 000 children below the age of one in receipt of the children’s grant was another target, but only 544 237 children below the age of one received the children’s grant. This represented a 93.83% achievement against the target.
Findings on flood relief
Social relief was provided to flood victims in the form of approximately 99 500 hot meals and 10 894 food vouchers for groceries in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), 2 637 humanitarian goods were delivered, 4 159 cash distributions were paid directly into bank accounts, and 816 school uniforms were provided in KZN and the Eastern Cape. The AGSA selected a sample of recipients who received the above relief and audited distribution processes and controls on the social pension system to determine whether payments were made to valid beneficiaries.
Status of material irregularities (MI) identified
Payment of social assistance fees for services not rendered
In April 2018, the entity made a payment of social assistance fees to a service provider concerning grant payments to beneficiaries. The service provider was not entitled to the fees because the entity had made the relevant grant payments directly to the beneficiaries’ bank accounts. The payment for services not rendered to the entity had resulted in non-compliance with section 50(1) (a) of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), as the accounting authority did not act in the best interests of the entity. The non-compliance resulted in a material financial loss of R74 million for the entity, which formed part of the closing balance of fruitless and wasteful expenditure, as indicated in note 30 to the 2021-22 annual financial statements.
The accounting authority was notified of the material irregularity on 23 August 2021 and invited to make a written submission on their actions to address the matter. The accounting authority responded to the notification on 30 September 2021. It provided a comprehensive account of the circumstances that led to the material irregularity, steps taken to address the material irregularity, and recourse to recover the financial loss incurred.
On 7 December 2021, a private firm was appointed through the National Treasury to conduct a forensic investigation into the entity’s undue payments to the service provider in 2018. The draft investigation report was submitted to the chief executive officer on 12 July 2022 for discussion and finalisation of the recommendations. AGSA would follow up on the investigation and implementation of the planned actions during its next audit.
Overpayment of R316 million to a service provider
During June 2014, the entity made a payment of R316 million to a service provider appointed to administer grant payments. The payment was made as part of a variation to the service level agreement with the service provider. However, this variation was concluded contrary to the entity’s supply chain management (SCM) policy, as no prior approval had been sought or given from the bid adjudication committee. The courts later confirmed that the variation in question was unnecessary, as the additional services referred to were covered by the existing service level agreement with the service provider. This meant that the service provider was not entitled to the additional payment of R316 million. The payment for services not rendered resulted in non-compliance with section 51(1) (c) of the PFMA, and was likely to result in a financial loss of R316 million to the entity, as the service provider was currently under liquidation.
The accounting authority was notified of the material irregularity on 4 October 2021 and invited to make a written submission on their actions to address the matter. The accounting authority responded to the notification on 8 November 2021. It provided a comprehensive account of the circumstances that led to the material irregularity, steps taken to address the material irregularity, and recourse to recover the financial loss incurred.
On 9 February 2022, a private firm was appointed through the National Treasury to conduct a forensic investigation into the payment of R316 million to the service provider in 2014/15. At the date of this report, the investigation was still in progress.
Payment of R350 SRD grants to ineligible beneficiaries
Between May 2020 and August 2021, the entity made payments to ineligible individuals who were not entitled to the SRD Covid-19 R350 grant. This was because internal controls were inadequate to perform validations and prevent payments to ineligible persons. This resulted in non-compliance with section 51(1) (a) (i) of the PFMA, as the entity did not maintain effective, efficient and transparent systems of financial and risk management and related internal controls. The non-compliance likely resulted in a material financial loss for DSD on whose behalf the entity administered the grant.
The accounting authority was notified of the material irregularity on 4 October 2021 and invited a written submission on their actions to address the matter. The accounting authority’s response to the notification, on 8 November 2021, disagreed on the non-compliance with section 51(1)(a)(i) of the PFMA, arguing that the entity had taken adequate actions to prevent payments to ineligible applicants, based on the best data available to them before payments were made.
On 16 May 2022, AGSA received a further submission from the accounting authority detailing steps that were being taken to address the material irregularity. Based on an assessment of the accounting authority’s submission, it was concluded that appropriate action was not being taken to address the material irregularity fully. Recommendations were made to the accounting authority to take action to address the material irregularity, which should be implemented by 29 January 2023.
Observations from material irregularity (MI) process
The accounting authority (AA) was taking appropriate action to deal with the two MIs where payments were made while services were not received (R74m and R316m). The AA had referred these two MIs for further investigation through National Treasury (NT), which appointed a firm to do a forensic investigation to determine the root cause of the non-compliance and if any current or former officials could be held liable. There had been some delays in finalising the investigation into these 2 MIs due to the legacy nature of the issues involved. Both investigations were still in progress while the service provider relating to these MIs was undergoing a liquidation process.
After the recommendations were made in the special reports, management began to act on some of those recommendations. SASSA started to stop payments and recover funds through the Social Security Pension (SOCPEN)/SRD system from the beneficiaries who did not meet the criteria to qualify for the grant. SASSA had recovered R56m from ineligible beneficiaries as at 31 March 2022. Recommendations were included in the audit report to ensure that the entity implemented all necessary actions to enforce timely recoveries and other relevant actions to strengthen the controls.
R2.065 million of expenditure was fruitless and wasteful -- R430 000 at the DSD, R1 631 319 at SASSA, and R4 329 at the NDA. The DSD’s financial viability was concerning because if an accrual basis of accounting was applied, its total liabilities would exceed its total assets. This meant that the Department may not have enough cash to cover its liabilities. The DSD’s unauthorised expenditure balance from the prior years had not yet been authorised, and as a result, the net bank balance remained in an overdraft of R15 billion.
Overall root causes of significant findings
Management did not maintain an adequate record keeping system to ensure complete and accurate source documentation to support performance reporting. There was a slow response by management as action plans developed for preventing and detecting instances of non-compliance with applicable laws and regulations were inadequate, as significant internal control deficiencies were identified in the SCM function.
