Commission for Gender Equality 2022/23 Annual Report

Meeting report

 

Permission required for commissioners to do outside work

The Chairperson acknowledged the presence of all the entities present at the meeting, and noted the many absentees with apology. She said that at the last meeting, the Committee had resolved to receive an update on the two Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) commissioners that had been discussed, and she hoped that the presentation would cover this.

Ms N Sharif (DA) said these meetings were not by choice. If the Committee called any entity to a meeting, all members of that entity had to attend -- this was non-negotiable. She was disappointed that the two commissioners were absent. Unless there was a bereavement, commissioners had to attend meetings.

The Chairperson said they should check if full-time commissioners were in the office daily. She requested a report on all the commissioners who had declared their interest. There was an issue with commissioners who had not applied for permission to do other work. They were expected to be in the office every day. When they claimed the 100 hours, there needed to be evidence of this, or else the salaries would be fraudulent payments. There needed to be a consolidated report adopted by the Plenary. They also needed to submit the Commissioner's handbook -- this was non-negotiable. At the last meeting, the Committee had been clear on the recommendations. It would be a problem if it were found that the 100 hours had been irregular. If the CGE were to say that they had no report on the two earlier mentioned commissioners, then they would not be doing their work. Commissioners were accountable to Parliament, regardless of being appointed by the President. The Committee did work on behalf of Parliament. This would be the last time they discussed this matter. There should be no favours -- all commissioners should be treated equally.

Briefing: AGSA responses to Portfolio Committee on the CGE

Ms Ntokozo Sibisi, Senior Manager: Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA), responsible for the Portfolio Committee for Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities, introduced herself and those on her team.

The Chairperson said that Ms Sibisi should focus on the important matter, which was the 100 hours, to resolve it once and for all.

The Committee was taken through the presentation covering the audit process of the CGE. The fruitless and wasteful expenditure on payments to Commissioners was highlighted. The salaries of part-time Commissioners were raised along with consequence management. The AGSA said it was unable to obtain sufficient evidence that disciplinary was taken against officials (linked to fruitless and wasteful expenditure in light of lack of evidence that investigations were performed). Some of these elements involved repeat findings from prior years, pointing to the fact that the CGE audit action plan is not adequately monitored to ensure these issues are not repeated, year after year.

Compliance must be strengthened in the CGE. Policies must be reviewed and updated concerning updated Treasury regulations related to irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Internal controls must also be strengthened – the AGSA would not have picked up some of these issues if there was improved internal control processes. This accompanied consequence management, which was lacking in the CGE.

Discussion

Ms F Masiko (ANC) asked how the CGE dealt with the critical areas raised. If there were no consequences to actions, then commissioners would continue to do as they pleased.

Ms Sharif said that a lot of money had been incurred in irregular and fruitless expenditure. This was taxpayers' money. Who should be held accountable for the money spent by the CGE, especially since there was no physical proof, such as timesheets?

Responses

Ms Sibisi responded that the main issue was that consequence management processes were not being implemented. Where funds were lost, they needed to be recovered, and investigations should be conducted to recover the funds. The irregular expenditure would continue unless the transgressors were caught. From the findings of the investigation, they could decide who was responsible and who would be held accountable for their actions.

Ms M Khawula (EFF) acknowledged the part about investigations being done, but stressed that timesheets and spreadsheets needed to be provided. Was the AGSA still able to function without the investigations? There were millions of rands being lost, and this was a concern.

Ms Sibisi responded that the Office of the AGSA had the means to reimburse those entities which had lost money. The starting point was the commissioners. The AGSA was guided by their Act on how to proceed to assist the commissioners.

The Chairperson stressed that they needed to separate the issues of the commissioners and the administration. Those who were implementers should be held accountable for their actions. Leadership should also be held accountable, or else there was no leadership. The commissioners would answer for themselves.

The Chairperson asked for clarity on whether the chief executive officer (CEO) was not responsible for the administration, and also for reporting to the commissioners. Commissioners had their own handbook on how to deal with governance. Who was tasked with the payment of part-time commissioners? The matter of the 100 hours needed to be revisited. It seemed as though this had been concocted. There had been a decision by the Plenary. The division of tasks was important. To date, the Committee has not received a policy document on how to handle the issue of the 100 hours.

Mr Nkosini Mashaba, Audit and Risk Committee (ARC), responded that as far as consequence management was concerned, it was fitting that the person to be sanctioned was a subordinate of the one taking steps to impose the sanctions. For example, in the case of fruitless and wasteful expenditure due to claims made by the commissioners, the CEO accounted to the commissioners. In the last 24 months, matters were being pushed between the CEO and the Commission, and commissioners had been directly involved in this matter. A conflict of interest was an issue at times, and in such instances, a person who had no interest would be called in.

