CGE 2024/25 Annual Performance; CGE Remuneration

Meeting report

Opening comments

The Chairperson greeted everyone and mentioned that she was still experiencing issues with her electronic devices. She asked if she was audible and thereafter outlined the agenda for the meeting. She asked everyone to introduce themselves, especially the members of the public; they should include their full names. She asked Ms N Nobatana, Committee Secretariat, to make note of the attendance of the Members, and flight the meeting agenda.

Ms Nobatana outlined the agenda for the meeting, and thereafter called out the names of the present Members. She also confirmed the names of the present support staff.

The Chairperson asked if anyone from the Ministry was present.

The Secretariat informed the Chairperson that the office of the Deputy Minister had informed her of her unavailability for the meeting, which was also submitted in writing. She received no communication from the Minister.

The Chairperson asked the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) delegation to introduce themselves. There was poor network as the CGE attempted to introduce themselves. The Chairperson asked if there was a technical issue, noting no response.

Adv Nthabiseng Sepanya-Mogale, Chairperson, CGE Board, apologised for the technical issues and began to introduce her team members. She informed the Committee that their IT personnel would be present in the meeting to assist with all the technical issues they were having.

The Chairperson said that she was frustrated by those members of the public who attended the meetings and did not introduce themselves. She said that she had a right to remove persons from the meeting. She wanted to know who ‘Mado’ was. She asked the guests to introduce themselves. She asked the Secretariat for assistance.

Ms Nobatana confirmed that ‘Mado’ was assisting with sound. She called out more names of guests present on the platform.

The Chairperson apologised for all the fuss, she said that in the past, there were those who refused to introduce themselves and then after attending the meetings, they went out and posted their views about the meeting. Before the move to virtual meetings, people would introduce themselves. This would help her call the person to account for their inaccurate comments. She reminded the attendees of all of the House rules. She handed over to the CGE to begin with the presentation.

Ms S Rweqana (MK) interjected to introduce herself as a Member of the Committee.

The Chairperson asked her to write her full name and surname. She gave this instruction to the other Members too.

Adv Sepanya-Mogale gave an overview of the presentation and then handed over to Dr Dennis Matotoka, the CGE CEO, who took the Committee through the presentation.

There were some technical issues during the presentation, and the Chairperson suggested that they proceed with the presentation as the Members already had the presentation on their devices.

The Committee agreed and supported this suggestion.

CGE Annual Performance Plan and Budget for 2024/25

Mr Matotoka took Members through the presentation. He said all CGE APP programmes are linked to the strategic outcomes as indicated in the five-year strategic plan. Below are the four outcomes as contained in the Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan;

1. An enabling legislative environment for gender equality through submissions, recommendations, investigations, and litigation.
2. Develop and manage information and education programmes to foster public understanding of gender equality and the role of the Commission.
3. Monitoring compliance and research on issues that undermine the attainment of gender equality.
4. A renewed, efficient, and effective organisation that is sustainable

Members were taken through the detailed programme performance indicators and the quarterly performance report – see attached presentation

Budget 2024/25 Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF)

National Treasury mainly funds CGE programmes through allocations made under a Budget Vote for the National Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities. 

The baseline allocation for the 2024/25 financial year has decreased further to R93.6 million in 2024/25 FY from (R94.1 million (original) of 2023/24 Financial Year (FY), R90,5 million (budget cut: September 2023) & R95.7 million (2^nd Adjustment Bill: Feb/May 2024)). This reduction requires efficiency and economical effectiveness, when implementing activities of the CGE.

The CGE is at the beginning of the five-year Strategic Plan (2024 – 2029). 

The new business model has been adopted by plenary and is currently being implemented. However, the budget constraints limit the full implementation of the Business Model as R50 million is needed to roll it out in full.

Strategic objectives and the breakdown per programme were costed for the current APP period: 

1. Office accommodation
2. Costs of employment per programme
3. Audit outcomes – 2023/24 FY and audit action plan.

The CGE is operating under strained financial conditions with the lowest budget versus a big mandate.

The budget allocation keeps on decreasing annually from R100.7m in 2022/23 to R94.1m; R90.1; R95.3m for 2023/24 and now R93.6m in 2024/25 financial years. A need for an increased budget allocation cannot be over-emphasised for CGE to be able to make a meaningful impact on gender issues affecting all communities in the country.

Audit action plan: 2023/24 financial year findings

There were 43 audit findings (2023/24 FY) issued for this financial year as compared to 83 of the previous financial year (2022/23).

76% were resolved by the 31 March 2024.

24% are in progress, mainly due to the following:

• Formal engagement at an executive level with National Treasury, regarding the rotation of appointed panel of attorneys' matter causing irregular expenditure;
• The 100-hour matter remains not finalised as the CGE & AG could not find each other during the audit in February to July 2024.
• The Human Resources policies changes on housing allowance.
• Consequences management.

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

The Chairperson opened the floor for questions; she noted the raised hands.

Ms L van der Merwe (IFP) welcomed the presentation. She asked about the business model; she felt positive until she learnt that the business model required about R50 000 000. This was a concern for a unit which was functioning with very limited funds. She asked to perhaps get more information about the said business model in writing. She wanted to know what this model would aim to achieve because the cost for it was alarmingly high. She asked what the implication of leases was in the absence of movement.

Regarding the audit action plan; she was worried about the CGE and the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA), who could not agree on the ‘100 hour’s matter’. She recalled that the Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) raised a concern over this as the CGE paid its Commissioners a flat rate for 100 hours, in the absence of time sheets. This was a red flag; what was the challenge in this regard? Could they elaborate on why the AGSA and CGE could not find one another during the February-July audit?

She wanted to re-ask some questions as she did not have clarity on previously. Regarding the slide, which covered general weaknesses, how would the CGE litigate when this matter has not yet been fully addressed? Was it currently running any legal clinics? Other than serving on the Governance Committee, what other contributions had the Commissioners delivered on the 2024/2025 plans? And how were they quantified, measured and evaluated? She recalled asking about this in their previous meeting; this information would assist the Committee with its oversight duties. She acknowledged that the CGE always regarded GBVF as a strategic focus for the last decade; what was it doing regarding monitoring? She recalled that they mentioned monitoring KZN in terms of Pillar 3; she suggested that the CGE play more of an oversight role across all departments regarding combating GBVF. Specifically, what was it doing in monitoring the committee in terms of combating GBVF? And the same for the Department of Social Development? She had previously brought this up. There were unemployed social workers trained by the state - perhaps they could be deployed to assist in such situations. There needed to be a greater emphasis on oversight for all the departments. Two weeks ago, the Department of Police was mentioned as notorious for losing GBV dockets, which hindered the cases from proceeding any further. CGE should oversee many more departments and not just one Pillar. CGE was not doing enough. She would submit her other questions in writing.

Ms E Spies (DA) welcomed the presentation and echoed her colleague’s comments. She felt that the presentation lacked in showing how the CGE would conduct the Strategic Plan in the APP. Outstanding targets remained an issue, and this stemmed from the previous financial year. It was important to know how many of said targets had been inherited in the current financial year. What were the financial implications in this regard? On the Commissioners, she requested a more detailed operational plan, which would assist them with monitoring and evaluation.

Regarding the weaknesses; how did the CGE handle such? She believed that indicators and outcomes could accompany the targets. Who were the engagements and meetings with?

She recalled the mention of optimising opportunities for women to participate in the economy at the SONA. What was the plan to make sure that rural women were forming part of the economy? The plan was not yet clear to her. Regarding finance; the APP lacked information for each programme and their finances. She deemed it important to hold the CGE accountable. What was being done around the legal practice counsel matter? This was a key risk. On systemic investigations; she asked for clarity on which ones would be pursued and informed the choices thereof. In the previous investigation conducted, were there follow-ups conducted? How would the CGE ensure that the continuity of its work took place? On identification of the provinces; how did the CGE identify these provinces and which measurement method did they use? What engagement did the CGE have with traditional leaders regarding gender equality matters? She saw no mention of this anywhere; she asked for clarity on this as a lot was happening in this regard. She was worried about the fact that when the budget allocation was done, 76% of it went only to salaries. If this is the case, she expected delivery and results from the work done by CGE.

Ms A Khanyile (DA) welcomed the presentation. She echoed the sentiments expressed by her colleagues. She recalled mention of the presentation being guided by the SONA, she recalled mention of assisting women to have access to communal land. How was the CGE going to achieve this? Would they partner with the Department of Land Reform? How long would it take to achieve this? She noted that the CGE mentioned that in Mpumalanga; the focus would be cases withdrawn by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and SAPS, and going in the North West- there would be land available only to women. She worried about the lack of mention that the land be allocated to women in that area, Mpumalanga was very rigid on issues pertaining to agriculture. People may not be able to participate due to lack of ownership of the land. How long would it take to procure the land? On outreach programmes; could the CGE avail the drafted programmes to the Committee so that they could assist it in reaching its respective constituencies? She was worried that some of their constituencies did not receive certain information. She was hearing about the programmes introduced by the CGE for the first time. She did not hear mention of those programmes when she was residing and working in Mpumalanga municipality. She reiterated that the Committee interlinked with other Committees and she therefore suggested engagement with other Committees on those issues so that they could be more effective in their duties.

Ms R Adams (ANC) welcomed the presentation. She had clarity-seeking questions. On Programme 1 of Legal Services; the number of targets was reduced by seven which led to an increase in budget almost by double. Why were the targets reduced from 100% to 80%? New targets were introduced in 2023.  

Ms Adams asked why were the targets relating to ‘complaints handling’ reduced from 100% to 80%? In 2023/2024, new targets were introduced which saw no reflection in 2024/2025; why was this the case? On programme 2; the number of targets remained the same. How did CGE determine the targets for outcomes for each programme? On Programme 4; the CGE introduced new targets, but it was unclear which were carried over in the new APP, as new targets had been introduced. Please provide clarity on this.

Ms S Khawula (EFF) (giving all commentary in isiZulu) welcomed the presentation. She was looking for a place which had stable network; she asked if everyone could hear her. She said that the CGE was doing good. With the Chairperson’s permission, many cases landed up as files/dockets and never reached the courtroom, almost disappearing into thin air. There in Durban they had offices which she bore witness to. There was a case of a white person who was abusing women. These women and children were innocent and even now, they still suffered. There was also an elderly woman of 84 years of age who asked for help. Her case landed up in court, she was represented by a white person and she won her case. The elderly woman was beaten and shot at and was now on crutches/walking aids. She was also sick. Ms Khawula filed the report with CGE but has not heard back from them. Why were these cases neglected? Was it because the victims were black? Even now, families are being evicted from their homes by white people. She reported all these cases. She would move on to another subject.

There were cases that were opened and reported to the CGE but were not being monitored. There was a child of Ngxumalo who a neighbour raped. The mother of the child had an argument with the child. CGE spoke with the child and issued her a parcel voucher, but there was still no update today. Women were very frightened, and they were dying like flies and leaving their assets to their parents in their wills. In Lundi, she heard a similar case to that of Mpumalanga; she knew of a girl; whose name she would never reveal. A boy was molesting this girl; this case was taken to court. Even with the knowledge of human rights and laws, women were still being treated as possessions. A woman could not own land, a woman could not own property. The courts knew that women had rights but this was where it ended. This woman was surely dead; she would not reveal her name.

Now, she would speak about offices. The offices, which were red and yellow and stipulated what their purpose was: what should the people do? There were flats belonging to government left by the white people who fled in 1994; why did government not take these flats and rent them out? Regarding Eastern Cape; there was a gentleman she worked with. The elderly people there were killed on a daily basis due to accusations of witchcraft. She never saw any of them arrested, and the elderly died horrible deaths; being burned alive and bound. They were also being raped in their homes; they should call the boys in the community to order and teach them to leave the women alone and respect their bodies. There were far too many cases of this nature.

Dr T Letlape (Action SA) welcomed the report. Was there any collaboration with other structures such as the Human Rights Commission? When he was in Young Professions Counselling, he heard complaints of sexual harassment which amounted to nothing. The South African Medical Research Council has been doing research on GBV over the last three decades. Was there any partnership with such institutions?

Regarding the Higher Education institutions; sexual assault seemed to form part of the culture of the men of such institutions. There was a pattern in this regard where women would complain, a Commission would be formed, the university would hide the report and the matter would die out, SAPS would be informed and it would not lead anywhere. There was a medical doctor from the Western Cape who wrote to him on allegations of sexual assault against her senior in her university, but nothing was done about this. How could CGE follow up on this matter and ensure it was solved?

He echoed Ms Khawula’s comments on dockets disappearing. He asked if they could elaborate on the Cultural Transformation Plan. Many of the challenges faced were driven by culture. There was cultural rape in all sectors. Femicide was driven by a culture of entitlement where men felt that women belonged to them. Please elaborate on this plan.

If it received the R50m, he asked the CGE how it would be utilised. Would this create more staff? Or would this be done on a project-by-project basis? He wanted to know how this would be spent. He noted that all the structures placed before them were gravely underfunded. He hoped the Committee could advocate for more funding for these structures (the Department, the NYDA and the CGE). They had the infrastructure to affect positive change but to achieve this, funds were urgently required. He agreed with his colleagues that they should find R100 000 000 for operations before it becomes a wasteful expenditure.

Ms Rweqana said that she heard about the cases of GBV which were withdrawn in Mpumalanga; what was the reason for this? How many such cases were there? How did they explain this to the victims? Were the victims receiving assistance? She asked for specifications as the wording was vague. Regarding development of gender equality; did the CGE take stock of their actions? They never gave exact numbers; she requested exact numbers and names of places. The report needed to be more detailed as this would confuse the Members. Detail was very pertinent. On the budget of R2 000 000 which was allocated; R4 800 000 was used and services could not proceed due to limited funds. She noted the change; the CGE used a lesser amount than was allocated to them quarterly, and they complained about a limited budget. Why did the CGE always have funds which were returned to National Treasury? She did not understand this.

Ms N Gasa (MK) welcomed the presentation. She recalled the President mentioning the plan to end GBV by mobilising all sectors. Ms Gasa continued by asking about the progress of mobilising all sectors and how this was taken as a priority on the list of tasks for the CGE. Which were the sectors of society and how were they identified? What was the process used to identify the civil societies? Did they have a database? She was seriously worried about the population in the rural areas, especially after learning about the four completed projects. What were these projects entailing? And in which provinces were they completed? How were the provinces selected? She was worried about the communication channels in the rural areas. A presenter mentioned social media; most people in rural areas had no access to the internet. How did they accommodate them in this regard, especially the older people? Did they monitor the impact of the programmes, and how effective were they?

The Chairperson said she had two questions, one of which was earlier raised. She wanted to understand which universities had a high number of sexual harassment cases. She recalled that when she was in Labour, she encountered a doctor who said another doctor sexually harassed her and there was no consequence in this regard. She asked why the CGE was excluded in the Legal Practice Act? She wanted an understanding in this regard so they may intervene with the Department of Justice, if necessary. Please could they share the reasons with the Committee. She had heard this previously and wondered, although not a legal expert, why they were excluded. This was not in the APP, and they could also submit their response in writing if they preferred. This exclusion would hinder their operations in the future. She handed over to the CGE for responses. She gave permission for written responses. She asked two Members to lower their hands.

Responses from the CGE

Adv Sepanya-Mogale thanked the Members for their questions and comments. She suggested that they take a day for the CGE to fly to Cape Town to physically take the Committee through all the work which they had done thus far. She suggested this because she reckoned that the cause for some of the questions was because of the gap in meeting virtually. Secondly, she wanted to clarify that today, they had prepared the APP rather than the implementation programmes which fell under the APP. Today, they focused on the APP which meant that matters such as the impact would not be covered today, however, they hoped to capture this in the Quarter 1 report. She wished for a round table to discuss such matters. Another reason for suggesting a physical meeting was because the CGE was a Chapter 9 Institution and not a direct service-providing institution. This meant they were responsible for overseeing that each entity was playing its role accordingly. Wherever necessary, the CGE would intervene. She wished she could meet with the Committee physically. The CGE was not doing what the Department was doing, but rather what the AGSA, Public Protector and IEC were doing.

Out of the 76% delegated to salaries, almost three-quarters of this went towards programme salaries, and the rest went to admin staff, as there was a shortage of admin staff within the CGE. With this shortage, admin staff had to take on more work. Each province had approximately five people who went out physically to do the work. The business model was a very ambitious project. And from this, they identified the need to grow the provinces as five staff members was inadequate. The business model was already being implemented by realigning some of the positions in terms of job content. The business model also identified other positions that were needed to make the CGE's work impactful. There could not be only one education officer across the entire province, and more staff members were needed for the work to proceed. The CGE had a CEO who had approximately 16 direct subordinates, and this included the Heads of Departments (HOD). Here, they had realigned this through the business model so that some subordinates reported to the HOD rather than to the CEO (she gave examples thereof).

She confirmed that indeed the CGE did collaborate with the other Chapter 9 institutions. She would submit the figures in writing as they did not prepare such documents for today’s meeting. The CGE had taken over as Chair for the Forum for Institutions Supporting Democracy (FISD), and collaboration was one of the key pillars. When the Public Protector conducted inspections of the care centres, this was done with the knowledge of the CGE’s involvement. Right now, the Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) is doing work with the correctional services. The CGE also visited the correctional services centres to assess safety issues, and they all worked together.

All 24 Higher Education institutions were reporting to the CGE on instances of sexual harassment. They would provide full reports on this as they could not prepare this for this meeting which only dealt with the APP. The individual cases would have been reported, investigated, given instructions and recommendations and subsequently followed up on the cases. 

Dr Matotoka said that Adv Sepanya-Mogale had already covered most of what he wanted to say on the business model, and they would provide a full report on this. They believed that the business model would address many of the concerns raised by the Committee and the country.

Regarding monitoring and evaluation of other departments, they would be more effective once more resources are obtained. At the moment, they were understaffed, which meant that certain issues would not be adequately addressed, and this was where the business model was very helpful.

Regarding the Legal Practice Council, the legislative process required inputs to be made before submitting them to the Committee. At the time, there was negligence on the part of the CGE in 2015/2016 in making said inputs, and this thus led to the exclusion of the CGE. Adv Sepanya-Mogale had assisted with expediting such discussions, liaising with the Department of Justice. Last week, they received the Judicial Amendment Act which sought to amend the Legal Practice Act, and herein the CGE was included already. They were preparing to make inputs to the Judicial Amendment Act by 14 September 2024. Thereafter, they could expect their inclusion to reflect. This meant that they would not need to procure legal services to act on their behalf; they could do this on their own which would save costs on their side. He was hopeful of the change to come.

Regarding the targets not met in the previous year. This centred on issues of policies, where they were not able to finalise the policies and the vacancy rate. Sometimes, towards the end of the financial year, there was a high number of vacancies due to the high number of resignations. On the concern of outreach programmes not reaching women, they have been engaging on how their programmes affect the communities. They received positive feedback in this regard because their programmes addressed many of the issues faced in society. They did their own preliminary assessments to identify which issues needed urgent attention. Due to the lack of staff capacity, they had not reached every community in the country. However, they did liaise with counsellors and traditional leaders. The CGE required more resources.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was aware that this was a presentation of the APP. She had always taken issue with the reports submitted to the Committee which were always general. And she did not like the excuse of saying this was just an APP. She reminded the CGE that the Committee was the one on the ground representing the country. The APP was very difficult to decipher and this gave a negative impression of the CGE. She noted the suggestion of physically meeting. She asked that the CGE bear with the Committee in their challenges. They may take a detour from the APP at times because of the issues that the Committee wanted to address. The presentation process was not to create conflict but to address issues in a united manner. She was aware that the CGE could not be everywhere, however the Committee had a duty to report any and all issues to the CGE. She said (in isiXhosa) that the CGE could not act as the Holy Spirit and be everywhere. She said that they would continue to bring the difficult issues and it was also the responsibility of the CGE to respond in kind. She thanked the CGE for their responses and dismissed them from the meeting. She reminded them to submit some of their responses in writing and thanked them again. She reminded the CGE that the Committee had a right to directly contact the CGE on issues faced by the community, as long as it was not to harass or intimidate. She said they would focus on the Committee’s administrative issues. Again, she asked the CGE to bear with the Committee. She noted the three new hands which were raised.

One Member said that the raised hand was for the Chairperson, and she asked to be excused from the meeting.

The Chairperson asked on what grounds, and the Member responded by saying she would privately contact the Chairperson.

The Chairperson said the Member could not leave the meeting.

Ms van der Merwe said that the Chairperson adequately raised her concerns, as she remained confused by the responses given by the CGE. She always understood that the APP should be detailed including pictures and plans for programmes. She mentioned that the details of the business model were still not clear to her. She wondered why the staff members of the CGE were doing more work than the Commissioners. She was not satisfied with the responses, and she was glad that the Chairperson made the request to bear with the Committee.

The Chairperson mentioned that they needed to discuss their own issues now.

Ms Khawula interjected (in isiZulu) to say that the CGE must not yet leave yet, and the CGE must answer to the hijackings of certain buildings by gangsters. Why did CGE not consult with the Minister of Public Works? She requested a response in this regard.

The Chairperson asked if there was someone to respond to this issue. This was a relevant question as the buildings could help them save on costs. She called on the Advocate.

Noting no response, she said that they would write to CGE to respond to this. She asked the Secretariat if everyone left.

CGE Remuneration

The Chairperson moved on to the second item on the agenda. She noted the notice of determination from the office of the Presidency. She said that they had explained the sections of the remuneration of office bearers. She clarified that the CGE was considered as office bearers. She reminded everyone that the Commission had made a determination regarding increased remuneration.

A schedule of the remuneration was sent to the Committee for them to deliberate. This was currently tabled in the House. She trusted that everyone received this notice. She asked Ms van der Merwe if she had previously been part of the Committee, which Ms van der Merwe was able to confirm. She said they were to adopt this notice so that this could escalate to the House for adoption. They would not deliberate on this as this was to be done by another independent structure. Was this correct?

Ms van der Merwe confirmed that this was the process. The Committee was to take note of this and then it would be sent to the House.

The Chairperson called for the adoption of this notice.

Ms van der Merwe interjected to reiterate that they were to consider the report on remuneration. She hoped that the Committee would take seriously the work done by the Commissioners with their responsibilities; visiting police stations and checking on rape kits. She was worried that the Commissioners were not clear about their exact duties. She suggested they emphasise this matter at their next meeting with the CGE.

The Chairperson thanked the Member for this suggestion.

Ms Spies said that although Adv Sepanya-Mogale denied that it was the case, Ms Spies recalled reading from the general overview of the budget that 76% of the budget would be spent on salaries alone. She disagreed with the Advocate on this.

Ms Khanyile asked that the Committee be allowed to ask follow-up questions in future as she noted from the most recent meetings that the CGE and NYDA were not completely answering all the questions. She asked to reserve her opinion regarding the report, for now.

The Chairperson said that what Ms van der Merwe raised was very important. When the Committee does its oversight, it should not be limited; it should have a detailed account of the work done by Commissioners. Secondly, she wondered if the Committee was saying that the CGE was not entitled (to their salaries being increased?). The Committee did not fall under the Public Service and Administration which was the public sector. If the Committee said they were not in agreement with the salaries, she was unsure. She wondered if they were getting value for money and if they were servicing the constituencies accordingly. She noted the reservations of the DA. She was glad for Ms van der Merwe’s contributions as she was not previously part of this Committee.

The report was thus adopted. This report would be escalated to the House.

See report here https://pmg.org.za/tabled-committee-report/5917/

Ms Nobatana said that this was the last item on the agenda.

The Chairperson said she was happy with the discussion and encouraged Members to continue asking questions no matter how difficult they were. This would empower them. She then thanked everyone for their participation and looked forward to seeing them again.

The meeting was adjourned.