Public Protector of South Africa Annual Report 2021/22

This premium content has been made freely available

Justice and Correctional Services

20 October 2022
Chairperson: Mr G Magwanishe (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

Public Protector

The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services was briefed by the Public Protector of South Africa (PPSA/PP) on its Annual Report for the 2021-22 Financial Year.

Members were pleased to hear that PPSA managed to achieve a third consecutive clean audit, maintain a vacancy rate below 10%, and record an 86% achievement for its targets after spending 91% of the budget; whereas most departments recorded high expenditure whilst obtaining a low performance. However, they were concerned by PPSA’s loss of 24 staff members in the year under review and questioned whether this would lead to a reduction in its general performance.

The Committee flagged the fact that 72% of PPSA’s total R362.7 million went towards the compensation of employees, indicating that this was above the recommended standard of 66%.

Noting a reduction of targets since 2017, the Committee agreed to look into PPSA’s targets, to establish whether its overachievement was due to the setting of low targets or if more could be done when the PPSA returned to discuss its budget with the Committee.

Furthermore, the Committee advised the PPSA to continue accumulating further savings through, for instance, the reduction of litigious action, so as to fund other operational areas without the assistance of continued bailouts from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.

The PPSA informed the Committee that it had sent correspondence to the Speaker of the National Assembly appealing for Parliament to urgently finalise the amendment of the Executive Members Ethics Act.

The PPSA highlighted that it has appointed a team that is currently analysing the Zondo Commission report, which will assist in compiling an efficient plan to ensure the monitoring of the government and Parliament’s implementation of the recommendations.

Meeting report

The Chairperson mentioned that the Committee would be briefed by the Public Protector of South Africa (PPSA) on its 2021-22 Annual Report.

Introductory remarks by the Acting PP

Adv Kholeka Gcaleka, Acting PP, indicated that while the last four months had been a challenging time for PPSA, the annual report showed an organisational improvement in the quality of reports compiled. 8823 cases were resolved for the year under review, which represented a slight decline from the 9299 completed in the prior year. To further improve its performance, PPSA has prioritised the filling of key positions, such as the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Chief Operations Officer (COO).

The PP, in a letter sent to the Speaker of the National Assembly, appealed for Parliament to apply urgent focus on finalising the amendment of the Executive Members Ethics Act (EMEA). In addition, the letter highlighted the need for Parliament to adequately prepare for the implementation of the State of Capture Report.

Briefing by PPSA on its 2021-22 Annual Report

Ms Thandi Sibanyoni, Chief Executive Officer, and Mr Tshiamo Senosi, Acting CFO, briefed the Committee on PPSA’s Annual Report for the 2021-22 financial year.

Taking the Committee through PPSA’s organisational performance, Ms Sibanyoni mentioned that the institution managed to achieve an 86% performance for the year under review, which represented a 3% improvement from the prior financial year. Furthermore, she announced that the institution received a clean audit for the third consecutive year.

Within its three programmes, administration, investigations and stakeholder management, PPSA managed to overachieve in some targets, these include the finalisation of: 112 investigation reports against a target of 50 and two systemic investigations against a target of 1, by 31 March 2022; as well as 85% of cases within turnaround times, against an 80% target. She added that a total of R245 million, amounting to 68% of the total R367.2 million budget.

PPSA, she highlighted, had a high turnover of staff, with 24 employees leaving the institution this financial year but this was compensated for by the appointment of 28 new officials. The most significant reason cited for their departure was resignation, which amounted to 16 of the total.

Mr Senosi, thereafter, took the Committee through PPSA’s audit and financial information.

Key highlights

  • PPSA maintained clean audit status for the third consecutive year
  • Non-material audit findings remained at 21 for the period under review
  • Bailout of R30.8 million provided by the Department of Justice (DoJ) in the month of November 2021. 
  • A surplus of R35.1 million compared to R14.7 million in the previous financial. R5 million was not be spent
  • PPSA’s financial viability was assessed and found to be good by AGSA.

Total revenue for the year amounted to R84 million, the majority of which (R83 million) was obtained from the DoJ and the rest through the interest generated from the income. Total expenditure for the year amounted to R78.3 million, with the bulk of the funds (R63 million) being spent on compensation for employees.

In his final remarks, he highlighted that PPSA required additional funding from the National Treasury for three critical items. One, to fill 23 critical vacancies, which are estimated to cost R10.2 million as from August 2022 to March 2023. Two, to pay for the suspended PP’s legal representation costs at the Section 194 Committee, which are estimated to cost R7 million. Three, for the appointment of security officers at its provincial offices, which are currently only being secured by the Videofied Alarm System. 

The Chairperson said the Committee would reconvene at 18:05, due to load shedding.

The meeting was adjourned for 15 minutes.

The Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, wished the PPSA a happy 27th anniversary.

Thereafter, he opened the floor for discussion.

Discussion

Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) congratulated PPSA for achieving its third consecutive clean audit, which she said the Committee appreciated. Although, she encouraged the institution to address the negative findings made by the Auditor-General of South Africa (AG/AGSA).

Following those remarks, she posed several questions to PPSA. One, she asked how, in the face of critical vacancies within the institution, it planned to meet its increased targets on the number of systematic investigations and reports completed. She suggested that it fill all of the vacant positions as soon as possible.

Two, she asked if PPSA believed that its five-day skills development training course (run by Special Investigative Unit officials) was enough for new recruits to the institution; or if it planned to conduct more training.

Three, she asked if the Mobile Referral App would remain cost-free for PPSA in the future.

Four, she asked for comment on why newly-appointed employees had not been subjected to security verification, as found by the AG in its report.

Five, she asked for more information on the discrepancies found by the AG, regarding the implementation and monitoring of the Videofied Alarm System, particularly at PPSA’s provincial offices.

Six, she asked why there were deficiencies in the records management practices, as highlighted by the AG, and how PPSA planned to address these.

Seven, she asked the PPSA to provide a report on the consequence management taken against officials responsible for submitting fuel slips that were inconsistent with what had to be spent. She called for disciplinary cases to be filed against those involved.

After that, she voiced her support for PPSA’s plea to be allocated additional funding, so that it is able to achieve all of its targets.

Adv S Swart (ADCP) also congratulated PPSA for its third consecutive clean audit and added that the Committee expected nothing less from a Chapter 9 institution; and that it be maintained going forward.

To begin with, he pointed out that there was a discrepancy in the figures provided on the legal fees (under consultation and professional fees) in the report – R31.5 million in 2020-21 and R25.42 million in 2021-22 – and those that PPSA claimed in the previous meeting – R38.8 million in 2020-21 and R28.4 million in 2021-22. He asked the PPSA to explain the difference in figures and that it also give a detailed breakdown of the consultation and professional fee amounts, as he felt that they may provide greater context.

Thereafter, he asked if PPSA could provide the Committee with the letter it sent to the Speaker’s Office on 30 June 2022, which highlighted which of the state organs have not been complying with the institution’s remedial actions. Furthermore, he asked if there was a relationship between PPSA and the Institutions Supporting Democracy (ISD) Office (which is based within the Speaker’s Office).

Pointing to PPSA’s removal of the paragraph in its 2022-23 Annual Performance Plan, which read as follows: a systematically integrated and nationalised review revised investigation model; he asked what the review of the investigation model would entail and once implemented, whether it should be approved prior to the conclusion of the organisational development (OD) study.

Citing reports of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s expected presentation on Saturday, relating to the Executive’s implementation plan of the ZC’s recommendation, he asked what role the PP would play, if any, in the monitoring of this process.

Touching on PPSA’s 65% achievement of the target to finalise 80% of all matters two years and older, he asked what percentage of this target were complex matters and what measures would be put in place to address the one target that was not met.

In his final question, he asked when the Chief Financial Officer position would be filled, as he viewed it as a critical position for the institution. Moreover, he felt that PPSA’s failure to fill the vacancy was a sign of the financial constraints it faces.

Dr W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) asked if the Mobile Referral App had been launched already. After which she posed multiple questions to the PP.

One, she asked for a breakdown on the number of youth, women and people with disabilities (PWD) employed by PPSA; as well as the 798 cases where the institution has no jurisdiction. In addition, she asked what those cases referred to and how many of them there were.

Two, she asked what the reasons for the fruitless and wasteful expenditure were; and what steps were being taken to prevent it from reoccurring.

