SIU & OCJ Annual Report 2021/22; OCJ update on procurement irregularities

Meeting report

Mr R Dyantyi was selected as Acting Chair as the Committee Chairperson had other commitments.

Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) 2021/22 Annual Report

Mr Itumeleng Malao, Chief Director of Strategy and Systems, and Ms P Morapedi, Acting CFO, gave the presentation.

The OCJ received an unqualified audit opinion with material findings. Material non-compliance with key legislation was identified.

Key achievements for the financial year include:
The OCJ had vacancy rate of 9.1%, which is below the 10% target set by DPSA. The OCJ had 48% of women representation on SMS level; and 32% youth representation of the Department’s staff complement.
The OCJ conducted 168 skills-enhancing judicial education courses for Judicial Officers and aspiring Judicial Officers, which was attended by 4 343 delegates.
86% (28 356 of 33 019) of default judgments were finalised by Registrars within 14 days from date of receipt of application; 99% (27 218 of 27 413) of taxations of legal bills of costs were finalised within 60 days from date of set down and 100% (60 of 60) warrants of release were delivered within one day of the release issued.
the OCJ investigated 55% of reported fraud cases within 60 working and conducted 29 awareness sessions on Fraud Prevention and the Anti-Corruption Strategy.

Out of 24 planned targets, 21 were achieved and 3 were not. The following targets were not achieved:
Percentage of women representation in Senior Management Service (SMS) at 50%
Percentage of people with disabilities representation in the Department at 2%
Court Online system rolled out at 2 Service Centre

(See the presentation for more).

Discussion

Ms Y Yako (EFF) said that they have been receiving a very broad picture of what was actually happening in the Department. The presentation does not show what the picture actually looks like. If the OCJ has regressed financially then they are not doing something right.  The target for women in senior leadership positions was 50% and this was not met. The presenter said that it is a priority for women to be in positions of power. If this is a priority, then why was this target not met? It is duplicitous to say one thing and do another. She also had a problem with a 2% target for disabled employees. It seems like it is infantilising people living with disabilities and that they cannot do the work that they are supposed to do. 2% is the bottom bar. It is offensive, and the OCJ still did not meet the target.

Dr W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) asked what the progress was on achieving the targets raised by Ms Yako. The Committee had heard this before for the past two or three years. On the slide with the audit outcomes, the ones in yellow were quite concerning. There were leadership concerns, concerns with HR policy, audit actions, and IT governance. These were raised by the Auditor-General. Can the Committee get a progress update on what has been done to rectify this? There have been delays in IT and another area from overseas. Is there still a delay now or is the delivery of capital assets in progress? Non-compliance with legislation was found by the AG. Why has this happened? One of the reasons given for not reaching the women’s employment target is the high turnover of women employees. Why was the turnover rate high for women employees? Did they do exit interviews to find out why so many women were leaving the organisation? On the judicial officers and their training, was this completed or is it ongoing? In relation to basic and advanced computer literacy skills and writing of judgements, is this something that the OCJ is progressing with? Are there still any delays in terms of the court modernisation process and the digitalisation process? Are there still delays and procurement issues?

Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) said that there is a drop in the performance of the OCJ and there are a number of things that are concerning. The parliamentary term was about to finish and the Committee was still discussing the non-compliance with the annual targets. The target of women and disability employment is especially important. The OCJ needs to take this seriously. When the OCJ comes back next year, she did not want to hear about this again. She expressed her disappointment. The presenters said that they regret dropping the ball on this. Maybe COVID-19 could have had an impact on this. She also expressed her disappointment about non-compliance with SITA Act regulations. What was the explanation for this? Had this been done deliberately? It was very concerning. The OCJ needed to appreciate the effort of the Committee in fighting for its budget to be increased. Members put a lot of effort in, only to come back and be greeted with this kind of report. The OCJ could not ask for a budget increase when fruitless and wasteful expenditure is R 6 034.26, just because somebody did not do their job correctly. The Committee was told that this matter is still under investigation. This has accumulated because of the interest on the late payment. This needs to be taken seriously and people should be disciplined. The OCJ cannot have the same issue of irregular expenditure every year. The Committee motivates National Treasury for the budget allocation to increase and it is then wasted on irregular expenditure. She noted that effective and proper steps were not taken to ensure sound financial management and prevent the irregular expenditure of R52 million. Who was supposed to be responsible for ensuring that this did not happen? In the case of irregular expenditure and questionable procurement processes which were reported in the media, this should have been identified by the normal audit processes. What had happened there? The audit team needed to flag this before it could be taken to the Public Protector. She expressed her unhappiness with the report as presented.

