Commission for Gender Equality Annual Report 2021/22

Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities

14 October 2022
Chairperson: Ms C Ndaba (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

Commission for Gender Equality

The Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities convened on a virtual platform to receive a briefing by the audit and risk committee (ARC) of the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) on the organisation’s annual report for the 2021/22 financial year. Thereafter, the Committee received a briefing on the annual report from the organisation itself.

The ARC reported that the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) had raised concern over the quality of performance information submitted for audit, supply chain management non-compliances, human resource management deficiencies, and interventions on record keeping and compliance monitoring.

Members were extremely concerned about the various red flags that had emerged from the ARC's internal audit findings. They were aghast at the vast differences in the remuneration for full-time and part-time Commissioners, the continued use of the 100-hour policy for part-time Commissioners despite the end of the Covid-19 restrictions, the lack of justification for the thirteenth pay cheques, the gratuity payments made to departed Commissioners, and the Commission’s lack of action to recoup the excess amount which had erroneously been made to the organisation’s former CEO.

The Committee was displeased with the empty promises the CGE had made, listing a number of outstanding reports it should have submitted. Those reports included the reports on the alleged attendance at a public event of a suspended Commissioner as a guest speaker, the 17% increases in remuneration for Commissioners, and the progress on the finalised version of the CGE handbook.

Members firmly requested the Commission to discontinue the 100-hour remuneration policy, and were adamant that whatever amounts had been erroneously paid to former Commissioners should be recouped. They expressed shock upon hearing the CGE Chairperson had been surprised when she had been alerted to the thirteenth pay cheque that had been paid to some of its Commissioners and had denied that she had any knowledge of the issue, despite the annual report bearing her signature. As a result, the Committee warned her of the severe consequence of deliberately misleading Parliament.

Given the severity of the outstanding issues that threatened the organisation’s good governance, the Committee resolved to seek advice on what it could do from a legal perspective to make interventions, such as pursuing consequence management over the chairperson's unacceptable responses, and making proactive interventions to withhold the salaries of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson until the current outstanding issues were satisfactorily resolved. It would also contemplate using forensic investigators to look into the issues.

In their discussions with the CGE, Members asked for a more detailed list of the work that Commissioners performed. They questioned whether a Commissioner who was persistently absent from meetings deserved her remuneration, and whether disciplinary action should be taken against her. Even her co-workers had complained about her poor work ethic, which undermined the organisation’s effective and efficient operation.

Among other issues, Members wanted to know how the Commission planned to increase its visibility and expand its footprint to rural areas, its programmes on gender-based violence, the procurement of services from an outside auditing firm, its strategies to retain staff members, its under-spending, and its standing with the Legal Practice Council.

Meeting report

ARC briefing on CGE annual report

Mr Nkosini Mashabane, chairperson, Commission for Gender Equality's (CGE's) audit and risk committee (ARC), briefed the Committee on the ARC’s audit findings for the entity.

The authority of the ARC was provided and it was emphasised that the ARC Committee was independent.

Overall, seven meetings were held by the ARC in the 2021/22 financial year.

The Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) had raised concern with the assurance provided by the Accounting Officer and Executive Authority due to:

  • The quality of performance information submitted for audit;
  • Supply chain management non-compliances;
  • Human resource management deficiencies; and
  • Interventions on record keeping and compliance monitoring.

The ARC reported on the organisation’s compliance with laws and regulations, its audit of the organisation’s predetermined objectives, and its audit improvement plan.

A few significant matters, such as ensuring the congruency of the CGE Act, the CGE Handbook and the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), were highlighted.

(Please consult the presentation slides for more details.)

Discussion

The Chairperson asked the ARC whether it had made any recommendations on how the 100 hours issue could be resolved, given that there was an agreement that part-time Commissioners were being paid for 100 hours of work.

Mr Mashabane responded that the issue had come to the ARC’s attention. The ARC had advised the plenary to source expertise on how much Commissioners must be remunerated, using other entities as a benchmark. The ARC’s key recommendation was that given that Commissioners had a financial interest, the advice must be sourced from an independent professional panel that deals with remunerative structures. The Commission may then use that decision to determine its remuneration.

The Chairperson said that the President had declared that there would be zero increases for public office bearers, including those working at Chapter 9 institutions for the past two years. This year, the Committee had adopted a report last month to ask the President to reconsider and increase the remuneration of those working at Chapter 9 institutions by three percent. She asked whether the ARC had seen such a report.

She asked whether the ARC had familiarised itself with all the necessary background information, such as the report she had just mentioned, before its internal audit.