(See presentation attached for further details)
Ms L Arries (EFF) commented on the key targets not achieved (slide seven), specifically the number of children below the age of one in receipt of the children’s grant. The Department of Health had all the information that SASSA needed to achieve this target. Was it not a possible solution for SASSA to arrange with the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) to ensure this target was achieved?
The Minister had recently announced that 7.5 million had received the SRD grant, but the target for the grant was not achieved and there had also been a decrease in the number of people receiving the SRD grant. Was the non-achievement a result of the Department having problems with its systems, or the handling of the SRD grants? On slide 14, referring to the R74 million identified as a material irregularity, were any criminal charges pressed against the service providers, as this was so unethical? As the Committee had the responsibility of oversight, it must be given a report on how much money was recovered from the ineligible recipients of the SRD grants. The Committee must also be provided with a report on finalising all the outstanding disciplinary cases.
There needed to be consequence management for managers failing the Department, as there was currently no consequence management for such managers. The issue of suppliers overcharging the Department and officials that did business with the state was unethical and constituted fraud, so the people responsible for all this should be charged criminally.
Ms L van der Merwe (IFP) thanked AGSA for the presentation and for always coming to the Committee with great insights and recommendations. The Committee really needed to be provided with a progress report on all the investigations and actions taken against officials found guilty of financial misconduct. The report would show the Committee whether consequences or actions were really being taken against those officials found guilty, because every year, when AGSA came to the Committee, it was more of a case of déjà vu. In any of the years that the Committee got a presentation from AGSA, it did not feel like there had been much movement on the issues of consequence management, financial misconduct or even holding to account the people who steal money from the poor. The Committee must keep a closer eye on these issues, as people tasked with oversight over the Department and its entities.
How many recommendations that AGSA issued to the Department last year were implemented, and how many were not? There was a mention of the filling of critical vacancies -- did the AGSA have an indication that there had been improvement in the filling of critical vacancies? Last year, the AGSA indicated that SASSA needed to recover money from ineligible grant recipients and that it needed to fix its inadequate databases. The same finding as last year was presented to the Committee this year. Was the recommendation not implemented by SASSA, and had the AGSA noted any attempts by SASSA to address the ongoing shortfalls in the old, outdated databases?
The serious problem of fraud at SASSA should keep everyone awake at night. Since SASSA indicated that they had an internal unit dealing with fraud, had the AGSA picked up whether this internal unit had had any role in preventing fraud at SASSA? About state officials receiving income or contracts from the DSD, it was mentioned that the AGSA had the names of those officials. How many state officials were implicated in this? This made one wonder whether there were really checks and balances in this Department. Had the AGSA seen whether there was a culture of consequence management developing within the DSD and its entities?
On slide six, the mention of the DSD not being able to provide sufficient appropriate evidence on the 57.7% achievement reported, was the same problem that the Committee had with the Department. The Department would give presentations to the Committee about their efforts in fighting issues such as gender-based violence (GBV), substance abuse, or gangsterism, but the Committee did not really get the sense that what was being presented could be supported by sufficient evidence. Was there possibly during the year scope for the AGSA to look further into all the programmes that the Committee was concerned about?
Ms B Masango (DA) asked whether it was possible for the investigation of matters reported by the AGSA to be undertaken at the same time by both the Department and the private investigators so that the Committee did not have to wait for a long time for one stage of the process to end before getting to the next. For example, the R316 million and the R74 million mentioned under the material irregularities went way back, and the investigations remained ongoing.
It was odd and concerning that the organisations that were being investigated were still providing services to the Department. Was that allowed, or should the organisations being investigated stop providing the services until the investigations had been concluded?
The AGSA must be applauded for their presentation, especially where they were able to link how irregularities and non-achievement of targets impacted the beneficiaries of certain services.
Ms A Abrahams (DA) said that the Committee in the fourth term needed to request the Department to bring its actual action plan, because it was one thing to say that plans were being implemented, monitored, and maintained, but when the AGSA came to the Committee it was another story. Most of the time, the AGSA did not put in writing the names of those companies that were awarded contracts that were found to have irregularities. It did that verbally, and it would be beneficial to the Committee rather to have all those names and the supporting documents included in the presentation.
It was concerning that some of the programmes the Department had implemented might not be reaching their desired targets, such as the ECD’s 57.7% target achievement. When looking at the number of people accessing food, was the AGSA satisfied with all supporting documents received from the Community Nutrition Development Centres (CNDCs)? Did the AGSA have scope to investigate SASSA and the DSD’s communication campaigns and whether the communication on the various grants was actually reaching the most rural areas, seeing that the targets were not being achieved regarding these grants?
In the presentation, AGSA noted R54.5 in irregular expenditure on leases, which pointed to the following situation which happened this year in Khayelitsha, which would obviously not be part of this presentation. SASSA had gotten into a lease agreement, and when the Committee visited that building, it was clear that it was unfit to use, resulting in SASSA getting into a second lease agreement with the City of Cape Town. What then were the AGSA’s thoughts on SASSA and the NDA making more use of some of the state buildings, as opposed to the ever-increasing costs when it came to leasing buildings?
The Fundraising Amendment Bill had just been passed, and the AGSA’s involvement in the social relief programme after the pandemic where they gave recommendations, had resulted in a better outcome in the KZN floods. Was the AGSA being consulted in drafting the regulations to the Fundraising Bill, as that would be a fund that the AGSA would report on? If the AGSA could give recommendations on the Bill now, what had been experienced during the pandemic would be avoided.
Ms M Sukers (ACDP) said that the AGSA presentation highlighted the need for the Committee to step up its oversight in real time over the Department and its entities. The Zondo Commission’s findings and its scathing report in Parliament highlighted that Members need to take that responsibility very seriously. This was especially because the DSD was the lifeboat for South Africans, and its mandate was to get South Africans from a state dependency to independence, which was not happening according to the report from AGSA. It was important for the Committee to realise that the Department had not made any movement since 2019, when the Committee received its first briefing from the AGSA. It was concerning that the DSD was currently sitting with over R1 billion of irregular expenditure and had received a dire going concern warning from the AGSA.
