SANDF Deployment; Sixth Parliament Report on SANDF status & Legacy Report; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Co-Chairperson Gigaba welcomed all Members of the Joint Standing Committee on Defence (JSCD), as well as Gen Bantu Holomisa, Deputy Minister of Defence and Military Veterans. He went over the agenda, with Mr C Niehaus (EFF) moving its adoption and Mr W Plaatjies (ANC) seconding.

An apology had been received from the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, Ms Angie Motshekga, with her indicating that the DM would attend to the presentation of the Letter of Employment of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF).

Presidential Force Employment Authority – Extension Of Sandf Deployment  Op Prosper Illegal Mining

The Chairperson said that according to Section 201 (3) of the Constitution, the President was required to inform Parliament in appropriate detail of the reasons for the employment of the defence force, any place where the defence force was being employed, the number of people involved, as well as the period during which the defence force was expected to be deployed. This letter was related to the current deployment of the Defence Force for the consideration of the Committee, in cooperation with the South African Police Service (SAPS), which was published in Parliament’s Announcements, Tablings and Committees (ATC) on 7 November. In terms of the newly adopted Joint Rules of Parliament under rule 156, the JSCD was required to report to both Houses with regard to the employment of the SANDF by the President, in fulfilment of an international obligation in defence of the Republic, or in cooperation with the SAPS. Therefore, the Committee was to receive a briefing from the SANDF on the latest deployment, so that it could report back to both Houses, in compliance with the regulations stipulated.

Mr V Gericke (EFF) said that although he did not have the joint rules on hand, in terms of the rules of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), the Minister had to attend the proceedings. He sought advice on this matter.

The Chairperson said his understanding was that in the absence of the Minister, the Deputy Minister was competent to assume the attendance and present, if deployed by the Minister.

Deputy Minister (DM) Holomisa thanked the Chairperson for the concise introduction, and stressed that today’s deliberations were an extension by the President on the project of the deployment of SANDF Members to help the SAPS to deal with the illegal artisanal miners in South Africa who occupied closed or operational mines to mine for minerals such as gold, iron ore, coal, and manganese, known as "zama zamas."

He added that his colleague, Deputy Minister Richard Hlophe, had joined the Minister of Police, Mr Senzo Mchunu, and today they were visiting the areas where police had indicated they needed assistance. Unless the Members of Parliament suggested otherwise, he expressed his opinion that this project should be of interest to the country -- to support the police and the Republic.

The Chairperson then asked if the Committee could still receive the presentation from the Department of Defence (DoD), in order to thoroughly examine the document and to advise Parliament.

Dr Thobekile Gamede, Acting Secretary for Defence, introduced the Chief of Joint Operations, Lt Gen Siphiwe Sangweni, who would take the Committee through the letter.

The presentation tackled the President's authorisation for the extension of the employment of the SANDF for service in cooperation with the SAPS for the prevention and combating of crime, and the maintenance and preservation of law and order in the Republic of South Africa under Operation PROSPER.

The deployment of the SANDF was part of the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) cluster's effort to address the prevailing high level of illicit mining and related crime. Illegal miners carried rifle calibre weapons and explosives and also tortured and harassed communities residing in the vicinity of the disused mining areas.

A complement of 1 100 members of the SANDF would be deployed, in cooperation with the SAPS, to support and assist the security cluster in the fight against illegal mining and related criminality across the country. The deployment would be for a period of five months over the period 1 November 2024 to 31 March 2025. The focus areas of the deployment were Gauteng, Mpumalanga, Limpopo, North West, Free State and the Northern Cape.

This was a third term of deployment for Op Prosper to address illegal mining. The expenditure estimated to be incurred amounted to R140 451 853. Both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces had been duly informed by the President.

(See presentation attached for further details).

Discussion

Mr Niehaus commented that the DM had stated there was not much activity and scrutiny that should be attached to the deployment of SANDF members and their assistance to the SAPS regarding the zama zamas. However, his opinion was that such a deployment, being the third of its nature under Project Prosper, meant that certain deductions and conclusions had to be made. Firstly, he stated that each Member should agree that there should be decisive action taken against crime, specifically around the criminal issues that were being addressed by this deployment, and this did raise serious concerns about the inability of SAPS to address this issue.

