DSAC and DPWI briefing on legacy project infrastructure for sport, arts, culture and heritage; with DWPI Minister

Meeting report

 

Opening comments

The Chairperson said that in November 2023, the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) produced a general report for the provincial departments and the various entities and legislatures, based on 137 infrastructure projects. AGSA officials had visited 112 of the 137 projects. They had concluded that there had been an increase in the abandonment of infrastructure, budget overruns, fruitless and wasteful expenditure, inadequate collaboration with departments, and failure to conduct proper audits and assessments. There was a lack of accountability and inadequate monitoring.

It was unfortunate that heritage sites such as Robben Island and the Sarah Baartman Centre had suffered the most in these circumstances. These projects were meant to restore human dignity. The Sarah Baartman initiative commenced in 2014 and was to be completed in 2016, but the project was incomplete due to contractual disputes. Yesterday morning, he contacted the chief executive officer (CEO) of Robben Island to request a visit. He wanted to view the updated infrastructure plan, and was impressed with his treatment. He praised the Department of Sort, Arts and Culture (DSAC). There was hope for our heritage -- he could attest to this. Operations would run smoothly if entities could be held accountable. He could not say the same about the Sarah Baartman project, which was rife with corruption and abuse. He looked forward to the presentation on the steps taken to address the disappointing state of the project.

He requested a moment of silence to pay tribute to the late James Matthews, and Mr E Mthethwa (EFF) also asked for a moment of silence for legendary kwaito star, Sandile "Mapaputsi" Ngwenya.

Mr Dean Macpherson, Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure, introduced the members of his team, and asked to address the Committee on the report.

Mr Mthethwa interjected to ask the Minister if his team members were a true reflection of the Department. He asked about this because he noted no women were present on the team.

The Chairperson asked whether the Minister should respond to the question prior to giving presentation.

Mr Mthethwa responded that the Minister should respond as to the number of high-ranking women in his Department, if there were any, before proceeding with the presentation.

Minister Macpherson confirmed that there were many women occupying senior positions in his Department, and would be happy to submit the exact breakdown of the female officials to Parliament.

Minister's concern over information on situation at heritage sites

Minister Macpherson said that the reason why he had asked to address the Committee was because he was unhappy with the report that had been submitted to it. He was made aware of the report only when it was generated to the Committee, where he had not been briefed about the seriousness of the issues. He had contacted the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture, Mr Gayton McKenzie, on this issue who, in response, had said, “I’m livid!”

He deemed the issues to be important. It was concerning that the departments were not engaging with the Ministers, so he was escalating this internally. He referred to the oversight done at the Sarah Baartman Centre, which had outlined continued failures. There were concerns about incomplete progress and mismanagement that needed to be addressed. He had requested a meeting with Minister McKenzie. He welcomed comments on the overruns of the project, and the opportunity to establish a way forward and discuss the Robben Island issue.

The Sarah Baartman project had suffered countless delays and was still incomplete. He was concerned about the lack of accountability among those awarded government tenders. Despite the millions of rands spent, only 37% of the project was complete thus far. Three contractors had been involved, but there were still delays. The current status was unacceptable and further action needed to be taken. He requested that the Committee bring the officials forward and to hold them accountable.

He had notified the Department of his concerns. Ministerial oversight on the project had been lacking, and this would surely change. The Centre should honour Sarah Baartman’s memory and legacy. He was committed to finding solutions, along with Minister McKenzie and the Committee, and hoped to apply this to other projects. Fruitless and wasteful expenditure would be addressed, as well as corruption.

Reflecting on the Robben Island project, he said he wanted to turn the Island into a tourist attraction and heritage site. He stressed the importance of seeking external funding from various entities, and highlighted nine projects to be completed with the Department. A memorandum of understanding (MoU) existed which has since been discontinued. This was an area of concern. He hoped that the Committee noted his frustration. He commented that a lot of corruption was found in many of these projects, and nothing had been done to rectify it. He hoped to be part of the changes that had to take place.

Discussion

The Chairperson said he would allow responses to take place, but only for a short time, especially on the infrastructure and mismanagement. He was eager to hear what actions had been taken to address the alarming report. The Committee was determined to take its oversight role seriously, and hold the departments accountable for funds spent.

Ms Mandisa Tshikwatamba, Acting Director-General, DSAC, said they had prepared a joint presentation -- the DSAC would present on Sarah Baartman, and the DPWI would present on Robben Island.

DPWI on Robben Island project

Mr Rachard Samuel, Deputy Director-General (DDG): Facilities Management, DPWI, took the Committee through the presentation, the highlights of which were:

• The DPWI had implemented the total facilities management contract at Robben Island Museum (RIM) for a period of 36 months;
• The site was handed over to the successful service provider on 24 May 2024;
• The budget allocated for this project was funded by the DPWI’s repairs and refurbishment budget for the period of 36 months; and
• The tripartite agreement between the DPWI, DSAC and RIM had been submitted for sign-off to ensure that relevant governance and decision-making structures were in place

See attached for full presentation

DSAC on Sarah Baartman Centre

Ms Tshikwatamba said the name of the project was the construction of the Sarah Baartman Centre of Remembrance. The project scope involved the construction of classrooms, a multi-purpose hall, reading room, gatehouse, dormitories, reception area, living heritage, restaurant, pump house, and upgrades to the R331 road, the museum and roadway to burial area.

The purpose of the project was to memorialise and research the legacy of Sarah Baartman in the exhibitions, operations, and programmes of the operational facility, as well as the history and legacy of the Khoi and San communities. The Centre was located in Hankey, in the Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape. The project's sponsor and implementing agent was the DSAC.

Members were provided with information on the contract. It was said the contractor experienced significant cash-flow challenges which affected the company’s ability to deliver the project. The contractor opted to assign a contract to another company (Transtruct Building and Civil Contractors – 2^nd contractor). At the time of assignment, the contract’s completion date had lapsed with 12 months already. Contract Value at the time of Ceding: R189 768 478 (exceeded by R21 million).

Some of the reasons that contributed to the delays with the second contractor include:

• Discovery of poor-quality works that required remedial works (estimated cost R9mil)
• Dispute between DPWI and the contractor regarding which party is liable for the   costs of the remedial works
• Delays in payment of claims (contractor is contractually empowered to suspend and subsequently terminate contract due to non-payment. Some delays were a result of absence of officials from work due to lockdown regulations
• Suspension of the works due to Covid19 Lockdown Regulations
• Delays in the approval of EOTs

The non and/or late payment of claims had a significant impact on the project because:

• Contractor had to lay off some labour and management staff, and therefore slowing the progress
• Suppliers and sub-contractors suspended their services due to non-payment by the contractor
• Suspension of services by the Consulting Engineer
• Additionally, delays in replacement of Mechanical Engineer compromised project progress as auditorium natural ventilation work and hot water installation were delayed
• Due to non-adjudication and delayed approval of EoTs, the project time was at large (i.e. had no fixed completion date)

The delay in payment of some payment certificates issued towards last quarter of calendar year 2020 and first quarter of 2021 led to termination of the contract by the contractor on 21 July 2021, several days after DPWI paid those certificates on 1 and 2 July 2021 respectively, totalling R3.1 million.

Even after payment, the contractor was reluctant to return to site, citing other unresolved issues with DPWI besides payment (e.g. disputes of remedial works, adjudication of EoTs etc). DPWI carried a responsibility to secure the site through appointment of security company to secure the works and material on site. During this stoppage period, DSAC continuously engaged DPWI to resolve challenges and ensure project resumption    

DSAC Intervention

Escalation of the matter to Ministers of both departments, and periodic ministerial engagements to monitor progress were set up

Both parties agreed that the project should be allocated to the Development Bank of SA (DBSA), the Implementing Agents through process of DPWI

In line with the recommendations of the AG for DSAC to improve monitoring and oversight of the project, the following were done:

• Drafted and signed Co-Management Agreement with DPWI
• Drafted and co-signed Terms of Reference for establishment of the Joint Project Steering Committee, to ensure accountability to by all parties in terms of their respective roles

Through Ministers engagement, DPWI was required to develop a Roadmap that will lead towards resumption of the project including:

• Finalisation of the allocation of the project to DBSA
• Finalisation of ceding of the Consultants
• Appointment of the Contractor to complete the works

Progress

• Acceptance of the project by  DBSA was finalised in July 2023, following their long and tedious process of due diligence
• During the allocation, the Consultant had conducted an assessment of the project status quo, and estimated that the required additional costs were R109 million (all inclusive)
• DBSA first attempt to procure a Contractor during September/ October 2023 was unsuccessful due to poor response from the market.
• During the second attempt, the tender was advertised at a broader scale, and contractor (3^rd contractor) was appointed on 15 January and site handed over on 21 February 2024.
• Engagements with the community to introduce the contractor were also done as part of a high-level social facilitation process
• The contractor is the third on the project, and the project under him also started to experience delays caused by his Bill of Quantities (BoQ) that was unbalanced
• The challenge of unbalanced BoQ is attributed to a bidding offer made by the contractor which is reported to be significantly less than project estimates done by consultants.
• Although the contractor has committed to complete the project with an accepted contract amount, DSAC’s perceives this matter as the greatest risks that is likely to negatively affect the project
• For the time lost, the contractor was required to develop a Recovery Plan but it was twice sent back after the review
• Currently, DSAC allocated R65 million for 2024/25, and remainder will be available in 2025/26
• However, due to slow progress on site, it is evident that a significantly smaller amount will be currently spent
• To avoid risk of losing this budget, significant portion of it will be shifted during virement period, but will be recovered during 2025/26 FY 

Way forward

• DSAC to facilitate the first meeting of the Joint PSC to consider all the risks to the project and mitigation factors
• Improve accountability of all parties through PSC and its supporting structure (i.e. progress and technical meetings)
• Improve efficiency in resolution of all challenges and risks to the project and report bi-monthly to both Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture and Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure
• Request to report to a joint sitting to DPWI and DSAC on quarterly basis (This meeting may also consider other work done by DPWI in DSAC Portfolio (e.g. Robbin Island Museum, National Archive Building HVAC Project, Nelson Mandela Museum etc.)

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

Mr L Jacobs (DA) said the Robben Island Museum was important to every South African, but its current state was despicable and an insult to those before them who had fought for their freedom and rights. He was happy that an attempt had been made to restore dignity to the RIM. He was very concerned about the contracts, which had added up to millions of taxpayers' money since 2017. He acknowledged the Minister’s distaste with the status quo, and hoped this would be rectified. What commitments could the Committee expect to restore the dignity of the RIM? By when could they expect the full delivery?

Mr Mthethwa directed his questions to the Sarah Baartman Centre situation. He said that in 2014, R168 million had been allocated in the budget to the first contractor, yet he had not completed it -- and R190 million had been spent on the project. What had caused the escalation from R168 million to R190 million? What had the Department done to investigate this malfeasance? The second contractor had demolished the work done by his predecessor. Who had approved this demolition, and what were the estimated costs thereof? How much had been spent on the second contractor to complete the project, which remained incomplete?

Mr G Kgabo (ANC) said he was worried about the report, which mainly reflected spending in the previous years, but there was no indication as to how much had been spent so far and what it was spent on. The report did not mention a coordinating structure to play a monitoring and evaluation role in implementation. This was concerning, because they could not play a monitoring and evaluating role if they were not aware of what was happening. It was not right to say that the DPWI should be the implementing agent on behalf of DSAC. They were not holding the DPWI accountable for registering the progress made on implementing the project, and for being entrusted with public funds. He was raising this, because it had been in the public domain that public funds had been mismanaged.

He requested clarity on the implementation of the project. What was the structure that dealt with coordination? How did they handle the relationship between the three departments/entities? The report indicated that a service provider had been assigned for the next 36 months -- could the Committee learn about the process involved in appointing the contractor, in line with the supply chain management process?

Ms M Mmolotsane (ANC) referred to the loss of skills at the RIM, and asked when these vacancies would be filled. She was concerned, because they could not hire contractors to do the work, and the Museum may deteriorate due to the lack of skilled workers. Could they not hire workers who were skilled in the relevant fields, as hiring contractors was not feasible?

Adv S Salie (Al Jama-ah) said Robben Island was important to all South Africans, and she had had the privilege of visiting the Island in the past year. During her visit, she was greatly concerned about the neglect of the Island and the abuse of public funds. She noted that many people seemed to be involved in this project and the maintenance plan. When had Robben Island submitted this plan, and how long would it take to receive approval? How were decisions made on who was to be the providers, and what oversight role did the providers play? How long were the contracts for those who were to perform certain maintenance to the structures on Robben Island? She noted the confusion on the oversight roles and who were to be the providers.

Mr G Kobane (MK) acknowledged that the Sarah Baartman issue spoke to the cultural heritage of the country. He suggested that the lack of oversight at the start, when the budget was being allocated, was what had led to the mismanagement of funds -- the lack of monitoring to see how the money was spent.

He was concerned about the loss of South African culture due to the failings of the DSAC. Their culture was being destroyed within the local municipalities, and the younger generation would not practise cultural traditions. The DSAC needed to intervene, as the youth were slipping away from their cultural traditions. More emphasis needed to be placed on this, not only on the Sarah Baartman project.

He complained that virtual meetings were not as effective as face-to-face meetings.

The Chairperson clarified that the reason for the virtual meetings was because of the lack of venues. Parliament had stated that each alternative meeting would be held virtually due to financial constraints.

At this stage, network disruptions prevented the meeting from hearing from one of the Members, and the Chairperson asked her to submit her comments and questions in writing.

Ms H Mbele (MK) said she would have few comments due to the poor network she was experiencing. She had concerns about the renovations on the site. She suggested that they verify the beneficiaries and monitor the procurement for the projects. They should make sure that the most disadvantaged were benefiting from the work being done and the funds being spent. The communities should benefit. They should consider developing systems to ensure this, as well as monitoring how many people, especially children, were visiting the heritage sites. It would be beneficial for the country at large to learn about the heritage sites and be able to access them. She added that she was also not comfortable with the Zoom platform.

The Chairperson said he had comments to give, especially since he had visited Robben Island the previous day and seen that people were very busy. He said the place looked remarkable, and he had noted the layers of history on the Island. He was concerned that there was no water as a result of leakages, and suggested a complete renovation in this regard. There were two houses which belonged to Transnet, and he asked if the Department could provide a presentation on the plans for them and how they would be implemented. He had heard no mention of the four helipads present, and the World War 2 gun relics were not being showcased for the visitors. Three hours was too little time for a full visit.

He had heard conversations about erecting a restaurant on the Island, but was concerned about the strong winds. He suggested they consider such factors. He was surprised to hear that the cargo boat travelled only once a month. They had a serious challenge regarding maintenance and materials. The boats were not being used, yet they were the lifeline of the Island. There was a huge risk of the Island becoming a dumping site. There was rubble and other matter there, and vehicles had been left that the Committee should get rid of. The contractors should not be paid until every piece of rubble is removed.

He was concerned about how they would resolve the water issue. The monitoring was important. When the DPWI was in charge, they could not be reckless with the budget. Could the DSAC please review the raised issues? He was aware of the time constraints, and asked that other responses be issued in writing.

DPWI's response

Mr Sifiso Mdakane, Director General, DPWI, responded that they would provide comprehensive written responses to the Secretariat.

Regarding the commitments made, he said a meeting would be held between Ministers Macpherson and McKenzie to discuss the sustained funding option through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). They would look at the budget overall. After the meeting with the Ministers, they would provide a report to the Committee.

On the water issue, he commented that the water surrounding the Island was for the fish, and not for human consumption. There was a desalination plant, however, which treated the water and got rid of impurities.

He agreed that the presentation did not mention the budget and acknowledged the need for funding activity to be present in the presentations.

On lack of skills, he said the Island was previously run by the apartheid government, and the skills were associated with the activities on the Island. Upon becoming a heritage site, there had been less need for a full complement of staff. They might need to rethink their strategy in this regard, with guidance from the Committee.

He acknowledged the neglect on the Island. Government had used the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) prescripts to deal with the appointments. Their regional office had people ensuring the implementation of the contract, working with the facilities management team.

He assumed that the DSAC Portfolio Committee would handle the issues involving all of the heritage sites.

He would raise the issue of empowerment of communities in the contracts.

He agreed that there was a need to deal with the issue of waste management, which was currently crippling the Island. He raised the issue of security, noting that several people had been arrested for the illegal trading of abalone on the Island. He handed over to his colleague to respond on the costs on the project, saying he was aware of the time constraints.

Mr Samuel said they were not using an implementing agent on this project, as they had done in the past. Currently, they use the DPWI as a custodian and operator. They were using a group of young female and male consultants who prepared the terms of the contract, and assisted on the site regularly.

Regarding government assets, they were guided by the Government Immovable Asset Management Act (GIAMA) as the custodian. They had a two-step procurement process involving a tender panel and again went to tender for the contract. They had followed the PFMA and the tender had been correctly advertised and evaluated. They were incorporating young males and females and black service providers specifically for landscaping and waste management. He said they did their own oversight and did not employ any consultants. Accountability was important, and they held the project managers as well as the service providers accountable.

He thanked the Chairperson for the compliments, and appreciated the fact that he had visited the Island recently. On the issue of gun relics, these were part of the restoration project. They would take up the issue of cargo boats with their partners at the DSAC and RIM.

He confirmed the presence of rubble, and mentioned the task of site clearing, saying they had problems in this regard, but had included provisions for this.

Further comments

The Chairperson mentioned that the swimming pool was completely empty. His office was not too far from the newly erected church built by the Blue Stone Quarry. He had made countless visits there and had considered having transportation to get to the location. He was interested in the rich history and suggested the need for political will for this heritage, which could be self-sustainable.

Mr Kgabo mentioned his great disappointment in the presentation, and requested that they receive written responses on this matter. No response had carried much weight. The Department had been very selective with their responses and he would expect responses to outstanding questions within the week. Operations were not running smoothly at all.

The Chairperson said he agreed with the Member. He stressed the importance of conducting oversight, and said he was glad that he had physically gone to the Island.

Sarah Baartman project

The Chairperson said that the DSAC and the DPWI were in a marriage of community of property, so they should both take full responsibility for the matters raised in the discussion.

Mr Mdakane agreed they would share the responsibility, noting the serious issues to be addressed. He informed the meeting that the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) was present in the meeting, and they may want to give comment.

The Chairperson acknowledged their presence, and said he would give them a chance to give comment. He said their presence was very important.

Mr Chuene Ramphele, Group Executive: Infrastructure Delivery, DBSA, confirmed that a letter of termination had been received, and they were in the process of reviewing the matter. From the letter, it was clear that the contractor was not willing to return to his work. They were resolving the issues around payments, and were working hard with the two departments.

Ms Mbele began to ask her questions but lost her internet connection to the meeting. She managed to comment briefly on the project being given to three contractors, but was cut off again.  

The Chairperson said he would give the next speaker a chance since there was poor network.

Mr Mthethwa said that he noticed that they were in a creative space and that everyone strived to look good. The Department had looked very good and presentable, but he was disheartened. The reports seemed to skirt over the important issues to give the impression that all was well. They had lacked mention of ‘this was what happened which led to the contractor resigning and we had to hire a new contractor which cost us a certain amount of money. What did the DBSA mean when they said that they were working hard? Was it working hard to just appoint more contractors? He took issue with the demand for more money without being specific as to what the funds would be used for.

He asserted that there was a lack of accountability in government, and he wanted to see this in the report. They were paying for services that were not being provided. This project should be discontinued. The persons involved should be named. He wanted to hear about the progress made, but was not hearing about it, nor was there any accountability. Government had so many rules and policies, but where there was money, it went to waste. It was unacceptable that there was money spent on exit strategies. He was at the hotline, and what he found the most annoying was that the government was not paying people appropriately, and this was killing potential entrepreneurs. The private sector would not accept this -- if people did not work, they were fired immediately. This should end immediately.

Ms Makgato said that the allocation of the project had been correct, but when they intervened, the finalisation of the project was still a challenge. Looking at the project, the professional team issued a certificate on 9 July, but payment had not been made until the contractor tried to have another termination. She wanted clarity on whether the contractor had taken a decision to terminate. Did the three contractors not have any challenges?

Mr Jacobs said this was a very sensitive issue. South Africa had a challenge in how history was viewed and remembered. When he looked at the Sarah Baartman Centre, he looked at the promises made to the community. Hundreds of millions of rand had been spent on this project, and only 37% had been completed. This was a deep failure and a reflection of a larger issue. This Centre was to house the traditions of the Khoisan, but because of the incompetence, the Khoisan were being forced to have their functions in school halls. This should not be allowed. This was disrespectful to the history of the Khoisan and Coloured nations. This was invalidating their history. He was very upset. It seemed that the government was oppressing the Coloured and Khoisan people. They should stop oppressing them. They must ensure that their history is protected and dignified. He urged the Ministers to review the facts and conduct physical oversight to ensure that operations were running smoothly, and ensure taxpayers were not being disrespected. The situation was heartbreaking. He urged the Departments to take this plea seriously and to do proper oversight. This was unacceptable.

Adv Salie said that she had previously brought up this issue. Listening to the plans of Sarah Baartman’s legacy project and that of the Khoisan, one's heart would have been warmed. Ten years later, it was appalling to see that no progress had been made on a project that was supposed to be completed in 2016. Where were the contracts with the relevant construction companies involved? She requested insight into the stipulations of the contracts. What consultations had taken place? Was the Department aware of the decline? How could they meet without the contracts in hand? What steps had been taken to ensure investigation and accountability for those who had contributed to the fruitless and wasteful expenditure? Where was the accountability for incomplete work? Was it a norm to allow this level of abuse of taxpayer money? In 2023, the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture visited the site and said the Centre was to be completed. A resident was tired of hearing the constant change in contractors and that they had received money from the entities -- the community wanted the Centre completed.

The Committee and the Departments needed to see this Centre physically and conduct oversight. Could the Department provide a comprehensive report on the dispute between the DPWI and the contractors? One of the many reasons that led to the incompletion of this project was failure on the part of the contractor to pay the suppliers on time. Consulting engineers had also suspended their services. Did the Department do due diligence to look at the credibility and financial viability of all the contractors? Were there no penalties imposed on the companies for poor performance and their failure to meet targets? Were red flags not seen with the contractor who had discontinued due to notice of default and termination? This was a huge risk. When was it agreed that the second contractor would demolish the work of the first contractor? There was no mention of this. Was this part of the initial agreement? What were the terms and conditions? She was very concerned.

She wondered if there should not be a full investigation done with all the contractors and officials to review the matter. They would soon meet the fourth contractor. Was the Department part of the decision on demolition? What were the reasons for termination, and had they been communicated with the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture? She proposed that the Committee conduct oversight on this Centre and hear regular reports quarterly, as all she could see was money being drained on this project, and no finalisation. Was this Centre a money-making scheme for officials and construction workers? Further investigation was required.

Mr Kgabo noted his disappointment at the lack of accountability, and said leadership was lacking. It was almost ten years since this project had commenced, and there had been several contractors. They were still unable to find the root cause of the problems that had led to the delays. This was an issue of leadership and management. He agreed they could not be happy about the several contractors employed and not knowing how funds were dispersed. He brought this up because he wanted to know whether the DBSA had any capacity to handle the process of payment going forward, noting that the recent contractor had resigned due to lack of payment from the DBSA. Who had been held accountable for the failure of payment? What disciplinary measures were issued against the officials? It was not right that they had not been informed about this. He asked whether the DPWI had a project management unit. In the process of appointing the three contractors, what were the main issues identified? What were the mitigating strategies which the internal construction management had presented as a way of rectifying the problem?

He said millions had been spent on this project, and suggested that all operations be halted before appointing a fourth contractor. They could not spend any more money on this project. What was the role of the Department in changing contractors? What were the terms of reference? Had there been a technical report by the consulting engineers which permitted the demolition on the site? Regarding the DPWI, he agreed they should halt all operations until an investigation had been launched and completed. The investigation should look into financial management. This project was almost 30 months behind schedule, so why should more funds be issued? Were the contractors dismissed on the grounds of not delivering quality work? Could they take steps to prevent them from getting future work from the government?

Ms Mbele came through on a faulty line, and was heard to call for an investigation into the costs of materials and the payment for workers and machinery. This would assist with budgeting, and give an indication of escalations and challenges in the area. When the first contractor was appointed, why could they not consult with a quantity surveyor? How did they do the pricing? How did the Department determine the prices without previously looking at prices? She was sure that there had been budget deviations. She asked about the preparation of certificates, and said the Department should have had someone on site to measure the work and produce the certificates. The certificates should be prepared only after inspection was done on the work. Checking quality was part of the process of work. How did they allow a contractor to submit a certificate which was not inspected on site? This has led to delays in payment, and this could lead to the contractors departing. The contractors had made mistakes and found loopholes in contracts that had allowed them to leave after receiving money. People assessed their profits based on their areas of work, and if they saw a potential loss of money, they would depart. Even if there were delays, the Department could still have gone to the site and seen if the work was quality work. How did the Department miss this?

On the appointment of a contractor, how were the local contractors overlooked? She could not understand this. This could be escalated to variation orders. If the variation orders went beyond the budget, this was a problem. There was a lot she could say about the Department failing in their duties. Allegations of corruption could be made. She suspected this. The DBSA would appoint another contractor, but where would the money come from? Who would take responsibility for the poor work?

The Chairperson said he was at a loss for words. This Committee was about to be absolved of the incompetence of the Departments. South Africans were being taken for granted. The report of the AGSA reflected that the work had been halted due to contractual disputes. He did not hear more on this, nor of the progress made so far. Was this a norm? No criminal charges had been filed. What was happening with leadership management? It had taken eight years for the Sarah Baartman remains to be repatriated to South Africa. He would no longer wait for others -- he was going to the Centre to see for himself.

With the Committee’s support, he made a ruling to request the Department to discontinue the project immediately due to dissatisfaction with the progress. The current report was futile -- he could not advocate allocating any more funds in good conscience. The Departments should halt their work in progress until such a time they receive feedback from the two Ministers. He would ask the Committee to decide on when they would be available to travel to the Centre, and for the DPWI to ensure their security prior to their visit.

Mr Mthethwa said that he supported the motion. The project should be halted for further investigations. The new Ministers could not be held accountable for this, because this project pre-dated their arrival. However, he still wanted to hear them give the exact timeline for completion.

Ms Makgato seconded this motion.

Closing comments

The Chairperson proposed postponing consideration of the meeting minutes, as he was feeling very devastated. He tried to adjourn the meeting but there was an interjection.

Ms Mbele reminded the Chairperson about the meeting which he needed to call. The Chairperson made note of this, and thanked everyone.

The meeting was adjourned.