It seemed as if the change management process employed by the DSD was not yielding any results, and the Department had had this as part of their expenditure for the last three years, which was worrying. The reporting system needed to be changed, as many of the transgressions in the Department were hidden in the current reporting system. As Ms Van der Merwe had pointed out, the names of those found guilty of misconduct needed to be put down in writing as part of the reports.
What was the reason for the delay in the condonements, and what were the requirements for a condonement to be granted by National Treasury?
Ms J Manganye (ANC) said that most of her questions and concerns had already been raised by the Members, so she had only a few questions to ask AGSA. How difficult was it to obtain all the information about the ineligible grant recipients so that the Department could take the necessary steps to recover the money from them, as some had been found to be working. The issue of fraud seemed to be a regular occurrence, as every year, there was mention of fraud occurring in the Department. The Committee must have a meeting with SASSA to answer to the fraud issues that were highlighted in the presentation, because there could not be fraud occurring every year while nothing was being done to address it.
Ms P Marais (EFF) said that the AGSA had highlighted that R56 million was recovered, but there was no mention of those found guilty of fraud and corruption going to jail. Last week it was reported on the news that a Somalian gentleman had been found with SASSA cards and was printing SASSA cards -- how was this going to be prevented from occurring again in future? The presentation showed that there were people from other departments that had tenders from the DSD, which was not allowed -- what plans were in place to ensure that this did not occur again in future? It was concerning that when the AGSA report was presented to the Committee, the meeting was held virtually when it should actually be an in-person meeting so that the discussion could take place in a proper manner.
The survey done in Free State showed that children under the age of five were dying of malnutrition. How could there still be children dying of malnutrition while they had the DSD?
Mr Lourens van Vuuren, Business Executive, AGSA, replied that the suggestion about SASSA and the Department of Health working together was something that should be explored. There could be possible ways for such an arrangement to be developed to improve the achievement of the target.
SASSA had to put procedures in place to ensure that only valid beneficiaries were paid, which was dependent on the data received from the various entities. It was important that those processes validate the beneficiaries took place before SASSA paid money to beneficiaries. As regulations change from time to time, SASSA must also update their systems accordingly.
The AGSA did have the data on the number of re-documentations made that had been implemented, but that information was not available to present to the Committee in this meeting. The data would therefore be sent to the Chairperson and so that it could be shared with the Committee.
It was important to note that SASSA had its own database for each payment, but it needed to rely on other data from many other entities, and the accuracy of the information in both databases was not within the control of SASSA. That needed to be addressed on a national government level to ensure that databases in all the entities were accurate and complete. Another challenge was that when SASSA requested information from those entities, the information was not always provided timeously, which meant that SASSA would not always have updated data to work with.
On the fraud matter, the Committee should consider engaging with the fraud unit in SASSA in one of its oversight meetings, as they could provide the Committee with very useful information on that. It was important to note that when it came to the SASSA cards, it was not always easy to determine where there was a failure in the controls, so the fraud unit would be able to assist the Committee in getting a better understanding of what was happening in the fraud environment.
The question about auditing all other programmes that the Committee was concerned about was very important. The Committee should consider engaging with the internal audit units of the various entities, because the internal audit units in those entities should also focus on the risks in the performance information environment. The internal audit units would then be able to play an important role in focusing on the internal controls and the quarterly reports on performance information, which would allow them to indicate whether the controls were in place in all the various programmes.
The DSD and its entities had to disclose all the irregular expenditure in their financial statements, but they did not disclose the names of the companies there. They had registers where all the information about the irregular expenditure was contained, and the AGSA did not necessarily have all that information. The Committee should consider requesting all that information from the various entities as they all had that information and could provide it to the Committee.
The investigation on the R316 million and R74 million should have been done many years ago, which was a requirement of the PFMA. Because of the investigations not being done, the AGSA had now issued those material irregularities and again requested that they be investigated, which then prompted the investigations. The ideal situation would have been for the accounting officers and the accounting authorities to do these investigations as soon as the irregularity was noted, then the AGSA would have had no need to act in terms of the material irregularity process.
The investigation of service providers not providing the service was a legal matter. It was important to look at what was contained in the contracts because all contracts should have provisions that dealt with such circumstances. The AGSA could not give a definite answer about this, but it was important that the entities get legal advice on dealing with those specific matters.
The comment about the AGSA making a link between the findings and service delivery was appreciated, as that was exactly what it was trying to do regarding its new strategy.
The question about the cost-effectiveness of rented buildings was an important area to focus on. Although the AGSA currently did not have any specific findings on cost-effectiveness, it was important to note that it was a requirement of the PFMA that when the accounting officers get into contracts with public funds, they must do so economically and cost-effectively. It was the responsibility of the accounting officers to assess whether they were still paying a reasonable rent for that type of accommodation and consider alternatives, such as the suggestion to use state buildings.
National Treasury would normally not condone any irregular expenditure unless they were satisfied that it had been properly investigated. The standard procedure was that National Treasury would ask various questions to the entities requesting the condiment to ensure that all the relevant steps had been taken before requesting a condonement.
SASSA was the source that could provide the Committee with the latest information about the number of public servants that had received grants, as that number changed from month to month. SASSA could also provide the Committee with the current number of individuals with cases opened against them for fraud and corruption. The current rate of recovery could also be provided to the Committee by SASSA.
Mr Faizel Jogee, Senior Manager, AGSA, responded to the vacancy question. The AGSA noted that the overall vacancy was sitting at about 28.2% in the Department, most of which was in the senior management level. The biggest concern was that senior management played a critical role in ensuring that work was being done, and that was where the focus should be. There were various levels within the senior management environment where the Department could clarify why such vacancies existed and why some of them had been vacant for more than 12 months.