The Chairperson asked if there were no procedures which needed to be followed when implementing consequence management.

Mr Mashaba affirmed that this was the case, and added that these procedures needed to be aligned with the organisation’s procedures.

The Chairperson asked how commissioners were expected to rectify this issue.

Mr Mashaba responded that there was guidance from Treasury, and he would speak to this guidance. He provided the definition of fruitless and wasteful expenditure.

The AGSA asked to be excused soon from the meeting, as they had another engagement to attend to. The Chairperson denied their request, and stressed that this matter needed to be urgently resolved.

Ms Sharif was concerned that most of the ARC findings pointed to a lack of internal controls. The foundation should be strong enough within the organisation that a personnel change does not negatively affect it. This reflected on the integrity of the organisation. This was very concerning. The CGE should take this up with the Plenary. Commissioners should be aware of what was happening on the ground.

The Chairperson asked the chairperson of the CGE to provide a response.

Adv\ Nthabiseng Sepanya-Mogale, Chairperson of the CGE, responded that they were very concerned for a number of reasons. The Auditor-General (AG) was not familiar with the facts of the 100 hours requirement for part-time commissioners, and the ARC seemed unfamiliar with the structure, procedure and Act of the CGE.

The situation was that in March 2020, the President had announced a total national lockdown. On that very day, the Plenary was immediately called into a meeting to give guidance on the way forward. At that meeting, it was decided that because this was out of the control of the leaders, and no one could have foreseen this, staff would continue to receive monthly salaries. This was agreed upon, and the decision was adopted.

The Chairperson interjected to say that she was referring to the personal assistants (PAs) of the commissioners.

Adv Mogale said she would respond to this matter later on.

The Plenary had agreed to present a proposal on how the five commissioners would be paid, based on legislation and CGE policies. They had then turned to the handbook which had been presented by the CGE and signed as a formal document and presented to Parliament in 2014. The handbook stipulated that part-time commissioners would be paid for a maximum of 100 hours. The CGE was given the status of emergency services, and if they had to do more work, reports were submitted. She was concerned that the AG would acknowledge their extra work, but conclude that they had not filled in time sheets and would therefore suffer penalties. They were working from home.

Another Plenary had been called, and a timesheet was created. She was very frustrated. The AG had all the reports. No one had wasted money -- they worked hard for that money. The five part-time commissioners had been working 100 hours during the national lockdown as part of emergency services, but were not being paid. Were they supposed to work without being paid? This was unacceptable. The 101 employees of the CGE were still receiving their full monthly salaries, resulting in unfair labour practices. The part-time commissioners were a phenomenon in all the Chapter 9 institutions, but only the CGE was being treated unfairly. On their own volition, the CGE had decided to reduce their hours from 100 hours to 80 hours. The policy needed to be adhered to. The narrative was incorrect. How could this be seen as fruitless and wasteful expenditure?

The Chairperson clarified that her question was how the CGE had paid part-time commissioners in the previous years. Why was this issue a matter only now? It made it look as though commissioners were suspicious of wrongdoing.

Adv Mogale confirmed that prior to the national lockdown, they had produced time sheets, but those time sheets had become redundant since they were working from home. Everyone else in the country was being compensated, whilst the CGE was being persecuted. This was unfair.

Ms Masiko interjected to say that the Committee had already dealt with this issue in the previous years. This was not the first time it had been brought up. She agreed with the Adv Mogale. Which standards was the AGSA using to deal with this matter? How had this issue been resolved? The AGSA seemed to be ignoring this matter.

The Chairperson requested that the AGSA sit down to discuss and resolve this pressing matter, and return with a report for the Committee.

Ms Sharif acknowledged the frustration of the CGE. She asked for clarity. In 2022, the national lockdown had been lifted. What had happened during the period of submitting time sheets? For certain commissioners, reports had not been submitted. This was concerning -- how was work justified? Surely, meetings between the AGSA and the CGE should have taken place long ago, so why was there tension at the meeting?

The Chairperson recalled that in 2022, they had decided that the issue of 100 hours must be reviewed.

Adv Mogale responded that there had been confusion because, in the annual report, the AG had acknowledged the hours which were worked, but had stated orally that there were no time sheets, and therefore no work could be recorded. She recalled a meeting with the AG on the issue of time sheets, and the AG had acknowledged this. They had written to everyone, but no one knew how to resolve this issue. All the AG wanted to do was tick boxes. The AG did not seem to know how to audit the CGE properly. The CGE had been in the newspapers continuously. The AG continued to say there was no consequence management within the CGE, and the CGE would have to sit down with the AG and take them through what they had done.

The Chairperson agreed with this plan. The AGSA was not consistent in how they regarded all the entities. She asked them to respond.

Ms Tintswalo Masia, Deputy Business Executive, AGSA, acknowledged that this fruitless and wasteful expenditure issue dated back to the national lockdown. It had been raised by the internal auditors, not the AGSA, and the officials of the CGE responsible for preparing the financial statements had listed these cases as fruitless and wasteful expenditure. The AGSA response was triggered by what was written in the financial statements. In the notes, there was mention of these cases listed as fruitless and wasteful expenditure. The AGSA was obligated to follow up on this in accordance with the procedures of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). Investigations then needed to be conducted, and sometimes the finding was that this was no one’s fault and therefore no money needed to be recovered, and this was a basis for a write-off. However, the finding could also be that a certain official was implicated, and they would need to recover the money from this official. It was unfair that the AGSA was being crucified for executing its mandate.

The Chairperson thanked Ms Masia for this clarification. The CGE needed to take this issue up with their officials.

Adv Mogale said that it was true that the internal auditor had left after they instituted disciplinary hearings. This was one of many issues the CGE had raised. The CEO had left, so many changes had taken place.

Ms Masia said she did not dispute the actions taken by the CGE on consequence management, but they needed to marry this with the two disclosures sitting in the financial statements. The AGSA would continue to execute their mandate.

Ms Sharif referred to page 63 of the annual report, and said that if this was recorded in the report of the CGE, how then was remuneration justified if reports were not submitted? How did one know that work was being done by the commissioners when there were no reports? What was the consequence management in this regard? Even the Committee had to submit reports.

Adv Mogale responded that the Commissioners at the CGE had worked and even surpassed the projects they had undertaken. She had submitted all her reports. She would bear what Ms Masia had said in mind, and follow up in this regard. The information of the commissioners was built into the annual performance plan (APP). The work had been done and recorded.

The Chairperson thanked the AGSA for their clarity. The Committee was happy with their response and glad to hear that the CGE would follow up with their officials, and also follow up on the matter of PAs. She hoped that this matter would be resolved at the next meeting.

CGE Annual Report 2022/23

Before the presentation by the CGE on the APP and its finances, the Chairperson asked why the report had made no mention of funds allocated to the CGE and how those funds had been spent. This would negatively impact the work which the Committee had to do. This had been done in the past, but not in this report. She called for an example of this to be flighted and explained to the CGE, and this was done.

Adv Mogale said she understood and would respond.

Dr Antoinette Ngwenya, Chief Financial Officer, CGE, said they had responded only to the issues raised by Parliament, but this would be tabled in the future. The Committee was accurate.

The Chairperson responded that when the Committee wrote letters to entities, they wrote one letter explaining what was expected of them. They should not hesitate to ask for clarity where needed in future.

Overview of CGE performance 2022/23

• The financial year 2022/2023 was characterised by a change of leadership both from a secretariat and Commissioners level. Notably, one particular challenge at secretariat level was the change of accounting officers during the financial year.
• During the reporting period, the CGE had three accounting officers, which contributed negatively to the performance of the Commission.
• Equally, the end of term of various commissioners also took place during October 2022

Reports tabled in 2022/23

• Assessing the effectiveness of the Gender Focal Persons/Points in South Africa: Government’s Response to Gender Findings and Recommendation, 2023
• Missing Pieces of the Puzzles- CGE’s assessment of government’s implementation of the NSP on GBVF between 2020 and 2022
• Learner Pregnancy-Policy Interplay: School dropout of adolescent girl during pregnancy and in the postpartum period in selected South African provinces, 2023. On 14 November 2023, CGE will be presenting this report to the PC on Basic Education.
• Activity Report on the Maputo Protocol, 2023
• Sharing is caring: Gender Responsive Planning Budgeting Experiences and Lessons from Africa, 2023
• Report on Gender Transformation: Public and Private sectors 2022/2023
• Progress Report: Transformation in the public and private sectors 2022/2023
• Final report: Investigation into the State of Shelters 2022/2023

Progress made on Sustainable Development Goals, Relevant Government Priority Outcomes and Strategic Outcomes-Orientated Goals

Promoting peace and justice is one of the 17 Global Goals that make up the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The rule of law-based effective governance, human rights, and peace and stability are all seen as vital conduits for sustainable development. Goal 16 contains several sub-priorities which are relevant to some of the work by the CGE’s Research and Legal department. For example, Monitoring GBVF cases before the justice system assists the complainants in accessing justice.

Mainstreaming of gender is one of the CGE’s focus areas implemented mainly through the Public Education and Information (PEI) Department. As part of its monitoring role, the Research Department released the following research reports that address some of the Government Priority Outcomes (MTSF Outcomes):

• Sharing is Caring: Gender Responsive Planning and Budgeting Experiences and Lessons from Africa
• Missing pieces of the puzzle: CGE’s assessment of government’s implementation of the NSP on GBVF between 2020 and 2022
• Learner pregnancy-policy interplay: School dropout of adolescent girls during pregnancy and in the postpartum period in selected South African provinces
• Assessing the Effectiveness of Gender Focal Persons in South Africa: Government’s Response to CGE Findings and Recommendations

Update on Legal Practice Council

• The CGE engaged the Legal Practice Council regarding this matter on 10 November 2022. The outcome of the meeting was that, though the submission of the CGE was understood, the LPC cannot amend the Legal Practice Act. The CGE was directed to engage the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.
• The legal department accordingly engaged with the State Law advisor, Ms Fathima Bhayata, regarding the matter and were advised that a legal opinion regarding the matter is concluded and under consideration by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development

Challenges in 2022/23

• Change of leadership, particularly at the level of Chief executive officer. As a result, the audit and risk committee observed a decline in the quality of reports on non-financial performance and the submission of the said reports in certain instances.
• Limitations within the Commission for Gender Equality Act, 1996, to enforce recommendations of the Commission on various investigations.

Outstanding matters from BRRR

• Case management

• The CGE acknowledges the decrease of complaints received in FY. There are factors that contributed to this. The CGE has developed standard operating procedures to strengthen the assessment of complaints received by the Commission.  
• The CGE has developed standard operating procedures to strengthen the assessment of complaints received by the Commission.  
• This process has assisted in referring matters that should ordinarily be handled by other state organs, for example, referral of maintenance matters to DOJ. 
• The legal department is in the process of reviewing the Complaints handling manual to strengthen the handling of complaints.

• Visibility of the CGE

• The CGE acknowledges the decrease of complaints received in FY. There are factors that contributed to this. The CGE has developed standard operating procedures to strengthen the assessment of complaints received by the Commission.  
• The CGE introduced Indicator 2.5: Communication Initiatives to its scorecard to increase visibility and reach. This Multi-Media Outreach work (content) is disseminated through various multi and social media platforms that the Communication Unit manages.  Since the advent of this Indicator, the reach has been diversified.
• Also, PEI diversified its Community Outreach initiatives by introducing Indicator 2.4: Gender and Development Workshops targeting Gender & Development Practitioners in communities. In turn, the GAD practitioners cascade the learnings to a wider community.
• For the 2023/24 financial year, the department has broadened its scope of Gender Mainstreaming Training. An inclusion of government and the private sector has been added to the scope. Other Communication initiatives to increase the daily outreach, virtually, are being added. This has resulted in an increase of planned sessions from 18-72 for the 2023/24 financial year.
• Strategic transformative engagements with stakeholders on various public discourse issues related to CGE mandate with institutions of interest have also been added to the scorecard. These are all as per the new founding strategies: PEI & Stakeholder Management.
• Gender space – This is currently airing on the DSTV channel 340

(See attached document for details)

Financial performance

The Commission for Gender Equality recorded a surplus of R7.3 million for the year ended 31 March 2023, with retention surplus of R14.9 million declared to National Treasury, of this R14.9 million, only R9.3 million was approved by National Treasury; the remaining balance of R5.6 million will be returned to the Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities before 30 November 2023.

CGE’s annual allocation or transfers from DWYD for 2022/23 FY was R100.7 million versus the R94.9 million spent (94%)

The over and under expenditure was as a result of:

▪The primary contributor is an under-expenditure of R11 million on personnel costs due to vacant positions that are not filled in the year under review. Commissioners: four positions vacant for four months when the old term ended in October 2022 and new appointments started in March 2023

•General expenses also reflected an over-expenditure of R3.7 million for the Commission’s spending to achieve their mandate, which was funded from savings as identified in the Adjustment budget

• Further, the Commission also received donor funding of R178 000, and the increase in the national transfer in the form of the parliamentary grant of R9.35 million in the 2022/23 financial year. This contributed to the surplus of R7.3 million as reported in the Audited Annual Financial Statements

Interest of R1.2 million earned on the positive balance of R19.2 million as at 31 March 2023

Good and services (including use of consultants)

•Goods and services amounted to R94 million, included in the R94 million relates to compensation for employees of R59 million. Use of consultants amounted to R1.9 million

Transfers and subsidies

• The Commission for Gender Equality recorded transfers of R100 million, whilst only R92m was received by end of March 2023 and the balance of R8m was only received in April 2023 from DWYD.

Unauthorised expenditure

•No authorised expenditure was incurred in the year under review. Plenary approved adjustment budget in February 2023 but could not be changed on the Sage 200 due to limitation. CGE is now rolling out Sage 300 which has an adjustment budget option

Commitments, Deviations, Variance

•Commitments in the year under review amounted to R13 million, inclusive in the R13 million relates to committed operational expenditure of R12.6 million

•Deviations based on the audited outcome amounted to R212,142.37

Irregular expenditure

• Irregular expenditure was incurred in the current year amounting to 2022/23: R1 million (2021/22: R10 million); these expenditures we incurred in contravention with the PFMA

Fruitless and wasteful expenditure

• Fruitless and wasteful expenditure incurred amounted to 2022/23: R1.4 million (2021/22: R2.7 million), the majority of the expenditure being R1 million as in respect of payments made to the Part-time Commissioners in the current year

Use of Consultants

•Consulting and professional fees for 2022/23 FY = R1 937 346 and for 2021/22 FY = R1 492 423.

• These are mainly short term, less than 12 months as per assignment/ need, such as co-sourced internal audit services, Sage financial system support, ESS (Leave management system) support services and professional design of formal reports

Report on financial misconduct & measures taken against officials guilty of misconduct, update on investigations i.r.t. 2022/23

•No investigations were performed in the year of review relating to the irregular expenditure and fruitless and wasteful expenditure. As a result, no effective disciplinary steps were taken against officials who had incurred irregular expenditure and fruitless and wasteful expenditure

The Commission for Gender Equality received an unqualified opinion with material findings for the year ended 31 March 2023. The material finding was as a result of the following

- Expenditure management (EM): Management exercised insufficient oversight responsibility regarding compliance and related internal controls, particularly in the area of expenditure management. The majority of the irregular expenditure was caused by payments made to employees who were not appointed in accordance with the recruitment policy. For fruitless and wasteful expenditure caused by payments made to part-time commissioners as a retainer with no timesheets submitted to vouch for actual time

-Consequence management (CM) for Irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure. No investigations were conducted in the year under review relating to the irregular expenditure and fruitless and wasteful expenditure. As a result, no effective disciplinary steps were taken against officials who had incurred irregular expenditure, fruitless and wasteful expenditure in prior periods. The former CEO & CAE went through a disciplinary process at the end of March & June 2023, which is part of consequence management

-Procurement and contract management: Contracts awarded to bidders based on evaluation/adjudication criteria that differed from those stipulated in the original invitation for bidding as required by Treasury Regulation 16 A6.3(a) and (b). Deviations and procurement by other means which are not in line with the processes are managed & approved by the CEO, provided in the SCM policy under which the procurement can occur as required by PFMA instruction notes. Tenders that failed to achieve the minimum qualifying score for functionality criteria were disqualified as unacceptable per 2017 Preferential Regulation 5(6). A dispute with AG regarding the panel rotation management is still unresolved/addressed, as management is waiting for AG’s technical review inputs for an assessment submission to National Treasury’s Office of the Chief Procurement Office pronouncement. Internal control deficiency versus irregular expenditure matter

Outstanding matters from previous audit action plan for 2021/22 FY

-Part-time Commissioners’ status of 100-hour flat rate as reflected in previous financial years: Management obtained a legal opinion from an independent party to confirm the assessment and classification from fruitless and wasteful expenditure to internal control deficiency. Part Commissioners submit time sheets for work done & are being used since November 2022. Before then, a baseline of 80 hours per month was used in line with the signed internal Circular. Management is waiting for an assessment outcome from National Treasury’s Office of the Accountant- General (OAG) after a clarification meeting which was held with them towards the end of July 2023

-The Auditor-General’s findings for 2021/22 FY were addressed as follows: 75% were resolved as at 31 March 2023; The remaining (25%) were due to the outstanding investigations which internal audit could not conduct during the 2022/23 FY a response from OAG, the disputed legal panel allocation

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

The Chairperson mentioned her interest in the contestation of the Divorce Act.

Dr Dennis Matotoka, Acting CEO, CGE, responded that their concern was for the women entering marriage out of community of property, without an accrual system. The trend showed that these women often performed non-financial responsibilities, but directly or indirectly contributed towards their husbands' estate. In the event of divorce, these responsibilities were not recognised and the women walked away with nothing. The CGE had escalated this to the courts -- non-financial contributions should be weighed alongside financial contributions. This had come into effect only this year.

The Chairperson commended the CGE on their achievement, and made a joke about the women now running to the courts.

Ms T Masondo (ANC) asked what the key drivers of success for each of the CGE strategic outcomes for the current year had been. What were the barriers which hindered the outcomes from being achieved? What would be required to address such challenges? What, if any, were the risk-mitigating factors in place to address such challenges? Given that more than half the targets had not been met, how would the CGE handle this? How far was the CGE in achieving the goals in the strategic plan? What would the CGE do to increase its visibility and impact to achieve its goals? What was the CGE's assessment of the country’s performance in terms of the Agenda 2063 goals, based on the work done in the current year? Had the CGE reviewed the National Gender Policy Framework by the Department? Why had some commissioners not submitted any reports, or not reported on the strategic objectives given in the respective quarters? What, if any, was the consequence management in this regard? What was the allocated time for the commissioners to spend in their respective provinces?

Ms G Opperman (DA) asked if there was a report on recommendations regarding illegal initiations in schools, and the resulting 700 fatalities over the last decade. When last did the CGE follow up on the recommendations in this regard? How did the CGE measure the data mainstreaming sessions? What was the budget for the workshops for the sessions? How did the CGE measure the impact of the sessions? Were the community radio initiatives successful? If yes, why was the media limited? How did its standing with the Legal Practice Council impact litigation? How long would the legal practice review take? How many linked litigations had been had with the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) whilst awaiting the amendments to the CGE Act? How many cases were pending in the current year? What had been gathered from each investigation in the previous years, and what was the reason for the business plan taking two years to be finalised? How were the courts monitored?

Ms Masiko commented on the decline in performance of the CGE. The organisation initially was meeting all of its targets, so it was now disappointing that the term would finish with the CGE not meeting many of its targets. She acknowledged the misunderstanding between the CGE, the Plenary and the AGSA. Compliance with legislation was important, and so too were internal audit deficiencies. She was greatly concerned about the decline in target achievements, and the underspending within the CGE. A strategic planning session was required so they could work on a turnaround. Court monitoring was important -- how did the CGE do this in the past? Hopefully, the new commissioners would bring ‘new blood’ with them.

Ms Sharif noted that the number of targets was not clear. Was it 25 or 26? Achieving only 12 of all the targets was unacceptable. Targets had to be met regardless, and the CGE needed to work on this. Millions were spent on consultants -- what were they doing exactly? A report was required in this regard. How would internal controls be strengthened? Justice for victims of gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF) was greatly affected by targets not being met. Oversight needed to be done in this regard. What was the plan regarding risk mitigation? Were all employees back at their physical offices or working from home?

Ms B Marekwa (ANC) said the forced sterilisation initiative was being handled well and positively impacted women, which was important. The community radio extensions were a positive initiative. Given that they were a multilingual nation, how was language being handled in this regard? Regarding the learner pregnancy policy, she was concerned that it mentioned only the girls. The girl did not get herself pregnant -- someone else was involved, and that person needed to be mentioned. With underage pregnancies, what happened when the teacher was the one implicated? This was statutory rape. She appreciated the training which was conducted within the CGE, and hopefully, this would reach many more people. Regarding social media, in townships and rural areas, the network was unstable. How was the CGE planning on resolving this so that people could access the internet to do their work or go to school?

CGE's response

Acting CEO Matotoka responded that he was aware that they had no internal controls. They did not have the terms of reference -- this was a critical point in the CGE. This led to the many challenges they now had, because the terms of the structure did not exist. Could the management be held accountable in this regard? They had started developing the terms of reference only recently. This would influence the consequence management, because someone needed to be held accountable. There was still room for improvement. This was the reason why there had been a decline in the performance of the CGE -- there were no terms of reference. Being able to start forming the terms of reference had been a huge achievement, and had led to them being able to put plans in place to address many issues. An employment equity forum has recently been established. A register had been developed, and this had allowed the CGE to hold one another accountable. They were happy in this regard. Not having the proper systems in place meant they could not hold each other accountable.

The internal audit control had recommended having one person in the office responsible for monitoring, evaluation and performance information. The CGE had accepted this recommendation because their current structure was not helping them at all. Performance information also resulted in poor performance in the CGE.

The barriers were such that the CGE did not have the proper systems in place. They would address this in future.

The CGE wanted to de-mystify the concepts around gender equality in society, and this was already part of their mandate. This would help to give the public a proper understanding of gender equality, and to reach more people. They had brought in commissioners with their specialties, as this was a much needed programme in the country. They were limited in terms of employees in each province. If the residents did not have data or television, then the CGE would go out into those provinces and conduct outreach programmes. They had to reach as many people as possible -- this was important. Provincial managers played a critical role, because they knew the stakeholders of the CGE.

The CGE had strengthened its relationship with the legal sector entities, and they were using pro bono legal representation to assist with court appearances. They were hoping to succeed in this regard. There was no need to worry about the CGE fulfilling its mandate. Their target audience was the marginalised communities.

They were monitoring the implementation of the recommendations, and sadly, they were experiencing non-cooperation from respondents. This could not be the norm. The challenge was centred on the legislation which did not allow them much power to make certain changes. The office of the Public Protector and the AGSA were operated differently. They were awaiting the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment, and would raise the matter to the Constitutional Court should there be an unfavourable decision.

The Chairperson interjected that nothing was preventing the CGE from writing to the Speaker too, especially on issues concerning government entities.

Dr Matotoka was grateful for the suggestion. He would carry this out.

The Chairperson added that the CGE had done well in ensuring that government departments were held to account. She was impressed with them -- they should not feel they had no power.

Dr Matotaka appreciated this compliment, but said the CGE was concerned about the many targets which had not been met. The Accounting Officer played a critical role during the reporting period. In the current year, they were busy with everything except for the APP. They were trying to ensure that they held themselves accountable and that they were following the APP. The poor systems slowed this process from occurring. Mechanisms were in place to prevent this from happening in the future. The last few months had been focused on perfecting the faulty systems.

The Chairperson said the CGE should not undermine the work which they were doing, especially because they were also doing work meant for the commissioners. Nothing was done in vain, and all their work needed to be recorded.

Dr Matotaka confirmed they were using many different languages on the radio platform, but they had yet to implement South African Sign Language (SASL). They had noticed that they were able to reach many listeners on the radio platform. They wanted to strengthen the referral system so that cases were completed.

In the past, two processes had been followed in the court monitoring processes. The first involved the organisation's facilities and statistics, which were done to assess how accessible the courts were to the women, youth and persons with disabilities. The second process was monitoring specific cases before the courts, where they would conduct a watching brief. This would assist with influencing the justice system. When the CGE went to the people on the ground, they were able to hold people accountable for not doing their jobs. They often received complaints such as, ‘where was the CGE’? They were doing their best with court monitoring. They were starting a system in the Northern Cape so that they could assess the situation and see who to hold accountable. The CGE could not discuss certain matters because they involved the survivors of violence.

No employees were working from home, except in the Western Cape and Mpumalanga, as there were no offices there as yet.

The CGE wanted to see the end of forced sterilisation. They were not receiving reports from the Department on how they were implementing the recommendations of the CGE. From a clinical assessment, some complainants were not sterilised but could not conceive naturally. The Department needed to provide the CGE with feedback.

Commissioner Bongani Ngomane responded to the issue of teenage pregnancy, which he described as an indication of a failure of society to raise the two individuals. They should ensure that the National Adolescent Reproductive Sexual Health Act of 2014 was implemented, as this framework was clear on what needed to be done to prevent teenage pregnancies. As much as it was important to protect the girl child, it was also important to better raise the boy child. They were hopeful that they would have consulted the relevant departments on this matter in the next engagement and provide a progress report.

The CGE was engaging in the fatalities at the illegal initiation schools. This was partly a cultural issue and a gender issue. They were working to follow up on open cases, as there were some which did not even come to court. They were also providing support to the families who had lost their sons to these illegal acts.

The Chairperson mentioned that she had recently seen a flyer which featured both Commissioner Ngomane and the Commissioner of the CGE, Mbuyiselo Botha. Did this mean that Commissioner Botha had returned? Who had authorised Commissioner Botha to be part of the panellists when he was still suspended?

Commissioner Ngomane said he had been pleasantly surprised to see this flyer. He had been approached by a certain non-governmental organisation (NGO) to address a seminar on men’s issues, and he had agreed to this. They had asked for his profile and picture, and he had sent them through. They had then sent him the flyer, and that was when he had seen the suspended Commissioner’s name. He preferred to go to events which were free, since he was a public servant. He was reluctant to attend an event where people were charged for his services. He had spoken to the organiser, who said that the money would be used to pay for the event and catering bill -- it was not for profit or gain. He had not asked about the suspended Commissioner, as he did not want to engage on this. He said that Commissioner Botha and he attended the same events because they were both activists in the men’s sector. He had decided not to discuss the case with him when they met, as he did not want to be publicly misquoted. He did not know about the status of Commissioner Botha.

The Chairperson mentioned that Commissioner Botha could not represent the CGE whilst on suspension. Someone would have to write to him and inform him of this.

Adv Mogale said that the CGE  was supporting the women and girls affected by the men who went on a ‘raping spree’ after being initiated. This was a huge concern. The men and boys doing the raping were doing so to test their manhood, which even involved seeing whether elderly women could stimulate a sexual response. This was horrendous. There was a chief who was mobilising other chiefs to help resolve this matter. The elderly women could not even sleep alone -- they all grouped and slept under one roof so that they could protect one another.

The Chairperson said the Committee also wanted to join in on this campaign to end it.

Commissioner Nomasonto Mazibuko responded to the issue of teenage pregnancy. She said teenage pregnancy affected society because it was a family issue. When a teacher raped the learner, the family of the survivor preferred to handle this matter in private, as this was a sensitive issue.

They were looking into purchasing internet data at low cost. The Department of Education provided learners with computers and data so that they could do their schoolwork. Most of the homes had a satellite dish, so why could those homes also not have access to the internet? With this came the responsibility of monitoring how the child used the internet. The children in South Africa were being deprived of their childhood because of teenage pregnancies.

Commissioner Adv Thando Gumede responded that the CGE could move on to a secondary report on teenage pregnancy in the country, specifically looking at the fathers of the children, especially when this was unlawful -- such as statutory rape, for example. According to their mandate, the CGE could trigger a call for a hearing, conduct a secondary report, and hold the institutions accountable.

The Chairperson agreed with what Adv Gumede had said, and said the Department of Social Development (DSD) could certainly intervene on such issues. She was not sure what their role was. There had been a case of a mother with about three daughters looking for a place to stay. The mother could not afford the rent, and the landlord had made an arrangement with the mother which would allow him to rape her daughters every month whenever he wished, as payment for the rent. The Chairperson was mortified by this, and wondered if social workers had been called to rescue the girls. The landlord was an alleged serial killer, and he was still out there -- no one was arresting him. She pleaded with Adv Mogale to engage with Commissioner Ngomane on this issue.

Commissioner Prabashni Naidoo responded on court monitoring, and said these were being given adequate attention. She asked the Committee not to hold them accountable for past wrongdoing. They had looked at their monitoring tools and had revised them, expanding their scope. They were holding the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) accountable, and were making headway in this regard. The Committee would be impressed with the upcoming reports.

The Chairperson reiterated that she was very impressed with Acting CEO Matotoka. She was proud of the work they were doing, and was hopeful for the future. The Committee was checking everything they were doing, so she knew they were doing a lot of good work.

Ms Masiko mentioned that Commissioner Naidoo was representing the CGE on Women’s Day, and commended them all for what they were doing.

Adv Mogale mentioned that on 5 July 2023, they had had a global family meeting to discuss the grievances of the people. They were attending to these issues and trying to resolve them. The CGE was energised because of the many new employees who had brought in a fresh perspective.

The CGE handbook was complete, and the standards in there were in line with ethical standards. They would present it at a Plenary later on in the month, and thereafter to the Committee.

Adv Mogale said the CGE had a panel of attorneys which they had appointed on a three-year cycle. They had focused on particular skills and expertise of the lawyers. They were advising the AGSA that they would no longer rotate the lawyers, but would rather bring the required skills to them. They would work within the area of the law the attorneys specialised in.

CFO Ngwenya said that they had engaged with Treasury and the AGSA, and once a response was given, they would resolve the matter. The R1.9 million spent on consultants’ fees had been part of the core-sourced internal activities, and some was for systems-related support. They would provide the Committee with a report on the breakdown in costs.

The Chairperson said the CFO had already covered this in her presentation, but they had been asking this question for consistency with all the entities. Some officials were too lazy to do their work. She disagreed with Adv Mogale about paying the most money to receive the best legal service -- the CGE needed to be rational when selecting consultants, as their services needed to be of good quality. They should appoint consultants to receive the desired results.

She was glad that she had not seen her own name or picture of her face in the local newspapers, as it meant they were doing well. She hoped the CGE would resolve their issues and attend to outstanding matters as soon as possible. She looked forward to receiving a progress report from them soon.

The Chairperson thanked the Members for their time and participation, and mentioned that the subsequent meeting would take place physically in Cape Town.

The meeting was adjourned.