This was relevant because under the 6^th administration, the JSCD had raised its concerns about the President’s announcement of commencing Project Prosper. He referred to slide 12 of the JSCD Legacy Report, where the Committee stated that it had observed an increase in reliance on the SANDF for both internal domestic deployments in support of the SAPS and other government departments, in addition to its eternal conventional peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations. While aligned to its Constitutional mandate, the SANDF was in some instances, not fully suited, trained, funded and equipped for these internal deployments.

Mr Niehaus asserted that this Committee and the delegations present needed to acknowledge that these kinds of deployments were special emergency deployments, and not standard in terms of what the role of the SANDF should be in terms of the Constitution, which was to deal primarily with external threats. He stressed that they needed to raise their concern about the impact that these deployments had on the SANDF, which was severely underfunded, with all its entities battling to keep going.

He highlighted that yesterday in the National Assembly, he had warned Members and executives that the SANDF was collapsing. He said he hoped that the President understood the kind of pressure that was being put on the SANDF with these kinds of deployments. He reiterated the point made by Lieut. Gen Sangweni, in his presentation, that on the previous occasions when the SANDF were deployed in this manner, they had to carry the unfunded costs. This robbed South Africa from having an adequate and well-funded defence force.

He stressed that the Committee needed to support Lt Gen Sangweni when he stated that the rough amount of R140 million -- the total estimated cost of this part of Operation Prosper -- must be dealt with and covered through funding provided as an allocation and further funding by National Treasury.

He added that when reporting to the National Assembly and NCOP, the Committee needed to make it clear that they needed to have a proper understanding of the role of the SAPS and that of the SANDF. On slide 3, he touched on the point that the deployment of the SANDF was part of the Security Cluster's effort to address the prevailing high level of illicit mining and related crimes by illegal miners who carried rifle calibre weapons and explosives. He claimed that one of the duties of the SANDF was to control the borders of the country and to prevent the smuggling of semi-automatic weapons in large quantities over the borders of South Africa. They had dismally failed to do so.

In the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans (PCDMV), Members had been told that the SANDF needed at least 22 to 25 border control units, and they had only 15. He expressed his belief that, first and foremost, the SANDF had to carry out its responsible duties of controlling the country’s borders to prevent this high-calibre weaponry from entering the country. The SANDF failed to do this, leading to their joint operation with SAPS regarding the issue of illegal miners using these weapons.

He claimed that if they continued to go in this direction, the country was going to enter a vicious cycle, which meant that the SAPS was going to continue to have to be supplemented and supported in their work because of the systemic weaknesses within the SAPS. As this support had to be given by the SANDF, the organisation was going to be under increased pressure to deal with these issues, and would not be able to deal with the very critical matters that it had to deal with. He warned this could lead to a complete and total collapse of the SANDF.

One had to accept that this operation was an effort by the President to try to deal with crime. However, there was a need to raise serious red flags about the consequences of such deployments and their impact on the SANDF’s ability to get its house in order. Ultimately, if these deployments continued, one may find that in the future, the SANDF may have to support the SAPS through another Operation Prosper. These were the serious concerns that, as a JSCD, they would have to raise this in their report to the National Assembly and to the NCOP.

Mr C Hattingh (DA) added to Mr Niehaus's comment about the unfunded costs robbing South Africa of having an adequate and well-funded defence force, stressing that the situation was far worse. He said the two previous deployments concerning zama zamas have not been paid for. There had been an opportunity to live up to the promise on 7 November, with the adjustment of national expenditure. He questioned why these payments had not been made.

He said that this misfortune had not only robbed the public, but had robbed soldiers as well. Proper training and support, which was essential for discipline, left much to be desired. The degrading of the primary mission equipment had also been flagged throughout the term, with irregular expenditure being highlighted and seen by Members of Parliament.

He sought clarity about the payments and repayments around Operation Prosper and about the number of deployments in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Mozambique, and on the borders. Apart from the numbers, how much money was owed to the SANDF from the United Nations (UN), Eskom and the Southern African Development Community (SADC)? He claimed that the SANDF could not continuously accept unfunded mandates, with no sustainability and future predicted from these deployments.

Though DM Holomisa had continuously reiterated that the defence sector would soon be receiving 1.5% of the gross domestic product (GDP), he expressed his concern that with the SANDF constantly having to save other entities, this increase would not be noticed. He ended by pointing out that the recent issue of children getting sick from food bought from a local spaza shop, had resulted in the SANDF again being called in for assistance. This was just another example of the organisation doing unfunded activities which were meant to be done by other entities.