She wanted to know why one Commissioner, in particular, had constantly been paid a 13th cheque, whereas other Commissioners were not getting the same benefit. She questioned the criteria the Commission had used to justify the two 13th cheques from Commissioners Botha and Tloubatla.

The Chairperson reminded everyone of the context of the 100 working hours policy for part-time Commissioners. During COVID-19, the Commission had come to a resolution to allow part-time Commissioners to be paid a standard rate of 100 hours. Members did not understand how the 100 hours came about because part-time Commissioners used to be paid for less than 100 hours.

Mr Mashabane affirmed that the ARC had reviewed the President’s report and evaluated the impact of that on the organisation.

The Chairperson interjected and pointed out to Mr Mashabane that the part-time rates were not determined by the President, but were rather legislated.

Mr Mashabane responded that the ARC was not in a position to give any input, as it would need to engage the chairperson of the plenary, and then get back to the Committee.

Mr Mashabane commented on the 13th cheque, and assured the Committee that there had been no finding made against the 13th pay cheque. The 13th pay cheque paid to Commissioner Botha had been disclosed in the Commission’s financial statement.

The Chairperson indicated that she needed an answer from Mr Mashabane today on the rest of her questions.

Ms N Sharif (DA) pointed out the consistency issue, and suggested that the ARC should review the Commission’s 13th pay cheque issue and its leave pay policy.

She highlighted the risks in the absence of a finalised CGE handbook. Because it relied on a version of a draft handbook which not everyone agreed upon, it would pose a risk in future.

Ms F Masiko (ANC) agreed with her colleagues’ view on consistency and having proper internal control measures in the CGE.

Ms Masiko felt that there was a lack of justification for the 100-hour payment policy used to remunerate part-time Commissioners. She queried how those payments that had been paid to part-time Commissioners could be justified when no time sheets were keeping a record of the hours that they had worked in the past two years. She recalled that part-time Commissioners had been working an average of 40 to 50 hours before this policy was implemented, and asked the Commission how it would determine the salaries for part-time Commissioners in this year.

The Chairperson sought clarity on the Commissioner’s retainer or gratuity fee policy. She did not understand why the Commission felt obliged to pay those Commissioners a gratuity fee when they no longer worked for the organisation. The Chairperson requested the chairperson and the deputy chairperson of the CGE board to give Members an explanation.

Mr Mashabane explained to the Committee that the CGE Handbook, the CGE Act handbook and the Public Finance Management Act had to be in congruence. The ARC had not completed its review of that yet, but the information would be shared with the Committee once that review process was concluded.

He indicated that the claims of hours of CGE part-time Commissioners were not supported by verifiable evidence, which had led to the ARC’s audit view that it would be categorised as irregular expenditure.

Mr L Mphithi (DA) asked the ARC how it had audited the 100 hours for part-time Commissioners in the 2020/21 and 2021/22 financial years. He further suggested the ARC do its audits on a quarterly basis instead of doing it annually.

Mr Mashabane further elaborated on the 100 hours issue. The ARC had had some difficulty in verifying the validity of hours submitted by part-time Commissioners and had subsequently flagged the issue in its internal audit finding. The lack of evidence to prove the activities that warranted the claims for those hours led to the expenses being deemed irregular expenditure. The Office of the AG had deemed the expense item as fruitless and wasteful expenditure because the CGE had spent money without any value adding activity. This was a matter that Dr Antoinette Ngwenya, Chief Financial Officer (CFO),   CGE, investigated. It was a linear internal monitoring exercise.

Mr Mphithi expressed his shock at hearing the responses, which he said emanated not only from the lack of justification for the 13th cheque, but also for an amount of R2.3 million being unaccounted for in the organisation. He was shocked to hear that the R2.3 million had been paid to people who did not present the work to deserve that money. He found it absurd and unacceptable, and indicated that he would have to engage with his colleagues to see how to approach this issue. The Commissioners were using CGE as a milking cow to award money to people who did not work. He demanded to know who had been paid that R2.3 million, and who had approved that payment.

He had received a report last night from a civil society member questioning some of the activities at CGE, and believed that it was time that Committee Members had to intervene.

Mr Mphithi repeated his question to the ARC on whether it did its internal audit per quarter or annually, because, in his view, there should be a quarterly audit, as those issues would have been detected much earlier thus allowing the organisation more time to rectify.

Commissioner Sediko Rakolote disputed the information that was going around that part-time Commissioners were doing nothing and still being paid. He pointed out that part-time Commissioners submitted their working hours, just as full-time Commissioners did.