The suggestion about SASSA having an arrangement with the Department of Health was a good one, as that would ensure that the target to provide grants to all eligible beneficiaries under the age of one would be achieved. With the ECD grant, the AGSA had tried as much as it could to obtain the information to assess how accurate the reported 57.7% achievement was, but there was no adequate supporting information to support this figure. As Mr Van Vuuren suggested, the internal audit units of the various entities should investigate the other programmes to assess whether the targets achieved were accurate, as the ECD could have an impact on the validity of the information presented on other programmes as well.
Ms Masango said that her question about investigation processes being conducted in a parallel manner was not responded to.
Mr Van Vuuren apologised for not responding to that question, and said that the possibility of that being implemented depended on the circumstances. There were certain circumstances where the entity could do its internal investigations and take disciplinary action while the criminal investigation took place. It was important that this was considered, as in some instances, the entities had no reason to wait for the criminal investigations to be finalised before carrying out their own investigations. In some instances, it was not possible to have parallel processes due to the nature of the criminal investigations, which meant that the entities would have to wait before starting their own processes on the matter. It was important for the accounting officer to decide whether the individual should stay in their position when the investigation was commissioned.
Ms Sukers said she had not heard a response to her question about the condonement of irregular expenditure.
Mr Van Vuuren replied that he had responded to the condonement question.
The Chairperson welcomed the DSD into the meeting, and gave them the opportunity to present their annual report for 2021/22.
Department of Social Development Annual Report 2021/22
Minister’s opening remarks
Ms Lindiwe Zulu, Minister of Social Development, highlighted that the Committee was receiving the annual report in the month when South Africans were commemorating the importance of social development as “an indispensable aspect with which their lived experience prospects as individuals, as well as collectively, would be improved.” The Social Development portfolio, with its departments at the provincial level, would continue to strive to invest in the effective translation of every individual’s capabilities into meaningful and societal contributions.
The Department’s expenditure at the end of the 2021/22 financial year amounted to 92.2% of the final budget allocation of R235 billion. The presentation would provide the relevant reasons for any shortfalls. During this period, the social assistance programme had cushioned South Africans as much as it had established operational efficiencies by decreasing the cost of administering social grants, from about R32 in 2021 to approximately R21.36 in the reporting period. To demonstrate the reach of the social assistance programme, the number of eligible beneficiaries of direct social transfers that were received grew to 48%, which was approximately 28.8 million of South Africa’s total population. This number represented 18.6 million South Africans who were in direct receipt of regular grants.
As reflected in the earlier reports to the Committee, the AGSA had given SASSA unqualified audit opinions, which would be discussed in more detail in the coming presentation. The Department had recently presented to the Committee the NDA’s turnaround strategy, and was confident that this turnaround strategy would put the NDA on a more desirable developmental trajectory.
Mr Linton Mchunu, Acting Director-General, DSD, presented the APP for 2021/22, supported by other officials from the Department. The social assistance programme has reached over 18.6 million vulnerable South Africans. In addition, there were 10.9 million beneficiaries who had benefited from the special COVID-19 SRD grant. Social grants continued to be government’s most effective measure for combating poverty and inequality.
Through the DSD's improved gender-based violence command centre (GBVCC), it continued to provide immediate psychosocial care and support services to the victims of GBVF. Over 74 000 interactions were recorded with the GBVCC, using various channels of communication such as phone calls, short message services (SMSs), the please call me service, as well as the Skype line for the deaf community.
Over 27 000 applications for non-profit organisation (NPO) registration had been received, and 98% of these applications were processed within two months of receipt.
AGSA’s audit outcome
Overall, the DSD received an unqualified audit outcome with findings on performance information. This was a regression in audit outcomes compared to the unqualified audit outcome with no findings received during 2019-20 and 202-21. The financial statement did not have any material findings that were raised. Attainment of the financial statements free from material misstatement was a commendable achievement, given the management of DSD budget allocation of almost R235 billion. Management has since developed a clear strategy and action plan to address the findings raised by the AGSA during the 2021/22 financial year to ensure that they addressed the root causes and instilled strong preventative controls, whilst also resolving all repeat findings.
While 13 annual targets were not achieved during 2021/2022, only ten of these had been carried over to the 2022/23 APP to ensure continuity of critical policies and legislation to enable enhanced service delivery. Although the other three targets were not directly carried over to the 2022/23 APP, significant progress had been recorded to ensure that the work was completed.
The annual target to develop an alternative care management system into SDICMS was not achieved. There had been misalignment in the timelines for deliverables within the contract signed with the service provider for 24 months ending March 2023, as opposed to the APP commitment of developing the system by March 2022.
The annual target to complete a consultation report on the Green Paper on Comprehensive Social Security was not achieved. Engagements with the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) social partners had been finalised. The Green Paper was gazetted for public comment. However, the consultation report was not completed due to the withdrawal of the Green Paper. Refinements to the Green Paper had commenced and a Cabinet memo prepared.
The annual target to amend the Older Persons Amendment Bill was not achieved. The Bill was presented to Cabinet in August 2021. The Amendment Bill was also submitted to the Office of the Chief State Law Advisor for final certification and the final certification was issued in January 2022. The Amendment Bill was then gazetted in March 2022 for introduction in Parliament. The Older Persons Amendment Bill could not be tabled in Parliament before it was gazetted.
The annual target to train 92 municipalities on the integration of migration issues into the IDP was not achieved. A total of 67 municipalities had been trained. The shortfall of 25 was due to municipalities not available for the scheduled training.
Interventions to reduce delays in the transfer of funds to NPOs
For the 2022/23 financial year, the DSD entered into agreements with 8 229 NPOs. Thus far, 93% of these organisations have received their payments, with the remaining 7% unfunded due to non-compliance and delays in submitting the relevant documents/information. Provinces were working closely with the organisations to ensure compliance that would enable processing of the funds. To ensure that it addressed this matter as a Department, it developed an NPO payment system to assist NPOs and provinces to transfer funds in time to the right organisation and appropriately.