Adv S Swart (ACDP) shared the concern expressed by other Members on the regression of the audit outcome and the irregular expenditure. He had raised concerns to the Department about issues relating to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) and infrastructure. They told him that he should rather ask these questions to the OCJ. Since the Members’ visit, what progress had been made on the various issues that were raised, such as the roof repairs, air conditioning, and loadshedding when apparently there was no loadshedding at the High Court?

Mr J Engelbrecht (DA) spoke on behalf of Adv G Breytenbach (DA) who had connectivity issues. She wanted to know the reasons for the underspending by the OCJ.

Ms Memme Sejosengwe, Secretary General, OCJ, replied she was not proud of the regression of the audit outcome. The team and herself will be working hard to ensure that performance is at acceptable levels. The OCJ had indicated in the past that measures were being put in place to take the 50% target of women employed in senior positions seriously. There was a stage where they had reached over 50%. At the end of September 2022, this level was at 51% and for people living with disabilities, the statistic was 1.6%. The OCJ made sure to identify those positions in the institution to ensure that women and people with disabilities are employed. 30% of the organisation’s employees are youth. They will continue with this. She noted Members’ concerns that the OCJ was not taking women seriously. She gave assurances that they do and appreciated their concerns. The impression is that women specifically leave, but attrition happens in all institutions. If it happens to be women at SMME level who receive better opportunities and pursue other options, it is beyond the OCJ’s control. It would not be because there is something wrong with how women are treated at the entity. She is a woman leader herself and she has not left. If someone is a good worker, then other institutions will grab them. This is what happens, but they do still try to reach the 50% target.

Whilst she and the team were not impressed by the regression in the audit outcome, context is also important. The organisation has been performing well ever since. Yes, in terms of ICT governance they had dropped because of irregular expenditure, and this was because of compliance issues. The compliance relates to the SITA Act and procurement processes which she had already taken action against. She has been engaging with the SITA leadership to look at this so that the supply chain management, as well as the entire institution, is aware of procurement around ICT so that the risk is managed. From year to year, when both the internal and the AG audits are done, these issues are identified. She did not want to cast any aspersions on any institutions, but she did have a discussion with the AG on the SITA compliance issues. The AG made its own acknowledgment, which could not share in a public space, but in terms of its own internal audit and risk management, it realised that it would have to improve its controls. Obviously, the irregular expenditure that relates to the ICT issues, which meant that their audit opinion regressed, will have to be dealt with. But, the other services and work which was acquired were done so correctly. She was not making excuses but wanted to just assure the Committee that they did acquire those services and it was good value for money.

Ms Morapedi said that the underspending was due to the delay in the delivery of the ICT infrastructure. ICT has confirmed that the equipment has been delivered in this financial year. The expenditure has been monitored.