Mr Mphithi raised a point of order, and referred Commissioner Rakolote to the AG’s report. He said that it was not just people saying that, but the AG’s report clearly stated that point.

Ms Sharif endorsed her colleague’s view, and said that those figures were included in the Commission’s own annual report.

The Chairperson said that the AG had flagged the issue last year, and Mr Rakolote should have dealt with the issue accordingly to avoid repeating the same issue in 2021/22. Committee Members were obliged to raise the issue if there was a finding in the AG’s report. She added that the 100 hours policy should have been ended some time in 2021.

Commissioner Rakolote apologised for his inappropriate use of language, and explained that part-time Commissioners such as himself had consulted with the AG’s Office on that finding. The AG responded that the finding did not come from its office, but was an internal finding that the Commission had to resolve internally. At the CGE, all part-time Commissioners submitted their quarterly reports to the CGE Chairperson. Those quarterly reports were then presented in plenary before being sent to the Committee. Part-time Commissioners did not submit their detailed hourly sheets because there was a letter signed off by the chairperson of the Commission, which stated that part-time Commissioners would be paid for 100 hours and there was no need to submit their time sheets. This point was not accepted by the Commission’s internal audit team, as it flagged the item as irregular expenditure because the internal audit team did not get the necessary documents from the CGE Chairperson.

The Chairperson reminded Commissioner Rakolote that he should have resolved this. None of this would have happened if he had done his work properly.

Commissioner Nthabiseng  Mogale elaborated on the context of the 100-hour policy. On 8 March 2020, when the country decided to be on a Level 5 lockdown, the Commission decided that all full-time employees who stayed at home would be paid. Therefore, 101 out of the 106 CGE employees would be paid until the situation allowed them to be back at work. Then part-time Commissioners raised their concerns. She informed the Committee that the 100-hour policy was already included in a circular, which the Commission was working on at that time. After having noted the concern raised by part-time Commissioners, the resolution was that part-time Commissioners would be paid a maximum of 100 hours per month. The Commission’s finance team further advised that enabling the process would require a letter from the chairperson. However, later in the year, they heard that this expense had become irregular expenditure.

The Chairperson asked Ms Mogale if the concern had been raised in plenary meetings.

Commissioner Mogale said that the issue had been raised a few times.

The Chairperson then asked the Commission why the letter had not been produced before the AG's Office concluded the audit.

She asked the Commission whether it had benchmarked its policy with other similar organisations. She felt that taxpayers were being cheated for 100 hours. Further, she noted that the circular stated that the 100-hour pay should continue until COVID ended, and questioned why part-time Commissioners should still be paid using that criterion.

Commissioner Mogale said that from 1 May 2020, when COVID was at its height, part-time Commissioners continued to monitor what happened in hospitals, such as the personal protective equipment (PPE) irregularity issue. The 100-hour policy came from a point to earn their keep. She felt it very unfair if part-time Commissioners were not being compensated for their work, as full-time Commissioners were sitting at home and doing nothing. One old part-time Commissioner had been remunerated using that policy from December 2019. She questioned why only the remunerative policy for part-time Commissioners had been singled out and deemed fruitless and wasteful. She also expressed her disbelief that the item should be deemed fruitless and wasteful when it was advised by its internal audit committee, and was a plenary resolution.

The Chairperson acknowledged the fact that part-time Commissioners were indeed working during COVID, which she and other Committee Members could also attest to. For instance, the Committee had raised the issue of pregnant women who could not afford to buy baby clothes, and the CGE had taken the issue to the National Command Council on their behalf. When gender-based violence (GBV) was high during COVID, the Committee was working together with CGE Commissioners to address the issue. She assured Commissioner Mogale that no one denied them their good work, and that it was the truth that part-time Commissioners often worked more than their full-time counterparts. The Committee only wanted to interrogate the issue of compliance, and had requested the CGE Chairperson to respond on the matter. She noted that Ms Mogale also headed the sub-committee on finance at the CGE.

Commissioner Tamara Mathebula, chairperson, CGE, expressed her shock at the report that had been displayed. To her knowledge, she had never seen anything about the 13th pay cheque in any of their Commissioners’ appointment contracts.

Ms Sharif raised a point of order, and accused Commissioner Mathebula of deliberately misleading the Committee. The table was in the annual report to which Commissioner Mathebula had put her signature.

Mr Mphithi supported his colleague, and emphasised that the CGE chairperson signed the report.