Progress on employment of social service professionals
The Department had developed a draft sector strategy for the employment of social service professionals. National Treasury had approved the DSD's R48.5 million request for additional funding for unforeseeable and unavoidable expenditure so that it could continue to provide support and care to the victims of floods in KZN. A larger proportion of this funding would go towards employing about 200 social workers for 12 months, including 30 social worker supervisors.
A total of R222.7 billion was made available to SASSA to administer and pay social grants to beneficiaries. The Department had a target of 3% reduction in irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Irregular expenditure had increased from R3 046 694 (nine cases) to R14 667 889 (two cases), which was a 381% increase. Fruitless and wasteful expenditure had reduced from R2 036 095 (70 cases) to R430 876 (32 cases), which was 472% reduction.
NPO registration, funding, and information management
The Department continued to register and monitor compliance of NPOs in line with the NPO Act. A total of 27 552 applications were received, and 27 127 were processed, of which 98% (27 089) of the received applications were processed within two months. Similarly, a total of 41 147 reports were received and 35 627 were processed, of which 33 369 (81%) were processed within two months. These were part of the Department's efforts to strengthen civil society organisations in communities and improve its services for registering NPOs in terms of the NPO Act.
Programme One: Administration – 99.47% expenditure.
The underspending was related to normal staff turnover and operational savings during the financial year.
Programme Two: Social assistance – 99.19% expenditure.
Normal payment of 18 million social grant beneficiaries on a monthly basis.
Additional funding of R26.2 billion had been allocated towards a continuation of the SRD R350 grant from 1 September 2021 until 31 March 2022.
The underspending related to the Old Age and Child Support grants for which fewer than expected beneficiaries had applied and were being paid during the financial year.
Programme Three: Social security policy and administration – 99.76% expenditure.
The underspending was related to the net effect of the non-establishment of the inspectorate due to the delay in the approval of the Social Assistance Bill in Cabinet during the third quarter of the 2021/22 financial year.
Programme Four: Welfare services policy development and implementation support – 99.27% expenditure.
The under-spending was due to Covid-19 restrictions resulting in less travelling, accommodation, and outreach programs for the financial year, as well as payments to national councils being denied due to non-compliance.
Programme Five: Social policy and integrated service delivery – 98.46% expenditure.
The underspending resulted from operational savings on events and outreach programmes scheduled during the financial year due to Covid-19 restrictions.
(See presentation for more detail)
Ms G Opperman (DA) asked the Department why there was a 381% increase in irregular expenditure, which was a very significant increase. What was the Department going to do to address the irregular expenditure issue? There was irregular expenditure of R69.9 million in total for all entities, and the AGSA had indicated that 77% of cases were not dealt with from the previous year. Why had there been so little progress made on those cases?
Did the Department have any concerns about its financial viability, as the AGSA reported R15 billion in unauthorised expenditure and its liabilities exceeded its assets? Was the DSD at risk of collapse? What were the reasons for the DSD not reaching its targets for welfare services? This did not look good, as the country was currently facing poverty and hunger.
Why were the investigations taking so long on the R74 million and R316 million cases, and who were the officials responsible? What was the material financial loss for payments made to ineligible beneficiaries of the R350 SRD grants? What was the DSD’s response to the AGSA's assertion that they did not believe appropriate action steps were being taken to fully address the material irregularities? What disciplinary steps had been taken against the state employees who had applied for the SRD grant, and how many would be going to jail for this?
Ms Arries said she had noted that 18.6 million people were receiving social grants, but in a recent article, the Minister had indicated that about three million beneficiaries had not received their grants. What were the reasons for that? The Minister had also indicated that currently, 7.5 million people were receiving the SRD grant, but in the presentation, there was mention of 10.3 million beneficiaries of the SRD grant -- which figure was correct? The presentation indicated that 98% of NPO applications that were received were processed within two months of receipt, so why were ECD facilities still struggling to register, and were ECDs as NPOs part of the 98%?
The Department must provide the Committee with a report on the NPOs that receive funding from them. What monitoring measures did it have in place specifically with NPOs, as there had been mention of money laundering in NPOs? What was its involvement in the investigation with the financial management task force? In the Department’s report, it was indicated that of the 81 000 NPOs in Gauteng, 47 000 were found to be non-compliant, which was concerning and made one wonder whether the monitoring of these NPOs was being done correctly.
The Committee had interviewed the Central Drug Authority a while ago, but the Committee had not received any communication from this board since then. What were they doing and who were they reporting to? Why was there a sudden increase in spending of about R29.3 billion towards the end of the financial year, and what was the reason for the underspending in the transfer of subsidies to NPOs?
Ms Sukers agreed with the other Members that the issue of the liabilities exceeding the assets and the non-compliance of NPOs were worrying. Officials not understanding their oversight responsibilities when working with NPOs that dealt with vulnerable children, for example, was another issue that must be looked into. In the Western Cape, it seemed as if there was no accountability or understanding of the role of oversight of Parliament by officials, so the acting DG must ensure that the officials in the provinces know what the oversight role of Parliament is.
What were the reasons for the 23% vacancy rate reported by the Department, and could it also give more detail about the different vacancy rates presented? A question about the ICT and technology investments that were made was asked last year, and not responded to by the Department. It had again been asked to provide clarity on the ICT investments that were made, yet no response had been received on that.
What was the Department going to do to recover the R150 million that was paid to people who received the SRD grant, even though they were part of the basic education employment programme and did not qualify to receive the grant?
Ms Abrahams said that the suggestion made earlier about the Committee having a separate meeting with the Department when they came to present their action plan should be prioritised. The comment by the AGSA for the internal control and fraud units to be called to the meeting should also be considered, as that would provide the Committee with the answers they were looking for.