The Chairperson said he had taken note of the issues raised, but expressed his concern that this meeting may very well be hindered by time. He suggested that these issues could be raised in the next budgetary review and recommendations report (BRRR) of the JSCD.

Mr Plaatjies commented that some of the matters raised by Members were not being raised for the first time, with future deliberations definitely needed. He suggested that the SANDF should, in the future, think more strongly about operations that were not bringing in profit.

Mr P Noe (ANC, Free State) questioned whether, over the next few years, there would be an actual change in the manner in which the SANDF was being deployed, without any funding attached to these missions. He said that the issue of zama zamas had been occurring for quite some time, but it was only now that the country was beginning to show interest.

He then expressed his optimism regarding the establishment of a security cluster, which would look to address the budgetary criticism attached to the SANDF and the Department of Defence (DoD). He suggested that Operation Prosper should be considered a long-term project, to ensure that Members of Parliament were not brought back within five months with still no progress being made.

Mr M Shelembe (DA) recognised that the President was the commander-in-chief, and that a decision made by him concerning this particular matter and deployment had to be accepted. He argued that though there was a purpose for internal deployments of SANDF members, there had been no news on the current and predicted outcomes of these deployments. After two failed deployments under Operation Prosper, he sought a guarantee that this deployment would not follow suit. With the nation’s borders becoming weaker by the day as a result of weak management, he said that in future, the JSCD and the PCDMV had to be updated on the status of SANDF deployments.

Mr Gericke noted that he was mainly covered by his party colleague, Mr Niehaus, but wanted clarity about the information he had received concerning the deployment of soldiers in the areas of operation of the zama zamas, as well as the budgets attached.

First, in terms of the Constitution, Section 205, concerning the roles and responsibilities of the police and the army, he said everyone should be up to date with this. He wanted to understand how the members categorised this when the President signed off on a delegation of army members. Did the actions of zama zamas fall under war crimes, or plain criminality? What authority did the President invoke when he signed a decree or signed off on a deployment to those areas? He suggested that there should be a clear understanding of the separation of powers, as it then became a constitutional matter. He emphasised that one could not allow a situation where there were signings of decrees and declarations, but no progress or work was being made.

Secondly, he highlighted that this was the third deviation, where the army was concerned with dealing with an issue with an unfunded mandate. This meant that the army was not winning the battle. As this was a serious concern, he asked what the backup plan was.

Thirdly, he questioned who was taking control of the situation. Referring to recent media reports, he noted that a police spokesperson was saying no one was allowed to go underground to rescue some of the individuals taken hostage by zama zamas. Who was then in control? The police or army, or was it a joint operation?

He questioned whether they had the correct administrative processes in place. Should they consider going back to Parliament to ask for an adjusted budget if they did not win this battle? He claimed that to become more effective, more money was needed because if the nation had not won the battle up until now, then surely they could not complain when citizens and communities were stressing about the return of their loved ones. The issue of human rights being violated was also involved. With South Africa’s dark history of colonialism, zama zamas inflicting abuse on individuals definitely needed to be further interrogated.

Mr Hattingh added that Lt Gen Sangweni and Dr Gamede were not just there to read a presentation, but to answer questions as well. The suggestion made by the Chairperson that questions should temporarily not be dealt with, could not be sustained. The reality was that the responses may contain embarrassing truths. The presenters should be high enough in the ranks to respond to questions, as they could not simply be told that what had been put forth had to be accepted and answered at a later stage by a different executive member.

 He ended by suggesting that the JSCD get responses to the questions that had been raised within seven days in writing if they could not be answered in today’s session due to lack of time.

Mr Niehaus indicated that he did not think that when Members raised these issues, they were going off on a tangent. The Committee was involved in interrogating a very serious matter, and as a matter of clarity, he wished to understand where this Committee would go after this presentation. As the Committee was expected to deliver a report stating that they had gone through this presentation, this was where the problems arose, and he stressed that this JSCD must raise the concerns they had noted from the presentation in their report.

One issue with how parliamentary committees function was that they always seemed to run out of time, ultimately leading to the reality that Members did not carry out their responsibility as public representatives properly. He asserted that he was not prepared to agree to DM Holomisa’s statement that the unfunded deployment of SANDF members to support SAPS to deal with the zama zama issue was “par for the course,” and there was “nothing particularly strange about it.”

He said a detailed report, which would be presented to the National Assembly and the NCOP, should be the first step in dealing with the issue. Latching on to Mr Gericke’s comment, he added that the Committee needed to carry on with their responsibilities and be held accountable for the decisions that they take, and requested that a follow-up meeting be scheduled, where the Committee and respective delegations could deal with the pertinent questions asked. He also suggested that the report the JSCD was going to present and submit should be thorough in its criticisms, as it was their constitutional duty.

Chairperson Gigaba reminded the Committee that at the beginning of today’s deliberations, after DM Holomisa had spoken, he had indicated that the group was going ahead and would be receiving a detailed presentation from the SANDF, as the Committee, in terms of Section 201 of the Constitution, was required to receive these reports, and had to submit responses with a justification to Parliament. He said the comments raised should be kept brief, mindful of the deployment which had continued to take place concerning the zama zamas. The Members were in fact raising pertinent points which needed to be taken into consideration when compiling the reports to be presented to the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces.

He ended by stating that after the session, a decision could be made concerning the preparation of the report, which had to be adopted at the next meeting, as the monitoring of SANDF capabilities, resourcing and responsibilities were part of the Committee’s mandate.

Co-Chairperson Phala emphasised that they were dealing with a very complex matter, which was the reason the President had made certain decisions. He added that when the JSCD compiled their report, they had to deal with it extensively as they were in a crisis, with the country being under attack. This issue needed to be dealt with to ensure that the communities were kept safe. As soon as they received the report from the SANDF, the JSCD had to deal with it accordingly in preparation for their report to be submitted to Parliament, as the DoD had to be supported to carry out its function of protecting the country and its borders.

Chairperson Gigaba suggested that there were two approaches moving forward. Firstly, the Committee had to move for the adoption of the deployment, and note any objections. Secondly, the comments that had been made would be contained in the letter to Parliament, as well as the extensive report of the Committee that would have to be submitted as well.

He then moved the adoption of the proposed letter to Parliament.

Mr Hattingh then exclaimed that questions had been put to the Chief of Operations and the Acting Secretary for Defence -- were they being ignored?

Response

Lt Gen Sangweni noted all the concerns raised, and appreciated the support from this Committee.

On the issues raised by Mr Hattingh on the number of internal and external deployments, he said that he could not answer this now, as normally it was answered through the parliamentary session, as responses were needed in writing.

To answer Mr Noe’s concerns around 1 100 members being deployed, and the deployment being in stages rather than in full, he claimed that this number had been decided because it was a high-intensity operation to address illegal mining. It had then been scaled down, as the SANDF did not have adequate numbers and struggled with equipment. He said that the Committee should be well aware that the requirement for border safeguarding should be 22 sub-units, but currently, the SANDF was able to afford only 15 sub-units. When a crisis arose and there was a need for the SANDF, of course, members of the SANDF had to step in. He stressed that the 1 100 covers the six provinces where zama zamas were operating, and they were assisted by the SAPS. He stressed that progress had been made in dealing with illegal mining, which ultimately informed entities to reduce the number of deployments attached to this operation.

Regarding Mr Shelembe’s question about the intended outcomes of this deployment, and the state of the mission, he claimed that there had been progress as there had been a huge difference before the deployment of the SANDF, in support of other government departments and their entities, particularly the SAPS. Since last year, arrests have been made, with some mining shafts being closed. He also pointed to the case of an illegal mine in the North West, where over 1 000 illegal miners had been removed, as context for some of the success stories.

In answering Mr Gericke’s comments about what authority the President invokes when he signs a decree or signs off on a deployment to support the police, he said that this was contained in the Defence Act, as well as the Presidential Act. The DoD had programs in terms of force employment, such as border safeguarding and peacekeeping, as well as support to people, whereby the SANDF assists other departments and entities in cases of crisis. The SANDF was primarily responsible for border safeguarding and upholding territorial integrity, but there were instances where the SANDF was needed to ensure the well-being of citizens across the country.

Responding to the question as to who was taking control of the situation, he said that the SAPS was the leading entity, with the SANDF in support of them. On the issue of human rights being violated, he said that in all deployments, there were codes of conduct and rules of engagement, particular to specific situations. He added that the SANDF subscribes to and upholds to international prescripts regarding the conduct of war.

Dr Gamede stated that in the first deployment, money had been given to the Security Cluster and divided. They had requested R492 million, with an allocation of only R150 million being provided. They had then overspent to R350 million. With the last two deployments, they have not received any money to carry out the missions.