The Chairperson asked Commissioner Mathebula if she had read the annual report before she signed it.

Commissioner Mathebula confirmed that she had read the report before she signed. This information was information that had come from the 2019/20 financial year. If payments had been made at that time, the Commission would now need to investigate the matter because she also wanted to find out why payments were done after Commissioners had left the organisation. She wanted to understand how leave days were calculated and how the benefits could lead to those amounts.

The Chairperson probed the question of whether it be possible that Commissioners were being paid for leave that they had not taken because there was a policy in the public service sector that any leave days which public servants did not take would be remunerated. However, she was uncertain whether that policy applied to Commissioners who were employees of Chapter 9 institutions.

Commissioner Mathebula said that usually, leave policy predominantly affected only full-time Commissioners under which the organisational policy governs. However, she admitted that there had been a finding revealed by the plenary in either 2020 or 2021 that the calculation of leave days  at the organisation had not been done correctly. The finding was revealed in light of the calculation of the leave pay to the organisation’s former CEO. The resolution from that plenary was that the organisation would internally investigate how it calculated leave pay.

Mr Mphithi said he had previously served in the public sector and had been through processes such as signing off annual reports. He found it unacceptable that Commissioner Mathebula should avoid accountability simply by brushing it off as something in the annual report that she had not seen. His understanding was that once an annual report had been signed, the signature was equivalent to oversight over the report having been done. He thus requested Commissioner Mathebula to withdraw the comment.

Ms Sharif made the same request. She emphasised the egregious nature of lying or misleading the Portfolio Committee was an offence. She cautioned all Commissioners to be careful of what they said to this Committee.

Ms Sharif noted that the plenary resolution stated that the 100-hour policy should continue until October 2020, whereas the annual report showed that the policy was being continued to the organisation’s 2022 salary scale. She wanted confirmation from the Commission whether it was the standard practice now to pay its part-time Commissioners for 100 hours.

She asked the Commission if attending one webinar, a special plenary, and a sub-committee plenary constituted 100 hours of work, and the ARC what activities would be equivalent to 100 hours of work.

She noted the total lack of consistency in the changes to the Commissioners’ salaries from 2020 to 2021 for both part-time and full-time Commissioners, and she needed clarity on that.

She refused to accept the Commission’s response that it would go back to investigate. She found it problematic, because Commissioners should have had the answers already to account to the Committee, and she demanded to get those answers today.

The Chairperson said that Commissioner Mathebula, in her position as the CGE chairperson, Commissioner Nthabiseng Moleko in her position as the deputy chairperson, and Dr Ngwenya, in her position as the CFO, were together responsible for signing or authorising any payments for Commissioners. She therefore asked them how it was that suspended Commissioner Botha had been paid all of the money. The Commission claimed not to have had any knowledge of how the money had been paid, which official in the Commission had given the administrative authority to process those payments, and whether they agreed with the AG’s report that this was an unauthorised expenditure. The Chairperson was adamant that it was impossible for Commissioners to be paid without the knowledge and approval of those three persons.

She demanded to know why the report regarding the inaccurate leave pay amount for its former CEO still had not been submitted to the Committee. She recalled that the Committee had urged the CGE to recoup the lost money paid to the former CEO. She assumed that such an action had not taken place.

She did not understand why Commissioner Busisiwe Deyi was being paid for 100 hours, despite being forever absent.

The Chairperson reminded the Commission that the Committee’s request for feedback on a recent public event, which suspended Commissioner Botha had allegedly been part of, had still not been submitted to the Committee.

She criticised Commissioner Mathebula, saying she had failed her duties dismally, and expressed her grave disappointment. She was even pondering the idea that the Committee should take a resolution that Commissioner Mathebula should be paying back all the money which the Commission had lost under her charge. When Commissioner Mathebula said she was shocked, the Chairperson had wondered if that meant that the chairperson did not know what her organisation’s annual performance plan (APP) contained. If that was the case, it was very wrong. She questioned what made Commissioner Mathebula think she deserved her more than R1 million remuneration package, and how she delegated functions and responsibilities in her organisation. She questioned whether she was being negligent deliberately because her term of office would end at the end of this month.

Mr S Ngcobo (DA) shared the same thoughts as other Committee Members. He found the shocking expressions from Commissioner Mathebula totally unacceptable.

He supported Mr Mphithi’s point and suggested the Committee put forward strong recommendations to force the Commission to hold whoever was responsible for having authorised those payments accountable, and the lost funds to be recouped.

Ms Sharif noted in the ARC’s report that the management at the Commission had not determined the recoverability or decided to write off those expenses, which suggested that the Commission had not yet formally discussed what to do about those erroneous payments. She recommended recovering the money.

The Chairperson said that the Portfolio Committee would have to include in its resolution that the CGE Chairperson, Commissioner Mathebula, had deliberately misled the Committee. The PFMA was very clear on the responsibility of accounting officers. The Committee also needed to decide on whether it should withhold her salary until she sorted out this mess before her term of office expired.

Commissioner Mathebula posted the below in the Chat Room:

“I would like to register my profuse apology and withdraw the statement made regarding the shock expressed on figures displayed against each other in the table.”

The Chairperson indicated that she would seek legal advice on the consequence applicable to a person deliberately misleading Parliament.

She requested the Commission to submit information on the attendance of its Commissioners at sub-committee meetings, portfolio committee meetings, etc.

She requested that the Commission immediately review and stop the 100 hours policy.

Commissioner Mogale responded that the Commission would submit what the 100 hours of work entailed to the Committee.

Ms Mathebula apologised and withdrew her statement on her shock upon seeing the 13th pay cheque. She put it on record that she and Deputy Chairperson Nthabiseng had not authorised those payments to former Commissioners. She welcomed the Committee’s suggestion of an independent investigation, and said that the information would be made available on who had authorised and been responsible for those payments.

She explained that the 100-hour remunerative policy for part-time Commissioners was a plenary decision. It had been implemented, and the letter bearing her signature had been submitted and circulated to all Commissioners and the Commission’s finance committee, which was why payments were made to Commissioners every month.

The ARC auditors had not mentioned nor requested information on the circular regarding the 100-hour policy, nor on the letter she had signed.

She said that the non-attendance report had already been submitted to the Committee.

The Chairperson asked the Commission to indicate who the chairperson of human resources was at the CGE. She also reminded the Commission to respond to the question on the payment of leave days and the erroneously inflated payment made to the Commission’s former CEO.

Both the Chairperson and Ms Sharif agreed upon the inconsistency in the Commission’s salary policy, as shown in its internal audit report. To their understanding, should there be a consistent pay policy -- there should not be such a vast discrepancy in the remuneration of Commissioners. They indicated that it would be understandable to have different remunerative amounts for part-time Commissioners due to the different hours each claimed, but under no circumstances should there be such a huge difference among full-time Commissioners. Further, even part-time Commissioners, they both found it odd that their remunerative amounts differed after the implementation of the Commission’s 100-hour policy.

Commissioner Mogale confirmed that the 100-hour remunerative policy had not been discontinued in the Commission. The practice now was that part-time Commissioners would be paid at a flat 80-hour rate, and then the balance of the 20 hours would be paid to Commissioners depending on the hours that they claimed. However, the number of hours part-time Commissioners could be paid was 100 hours in total.

The Chairperson suggested the CFO should revise the remuneration table so that it would be clearer to justify the Commissioners’ remuneration.

Ms Sharif read to the Commission the President’s determination of salary scales, which had been effective from 1 April 2020. Given that there was a set of standard remunerative packages determined by the President, she expressed her confusion that there was such a huge inconsistency in those amounts. She expressed the view that all these numbers should be red-flagged, as they showed a very poor internal control system.

She pointed out that the Commission’s CFO had a responsibility to familiarise herself with the organisation's financial information in its previous financial years. She found it unacceptable that the CFO was unaware of the President’s determination on the salary increase for Chapter 9 employees and the inconsistency in Commissioners’ salary scales.

Commissioner Ntuli-Tloubatla acknowledged the Committee’s concern, and fully understood the Members’ displeasure at the disorganised amounts, which she also shared. She asked who had determined the full-time salary scales, and also expressed her view that the CGE might owe some Commissioners something.

Dr Ngwenya explained that the different remuneration levels emanated from the different total packages. For part-time Commissioners, it depended on the number of hours they claimed. Most of their remunerative amounts for full-time Commissioners fell within the R926 000 to R930 000 range.

The Committee noted that the final date for the adoption of its Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) was on Friday next week.

The Chairperson sought legal advice from Dr Herman Tembe, Legal Officer: Office on Institutions Supporting Democracy.

Dr Tembe responded that he had asked for the permission of the Committee to verify the powers and privileges in relation to public audits, and would revert to the Committee with a response before Wednesday.

Ms Sharif asked Dr Tembe to look particularly into the use of s194 of the Constitution and the use of forensic investigators to look into those issues highlighted within the organisation.

Commission for Gender Equality: Issues of concern

Persistent absence of Commissioner & remuneration of Commissioners

 

The Chairperson asked Dr Tembe to advise how the Committee should deal with Commissioners who had a long-standing absence from committee meetings, such as Commissioner Busisiwe Deyi.

Commissioner Nthabiseng Moleko, Deputy Chairperson, CGE, indicated that there had been inconsistent absence of Commissioner Deyi, and referred specifically to the plenary that Commissioner Deyi had missed for an entire quarter. As a result, the CGE executive decided that it had to take action to address the issue.

It was highlighted that Commissioner Deyi had a poor attendance record. She had attended nine of the 13 plenary meetings and seven of the 11 special plenary committee meetings, compared to an average of 10 out of 11 meetings for other Commissioners.

Ms Sharif asked whether it would be regarded as a disciplinary offence, according to the Commissioners' Handbook, if a Commissioner missed three consecutive meetings with no apology submitted. She found it extremely bad that Commissioner Deyi had submitted apologies more than three times for having failed to attend meetings. She wanted to know whether there was a mechanism in the handbook that indicated that an apology counted as attendance.

How long did a plenary, a special plenary and special committee meetings last on average?

The Chairperson noted that Commissioner Deyi did not attend four consecutive meetings in 2022. Out of eleven of those, four were special plenary meetings. And out of 17 portfolio committee meetings, Commissioner Deyi only attended ten meetings.

The Chairperson did not understand why the CGE kept a Commissioner who consistently did not attend meetings. If a person did not attend meetings, how did this person report and how could this person qualify for the 100 hours, when the Commission just accepted apologies all the time?

Commissioner Mathebula responded that an apology did not count as attendance. She referred to s4 of the CGE Handbook. However, the handbook was not explicitly clear about how many times the CGE Chairperson could act upon receiving apologies, so the Commission was in the process of reviewing its handbook to strengthen its system. After the engagement between the Commission and Commissioner Deyi about the s6 non-attendance, she tendered an apology after realising that her position would be removed if there was no apology.  

Commissioner Mogale said there was clear evidence that the CGE was ineffective and inefficient. It apparently accepted all forms of apologies for non-attendance. It was unacceptable that Commissioners were not showing up. Commissioner Mathebula had failed to give a proper timeline for the internal process that had been undertaken. It was only yesterday evening, when some Commissioners had raised the issue, that the matter had been brought up again. She was equally disappointed at the lack of progress on revising the CGE Handbook.

She added that Commissioner Deyi had never attended any activities in the province where she was deployed. The Chairperson often had to be in Deyi’s place, which implied that there would be no leadership when Commissioners were looking for guidance, since the Chairperson was performing the duty of a Commissioner.

The Chairperson asked whether Commissioner Mathebula was trying to protect her Commissioners.

Commissioner Mogale commented on the 17% remuneration increase issue. She said the percentage increase could be rendered irregular by just taking it at face value. It was unacceptable that an organisation should have such inconsistent standards when it came to increases, so some staff members were guaranteed a 17% increase.

She said remuneration increases were determined by performance and annual increases. The 17% was just arbitrary, because increases were governed by the government and the availability of funds. So far, Commissioners still could not get the answer to why some employees were getting the 17% increase. She commented that a cohort of Commissioners could not be touched, and there was no justification for that.

Ms Sharif remarked that she was at a loss for words after hearing such responses. Not so long ago, the CGE was one of the best-performing entities under this Portfolio Committee, and Members would vouch for the CGE to apply for funding and resources. The entity was truly the Committee’s pride. Given this huge contrast, she found it very disappointing that the entity was in such a mess in 2022.

She noted that Chapter 5 of the Commissioner’s handbook states that there should be an average of four or five meetings per financial year, so it seemed like the Commission was not complying with its own handbook.

The Chairperson felt that there were people out there milking the CGE every day without anyone saying anything.

Ms T Masondo (ANC) asked the Commission what the key drivers of success were for each of the CGE committee outcomes for the financial year under review. She also asked it to identify the key challenges of barriers as well as the mitigation measures to address those identified challenges. What were its strategies to increase its visibility and impact to achieve its strategic outcomes?

Mr Ngcobo asked about the CGE’s programme on GBV.

Dr Tembe explained to the Committee that the Commission’s policy on non-attendance was clearly stated in the handbook. The non-attendance issue could even be escalated to Parliament, which would result in a process for either the removal of a Commissioner, or disciplinary action. He affirmed that Parliament had the authority of s194 of the Constitution to do that.

He agreed with Members that the 17% remuneration increase in a performance-based contract was questionable, and accounting officers would have to account for that according to the Public Finance Management Act. Further, the Public Audit Amendment Act also required remedial action to recoup the lost amount.

The Chairperson asked Dr Thembinkosi Twalo, the Commission’s Acting CEO, to comment on the response.

Dr Twalo said he had assumed his position as Acting CEO only recently, so the issue was brought to his attention in August. A meeting had subsequently taken place among himself, the lawyers, the CFO  and Commissioner Mathebula on 16 September to try and understand the full details of the situation in the organisation. The update he got was that the affected employees had taken their grievances to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) when the Commission had stopped paying them the 17% provident fund allowance. The lawyer representing the Commission would be checking the process at the CCMA. The Commission hoped that this matter would be resolved by the end of this week.

The Chairperson proposed that a forensic investigation into the case and other outstanding matters might be needed. The Members agreed with the Chairperson’s suggestion.

2021/22 Annual Report of the CGE

The Committee asked the Commission to make its presentation.

Dr Twalo outlined the mandate and strategic outcomes of the Commission, and provided the Committee with an overview of its general performance such as its legal submissions, high-level meetings, webinars, training workshops, etc. It provided charts on the number of open and closed legal complaints in the 2021/22 financial year, and gave a briefing on its human resource capacity.

The presentation concluded with the financial information of the organisation.

The CGE received an unqualified opinion with material findings.

(For more details, refer to the attached document).

Discussion

Ms Masondo sought clarity on the AG’s finding concerning the Commission having procured similar services from Deloitte for R77 062 by 31 March 2022. She wanted to know why bids had been awarded to the Vuvuzela hotline for an amount of R776 888 without approval from the delegated officials. She also wanted to know who the delegated officials were and who should be held to account.

Ms Sharif remarked that it was very disappointing that the Commission had achieved only 68% of its targets despite the reduced number of targets. She asked the Commission if a succession plan had been in place, as the Committee had just interviewed new Commissioners.

Mr Mphithi emphasised the importance of retaining institutional knowledge, and therefore the need to retain staff at the CGE. He found the organisation’s high staff turnover rate alarming, in that ten resignations had been received. He asked the institution if any mitigating strategies were in place to address the issue.

Mr Mphithi wanted the CFO to explain how the Commission’s under-spending had taken place, what the reason was, and what actions had been taken to address the matter. He insisted that the fruitless and wasteful expenditure needed to be accounted for, so he wanted to know which items had been approved by the CFO. He asked for more details about the costs incurred in the organisation’s financial statement, such as the South African Revenue Service (SARS) penalty fee.

Mr Ngcobo asked the Commission if it had any tracking mechanism to monitor how many of its submissions were incorporated into its policy. He requested an update on the CGE’s standing with the Legal Practice Council.

The Chairperson asked the Commission why it had not indicated the rate of GBV cases, and was unsure of its performance on the cases that were related to GBV. She recalled that 494 pending cases were related to 2021/22, and wanted to know the Commission’s progress with those pending cases.

She noted that the Commission had received 170 complaints, and sought clarity on whether that figure was for 2020/21 or 2021/22.

She reminded the Commission that Commissioner Botha had allegedly been invited to speak as the guest speaker at a certain forum on 24 September, despite being suspended.

Mr Mphithi asked the CFO to explain the inconsistency in the types of payments made to Commissioners. He questioned the functionality of the complaints system at the CGE and whether the public was aware of the system or did not have confidence in the Commission. He asked for an update on the Commission’s legal licence service. He also requested that the part-time Commissioners' hours be sent to the Committee when the Commission sent them to the Office of the AG.

CGE's response

Mr Twalo attributed the non-achievement of targets at the CGE to the pervasive issue of high vacancy rates at the Commission. The effect of not having enough personnel working in the organisation meant that the running of its various programmes was negatively affected. The Commission had therefore taken a stance to prioritise the filling of vacancies. The Commission was so under-capacitated that it had only one legal officer and one education officer per province. The severe under-capacity implied that staff members could do only a very limited amount of work. The Commission was taking advantage of the systems at its disposal, such as using the internet to broadcast all its messages.

Mr Twalo reported on the Commission’s progress on its registration at the Legal Practice Council. Although it was trying to do its best to ensure the problem was resolved, it had not been successful. The barring of practices of the organisation limited its services. As a consequence, the turnover rate of legal officers at the Commission was very high.

Dr Ngwenya said that the Commission’s R14 million surplus was due to its human resource under-spending, which had been R9 million. The CFO explained that the SARS penalty was incurred when there was a delay in payment, and interest would automatically be added. However, she did not think any individual official should be held responsible if there were no available funds in the Commission’s bank account to pay what was due.

She said the Commissioners’ salary matter had been flagged as an irregular expenditure item in the 2020/21 financial year, since it was not in line with legislation. However, the AG’s Office had reclassified the item as fruitless and wasteful expenditure in the 2021/22 financial year because the Commission had failed to submit time sheets. The Commission was in the process of engaging with the AG to resolve the matter.  

The AG had picked up the Vuvuzela Hotline issue because the awarding of the contract had not been authorised by the relevant official, as the former CEO had not signed the award document.

Responding on the use of Deloitte's services, she said the AG’s Office was not happy with the split codes which the Commission had used. Although the Commission provided a response thereafter, the AG’s Office still was not satisfied, which was why the reason was stated that a similar service had been procured.

The Chairperson requested Commissioners to respond to the issue of Commissioner Botha, who had allegedly attended a public meeting despite being a suspended official of the organisation. Commissioner Mothupi indicated that she had raised the issue in the meeting yesterday, but did not know if he had indeed shown up at the event.

Mr Mphithi reminded the Commission to respond to his two questions.

The Chairperson reminded the Commission to comment on the issue of the organisation’s structure. She had listened to the response, and had noted the Commission’s indication that there was one legal position per province. However, the Committee often received complaints from the public that the CGE’s provincial offices were not functional. She was also aware of the explanation which the Commission had often provided in the past, that the organisation was unable to attract people of the right skills because of its low and uncompetitive remuneration. The Committee since then had instructed the Commission to work on that, but now she noted that the Commission lacked willingness to do its work. She was disturbed that CGE Commissioners were using unstable internet connectivity as an excuse to dodge questions. The Chairperson added that Commissioner Mothupi should be ashamed that the Botha issue had been discussed only a day before this meeting.

Commissioner Dibeela Gertrude  Mothupi provided clarity that the meeting yesterday had been to set up a committee, as well as waiting for the response from the legal representatives. It was agreed to set up a hearing for suspended Commissioner Botha at the meeting yesterday. The Commission now only awaited the time and date confirmation from the legal representative.

Dr Moleko provided an update on the four staff members who had been affected. The two provincial CGE staff members had applied for arbitration at the CCMA, and had indicated that they would comply with the ruling. The CCMA case for one staff member was in process and would be dismissed in due course. The last staff member was waiting for further instructions.

She responded on what the institution had done about the lack of human capacity. The assessment of the performance of the former CEO at CGE had been concluded and the outcome of that assessment had already been submitted to Parliament.

Dr Moleko assured the Committee that the Commission had always had a vision to build an organisation that would impact society and be fit for purpose, but this process had been a struggle for the organisation. The CGE board had resolved to fill some of its vacancies two to three months ago, and the former CEO had flatly refused to support that decision. It was unacceptable that the Commission was underspending on the compensation of employees while the country was facing a serious challenge of gender equality issues. The Commission welcomed the investigation that was due to be initiated by the Committee, and indicated it would cooperate with the Committee and its designated investigation team. She reaffirmed the Commission’s mandate to support and assist those marginalised and poor, and those in need of its assistance.

Dr Moleko said the Commission had made some progress in getting the Commission back on the Legal Practice Council (LPC). Since the CGE failed to register itself, its attorneys had since 2021 been barred from representing its clients. The Commission has been able to re-alert the current leadership of the LPC of the CGE’s predicament, and the matter was discussed on 15 September. The response from the LPC had been that it was not able to grant the Commission the right to run a legal clinic or to do an accreditation due to the LPC’s interpretation of the CGE Act. However, the Commission had a different interpretation of the Act, and believed that the CGE should be able to set up any structure to fulfil its mandate. S21(f) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 (PEPUDA), or the Equality Act, Act No. 4 of 2000, specifically refers to the CGE and the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), granting those two organisations the litigation rights against human rights discrimination. This disagreement would be discussed with the LPC. The Commission also planned to meet with the Minister urgently to discuss the issue.

Mr Mphithi noted some of the responses around the Commission’s business model, and indicated that the issue could be discussed further in the meeting next Wednesday. He added that those Commissioners who had worked 100 hours should also be included in the investigation to ensure that they had a clear reputation for their future as well.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

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: