Allegation of irregularities in SAA sale: engagement with suspended DPE DG

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed Members to the meeting and noted that the meeting was going to be a bit different because the Committee only had one item to discuss. He then welcomed the invited suspended Director-General of the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE), Mr Kgothatso Tlhakudi, and his legal team. He provided a brief background on the matter of discussion to refresh the memories of the Committee and guests.

On 27 October 2022, Mr Tlhakudi made a protected disclosure statement to the President and the Speaker of the National Assembly (see here and here) wherein he made allegations against the Public Enterprises Minister, Mr Pravin Gordhan. The disclosure was made in terms of the Protected Disclosures Act no. 26 of 2000, and he made the following allegations against the Minister:

1. Mr Gordhan orchestrated the sale of South African Airways (SAA) to benefit a few privileged individuals irregularly favoured by the Minister.
2. The Minister brought the former Chief Executive Officer of Anglo Gold Ashanti and Vedanta, Mr Srinivasan Ventakatrishnan, as an unpaid advisor who initiated the costly route to complete the SAA instead of the Cabinet resolution.
3. Minister Gordhan engaged in fraudulent processes and made a case for the appointment of Rand Merchant Bank (RMB) as transaction advisor, a company in which he has disclosed that he owns shares. RMB was appointed by deviation from normal processes because of Minister Gordhan’s intervention.
4. Minister Gordhan engaged with Mr Gidon Novick and Mr Venkatakrishnan to engineer an intervention of Mr Novick to introduce Takatso Consortium as it was not shortlisted as a strategic enquiry partner based on the report developed by the DPE.

On 29 October 2022, Mr Tlhakudi submitted a supplementary document to the Committee on his protected disclosure submission made on 27 October 2022. He made several allegations against the Minister of Public Enterprises in his supplementary submission. On 30 October, the Chief Whip of the Economic Freedom Fighters, Mr Floyd Shivambu (MP), wrote to the Speaker of the National Assembly alleging that the disclosure of Mr Tlhakudi pointed to conduct that is a violation of the Constitution and the Oath of Office by the Minister and that under the circumstances, Parliament must hold an inquiry into the conduct of the Minister.

On 20 November 2022, the Speaker of the National Assembly addressed the correspondence to the Committee Chairperson, in which the Speaker mentioned that it would be appropriate for her to refer Mr Tlhakudi’s disclosure and to convey Mr Shivambu’s letter to the Committee as a structure to which the Minister accounts. The Chairperson said he would not go into the details of the actions taken by himself in this instance as there were some punches and counterpunches between the Speaker and him. He felt the Office of the Speaker of the National Assembly would have been the right forum to deal with the matter until he sought legal advice, which came out against his understanding.

On the 27th of Match 2023, the Minister of Public Enterprises, Mr Pravin Gordhan, submitted a written reply to the Speaker of the National Assembly regarding the allegations made against him by Mr Tlhakudi. The Portfolio Committee was given advice on how to deal with the matter going forward, and as such, Mr Tlhakudi was invited to present his position to the Committee and the Minister will also be invited to state his position in another meeting. Thereafter, the Committee will determine a way forward which will be recommended to the Speaker of the National Assembly.

This meeting was the beginning of the process and the Chairperson pleaded with the members to make it as straightforward as possible and deal with the matter that Mr Tlhakudi was invited to explain.

Apologies were noted.

The Chairperson invited Mr Tlhakudi to make his presentation and notified him that if needed, the Committee would allow him time to consult his legal team before answering some questions from Members although the legal team would not be able to engage in the meeting.

Mr N Dlamini (ANC) said it would be important not to create a space for the lawyers to engage in the meeting because the meeting was the product of a letter from Mr Tlhakudi and he did not inform the Committee that his legal team would be present. The legal team may be allowed to be in the meeting but it may not participate.

The Chairperson said Mr Dlamini and him were in agreement as the legal team would not participate in the meeting even though they would be allowed time to brief Mr Tlhakudi outside. The only person who would engage with the Committee in the meeting was Mr Tlhakudi.

Mr G Cachalia (DA) agreed with the Chairperson and requested that if there is a need for Mr Tlhakudi to consult, he should be allowed to consult in real-time rather than giving him time out.

The Chairperson allowed Mr Tlhakudi to present to the Committee.

Presentation by Mr Tlhakudi

Mr Kgothatso Tlhakudi, suspended DG, DPE, first clarified that he had not received a letter of dismissal and that he remained the DG of the DPE.

He stated that he had raised the concerns about the Takatso transaction internally with the DPE Minister and with the Presidency and he did not only share it recently as suggested by the DPE Minister. He made peace with the fact, though premature, that his tenure in the public service may have come to an end due to the victimisation by Executive Authority.

On the state of the DPE, he said a climate of fear has been established in the Department, resulting in paralysis in decision-making. Unquestioning and absolute loyalty is demanded and rewarded, unfortunately elevating incapable officials into positions that cause great harm to the capability of the state. Capable officials have been intimidated, marginalised, and bullied to leave the Department. In the process, the ‘spine’ of the Department has been lost.

Mr Dlamini was concerned about the time as he felt the presentation was taking longer to get to the Takatso Consortium matter and asked Mr Tlhakudi to get to the point. He said the Committee was not interested in disciplinary matters as that would be the business of labour courts.

The Chairperson was reluctant to have Mr Tlhakudi skip certain parts of the presentation as he felt it was important to hear the build-up to the matters. He ruled that Mr Tlhakudi must be given his allocated time to complete his presentation and in the case that he did not cover what the Committee wanted; the Committee would raise it during the discussion session. He allowed Mr Tlhakudi to continue.

Mr Tlhakudi said RMB was appointed through a deviation after a special request by Minister to the Director-General. The Minister claimed that RMB was the only financial institution with aviation capability, which DDG Financial Analysis and Investment Services confirmed. The DPE claimed that RMB was contracted as a Transaction Advisor to perform Phase 1 of the search for an SAA transaction advisor, but the Service Agreement indicates otherwise, as RMB was appointed to perform the whole function. RMB performed the work until January 2022, when they requested to be released from the contract and did not accept payment for services provided.

An Interim Board was appointed at SAA on 09 December 2020 to take over from the business rescue practitioners whose term was expected to finish in early 2021. In January 2021, the results of the RMB process were presented to the SAA Interim Board with the aim of the Board taking over. The Minister was present in the meeting. The Board was requested to assess the shortlisted bidders and advise the Minister on the preferred Strategic Equity Partner (SEP). The Board requested to cast the net wider and add to the list and the Department acceded to the request.

In January 2021, Mr Tlhakudi was inundated with calls from the Minister of Public Enterprises and Mr Gidon Novick seeking to provide interim management services to SAA. He resisted the approaches as he would not have been able to justify the arrangement if questions were posed to him as the Accounting Officer. The DPE’s explanation for identifying Takatso (Harith General Partners, Global Aviation, and Syrinix) has become a moving target. Some of the explanations heard included that there were no suitable strategic equity partners from RMB in the process and that there was a technical committee established in the Department that considered Takatso and four other bidders, but none of these explanations is true. Takatso consortium and its constituent entities were not on the shortlist by RMB.

The SPA was signed on 14 February 2022 by Acting DG Molisane in Mr Tlhakudi’s absence due to a medical leave. A clause required the DPE to provide R900 million by March 2022 to mitigate any future risks for Takatso that may arise due to the restructuring. The funds were to be placed into an escrow account controlled by Takatso. The DPE did not have the funds, which raised risks of default and violation of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA).

Mr Tlhakudi requested and had a meeting in March 2022 with the Takatso team, and the Minister and DPE negotiation team attended. It was agreed that Takatso would not activate the default, the clause would be amended, and the liability limited to R50 million, supported by documentation. The valuation was done by Broll Consulting (assets = ZAR3 billion) and Letsema Consulting (business operations - ZAR0).

SAA local properties were valued at over R6 billion against the R1.2 billion valuation by Takatso and Chairperson Hanekom conceded on this point and said the assets would be revaluated. Further, foreign bank accounts and properties are still to be accounted for. The London Heathrow slots with ZAR depreciation should be worth more than the R400 million attributed to them. The undervaluation of SAA is in the region of R7 billion to R15 billion.

There was no evidence that Takatso had the financial and technical capacity to consummate the transaction. The regulatory process to enable the transaction had not had much attention paid to them. The proposed compensation to the government for SAA assets (R3 billion) through a preferential share scheme is unlikely to result in the payments being realised.

Mr Tlhakudi recommended to the Committee that an independent investigation into the Takatso transaction is required and that the transaction should at least be halted to ensure fair compensation to the national fiscus. The Public Service Commission should be deployed to the DPE to assess the working environment and intervene where necessary.

(See presentation)

The Chairperson allowed a 5-minute comfort break and thereafter allowed members to ask questions and comment on Mr Tlhakudi’s presentation.

Discussion

Mr Dlamini said the Committee found itself between a rock and a hard place because this had become a ‘he said-she said’ type of investigation. As much as he understood the presentation by Mr Tlhakudi, he felt that although he pointed out certain issues that may have gone wrong, he did not tell the Committee about the options he had in exercising some of the powers he had as the DG. The DG cannot be told to take unlawful instructions from the Minister because the Minister is not his employer.

Mr Tlhakudi said the Minister called him to say he must appoint RMB, but it was unclear whether the Minister was instructing the DG to appoint RMB or if it was a mere suggestion. It must not be assumed that the Committee understands the role of the DG in the Department so maybe it would be beneficial for the Committee to be enlightened on his powers in terms of such transactions because he said signing the documents did not indicate his involvement in the transactions. This is confusing because attaching your signature to a document means you are taking responsibility for its contents.

The Committee raised concerns about the transactions numerous times. The DG never mentioned the state capture prevalent within the Department even though the Committee did not prohibit anyone from submitting any information regarding their suspicions. The Committee previously questioned the process of appointing the entity in the presence of the DG and did not provide the information he brought in the meeting. The Committee also questioned the competitive nature of the transaction and even questioned the Department on who Takatso is, but it was not furnished with that information.

There seemed to be conflicting messages coming from the RMB process; one was that there was no suitable bidder and the other one was that Takatso was the suitable bidder. However, the presentation stated that Takatso only came after the RMB process. When exactly did Takatso get involved in the transaction? The DG seemed to be pointing towards issues of gross misconduct against the Minister and perhaps this matter should be taken to the Ethics Committee in Parliament.

The DG signed the documents on 06 April 2022, and it is alleged that he was part of the process, yet he is disputing his involvement in the process, which impedes the Committee from moving forward in the probe because it was a ‘he said-she said’ situation. The DG must outline his role in the transaction as well as the powers he had and the limitations to his powers in the transaction so that the Committee can determine its approach to the solution of the matter.

Mr Dlamini was interested in understanding the merits of the trip to Kenya and what Takatso’s involvement was in the trip. The Takatso deal was not concluded at that point, so what was their reason for being there? Were other bidders part of the trip and if they were not, did that not put Takatso at more advantage of getting the deal? It was said that the other bidders could not demonstrate their financial capability, so can it really be said that the process was competitive if Takatso was the only entity in the running for the bid? Takatso has also not demonstrated its financial capability in real terms because the state still fully funds SAA.

The R10.5 billion that Treasury approved for SAA also included Mango Airlines as its subsidiary, but there is a sense that Mango is going to be closed because it is not part of the deal, but on the other hand, the DG also engaged Takatso to take Mango on Board. These are conflicting statements, and the DG should clarify this because he did not mention such information in previous meetings. Was the DG suppressed, and if he was, who was suppressing him and why was he able to come out with the information now?

The valuation or undervaluation of SAA is confusing, and perhaps the DG should clarify how he got to the estimated figures of between R7 billion and R15 billion. The sale of SAA was R3 billion, and in the preceding years, the government gave SAA about R5 billion, and it still could not be recovered, but through this deal, Takatso was supposedly going to invest R3 billion in SAA and everything would work out. What was different about the investment from Takatso? One thing that was consistent in the presentation was that the state-owned entities (SOEs) would function better without political or government interference.

Mr Cachalia said the Committee would need to hear what the Minister has to say following Mr Tlhakudi’s inputs. He said the Committee shares the concern that whistle-blowers are fired instead of the allegations they make being investigated first, and it is a worrying trend. The high vacancy rate in the DPE is also a concern and points to an unhealthy centralisation in the Department, but even if the agenda is pointing towards privatisation in part or wholly, due processes must be followed.

The Minister is responsible for politics, and the mandarins that Mr Tlhakudi referred to in the presentation are responsible for implementation. They are welcome to whistle-blow or flag irregularities that are happening in the Department, but clearly, this did not happen in the case of Takatso. What was the reason? If the SPA had some irregularities, it should have been reported to the appropriate authorities. Did the DG do that? What were the results? If he was unhappy with the results, did he appeal the decision?

On the allegations made, the Committee can launch a Parliamentary inquiry to assist the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) to take urgent and speedy action to inform the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to take urgent and speedy actions to resolve the issues. Pending the Committee’s meeting with the Minister, Mr Cachalia felt that an urgent investigation by Parliament is needed in the matter.

Ms R Komane (EFF) said the Committee must note the allegations raised by Mr Tlhakudi and thoroughly investigate them so that it can make the right decision in the end, even though she did not know what that decision would be. The Department could not explain who Takatso was to the Committee in previous meetings, and they could not explain how much Takatso put on the table, yet at one stage, they said Takatso was the only entity that met the financial competencies for the bid. Who were Takatso’s competitors in the bid? SAA is still fully maintained by the state and Takatso has not met its end of the bargain. How were SAA’s assets evaluated because there were no documents submitted?

Ms Komane did not dispute that the allegations of misconduct of the Minister should be referred to the Parliamentary Ethics Committee, but she was unsure whether the Ethics Committee would satisfy the investigation and was unsure whether the Portfolio Committee had the muscle to investigate such matters on its own. There were many allegations levelled against the Minister and he who alleges now was also part of the Department and an inquiry would probably not vindicate him either. She concurred that the Committee should further probe the matter through an inquiry to get the answers that it requires.

Mr E Buthelezi (IFP) thanked the DG for his presentation and noted his comment that he had been trying to report the matters since 2021 but having noted the DG’s presentation and awaiting the Minister’s response, what stood out was that the Minister did not answer any of the allegations that were levelled at him and only addressed the reasons he suspended the DG. This meant that there was more to the matter than what meets the eye, and the Committee needed to investigate because it had raised the Takatso issue on numerous occasions, but the Department could not provide any clear answers.

The Chairperson of the SAA Board also mentioned that he was made aware of the possibility of a devalued SAA. If that were the case, they would revisit the valuation of the assets of SAA, which was an admission that something might have gone wrong. It was odd that only one company was willing to spend so much money to be considered for the bid and that there was silent confidence from the board members, including the Minister, which depicted an adamant view that Takatso would get the deal. He was of the view that an independent investigation must be conducted on the matter because the Committee has limited resources to conduct it on its own.

Mr S Gumede (ANC) said the Department and SAA might be in the mess they are in because of the DG because no one knew the extent of his powers and scope. He hoped the DG would share more of the information with the Committee even if it is after the Committee meets with the Minister to hear his response to the allegations. He wanted to know when the DG decided to formalise the merits of his complaints against the Minister in his handling of the Takatso deal, as it would have made sense that the DG would have approached internal authorities within the Department, even if it was informal.

What came first between the disciplinary process and the Takatso matter? Is the DG confident that his disclosure qualifies to be a protected disclosure? It is possible that the dismissal of the DG may not be related to the Takatso issue and could be related to other matters. In its policies, the African National Congress (ANC) works with business people, but not to the extent that it privatises its entities so he did not feel that privatisation would be a concern in the matter.

On the RMB process, he understood that five companies were shortlisted and two were escalated to the next level, and before the two companies were finalised, Takatso came to bid, which raised the total number to three companies. The failure of the two companies to prove their financial capability for the deal meant that Takatso won the bid. The Chairperson of the SAA board agreed that the process of valuation would be redone because some aspects of the valuation were not done, which could have affected the outcome of the results. What was the DG hoping to gain from the interviews with the media regarding the matter? Was this the only process that he could have followed and were there no other means to ensure the resolution of the matter?

Mr F Essack (DA) noted the DG said Minister Gordhan orchestrated the sale of SAA and that this was to benefit a few privileged individuals, which is a strong statement. The DG also clarified in his presentation that Takatso was not shortlisted, but Mr Essack wanted to hear his response to the ruling which led to the disclosure of May 2022, as he did not grasp the entire explanation. The DG said he had accepted that his tenure at the Department had come to an end, and was now speaking as a whistle-blower. What did he want to achieve from his disclosure?

The DG also said the Minister misrepresented the outcomes of the cases he brought; why was there a moratorium on hiring in quarter 1 in the Department? Why does the DG believe or think the members of the Board resigned regarding the SAA business rescue decisions? What was their motivation to resign? There should be an independent Parliamentary inquiry into the matter so that some information with substance could be provided instead of the ‘he said-she said’.

Ms V Malinga (ANC) wanted to know if the DG was called into any disciplinary process before his suspension or dismissal from the Department. If the DG was not suspended or dismissed, was he going to disclose all the information regarding the risks, irregularities, and biases of the Minister in the process of appointing Takatso for the SAA deal? The DG also said he wrote to the President who informed him that he would await the processes to conclude, which was odd because before the government processes concluded, there was a letter of dismissal to the DG.

There are also allegations that the DG was part of the Takatso Consortium appointment on which he reported irregularities. How far did his powers extend to in the process and where did he leave it at? Why did the DG raise the issues via the media instead of following internal labour processes? If the DG was not suspended or dismissed, was he going to alert the Portfolio Committee of the irregularities pertaining to the Takatso deal? The Board had told the Committee that the other bidders did not have the financial capability for the deal last year. How could the government take a deal that would disempower it by having lesser shares in its own entity?

The DG also appeared before the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) Commission and mentioned that the FTP transaction adhered to the national empowerment legislation. Why was the DG saying the opposite of that now to say SAA assets were undervalued? Why did he not ensure everything was done correctly as the DG during the valuation process? How was the DG not aware that there were third parties involved, as he was the administrative authority of the DPE?

SAA needed R4.1 billion in finances to support its working capital until the end of the 2019 financial year and the entity’s inability to raise the R4.1 billion resulted in the entity being placed under business rescue. Was this the DG’s advice to the Minister and did he consider it to be the best option for recovering the entity? According to the DG, Takatso Consortium needed the R900 million that the two officials agreed to which was against the PFMA, but if the budget of the Department was R300 million, where did the R900 million come from? Were there any consequence management actions taken against those people who acted in contravention of the PFMA?

Ms Malinga said the fact that the Committee was sitting in the meeting with the DG and the Minister was not there defeated the whole purpose of the meeting because the Minister would later dispute every allegation made against him. The process being followed was not assisting anyone and preferably for her; everyone who is involved, including the DG, the Minister, the Public Protector, and the SIU, should be invited to one meeting so that the matter could be resolved. She was not in support of a parliamentary inquiry because it was going to take long, and Parliament is rising next week.

Ms J Mkhwanazi (ANC) asked if Mr Tlhakudi thought the Takatso deal was the best deal for SAA in his own view as a South African public servant with the best interests of the country. She was of the view that Mr Tlhakudi’s submission dealt with matters of national importance and felt that it was important that he is given the platform to state his claim but asked Mr Tlhakudi to remind the Committee why it was important for SAA to be placed under business rescue. Were there any other credible South African aviation companies that could have been considered to take an equity stake at SAA? Are there any records of Takatso being involved in the aviation space? What was the DG’s understanding of the reasons behind the changing of the interim Board of SAA?

Takatso Consortium’s Spokesperson, Mr Thulasizwe Simelane, called Mr Tlhakudi a liar in one of the interviews and in numerous interviews. Why did Mr Tlhakudi feel that the Portfolio Committee would believe otherwise? In Mr Tlhakudi’s view of the current state of SAA, what did he think about the 49% government and 51% private ownership of the entity?

The Chairperson said the long introduction that the DG did during his presentation helped him grasp the content better when it came to the important issues, and he was covered by most of the members in some of the issues he wanted to raise. However, the one issue he wanted further clarity on was the valuation of SAA by Takatso Consortium. He wanted to know under what circumstances the valuation was taken up by Takatso when they were bidders. Is it part of corporate culture that bidders also do a valuation for the product they seek to purchase? If that is the case, does that mean the other bidding companies also did their own valuation of SAA?

In the messages between Mr Tlhakudi and Gidon Novick, where Mr Tlhakudi asked him to provide details of Takatso’s proposition for SAA, to which Mr Novick responded that he would add more details on that, the Chairperson wanted to know if the specific details were eventually provided.

Mr Tlhakudi’s responses

Mr Tlhakudi said the SOEs report to the Minister and the role of the Department is to support the entities in exercising that function by doing the necessary analysis on reports coming from the SOEs and they advise on what should be the priorities of the SOEs. The power and exercise of ownership lie with the Minister, so the role of the DG is to provide advice to the Minister, and if the DG feels the Minister’s actions or intentions go against that advice and seem to be violating laws, the DG must raise the issue with the Minister.

He was put on a leave of absence on 03 May 2022, when the Minister asked him to stay at home as the Minister was going to investigate the allegations he had raised. If the investigations had been done and the correct processes were followed, Mr Tlhakudi would not have raised the issues in the manner that unfolded to the public, and he would share more details of what transpired during the time which also led to his suspension in due course.

He had not seen the documents that Thulasizwe Simelane was pointing to when he called him a liar and an independent investigation would help because it would ensure that all the documents that are linked to the transaction and any other related matter are pulled out so that everyone can know what transpired. There was a deliberate selection of documents to paint a particular picture about Mr Tlhakudi to say he was deceitful and that he was a liar without the provision of documentation to prove that what he said was untrue.

In November last year, Mr Tlhakudi wrote to the Speaker of the National Assembly to ask for a platform to speak before the Committee and tell his own story. He was thankful that he finally received the opportunity to do so in the meeting. He agreed that he came before the Committee multiple times with the Department and did not raise the issues, but this was because he came to the Committee to represent the voice of the Department and its political heads and not necessarily his personal opinions and views. What was different now was that he came as a whistle-blower to share his personal experience of what he saw while he was working in the Department.

He said the Members may have been right that he was guilty of not speaking about the issues whilst he was still the DG but noted that the whistle-blowing legislation in the country does not protect whistle-blowers, as several people have died, and their families put under duress because of them being whistle-blowers. The whistle-blowing legislation in the country needs to be strengthened so that people are not afraid to raise issues they experience. When you are a whistle-blower in the public service, no one will give you another job opportunity, no matter how qualified and competent you are at the job. He pleaded with the Committee and Parliament to do their job to ensure that whistle-blowers can speak out on their first sight of wrongdoing within government departments.

He explained the reason he felt Takatso was not a good ideal partner for the state in the SAA deal and how it got involved in the bid as well as the undervaluation of SAA. (Audio was unclear throughout his explanation).

The National Development Plan (NDP2030) speaks of capable and solvent SOEs as the instruments of the delivery of public services. Government has a responsibility to ensure that its entities are working and to mitigate against the misuse of its entities to benefit a few privileged individuals. The appointment of Interim Directors was a ploy from government departments to avoid proper processes for appointing Directors into positions. Parliament must demand that executives follow due processes in appointing people for positions. He said he needed to present his side of the story to the public because he wanted to clear his name as he was called a liar in the media and his children had seen that, so he needed to correct the allegations.

The rest of Mr Tlhakudi’s responses could not be captured due to bad audio quality.

The Chairperson said he would be unable to allow members to raise follow-up questions as the Committee needed to go to the House.

Members persuaded him to allow them one minute each and he allowed it.

Follow-up discussion

Mr Dlamini said the DG agreed to the proposal by the Minister on Takatso and acted according to that. Secondly, the Committee must not make the mistake of not listening to the DG, especially on the issues he raised regarding his gadgets being tampered with and the intimidation he received. It is important that a cable body to deal with such matters is approached.

Mr Cachalia said the Committee could take two separate issues from the presentation, one is the prospective Parliamentary inquiry, which he supported, and the second was the involvement of the whistle-blower in the transaction. Lastly, the Human Resources (HR) matters relating to the unfair dismissal of the DG and other individuals within the Department which could be dealt with at a separate forum that can run concurrently with the Parliamentary probe.

Ms Komane said the Committee should find a way to ensure that the whistle-blower is protected throughout the deliberation on the issue and after. She was unsure when Takatso was included as a bidder for the SAA transaction and wanted to know how Takatso managed to become the preferred bidder when it did not produce any finances forward.

Ms Malinga said all the accused and the accuser must be invited under one roof to put the matter to bed.

Ms Mkhwanazi proposed that the process going forward must allow all the accused under one roof because the issue was of national importance. She had read that in some of the DG’s letters, when he signs them, he puts a disclaimer that he refuses to be silenced and wanted to know why he made that disclaimer. She appreciated the DG for raising the issues regardless of the intimidation he had faced.

Mr Tlhakudi’s responses

Mr Tlhakudi said the appointment process was done through the RMB process, but the Minister could probably explain this process better.

He explained that he puts the disclaimer on his signature because his character has been put on the line and was forced to acquire expensive legal services, so he is adamant that he will remain resolute in speaking out despite facing multiple threats.

The Chairperson thanked the Members for making his life easy in the meeting, as he expected more firepower from them. He was happy that despite the time constraints, the Committee was able to get more than it anticipated from the presentation. He thanked Mr Tlhakudi for his presentation and his team for ensuring he was protected when he came to the meeting. He allowed the DG and other guests to exit the meeting as the Committee would briefly discuss its internal matters in a short, closed session.

The meeting was adjourned.