Ms Sejosengwe said that subsequent to the visit by the Portfolio Committee, as well as the issues raised between the OCJ, the Department of Public Works, and the Department of Justice, they were looking at the issues with the facilities. It was not entirely in the control of the OCJ. The Department of Justice still retains the function related to facilities. However, one of the DDGs had already visited the site and met with the judges and the officials to make sure that they address this issue. A constructor had already been appointed for the roof and the leaks. The OCJ was still waiting on the DPW’s support with regard to the ventilation and the air conditioning. They sent an urgent letter requesting the servicing of the air conditioner units and are waiting for the respondent to deal with that. She is in contact with acting DG of Public Works on the issues with facilities on a continuous basis, not just for the SCA but for other areas as well. The High Court has an arrangement with regard to loadshedding so that is why it did not have loadshedding when the SCA did. They are working on doing the same thing with the SCA and the Constitutional Court. This is still in discussion between them, DPW, and the local municipalities. On the irregular expenditure of R52 million, the correct investigative processes outlined in the PFMA are underway. They are on track with regard to modernisation and procurement. Save for the SITA compliance issues that have been highlighted, the modernisation process is underway. The court online processes are still going on and the OCJ is making sure that the system is being implemented correctly and that it operates as it should.

Dr Gomolemo Moshoeu, Chief Executive Officer, SAJE, said that the judgement writing training was conducted for judges. Judges’ training takes place in July as that is the only time that they have a longer recess period. 155 district magistrates were appointed. Judgement writing and computer literacy were part of the training, and this is the same for newly-appointed senior magistrates. At all levels, they conduct training for their judicial officers, and judgement writing is included in this. Computer literacy is also focused on. They focus on the use of functionalities for conducting virtual hearings and meetings. These two areas are still part of the curriculum for the upcoming financial year.

Ms Sejosengwe said that in 2021, the rate of women in senior management positions has always been above 35%. In 2022, it has been above 45%. It at 50% in June, July and August and in September it was 55%. The audit opinion dropped because of issues with procurement processes. All of the other areas are fine. She submitted an audit turnaround plan to the Minister and this outlines how they are going to address these issues.

Mr Engelbrecht asked whether progress had been made with the Thomson Reuters investigation.  When did Ms Sejosengwe become aware of this issue?

Mr W Horn (DA) said that he did not see any mention of the Judicial Service Commission in the annual report. There is supposed to be an annexure focusing on this in the OCJ annual report. This is not the first time it has happened. Where is it and why has it not been attached as required? When will it be formally submitted?

Ms Maseko-Jele said that there have been some public concerns about the judges not writing judgements themselves. There have been some allegations. How long and how effective is the training? How often is it done? If these allegations are true, then the public could raise their eyebrows at the validity of these judgements.

Ms Sejosengwe said that section 6 (1) of the JSC Act requires the JSC to - within six months after the end of every year - submit to Parliament a report in writing regarding its activities during that year. The Chief Justice complied with this. The report was submitted to the Speaker and the Chairperson of the NCOP. It was due on 30 September 2022 and the Chief Justice submitted it on 29 September to Parliament.

Dr Moshoeu said that the writing of judgements is normally a four-day programme, but it differs depending on the needs that have been expressed in that particular year. This year, judgement writing was three hours and it was followed by discussions to hear what their challenges were and how these could be addressed. At the district magistrate level, they start by looking at matters that go to the High Court and analyse judgements that have been made by the High Court. Researchers have looked at issues raised by High Court judges on review. These reports are shared with the chief magistrate. They had not really done any work on the analysis of judgements at the High Court level and she sees how this is concerning.

Update on procurement impropriety and Thomson Reuters scandal

Ms Sejosengwe said that she would not be presenting a formal report on the procurement irregularities not because she is avoiding accountability. She took full responsibility as the accounting officer of her responsibility to report. She assured Members that at the appropriate time, the details will be ventilated. What was in the public space about the Thomson Reuters scandal is common knowledge. The OCJ had not commented publicly besides saying an internal investigation of the ICT procurement was going to be done. This had been done. An internal audit by the forensic audit unit of the institution had been activated. When investigating, they realised that they had limited capacity as an institution, this matter is complex and will require more skills to be able to uncover things fully. They made an arrangement with the SIU to beef up their team. Now, the investigation had been concluded. The report was submitted in September and they were now at the stage where the investigation must continue with regards to what had come out. The findings and recommendations are interim because the audi alteram partem rule still had to be complied with so that whoever is implicated or mentioned in the report has the right of reply in relation to what had been said about them in the report. The report is completed and they must do the audi alteram partem process now so that the recommendations can be dealt with. The OCJ had been in contact with Thomson Reuters with regard to the contract and business continuity on the contract. Both parties had agreed that the system as it is now being implemented in Gauteng Division of the High court continues to be supported and function. In addition, the OCJ, together with the counsel, are busy with draft papers and Thomson Reuters had been told that they will be going to court. This matter is in the hands of their legal counsel and papers should be reaching the court within a month. They noted the statements made by Thomson Reuters in the public concerning the sub-contractor. With regard to the Pursuit Knowledge Consulting (PKC) contract, there was also an internal investigation. In relation to this contract, there is an urgent application this morning. PKC had taken the OCJ to court for refusing to pay, due to the contract issues that had arisen. The OCJ had filed a notice to oppose the matter on an urgent basis and filed papers with regard to the review of this contract. Earlier this year, the OCJ awarded a R24m cybersecurity contract to PKC.

Both of these matters are before the courts. The SIU had also been appointed for a proclamation with regard to these contracts so that these matters can be dealt with in greater detail. She will be able to share her report once the audi alteram partem process is completed. The report is also going to be used for more in-depth investigations, law enforcement, and High Court processes. Once these processes are completed, they will be able to provide more information. If she speaks now, she could open the organisation to legal challenges, as the implicated people have not yet been afforded the right of response. She has met with the head of SITA so that their team can work on the SITA Act compliance issues. She has also provided a plan to the Minister that outlines how they are going to fix these issues.

Discussion
Mr Horn said that the letter has been circulated to the Committee. They do not want to, through their oversight, muddy the waters. However, it remains a concern that twice now, a date has been set for the OCJ to come and report on this issue and in both instances, a veil of secrecy has been placed over the matter. From an oversight perspective, this is unacceptable. Given the fact that the SITA Act is very clear and that the Secretary-General, as the accounting officer of this institution, was at all times obligated to follow the Act, why was the Act not followed? The period for which this bid was advertised and open was nine days instead of the regular 21. Why was this done? If there were specific reasons for the OCJ’s decision to not use SITA and to use a shorter period, was there National Treasury concurrence on this approach? Was there at least an attempt to notify National Treasury? If not, why not?

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen said that Thomson Reuters made a statement. What is the statement? A letter from Gunter Attorneys was sent to the Committee. Has the OCJ also received this letter? If yes, have they responded to the allegations or not?

Ms Sejosengwe assured the Committee that there is no veil of secrecy that they are placing over the matter. As soon as the necessary processes have taken place, the report will be opened and it is going to be a part of the court process. With regards to the issues raised by the AG, as she has said, the institution has already looked at these issues and developed a plan outlining what it is going to do about them. They are ensuring that the internal control systems are being attended to. The plan that the OCJ submitted to the Minister can be sent to the Committee. They now have a Chief Director of ICT who joined in September. This appointment will assist the organisation in addressing the issues regarding ICT. As soon as those who need to make a response have made a response, they will release the report for the Committee to see. It will be rectified, be it internally through their controls or externally through the courts and law enforcement agencies. She was not hiding anything and had nothing to hide. She and the other executive staff will subject themselves to whatever processes that still needed to happen, and their outcomes. They have engaged with SITA itself to make sure that they address the issues. It was an oversight of the institution that this was not done. It was not picked up by their internal controls. In other areas, they were compliant with the Act but this does not excuse their non-compliance in one particular area. The law is the law and must be followed. No service or contract was procured through this process which the institution did not meet. It is an internal control issue that is addressed in their audit plan document. The matter of nine days instead of 21 is part of the investigation. When they were engaging with Treasury on the TR matter, Treasury did know about this. Now, it is water under the bridge because the contract is subject to review as it enters the courts.

Ms Sejosengwe briefly summarised the statement. Thomson Reuters said how in their 170 years, they have operated around the globe and were committed to their high ethical standards. They indicated that questions have been raised about the contract. The company was guided by the principles of integrity, independence, and freedom from vice.

They have launched a formal investigation and suspended all work with the former OCJ officials and have not paid them. They have continued providing other services to the OCJ. This concurs with what she said earlier about the agreement between themselves and Thomson Reuters about business continuity. The statement indicates that they believe that the proper way forward is for the OCJ to re-tender the contract in an open, transparent and competitive process. Thomson Reuters is also seeking legal advice on the termination of the contract with the former OCJ employees. They have made a commitment to the people of South Africa to assist with the ongoing investigations so any and all wrongdoing is addressed.

The three officials had not yet started trading when they negotiated the contract, as they have indicated. However, this does not mean that that conduct was lawful. She cannot divulge more details.

Mr Horn referred to the Secretary-General’s remarks that there is no veil of secrecy and asked what the timeline for the alteram process to be completed. By when can the Committee expect the report?

Ms Sejosengwe said that it will take six weeks.

The Acting Chairperson said that they will expect a briefing on this report before the end of the year, sometime near the end of November.

Special Investigating Unit (SIU) 2021/22 Annual Report

Adv Andy Mothibi, Head, Mr Andre Gernandt, Chief Financial Officer, and Ms Neptune Mashego, Chief Human Capital Officer, gave the presentation.

The SIU met 100% of the annual performance plan targets and achieved an unqualified audit opinion for the sixth consecutive year. In addition, the Unit vastly overachieved all the targets of its core business programme. This is partly because of their investigations into PPE corruption.

Generally, the SIU’s financial state of affairs is very positive, despite challenges in the recovery of its debt that it has invoiced for investigations and related services performed. A summary of some of the main financial indicators are:
•As at 31 March 2022, the SIU has a R921 million (31 March 2021: R836 million) accumulated surplus in the Statement of Financial Position that is has managed to build over the last number of years.
•A material amount of this surplus is reflected in the SIU’s positive bank balance of R762 million as at 31 March 2022 (R742 million: 31 March 2021).
•The SIU’s Current ratio (Current assets: Current liabilities) as at 31 March 2022 is 3’9:1 (31 March 2021 – 4’6:1), whereas a strong current ratio in any organization is normally 2:1. The SIU’s current ratio is almost double of what is considered to be a strong current ratio.
•For the year ended 31 March 2022, the SIU reflected a surplus of R85 million (31 March 2021: R68 million in the Statement of Financial Performance.
•Despite debt recovery challenges, the SIU still managed to reflect a positive “Net cash flow from operating activities” of R22 million for the year ended 31 March 2022 (2021: R13 million.


(See the presentation for more).

Discussion
 
Mr Horn said that the report was impressive. He congratulated the SIU for the clean audit and the achieved targets. It is something to be proud of. In the past, they have discussed the SIU’s funding model and the issue of debt. The SIU has a medium-term target of reassessing its funding model. It would be good to hear how far the investigation into the different master’s offices are. What has the progress been after the proclamation on the state attorney offices? The PPE investigations sadly contributed to the SIU overachieving its targets. What is the progress with these investigations? With regard to the referrals made to the NPA, there have been issues around case-ready dockets and the fact that prosecutors typically only follow renewed investigations by SAPS. Has this issue been settled? The AG expressed gratitude for the number of cases closed, but it did point out that out of the 76 live proclamations, 26 were over three years old and 6 were over five years old. Recoverability decreases from one year to the next. It would be useful if the SIU could finalise investigations before it grows a beard. He requested a report on the investigations older than three years, and what progress, if any, has been achieved.

Mr Engelbrecht congratulated the SIU for a very positive report. It is one of the best he has seen in many years. In May, the Committee met with the SIU and they discussed accounting officers and institutions that do not implement the recommendations made by the SIU, as well as the blacklisting of companies and individuals recommended by the SIU. This needs to be done by other state agencies. Has progress been made on this?

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen congratulated the SIU on establishing an office in the Northern Cape. The debt amount owed to the SIU was given at the end of March. It is now seven months later. Are there any updates? Have the debts been paid? When the SIU submits invoices, does it have the correct contact details of the correct people? Some people could claim that they’ve never received the invoice. What is the reason for the increase in security costs? She referred to the increase in whistle-blower stats. Is this why the security cost has increased? What protection does the SIU offer to whistle-blowers? Are there any grievances lodged against the SIU? Has the SIU done a lifestyle audit? If they have, does it assist with decreasing corruption? The performance agreements were 99% completed. What happened to the other 1%?

Ms Maseko-Jele said that the SIU report was very progressive and encouraging. Several reports were supposed to be completed and dates were given, such as the masters report which was due in July 2020, and the report on the Mpumalanga and Limpopo High Court. What were the updates on these? What has happened to the line managers who have been victimising the whistle-blowers? Have these managers faced consequences or any discipline? Serious discipline might encourage whistle-blowers to come forward.

Mr Gernandt said that they have realised, especially for the debt that is older than 120 days, that senior officials in state institutions change. They make sure that the contact details of the accounting officers and accounting authorities are updated. They have realised, through the AG, that here and there they do have the incorrect details. They look at the merits of each case and the state institution and follow a strategy, whether it is an agreement for a payoff or the enactment of the intergovernmental relations framework act. They have had various discussions on the funding model and they have received feedback from the Minister’s office that at this stage, the Minister of Finance does not foresee any changes in the funding model. The SIU must just ensure that the debt is paid. They have accepted this, but they do feel that in the long term, it would still be beneficial to engage as there are systemic issues relating to the funding model, such as the officials who need to pay the SIU being potentially implicated in the investigation. After year end, they have received around R81 million but they have invoiced so the debt level has actually increased to R762 million. They do believe that the project that will be kicked off in about 12 months is going to show results and they will give continuous feedback to the Committee.

Adv Mothibi said that they wanted to make sure that they turn around their investigations as soon as possible. In his engagements with the Chief National Investigating Officer, he was told that some of the processes that they follow, particularly with regards to giving implicated persons the right of reply, tend to delay the finalisation of the investigations. They will construct a report on the investigations that have been going on for three years or more and send it to the Committee. They could submit it by the end of the month. They have an MOU with the NPA. It has been asked if they prepare case-ready dockets. The SIU hands over criminal evidence that points to criminal offence. When it reaches the NPA, they go through their own processes to decide whether to prosecute. The NPA has prepared a report which will be tabled to SCOPA soon. The SIU can talk to them so that the report reaches this Committee as well. He appreciated the kind words of encouragement from the Members. They will continue on this trajectory. The SIU has made various observations with regard to which state organisations do not implement their recommendations. This is why they are pleased that the Presidency is coming on board. Although their recommendations are being acted upon, particularly the recommendations about disciplinary processes, the speed of the implementation of these recommendations is worrisome. The monitoring mechanism that the President has put into place is going to ensure that every state-owned entity and government department is followed up on to make sure that they implement the recommendations. This will improve consequence management as well.

The SIU has observed the following risk. They get various reports from the investigators that the whistle-blowers’ lives are threatened. They receive these reports on an increasing basis. This is a cost driver that must be watched going forward. When the SIU gets these reports, they subject them to an assessment, assisted by the police and the internal integrity department. Once they determine that the threat is substantiated, then they are duty-bound to ensure that the lives of the investigators and the whistle-blowers are protected. They do protect them with the means that they have. There is also a witness protection programme at the NPA which they make use of. There was an instance where one witness in the state capture proceedings received death threats and the SIU had to make sure that the witness was protected and escorted when they went to court. The increase in the security cost is solely because of this. They are thankful for the Department of Justice’s plan to improve its legislation surrounding whistle-blower protection. The results will come out soon so that adequate funding can be made available. They do provide the best protection within their means. Grievances are launched internally but they are improving employee relations. They are ensuring that the grievances are addressed as quickly as possible. The SIU has done lifestyle audits and the government has noticed that these audits are one of the tools that they can use to minimise corruption. They have done various lifestyle audits in the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure and in some of their investigations. They are useful for identifying outliers – areas where the officials have to explain, and failure to explain is a red flag. The SIU has 100% conflict of interest declarations and the internal integrity unit looks at these. There is a process at the JCPS level where the lifestyle audits would be considered in detail and an appropriate framework would be put into place. In various institutions and departments, lifestyle audits have been implemented, such as the Department of Public Service and Administration. There needs to be a wider government framework that will ensure that lifestyle audits are done across the board.

With regards to the master’s office and the Limpopo and Mpumalanga High Courts, there is a presentation scheduled for this Committee on 1 November. They will detail where they are with these investigations. They do not have the details now. The master’s investigation is complete and a report is being prepared. The Limpopo High Court investigation will be completed soon. In the Department of Correctional Services, all of the investigations have been completed. They will now report on the civil litigation and disciplinary and consequence management processes. With regards to the 1% that was not achieved for the performance agreements, by now, it is 100% as they have covered that 1%.

Ms Mashego said that the 1% represented the special leave cases such as people on maternity leave and people who were suspended. This has now been attended to.

Ms Nandi Siwahla-Madiba, Audit Committee Chairperson, SIU, said that the audit committee has performed its duties as required by PFMA. When it comes to the functions of the internal audit, they have ensured that these have been strengthened further. The committee is ensuring that, in terms of core business, they have more audits taking place so that they can make the turnaround time more efficient. The SIU has signed an estimated operating procedure that will guide the investigations so that it is easier for them to be audited. This will also optimise turnaround time, especially for those that go through internal controls. Some of the matters that impact the turnaround time are external. If they are made internal, then this will improve turnaround time. The organisation has also complied with its three-year compliance framework so that there is adherence to the legal and regulatory requirements. When it comes to risk management, they can pride themselves on having a framework and plan at the top level which has been approved by National Treasury. The execution of the plans has also been adhered to. All of the plans for internal audit are risk-based, and if their maturity is at that level, it adds to the effectiveness of the internal audit work, which the AG relies on. They are concerned about debt collection and the interventions that were made to National Treasury. In terms of PFMA, organisations are supposed to be paying their invoices within 30 days. When the AG audits those that owe the SIU, why do they not raise this as a finding? These organisations do not pay within 30 days, and it is not only the SIU they ow money to. The AG did pursue the matter with the head office and the SIU will follow up on how far the AG will be taking this. People do not want to be investigated and the will to pay is not there.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked about the SIU’s employment of women. Have they hired 39 women, or do women make up 39% of the workforce? If it is 39%, it should be higher.

Adv Mothibi said that they take gender equity in the workplace very seriously. The numbers need to demonstrate this, and ability is also important. They do not appoint people just for the sake of numbers, they appoint based on ability.

Ms Mashego said that it is 39 women of the total senior and top management, which is 31% of these two levels.

Adv Mothibi said that they will review their recruitment processes so that the percentages can be substantive. They will come back to the Committee on this.

The Acting Chairperson asked Ms Siwahla-Madiba whether she was worried about any risks with regard to the SIU. She will not be penalised for this. Is everything just roses?

Ms Siwahla-Madiba said that not long ago, the SIU organised a celebration to recognise women in forensic investigation. As part of this exercise, she asked about the ratio of women across the entire organisation. It was 49%. The security of SIU personnel is a risk. There is a risk management subcommittee within the organisation and it shares information with the audit committee. This is a high risk and it is something that is being given priority. The impact of unpaid debts is also a big risk. It cannot be left unattended. The SIU’s impact could be larger if they were paid for their services. This should be mitigated by the IGR framework. When it comes to Eskom debt, National Treasury is able to place interventions against those who are not paying. Why can the same not be done for the SIU? The CFO was having periodic meetings with the CFOs of these organisations and there has been some improvement. This risk is being attended to within the organisation. The internal audit findings have reduced to a quarter of what they used to be and they are not even material findings; they do not threaten the financial standing of the organisation.

The meeting was adjourned.