CGE Vacancies: deliberations

Meeting report

Deliberation on candidates interviewed

The Chairperson informed the Committee that now that the interviews of candidates to fill the vacancies on the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) have finished, Members have to finalise the scoring of the candidates. The Committee should also consider the State Security Agency (SSA) report and the verification of qualifications report. The Committee had interviewed 23 candidates, eight of whom would be shortlisted.

The Committee Secretary said they had submitted 20 consent forms to Parliament’s human resources (HR) department, requesting them to verify the qualifications of the candidates that had been shortlisted. A report had come back indicating that 17 candidates had been verified, and nothing of concern was identified. There were three candidates whose verification was still pending.

Fingerprints for 19 candidates were submitted to the SSA. One of the candidates indicated that she could not submit her fingerprints because she was out of the country and would be back only on 1 April. The SSA report indicated that 15 of the candidates’ fingerprints had no defaults or security concerns that came to light. There were three who had no criminal records, but they had negative credit information recorded against their names.

Dr Herman Tembe, Office of Institutions Supporting Democracy (OISD), said going forward, the Committee must refer to the shortlisting and what the Committee had agreed upon as the candidate criteria in terms of s193(1) of the Constitution, which deals with appointments. According to the section, the candidates must be South African citizens who were fit and proper to hold their respective office.

There was only one candidate whose reputation was potentially in disrepute in terms of section 69(8)(b) of the Company’s Act, which refers to the disqualification and delinquency of directors. It was not clear what circumstances this candidate was facing, so it was advisable that the Committee advance with caution if the candidate was being strongly considered, because of the judgment placed against her. The candidates who had negative credit information would be in a position of trust as commissioners, and therefore they would be expected to exercise fiduciary duties in relation to the finances of the trust. Since they did not have a judgment against them, they could be excused if they were able to clear their credit information.

The Chairperson reiterated that there was only one candidate with a judgment, but they were not privy to what the judgment was about. The President was the one who would make the final decision. The Committee had fulfilled their responsibility, so it would be at the discretion of the President whether he wanted to go forward with the candidate who had the judgment against them. The Committee had come to the end of the reports, because all the candidates’ qualifications had been verified except three candidates who still had verifications that were pending.

Ms C Phiri (ANC) asked whether the recommendation that would be sent to the President would include the judgment against the candidate in question.

The Chairperson said they would mention the judgment in the report they would be sending to the President. The President would use his prerogative to determine whether he wanted to appoint someone with a court judgment.

Dr Tembe said that the Committee should factor in the amount the three candidates owe, particularly the candidate with the judgment. That would be a serious matter if it was a significantly large amount. The Committee must inquire how the candidate had managed to incur such a large amount of debt. If it was a small amount, then the matter would be trivial, and exceptions could be made, but big amounts would be a serious matter for someone who would be in a fiduciary position.

Ms M Khawula (EFF) said that it would be better if the candidates were invited to appear in front of the Committee so that they could explain their negative credit information. This would help the Committee formulate a report that would better guide the President’s appointment process.

The Chairperson said that the report had come in at the eleventh hour, so it was too late to invite the candidates in question to answer for their negative credit information. The report would be tabled as is, and the President would decide at the end of the day.

Ms Khawula asked what the reason was for the late arrival of the report.

The Chairperson replied that state security, most of the time, would hand over a report towards the end of the process.

Ms Phiri commented that there was a culture of taking everything to court these days. What were the chances that the whole nomination and shortlisting process would be nullified, because that would mean the Committee had wasted their time? Before the Committee tabled the report in the National Assembly, was it possible to have the three candidates appear before the Committee?

The Chairperson clarified that it was only the candidate who had the judgment against them who had the problem. The other two candidates with negative credit information were not a major concern, and therefore would not risk the work the Committee had done. She asked Dr Tembe to call the three candidates so that they could appear before the Committee.

The Chairperson explained to the three candidates in question that the rules of Parliament necessitated that before the Committee finalised the shortlist of candidates, they had to properly vet the candidates' qualifications. The report from the SSA revealed that the three candidates had adverse findings against their names. The Committee had called the candidates to appear before them so that they could have an opportunity to clarify the adverse findings before the Committee finalised their shortlist of candidates which would be presented to the National Assembly.

Dr Tembe gave the three candidates a brief background on the eligibility of directors in terms of the law. He noted that in terms of Companies Act 71 of 2008, the role of a director was almost identical to that of a commissioner and as such, the requirements provided in section 69(8)(b) -- which was critical for the appointment process -- was applicable to commissioners as well. The section provided that a person was disqualified to be a director of a company if they were an unrehabilitated insolvent person, prohibited in terms of any public regulation to be a director of the company; had been removed from an office of trust on the grounds of misconduct involving dishonesty; or had been convicted, in the Republic or elsewhere, and imprisoned without the option of a fine, or fined more than the prescribed amount, for theft, fraud, forgery, perjury or an offence.

Candidates explain adverse findings

The Chairperson read the SSA report, particularly the sections that identified the adverse findings of the three candidates.

She began reading the findings on candidate Dr Stevens. The report had identified that there was a judgment against her, and she asked her what the judgment pertained to.

Dr Marion Stevens, candidate interviewed, responded that she was unaware of a judgment against her. What she was aware of was that there were tensions and disagreements between her and the director of the sex and reproductive justice coalition around governance. She had made decisions, following organisational protocol, with which the director had had issues. She had reported the differences she had with the director to the coalition board. The board had found in her favour, and she was acquitted of all charges, and as such, the issue was addressed. The chairperson and the treasurer of the board at that time had written letters of recommendation. She added that she was still a member of the coalition group working under research.

The Chairperson asked Dr Stevens whether she was aware of the Berkeley Square body corporate, which was the institution which had instituted a financial judgment against her.

Dr Stevens said she was indeed part of the Berkeley Square body corporate, but she was unaware that there was any judgment against her. She had recently been elected as part of the body corporate because the previous member had left, and they had had to clear off several bad debtors. She emphasised that she was in good financial standing and there had been no judgment that had been handed down over to her.

The Chairperson asked Dr Stevens whether the judgment was against her, or whether it was against the body corporate.

Dr Stevens replied that it was her first time hearing anything about a judgment. She was currently serving as a body corporate trustee, and there were no arrears. The previous body corporate and the managing agents had been in a complete financial mess. At the body corporate's last annual general meeting (AGM), three individuals were elected to assist it, and she had been one of them. They had since been able to recover funds.

The Chairperson summarised the facts to the Committee. There was a previous board which was in a financial mess. Dr Stevens had been elected to be part of that body corporate, so the adverse finding was against the body corporate and not against Dr Stevens as an individual.

Dr Stevens commented that they had just had a budget meeting, and there were no debts they had incurred as a body corporate. She would happily provide the Committee with the entity’s budget and put them in touch with the treasurer.

The Chairperson asked Dr Stevens when she had been elected to serve as part of the body corporate.

Dr Stevens said she had been elected in October last year.

The Chairperson said that the judgment against Dr Stevens was dated July 2023. So, if she was not part of the board in July 2023, that meant the judgment was against the Body Corporate and not her. She asked Dr Stevens if she could get the financials from the body corporate before the Committee finalised their report.

The Chairperson asked candidate Mr Kamohelo Teele about his adverse finding.

Mr Teele explained that he had taken a loan with Finchoice. He could not honour his contractual obligation with the financial provider, and they ended up handing the account over to the legal department. He was in the process of reaching a settlement and paying off the debt completely. The outstanding amount was R16 000.

The Chairperson thanked him for his honesty, being forthcoming, and providing clarity.

Mr Teele added that he was in the process of making arrangements, and the financial provider would get their payment on Friday. Thereafter he could furnish the Committee with a letter that indicated that the debt had been covered.

The Chairperson said that the Committee did not want to put him under pressure to settle the debt immediately. The only thing they wanted was to make him aware of the adverse finding, and to find out from him what exactly the adverse finding was about.

She also asked candidate Ms Thompson to clarify the adverse action against her.

Ms Renee Thompson said that she was aware of the action. Her sister was using the account, but she would ensure that the outstanding debt was settled. She added that she was unaware that there was a judgment against her.

The Chairperson clarified that it was not a judgment -- it was an adverse action against her name. She asked Ms Thompson if she knew the amount owed,

Ms Thompson said she was unaware of the amount because a sibling was using the account.

The Chairperson assured her not to worry, as the Committee Secretary would send her the details regarding the outstanding amount.

She thanked the three candidates for responding to the Committee’s call.

Discussion

The Chairperson thanked the Committee for their contributions, and said the interaction with the three candidates in question would allow them to make an informed decision. They would await Dr Stevens's clarification regarding whether the judgment was against her name.

Ms Phiri commended the candidates for availing themselves. She noted that the economic conditions in the country were not easy, so their honesty -- particularly Mr Teele, in disclosing the amount he was owing -- was commendable. When presented to the National Assembly, the report would be transparent and detail the fact that the candidates had appeared before the Committee to explain the situation. This would demonstrate to South Africans just how honest and fair the process was.

Ms Khawula said she was grateful to the candidates because they had been forthcoming about their situation. She expressed her frustration about how, when one was looking for employment, such adverse reports came up. The Committee should take into consideration that the adverse findings had nothing to do with the candidates’ criminal background, which was positive, but it showed that as government, they must still do something about this. The issue of debt has a history tied to racial and class oppression, and it must be addressed. At the end of the day, the Committee had done its work and now it was the prerogative of the President to decide which candidates to appoint. The sad thing was that candidates may want to settle a loan by taking out another loan, demonstrating how this was a vicious cycle.

Ms N Sharif (DA) commented that they lived in a country where sometimes one needed to have some help to survive. She herself had student loans that she had to repay, so the economic plight attached to indebtedness was relevant and relatable to most South Africans.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had done justice to their report. They did not hide anything, and the candidates were also forthcoming. She stated that it would be better to shortlist nine candidates in case the President changed his mind about the candidates.

Ms Phiri acknowledged that they had, in principle, agreed that they would shortlist and present eight candidates to the National Assembly. Thereafter, the eight would be recommended to the President. If the legal advisor said there was nothing wrong with adding a ninth person, then that was an adjustment that could be made, because the Committee was flexible.

The Chairperson asked for the report to be read out, ranking the candidates from the first to the eighth. After the rankings, she said the Committee should stick to eight candidates instead of nine. She also proposed that candidates numbered 40 and 41 be part time.

Ms F Masiko (ANC) seconded the Chairperson’s proposal.

Ms Sharif, Ms Khawula and Ms M Hlengwa (IFP), also agreed with the proposal.

Closing remarks

The Chairperson read out which candidates would be full time and which candidates would be part time. She thanked the Committee for their inputs. After deliberating on their report in conjunction with the SSA report, Members shared the same sentiments -- that South Africa had a big problem with indebtedness. For as long as candidates were not insolvent and did not possess a criminal record in their name, they would not be disqualified. The Committee had done justice to their report and the staff would be allowed to draft the report so that it could be adopted formally.

View the Committee report and candidates nominated here https://pmg.org.za/tabled-committee-report/5726/

The meeting was adjourned.