Were the 74 000 interactions in the GBV command centre a true reflection of the actual GBV cases, as it seemed there might be many other GBV cases? Could the Department confirm that this figure was accurate and not skewed? In writing, could it clarify who the 25 municipalities were that were not trained on the migration issues? Could it also indicate the value and names of the 7% of NPOs that were unfunded due to non-compliance? What mitigation measures did the Department put in place in situations where NPOs were found to be non-compliant, because the communities ended up suffering when those NPO’s were unfunded?
Was there a mechanism within the electronic monitoring and evaluation system (EMES) that prevented it from just being a tick box exercise? How was the Department ensuring that the work had actually been done and that the quality of the work was sufficient?
According to the report, most of the budgets were fully spent in some programmes, yet not all targets were achieved in them. If most of the budget was spent yet some targets still needed to be reached, how did the Department envision reaching 100% of their targets if there was not enough money to do that? Why was money shifted from the social welfare programs to the Telkom line and to buy laptops instead of shifting the money from the household budgets where there was under-spending?
How far was the Department with the filling of the DG and senior management posts, because this was really having an impact on it, as the AGSA had highlighted.
Ms Masango asked the Department to clarify the project that was supposed to be finished in one year, yet in the contract that had been signed with the service provider, it was said to be finished in two years. In the presentation, it was indicated that it was a three-year process to get the EMES up and running -- could the Department confirm whether that was accurate and true?
Ms A Hlongo (ANC) asked what had been some of the main inhibitors of progress in the process of the Older Persons Amendment Bill. Have there been any stakeholder issues that Parliament should be considering? Given the additional funding received from National Treasury for the absorption of the additional 200 social workers and 30 social worker supervisors for 12 months, was there a plan by the Department to extend the contracts, or make them permanent? What was the current status of the Victim Support Services Bill, following the feedback from the office of the chief state law advisor? Were there any limitations foreseen for the finalisation of the Bill by 2024? Was the Department able to provide a plan of training for the remainder of the municipalities on integrating migration issues in the Integrated Development Plan (IDP)? Have there been any notable challenges in the training of the municipalities?
Ms K Bilankulu (ANC) asked whether one official or a number of officials were responsible for the non-compliance of the PFMA and the supply chain management not following processes. Why did the Department take so long to implement the deregistration of the NPOs that were non-compliant? What intervention measures had the Department implemented to ensure that the customer services desk worked optimally, given that the expected turnaround time of complaints was two to three days, but was currently at seven days? What evidence could the Department provide to ensure that the spatial development initiatives (SDIs) would be rolled out by June 2023?
What circumstances led to the revision of the Green Paper on comprehensive social security, and were limitations to the processing of this policy expected?
Ms M Mfikoe(ANC) said there was no indication whether the funds had been recovered or what the process was for recovering the funds from those who had contributed to irregular and wasteful expenditure. The Department had not addressed the issue of the vacancy rate in senior management -- could they respond to that? The Committee must be provided with the audit on access to services from the ECD, and included in the audit must be the services and the reasons for not achieving targets so that the Department could work on those reasons.
Ms Van der Merwe asked how many of the recommendations made by the AGSA had been implemented by the Department, and how many were not implemented. For those that were not implemented, what were the reasons? What would be different in the action plan that the Department spoke about in response to the recommendations made by the AG, compared to the action plan from last year? What would be done to foster a greater culture of consequence management, because every year the Committee was presented with the same issues. In a time of high unemployment, how could it take the Department more than 12 months to fill the vacancies that were spoken about? Why were the timeframes given to the Department the last time by the Committee to fill the vacancies not met, and could it provide timeframes on when these vacancies would be filled?
The Department needed to present thorough progress reports to the Committee on its other programmes, as it did not feel like real progress was being made in those programmes that the AGSA could not audit. How many state officials were receiving income from the DSD, even though the DSD did not employ them? How could that happen, as there should be checks and balances to ensure that state officials do not do business with the state?
Was the Department going to be overseeing SASSA to ensure that the databases being used were fit for purpose and that the right people were being paid? What was the Department going to do with the ongoing concerns of deepening levels of fraud at SASSA, as the body that was tasked with the responsibility of oversight over this entity?
Ms Brenda Sibeko, Deputy Director-General (DDG): Comprehensive Social Security, DSD, replied that the Green Paper that was published made some recommendations specifically around the introduction of mandatory contributions for the pension and disability benefits. There had been controversy and misunderstanding of that proposal, and the recommendation for a national social security fund. The Department thought it was important to withdraw the paper to correct some of the misunderstandings arising from it. The proposals being made in the Green Paper would not be popular with everyone and would be challenging proposals, because they would require people who were ordinarily prepared to spend their money now to save it for their future. The proposals for a national social security fund would also have an impact on the current structure of pension provision in the country.
Mr Mchunu added that it was important to highlight that these proposals were proposals that would be made by the public, and the public and all sectors of society would be given an opportunity to engage on those matters.
Mr Khumbula Ndaba, Acting DDG: Corporate Services, DSD, replied that the Alternative Care Management System (ACMS) was supposed to be rolled out in five months, but through the engagement with the service provider, it became apparent that this was not realisable. The service provider then had to finalise the ACMS within a period of 24 months. The system itself had been developed and would be completed by the end of March 2023.
The Older Persons Bill was currently before Parliament. The Department was waiting for the parliamentary processes to conclude, so it could not comment on those processes.
Mr Jacques van Zuydam, Chief Director: Population and Development, DSD, said that the actual implementation plan targeted municipalities province by province and so far, the Department had reached more than half of the municipalities in six of the provinces. In the province-by-province approach, the Department had not yet targeted Northern Cape, Eastern Cape and KZN because those provinces had many municipalities. The Department was now confident that the new model would enable it to catch up and reach this year’s target.
Mr Fanie Esterhuizen, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), DSD, said that the Department had already contacted the State Security Agency, and they were busy investigating the overcharging by suppliers. The outcome of the investigation would therefore determine the consequence management that would follow, and this process should take about five months to complete.
The increase in the spending towards the end of the financial year was because the Department was bound by National Treasury in terms of when the funding was made available. The DSD had received the funding of R26 million only in November, but had to wait for the additional funding to be tabled to Cabinet. Therefore that funding was made available only in February.
The liabilities exceeding assets matter was because in the 2019/20 financial year, the Department had to pay social grants in a prior financial year for which it did not have funding, and that resulted in overspending the budget. Treasury then gave the go-ahead for an overdraft to be granted to the Department to pay the social grants for that period. The process to correct this was with Treasury, and they would do the necessary in Parliament and Cabinet to ensure that the R13 billion was corrected.
The PFMA regulation section 43 prohibited the Department from shifting the unspent funds under households to other programmes as that would require National Treasury approval. That was the reason why money was shifted from the social welfare programmes to the Telkom line.
By the end of March, the Department had recovered R1 million of the R2 million in wasteful and fruitless expenditure recorded in April 2021.
The Department would implement high level strategic interventions to ensure that the current year’s action plan in response to the audit recommendations was different from last year's. The Department had looked at short, medium and long-term implementation dates for this. A stricter action plan for the 2021/22 financial year has been developed, and there would be regular meetings to monitor the implementation of the action plan.
Ms Isabella Sekwana, Acting DDG: Social Welfare Services, DSD, said that the targets for social workers that were in control of the Department and that were linked to service delivery, had been achieved. The Department acknowledged that it needed to improve and strengthen impact assessment so that its policies and interventions had an impact on the people on the ground. Of the 74 000 interventions reported, 40% were related to GBV, and the rest were related to different areas and issues.
Mr Peter Netshipale, DDG: Integrated Development, DSD, said the NPOs were registered under the NPO Act, and the Department kept a database of all of them in the country. So far, there were 256 212 NPOs in registers on the database and of those, 148 000 were not compliant and the majority of them were in social services. The NPO Act stated that if any NPOs did not comply with the NPO Act, they would be given a non-compliance notice to which they would have 30 days to respond. Currently, 56 000 NPOs had never responded to their non-compliance status, and would therefore be deleted from the system. NPOs also had to send quarterly reports on their activities to ensure they kept their compliance status. Before NPOs were funded, they were visited by social workers for due diligence to ensure that they complied with the NPO Act, and if they did not comply, the funding was then withdrawn.
The Department had also developed a guideline to assist provinces with the payment of funds to the NPOs, and the system being developed was the NPO payment system. This system would require the NPOs to send quarterly reports and for due diligence to be done before funds were transferred to them. The Department also had frequent meetings with the provinces, and they were happy with the system that was being developed as it would help to ensure that the NPOs were sending in their reports on time. These were ways in which the Department ensured that it regularly monitored the NPOs and that they complied with the Act.
Mr Mchunu said that the forensic investigation into the overcharging by service providers would help in addressing that matter. The Department would also make sure that going forward it would test various quotations that had been received from suppliers with Treasury to determine whether the prices being charged by the service providers were in line with market-related prices.
The Department prioritised the filling of critical posts, and currently, the DG post had been advertised and was in the process of being filled. The other senior management posts were now at the interview stage and would therefore be filled soon as well. It was important also to highlight that the Department had received a very serious budget reduction -- over the MTEF period, the DSD was the second highest cut department. Progress on filling the posts would be provided to the Committee in the coming weeks.
It was worth noting that most of the targets that were not met were policy-related matters. It was important to recognise that work was done towards meeting these targets and that whatever finances were spent in between the year had been justified.
There was a plan to deal with the issue of social workers to ensure that the funding was spent accordingly.
The ECD targets had been met and overachieved. There was just a problem with the information flow while the AGSA was doing its audits.
There was work being done by the Department to address the issue of irregular and wasteful expenditure, and even though it may seem like not much was being done, there was a lot that the Department was doing. For instance, there was a series of cases where disciplinary action had been taken, and the Department recovered a significant amount of money in this regard.
Three state officials were doing business with the state. One had passed away and the two had been served with letters. It was important to recognise that the disciplinary process took time, and the Department tried its best to conclude them as quickly as possible. Labour relations had been instructed to push a lot quicker on some of those cases that had been delayed.
The Department welcomed and appreciated the proposals made by some of the Members, and would continue to work with the AGSA to address the challenges presented today. The DSD was chasing moving targets all the time, and tried as much as it could to put solid systems in place to catch any possible leakages and areas of fraud. The DSD remained committed to achieving targets, filling posts, consequence management, and dealing with fraud and corruption.
If Members had any other questions or questions that were not responded to, they were more than welcome to send those to the Department via the Committee Secretary. They should receive responses to those questions as soon as possible.
Ms Sukers said that she would like the Department to provide the Committee with a breakdown of how much money was spent on systems, because this question had been asked several times as well in last year’s APP meeting.
SASSA 2021/22 Annual Report
Ms Totsie Memela, CEO, SASSA, presented SASSA’s APP for 2021/22, with the help of some of the other officials from the Agency.
The number of social grants in payment increased from 18 572 195 at the end of March 2021, to 18 677 339 at the end of March 2022, at a cost of R190.247 billion. This represented a growth of approximately 1.28%. In addition, an average of 10.2 million Covid-19 special relief grant beneficiaries were paid monthly. Eventually, SASSA serviced more than 28 million beneficiaries by the end of March 2022. About 48% of the population was dependent on social transfers.
SASSA’s annual performance against its targets for the 2021/22 financial year was 73%, reflecting a one percentage decrease from the previous financial year's 2020/21 result of 74%. In total, 40 targets were planned for the period, of which 29 were achieved in full, or in excess of the planned targets.
583 498 social grant applications were approved against a target of 1 200 000. 18 677 339 grants were in payment, including grants-in-aid, against a target of 18 838 164. The actual achievement was within the agreed 5% variance, in line with international standards for projections. 98% (1 706 158 of 1 740 896) of new grant applications were processed within ten days against a 95% target. The SASSA disability management model was reviewed and approved by the SASSA executive committee (EXCO).
98% (551 430 of 562 366) social grant enquiries were resolved within ten days against a 90% target. 94% (21 378 of 22 649) disputes were resolved within 14 days against a 60% target. 99.99% (11 568 163 of 11 569 121) of successful payment transfers were paid into correct beneficiary accounts against a target of 98%. Social grant payments were monitored monthly across all payment platforms, with the majority of beneficiaries still paid by the South African Post Office (SAPO).
95% (244 of 256) of reported fraud and corruption cases were investigated and finalised against a 70% target. Suspected fraud was detected and referred to relevant stakeholders such as grant administration, the SAPO and banks, for corrective action.
The Special Covid SRD R350 grant was reintroduced. For the 2021/22 financial year, SASSA received R500 million additional funding during the budget adjustment process for administrative costs towards implementing the Covid-19 special relief grant (R350). This was used to fund key operations, including system enhancements, service fees and bank costs, communication, etc, which could not be funded from the budget baseline allocation.
The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on expenditure continued during the reporting period, as certain activities could not be fully undertaken, thus impacting on certain expenditure items whose activities were affected by the lockdown regulations.
In addition to the appropriation from the National Revenue Fund, SASSA obtained approval to retain the previous financial year’s cash surplus amounting to R439 666 209. The retained surplus was aimed at implementing and finalising projects such as automation and optimising grant operations (the SOCPEN system), migration from the legacy system, the call centre and relocation of beneficiaries' files from the current warehouses to the new service providers. The mentioned projects could not be implemented as they were at various stages of the supply chain management process at the financial year-end.
Overall, expenditure for the period ended March reached 92%. The underspending was attributed to the compensation of employees, which was mainly due to the funded vacant positions that could not be filled or were filled in the latter part of the financial year. Out of a total of 247 funded vacant posts planned to be filled in 2021/22, 192 posts were filled (77%). The average monthly spending for the year on the compensation of employees was R274 673 990.
SASSA had submitted to National Treasury requests for condonation amounting to R512 million, and was waiting for a response. The project plan was implemented to ensure the whole R993 million was cleared. This plan was monitored regularly.
(See presentation for more detail).
Ms Arries proposed that the Committee allow the NDA to give its presentation, and then the questions to SASSA and NDA’s presentations be written down and then sent to the agencies, since this had been a very long meeting.
The Chairperson said she agreed that the meeting had been long and Members may be exhausted, so the Committee could meet again on Friday to receive the responses to the written questions sent to the two agencies.
The Minister said that the Department was willing to consider the proposal to meet on Friday as long as the meeting would not be for the whole day.
The Chairperson said that the meeting would not be long and the Committee would require only an hour and a half for that meeting, from 9am to 10:30am.
Ms Arries requested the Chairperson to allow those Members who could not attend the meeting on Friday to submit written questions to the agencies.
The Chairperson said that Members were welcome to send written questions if they were unable to attend the meeting on Friday.
NDA 2021/22 Annual Report
Mr Bongani Magongo, Acting CEO, National Development Agency (NDA), presented the APP with the assistance of some of the other officials from the Agency.
Of the 12 targets of the programme's performance areas in the APP, ten (83%) were fully met or even over-achieved.The two targets not met were related to the planned 80% reduction in irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure, where there had been only a 56.3% achievement. The other key performance indicator (KPI) was related to the development of an integrated portal for civil society organisations (CSOs), and this activity again had to be delayed due to the expected impact of the turnaround strategy on the CSO development programme and information technology (IT) system designs.
The NDA had retained an unqualified audit opinion on its annual financial report, even under the prevailing governance challenges experienced during the financial year. Most of the AGSA indicators were classified as good, except for findings that were picked up in its supply chain management.
R98 752 994.96 (56.3%) of irregular, fruitless and wasteful (IFW) expenditure was reduced from the 2020/21 cumulative balance of R175 409 910 against the target of 80% reduction in cumulative IFW expenditure.
Total revenue recognised amounted to R275.5 million. Total expenditure was recorded at R229.7 million, and had decreased by R32.6 million year-on-year. Mandate expenditure decreased by R48.5m, mainly due to a decrease in Criminal Assets Recovery Account (CARA) disbursements of R21.4m, in third party funded capacity building costs of R8.7m (UIF stipends R5.8m), as well as a decrease in the volunteer programme expenditure of R32,2m. This was offset by increases in disbursements to NDA-funded projects of R8.3m, NDA-funded capacity building of R1.7m, as well as mandate staff costs of R2.6m. Administration expenditure increased by R15.9m, mainly due to increased staff costs of R11.5m, audit fees of R1.5m, and consulting fees of R1.7m.
The NDA reflected an increase in its net surplus position of R30.7m compared to the prior year, mainly due to lower than expected spending against the budget, and a higher value of commitments carried forward, made up mainly of the volunteer programme budget of R30m carried forward for implementation in the 2022/23 financial year. The increase in the performance bonus provision of R3.6m was due to a higher provision for the 2021/22 financial year, as provisioned by the human resources (HR) department.
(See presentation for more detail).
The Chairperson thanked everyone for their patience and dedication.
The meeting was adjourned
Mvana, Ms NQ
Abrahams, Ms ALA
Arries, Ms LH
Bilankulu, Ms NK
Bogopane-Zulu, Ms HI
Hlongo, Ms AS
Manganye, Ms J
Marais, Ms P
Masango, Ms B
Mfikoe, Ms MM
Opperman, Ms G
Stock, Mr D
Sukers, Ms ME
Zulu, Ms LD
van der Merwe, Ms LL
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.