Three, she asked for clarity on what the remaining R30 million of PPSA’s surplus would be used for, as R5 million had been dedicated for the filling of vacancies.

Four, she asked whether the internship programme was currently operational and if so, how many interns had been contracted for the year, and how many have since been permanently employed by the institution.

Five, after pointing out that performance agreements had been signed with 91% of the senior management staff (SMS), she asked why the remaining 9% had not yet done so, and how many officials this percentage represented.

Six, she asked for details on PPSA’s CCMA (Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration) case against Mr Sphelo Samuel, as the court involved ruled in his favour and ordered the institution to back pay him R1.5 million, which the PP has appealed.

Seven, she asked if PPSA’s legal services was well-capacitated: if not, was more training required for the officials.

Eight, she asked if the PP would resume its community engagements, as they allowed citizens to feel more in touch with her and the Office, instead of only focusing on appearing on radio broadcasts.

She then voiced her support for Adv Swart's request that the report sent to the Speaker be submitted to the Committee.

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) asked three questions. One, what savings would be made from the decision, as reported by the media, to abandon its needless litigation.

Two, whether appointments had been made to improve the training of current officials and if former experienced employees were to be brought back. Furthermore, she asked for PPSA to furnish the Committee with its retention strategy.

Three, if the Acting PP had given any thought to instituting in-house promotions to improve the Office’s performance.

The Chairperson joined Members in congratulating PPSA for achieving a third consecutive clean audit, maintaining a vacancy rate below 10%, and meeting 86% of the targets after spending 91% of the budget; whereas most departments recorded high expenditure with low performance. While he accepted PPSA’s explanation why it could not spend the remaining 9%, he urged it to spend all of its allocation and achieve 100% of its targets.

While acknowledging that the PPSA’s labour-intensive work meant that 72% of the budget had to be dedicated to employees, he indicated that this should be flagged as a risk, as this was above the recommended standard of 66%. This spoke to the PP’s continued underfunding, which required an intervention going forward.

Noting a reduction of targets since 2017, he recommended that the Committee look into PPSA’s targets, to establish whether its overachievement was due to the setting of low targets or if more could be done when the PPSA returned to discuss its budget with the Committee. Furthermore, he encouraged the institution to do more with less.

One of his concerns, he said, was that PPSA received a bailout from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD), which is also struggling financially, for the 4th or 5th year in a row. Following on this, he asked if the institution believed it would be able to survive without the bailouts in the next few years, despite the surplus it made this financial year.

Thereafter, he asked five questions. One, why had the PPSA not submitted its report to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC)?

Two, why were review applications processed without proof of approval?

Three, he sought an explanation why newly appointed employees were not being inducted within a prescribed period, which he described as serious.

Four, he wanted clarity why a service-level agreement (SLA) was not in place for the appointed panel of legal firms.

Five, he asked why the operational risk register had not been signed-off by the delegated authority, and which official was responsible.

Ms Sibanyoni, referring to the question on what measures were being put in place to respond to the AG’s findings, indicated that on an annual basis, PPSA developed an Audit Action Plan to address all issues identified by its internal audit and AGSA reports – and it will do so again this FY.

Regarding the question of what steps were being taken to address the loss of staff at the institution, she explained that whilst 24 officials departed the institution during the year under review, other individuals were recruited. At all times, the institution tries to fill in vacant positions promptly to ensure that investigations are not seriously delayed or affected, but where it cannot, a set of investigators are assigned to a matter, until an appointment is made.

Responding to the question on the entity’s skills development training programme, she told Members that the PPSA relied on both the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) and the Justice College. At the beginning of each year, PPSA has a training plan that emphasises on-the-job training, particularly for new employees. A new process has been established where staff is expected to undergo compulsory training each month, for a specific period, on various aspects of their work, to ensure that they keep abreast with the developments in the investigations field; and that they are made to understand the PP’s standard operating procedures (SOPs) and its rules, especially for those related to the core business.

Most of the new recruits, especially at the lower level, are assigned to either a senior or chief investigator within PPSA, who assists them with on-the-job training, to help then familiarise with the institution’s workings. In addition, partnerships are being established with the National School of Government (NSG), to accommodate employees for further training.

On the vetting of new employees, she explained that prior to appointment, PPSA employees are subjected to pre-employment screening, which includes the verification of their qualifications, and criminal records with the South African Police Services (SAPS). Once completed, the individuals are required to fill-out certain forms that are then sent to the State Security Agency (SSA), which is responsible for the full vetting of staff. This, she added, is a prolonged process.

Referring to the monitoring of the Videofied Alarm System in the provinces, she mentioned that one of the challenges was that the administrators employed to monitor the system were not trained how to utilise it, as such, PPSA has put them through training so they are better able understand what to look out for in the video footage. 

Touching on the question related to what consequence management was taken against officials responsible for fruitless and wasteful expenditure, she indicated that any official who abuses state resources is subjected to disciplinary action, in terms of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). All such cases are referred to its financial misconduct and loss control committee, which conducts an investigation and then advises on what action should be taken. Where there has been fruitless expenditure, as there was with the misuse of petrol cards, all monies are recovered from those responsible, in line with Section 83 of the PFMA.

Afterwards, she assured Members that PPSA would provide it with the report it sent to the Speaker and appreciated their interest in it.

Regarding the question related to the development of a new institutional model, she informed the Committee that the organisational development exercise did not go according to plan because the service provider had slightly deviated from the terms of reference given to him, so the report was referred back to him. The work is currently being amended, and the service provider is in the process of finalising the report, which, once done, will be submitted to the Committee. At the same time, PPSA would then look to develop its implementation. Furthermore, the skills audit, which would assist the PP in matching and placing employees in their suited positions, was still underway, she added.

Responding to the question on what would be done with R30 million surplus, she explained that the money was received from the DoJ&CD in late November or early December, and was supposed to be used for certain projects but as it could not confirm the funds, it was unable to initiate a tender process. As such, the funds remained unspent. The other R5 million was accumulated through time delays in-between the finalisation of appointments.

On the number of youth, women, and PWDs employed by PPSA, she committed to providing a full breakdown, as contained in the annual report, in writing to the Committee by the following day.

Regarding the question on the outreach clinics, she mentioned that they were suspended because of the Covid-19 regulations but it planned to recommence with them as it was aware that it could not reach certain communities, particularly rural ones, through radio stations and the Mobile Referral App.

Touching on the question related to the operational risk register, she stated that because the register is continually reviewed and updated to include new risks PPSA is sometimes unable to approve it on time. 

Adv Neels van der Merwe, Senior Manager: Legal Services, PPSA, addressed the question on the discrepancies in the savings and indicated that PPSA did not have the specific figures on hand but it would forward them in writing.

Regarding PPSA’s staff capacity, he told the Committee that the legal services unit had been capacitated. Recently, the Acting PP decided to institute an audit of all review matters on three levels; those that are currently on judicial review; the Section 194 impeachment process; and other labour-related issues. Where the Office is found to be at risk of adverse findings, the matter will be reviewed. Steps were taken to pursue only matters where there are good prospects of defending the reports – as with labour-related cases.

Responding to the question related to Mr Samuel back pay, he confirmed that an award was given by the CCMA, however, after considering the prospects as well as the implication of that decision, the Office decided to launch a judicial review of the judgement. In line with the Labour Relations Act, PPSA subsequently paid the money into a trust account, with its awarding to Mr Samuel pending the final outcome of the judicial review process.

Touching on the approval process for the appointment of legal service providers and the SLAs PPSA has with the attorneys, he elaborated that the institution has a litigation management strategy, a panel of attorneys, and a tariff of fees. Although, this process has been reviewed because it was found that while the litigation management strategy complied in most instances, there was ensuing litigation in cases where the same firm would have been proceeding with action on matters not covered in the original brief. This issue had since been resolved, with the SLAs required to comply with PPSA’s litigation management strategy and its fiscal governance; which will ensure that rendered invoices are in accordance with the tariff fees, and the appointment process.

Furthermore, where PPSA has raised disputes with firms, it has resolved to refer the litigation to the South African Revenue Services (SARS) for taxation, which it believes will assist, amongst others, to address past legal expenses, he said.

Referring to the question on the Mobile Referral App, he indicated that it has since been launched; is available on Android, and is named the PPSA Complaints Referral Application. Most of the allocated budget for the App was spent on registering it on the Google Play Platform, with PPSA not incurring any costs for the hosting of the database, which includes the details of the various state departments. PPSA, he added, entered into an agreement with the Government Communication Information System (GCIS) to use its database, which is reviewed on a quarterly basis.

Presently, PPSA is looking into registering the App on the IOS Platform, which represents the second phase of its rollout; although this depends on the budget available. The App was developed in consultation with the Innovation Hub, thus saving significant costs for PPSA.

On records management, he mentioned that the policies have been developed but the challenge remains the implementation of the records management policy and plan, as this depends on the rollout of the digitisation project. A case management system has been implemented, which will begin the process of migrating information from hard copy case files to an electronic database. PPSA had the capacity to develop an electronic records management system, which it plans to do in the next phase. Furthermore, the final approval of the foul plan is currently being obtained.

Regarding the report that was not submitted to the SAHRC, he explained that this referred to the Section 32 report relating to the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), which is currently subject to internal audit processes, due to capacity constraints in that unit, as well as the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA). Capacity has since been enhanced and PPSA is working with the auditors to rectify any gaps in the implementation of PAIA.

The Chairperson asked when PPSA planned to submit the report.

Adv van der Merwe said that he would confirm that in writing.

Ms Nelisiwe Thejane, Acting COO, PPSA, addressed the question of whether PPSA would be able to achieve its increased targets for systemic investigations considering the number of staff who have left the Office. She confirmed that the institution was on course to meet the targets. At present, the institution is looking to stretch its resources as far as it can. Instead of reducing the target, PPSA intended to organise teams and institute project-based investigations to achieve the targets. 

On the 65% target set for resolving cases older than two years old, she assured Members that PPSA would meet this target, and at the same time, continue with its backlog reduction project, with the investigative teams tasked with this still in place. While PPSA was aware that complex matters such as the investigations into Independent Power Producers (IPPs) and Eskom may affect its chances of achieving a 100% performance, it remained determined to either reduce or eliminate the backlog.

Responding to the question related to the breakdown of cases PPSA has no jurisdiction over, she explained that this included matters that have already been presented before the various tribunals and where the court, for example, has already granted judgement. Such matters may include complaints against a state organ. Through its outreach programmes, PPSA is looking to educate communities on which matters it can intervene in, she said. Furthermore, she assured Members that a full breakdown will be provided.

Mr Senosi, referring to the question related to the discrepancies in legal fees, told the Committee that reporting on the amount spent on legal fees depended on the time at which internal audit completed its audit on all financial expenditure; thus, the information is constantly updated.

Touching on the fruitless and wasteful expenditure incurred, he said that this is mainly related to the lack of effective communication between new and old service providers contracted with PPSA to provide telecommunications services. An investigation to resolve the matter is currently underway and once completed, consequence management will be implemented, he stated. The rest of the fruitless and wasteful expenditure related to the missing of flights by colleagues, with investigations ongoing, disciplinary action will also be implemented.

Regarding the bailout from the DoJ&CD, he indicated that once the department and the National Treasury finalised PPSA’s baseline, it would no longer require a bailout.

The Chairperson asked if PPSA would continue as a going concern without the bailout.

Mr Senosi said that it would but not for long, as it is currently only a going concern because of the surplus.

Adv Gcaleka thanked the Members for showing confidence in PPSA, especially considering the difficult circumstances it is under.

Touching on the vacancies, she indicated that PPSA is quick to fill vacancies: the only reason why the 23 positions had still not been filled was because of the budget assessment the institution is currently conducting, on which positions it can afford to fill. Some have been advertised and human resources staff will resume their review of applications on 1 November. The PPSA has considered adopting the AG’s extended notice period for the appointment of senior positions, as its current one is one month.

Referring to the question on when PPSA planned to appoint a permanent CEO and COO, she explained that, as per the PP Act, the CEO is required to assist the PP – who is the executive authority – in his or her execution of administrative duties. Whereas the COO is expected to coordinate investigations and their quality assurance (QA); as well as advise both the PP and Deputy Public Protector (DPP) on the institution’s core business. As a result of the challenges related to investigations, these functions are carried out at the Head Office to ensure that the PP, as the executive authority, allows due process – in line with the SOPs – to take place before getting involved.

This ensured that proper advice and recommendations is provided to the PP, when considering a matter. She reminded Members that in a previous meeting (where the discussions centred on whether to keep the COO position), the PPSA did not agree with the Chairperson’s suggestion that both the PP and DPP contemplate appointing their own personal advisors, and preferred retaining the COO position – which, based on the feedback from reports submitted, proved itself to be a critical position.

Having re-advertised the COO position because of the lack of suitable candidates, PPSA is hoping to fill the vacancy as soon as possible, she mentioned.

The finalisation of appointments in PPSA has been delayed, with some applicants having to be re-assessed due to the time lapses, because of the major backlog in security clearance investigations at the SSA, she said. To resolve the effects of the backlog, PPSA has entered into talks with SSA.

Whilst being pleased with the Speaker’s decision to refer the PPSA’s letter to the Deputy President, she urged all organs of the state, including Parliament, to assist the PP in ensuring its remedial actions are implemented. This was also emphasised to the Speaker. To further drive the point, the PPSA planned to embark on a roadshow in Parliament and hold discussions with multiple party political caucuses.

Due to the prolonged vacancy of the Secretary of Parliament position, the PPSA did not feel the effectiveness of the ISD but it is currently engaged in conversations with the Office on how it can get greater assistance from it.

Regarding PPSA’s amendment to the investigative model, she told the Committee that it was important for an institution as critical as PPSA to have a well-thought-out and researched business prior to changing the model. Some of the research has been done by its knowledge management unit, particularly, into institutions around the world similar to PPSA; while the organisational development unit has looked into the skills at the Office; the costs; and whether the investigative model would fit into PPSA’s current infrastructure. In addition, developed jurisprudence also had to find expression in the model.

Referring to the question on the State of Capture Report, she indicated that the PPSA has written to the Speaker to inform her that the institution will be closely monitoring the implementation of the ZC’s recommendations. A letter has also been written to the President, which spoke to issues contained in the initial report submitted to him by Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, and advice on PPSA’s role in the monitoring of implementation, since it was the author.

The PPSA has appointed a team that is currently analysing the report, which will assist in compiling an efficient plan to ensure the monitoring of the government and Parliament’s implementation of the recommendations. This would also assist the government in implementing governance reforms.  

Touching on Mr Samuel’s CCMA case against PPSA, she assured Members that the institution had carefully thought through its decision to take the judgement on judicial review. In a separate labour matter, the institution decided against opposing the judgement, while it has completely withdrawn from others

Responding to the question on the matters where PPSA had no jurisdiction, she explained that PPSA did not reject matters which have been referred to it first instead of the government, but rather engaged with the relevant organ of state on behalf of the complainants and monitors the progress thereof. Once assisted, PPSA removes the complaints from the communication and stakeholder management (CSM) register for monitoring of matters. No complainant goes away without being assisted.

On the permanent retention of interns in the Office, she indicated that due to financial constraints PPSA has been unable to run its internship programmes; though some interns from the prior years have been absorbed into the Office. At present, the institution is assessing the possibility of employing interns for some of the current vacancies. Furthermore, she stressed that PPSA did not want to have interns with only general knowledge of the Office’s inner workings as has been the case thus far.

Referring to the question on the signing of performance agreements by senior management staff, she stated that two of the employees did not sign their agreements because they were on suspension, while the third official was unable to do so because he or she joined PPSA at end of the quarter.

Regarding the outreach programmes, she confirmed that PPSA had recommenced with the initiative, with its officers visiting several communities already. The institution planned to utilise its good governance week to expand its visibility and outreach. However, due to the lack of bakkies, officers are unable to reach rural areas. As such, the CEO instituted a process to procure the vehicles, she said.

Touching on the question related to the savings PPSA stood to make from its decision to withdraw from needless litigation, she assured Members that PPSA would provide these figures in writing but it did not believe that the savings would make much of a difference in its expenditure, as the Office has been spending money it does not have. As a result of this decision, she further explained, PPSA only had one matter left, which is in the Western Cape High Court and it is abiding by the decisions made in resolved cases.

On promoting officials within PPSA, she highlighted that Adv van der Merwe, who has been in the institution for many years, had been promoted to the position: Head of Legal Services. However, PPSA did not have the requisite internal skills to match the change in its mandate over the years – it was not initially intended for PPSA to be as litigious. Nonetheless, she was pleased to announce that on 1 November 22, PPSA will appoint a highly skilled state prosecutor. In addition, she confirmed that some retirees have offered to assist with providing training pro-bono.

Referring to the processing of the review applications, she indicated that PPSA is working on finalising its review policy, with the content having since been concluded, leaving the conclusion of the approved protocols. Once this is done, review applications will be better processed and without any mistakes. Furthermore, the induction of the new employees will be addressed once the volunteers are included.

After its three-day Strategic Planning session, PPSA resolved that it needed to ensure that its targets are measured against the number of employees tasked with an investigation, as well as the costs, processing of investigating matters received, and any other deliverable it has. This would ensure a high number of good quality reports being produced.  

The Chairperson asked how PPSA intended to monitor Parliament and the Executive’s implementation of the ZC’s recommendations. If, for instance, the institution was not satisfied with the process, what actions it would take as the author of the report.

Adv Gcaleka said that PPSA would continue interacting with affected departments, as it currently does, through Parliament and the Speaker’s Office; hence it wrote to the Speaker indicating there may be an enforcement.

She asked for Members to provide feedback on the Amendment to the EMEA because according to information received by PPSA, the Bill had since been referred to the Committee but the Speaker was yet to confirm this. The PPSA also raised the urgency of addressing the matter with the Secretary of Parliament, and would make a further follow-up with the Speaker’s Office.

The Chairperson committed to following up on the matter and engaging with the Office of the Speaker on the desirability of appointing an Ad-Hoc Committee to process the Bill, due to its urgency. Such an approach may have to be adopted for all Constitutional Court deadlines, as the Committee only had next year to finalise all outstanding Bills.

Ms Maseko-Jele mentioned that she did not hear PPSA’s response to her questions on the discrepancies of the slips submitted on fuel expenditure and the status of the drop box system.

Adv Gcaleka indicated that this and all other wasteful expenditure has been referred to PPSA’s financial misconduct committee, which will then investigate each matter, make recommendations thereof and submit a report for implementation.

Regarding the drop boxes, she said that they have been dispatched to rural areas, with the information submitted being collected by the outreach officers. However, the officers have been advised to intensify education and awareness efforts to communities on the drop boxes, to improve the effectiveness of the initiative.

The Chairperson proposed that the Committee look to assist PPSA in obtaining additional funding from the National Treasury so that it could replace its Videofied Alarm System that it uses for its provincial offices, as they contain information on sensitive cases. Despite this, he encouraged the PPSA to continue accumulating further savings through, for instance, the reduction of litigious action, so as to fund other operational areas without the assistance of a bailout from the DoJ&CD.

While he was pleased that the vacancies were filled, he called for PPSA to speed up the process of appointing a new CFO and COO.

Adv Gcaleka thanked the Committee for its time.

The Chairperson told the Committee that Parliament had requested for Members to physically attend the Mid-Term Budget Speech on 26 October. As such, he asked the Secretariat what time the buses would collect Members from the Parliamentary Villages, as the Committee also has a morning meeting to discuss the Hate Crimes Bill.

Adv Swart mentioned that there were discussions on this matter, and it was said that the buses would collect and drop-off Members at City Hall in the morning. In addition, he indicated that due to the Lockup, he would have to divide his time between the Finance and Justice Committees

The Chairperson asked that the Secretariat inform the Committee as to whether the buses would be available in the morning.

Adv Breytenbach suggested that the Committee have an in-person as Members would all be present in Cape Town.

The Chairperson asked if the Committee Secretary could find a venue for Members to have an in-person meeting.

Mr Siyabamkela Mthonjeni, Committee Secretary, recommended that the Committee schedule a virtual meeting, as there were limited venues due to the parliamentary fire earlier this year and the Lockup.

The Chairperson requested that he confirm if no venues were available and if none were, then he should make an inquiry on the buses. Furthermore, he asked for the Secretary to check on how far the department was with the processing of the RICA (Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication Related Information Act) Bill, as Parliament has less than 12 months to pass it. Law enforcement agencies would encounter serious problems if the Bill is not passed on time. If it were to reach the Cabinet later in the year, the Committee should look to have the Bill advertised for public comment before recess.

Adv Swart added that because lock-up for MPs would be at the City Hall, while economists and journalists would have theirs in the Parliamentary Prescient, there may be available venues.

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

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: