National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) Board Vacancies: OISD briefing

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks

The Chairperson addressed the Committee, emphasising the importance of their collective role in representing Parliament beyond political affiliations. She acknowledged the logistical challenges that had delayed the meeting’s commencement, but urged Members to focus on the national interest. She underscored the significance of the session, describing the process as both complex and critical. She encouraged the Committee to approach the discussions with unity and critical thinking, stressing that the country’s needs had to be prioritised above all else. She said the Committee would be guided through the legal framework by representatives from the Speaker’s Office. She asked Members to approach the briefing with a clear understanding of the subject matter.

OISD on filling vacancies for NYDA board

The Office on Institutions Supporting Democracy (OISD) explained the provisions of the original National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) Act, focusing particularly on the process by which board members were appointed. According to the original Act (section 92), the President appointed board members based on the recommendations of Parliament. Both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) played roles in this process, with various sub-committees from relevant departments being formed to manage recruitment. However, the initiation of the recruitment process had always been Parliament’s responsibility.

The entity's legal advisor provided an overview of the recent amendments to the NYDA Act, which was updated under Act No. 11 of 2024. This amended version had been signed by the President in July and officially published on 2 September. He explained that the key changes included the introduction of new definitions and provisions aimed at clarifying the role and objectives of the Agency. There were also significant amendments related to governance, the composition of the board, reporting requirements, and a stipulation that board members could not serve more than two terms.

One of the most notable updates in the amended Act was the introduction of specific criteria regarding the age of board members. The advisor explained that under the new Act, board members must be South African citizens between the ages of 18 and 35. This amendment sought to address previous challenges, where candidates older than 35 had applied for board positions. The updated Act now clearly defined "youth" as individuals aged 18 to 35, removing any ambiguity regarding eligibility.

The advisor then explained how the amended Act had also changed the recruitment process. Previously, both the National Assembly and the NCOP had been involved in selecting board members. However, under the new legislation, the responsibility for overseeing the recruitment process now rested solely with the Portfolio Committee of the National Assembly, effectively excluding the NCOP from this function. This streamlining of the process was intended to make the appointment of board members more efficient.

One of the key challenges outlined by the advisor was the issue of the proclamation. Although the President had signed the Act, it had yet to be officially proclaimed, meaning its effective date was still pending. The advisor explained that this created a potential dilemma for the Committee. If they began the recruitment process under the old Act and the President issued the proclamation midway, it could lead to legal and procedural complications. As a result, he suggested that the Committee proceed with caution, potentially delaying the start of the recruitment process until the proclamation was confirmed.

Finally, the legal advisor recommended that while the Committee could theoretically begin the recruitment process, they should remain vigilant regarding the proclamation. He noted that the amended Act was designed to make the process more efficient and faster than the previous one, which involved multiple committees and required coordination between different bodies. By simplifying the process, the Committee would be able to manage its work more effectively once the new Act was officially in place.

Discussion

The first question was from Dr T Letlape (Action SA), who required clarification on how the proclamation process worked. He referenced the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), where some provisions had become effective in 2014, while others had taken effect in 2020. He asked how this would work with the amended NYDA Act, and what would happen if the proclamation occurred while they were in the middle of the recruitment process. His question highlighted concerns about potential delays and the phased implementation of the amended Act, using the POPI Act as a reference point to understand how certain provisions could be activated at different times.

Ms T Chauke-Adonis (ANC) asked if there were any provisions related to the sector's segregated selection process. She specifically inquired whether the provisions outlined the percentage allocated to women, and if they also considered the inclusion of youth with disabilities in the board's roles or capacities.

[NOTE: The below is summary of the remainder of the meeting due to bad quadio quality]

The remaining discussion among the Committee Members focused on issues related to the process and impact of the Amended Act being enacted partway through the proceedings. One Member questioned the procedures being followed during the appointment of the new board, and whether this might disrupt or impede the Department’s progress if the amended Act was implemented during an ongoing process. The discussion also addressed the timing of the President’s proclamation, specifically whether starting the process under the old Act and then transitioning midway would have any implications.

Committee matters

As the meeting concluded, the Chairperson presented the minutes of 27 August. The discussion emphasised the need for precise and actionable feedback on the annual performance plan (APP) and service delivery. Concerns were raised about prior comments being perceived as dismissive or vague, underscoring the importance of detailed input to ensure accountability and track progress effectively.

The meeting also addressed issues related to gender equality and the efficacy of oversight mechanisms. There was a strong call for Members of Parliament to provide clear and constructive feedback, and for enhanced oversight to address pressing community issues.

The meeting reviewed various legislative aspects concerning gender equality and disability. The Chairperson questioned the effectiveness of existing oversight mechanisms, and suggested that topics such as adapting to new norms and expectations be explored in future discussions.

The minutes of the meeting were adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.