DM Holomisa said that he hoped the questions which had not been successfully answered would be submitted in writing. He said the reality was that crime in the country needed to be prioritised. In doing so, they may have to look at the possibility of the JSCD being briefed by a representative of the National Security Council on how they planned to deal with the rate of crime, as they could not prioritise the economy if the environment for investors was not safe. He suggested that the JSCD recommend to the National Assembly and NCOP that the issue of security must be prioritised, as the rate of crime was escalating far too quickly in South Africa.

Mr Hattingh commented on Lt Gen Sangweni's statement that some questions should rather be put to the Minister. He said it was not the general's prerogative to decide what was applicable and necessary for this Committee. He requested that those questions should also be responded to in writing within seven days, as the JSCD was the first stop for enquiries and deliberations, before being sent to Parliament.

The Chairperson advised Mr Hattingh that he was not the only Member of the Committee, before reiterating his position of authority over the Committee's proceedings. He had already ruled that responses would be expected in writing within seven days. In addition, the comments made by Members would be contained in the brief report scheduled for Parliament, as they were of such importance that they could not be ignored. Members were correct when saying that they were not just a “rubber stamp,” and that they also exercised oversight. In terms of this oversight, Members were encouraged to raise their concerns about deployments of such a nature. The comments and issues raised would also be noted for future reports to be tabled to Parliament, with extensive discussions planned. He requested that the Committee consider the suggestion by Mr Gericke that the JSCD undertake an oversight visit to the areas affected by zama zamas, to place it in the Committee programme.

He then stated that he wanted to put the Letter of Employment before the Committee for acceptance and adoption.

Mr Niehaus proposed that the Committee agree on the adoption, but had a question about the procedure. Referring to the report going to the National Assembly and the NCOP, he requested that it be tabled before the JSCD so that it could be formally adopted before being sent out.

Mr Plaatjies seconded the adoption of the Letter of Employment, as well as Mr Gericke’s proposal.

Mr Gericke asked if it would not be more advisable to conduct the oversight, and include the observations of this into the report as well?

The Chairperson claimed that the difficulty with this was that it would delay proceedings, as the response to the letter could be brief with a view to submitting a more extensive report at a later date. There was also an outstanding date on the SANDF debate schedule in Parliament. He handed over to Dr Wilhelm Janse van Rensburg, Committee Researcher, for further clarity regarding proceedings.

Dr Janse van Rensburg indicated that the Chairperson was correct, but there were rules attached to the Committee in dealing with matters and letters of such a sort for future undertakings. These were, however, two separate processes. An oversight visit could happen with its own tabled report that would be debated separately in Parliament. The aim of this discussion today was merely to provide a brief feedback to the Houses of Parliament to say that the Committee had received the letter, accepted it, and whether there were any objections to it.

The reason why this was important was that if this Committee did not agree to a deployment, it could then recommend to the House to have a debate on whether such a deployment should be withdrawn, in terms of the 1993 interim Constitution, which was still applicable, giving Parliament the power to end the deployment. He added that all the matters raised today were important and should be debated, but those could also be incorporated in other reports, which could be more thoroughly debated in detail.

The Chairperson indicated that the oversight visit depended on the approval from both Houses of Parliament. In requesting it, this Committee must indicate the urgency of the matter. He then asked if there were any objections to this letter.

Mr Niehaus reiterated the previous issue he had raised. He commented that no Member was opposed to this deployment, but that the Committee needed further clarity around the procedure to approve the report that would be submitted to both Houses. He stressed that this Committee should meet to deliberate on the adoption of this letter.

The Chairperson released the delegation from the SANDF and the DoD, and continued with the second on the agenda -- the consideration and adoption of the 2024 draft third term JSCD programme.

2024 draft third term JSCD programme

Dr Janse van Rensburg showed the Committee the 2024 draft third term JSCD programme.

The draft was duly adopted, moved by Mr Gericke, with Mr Niehaus seconding

JSCD Legacy Report

For the third item on the agenda, Dr Janse van Rensburg then presented the JSCD Legacy Report (6th Parliament). See here  https://pmg.org.za/page/LegacyReports

The Chairperson opened the floor to questions.

Mr Niehaus commended the joint chairpersons of this Committee for having taken the initiative to raise debates for Parliament to attend to. The strategy plan initiated by the previous Minister of Defence and Military Veterans should be implemented and coordinated properly. His concern regarding this debate was that they would have the Minister and Deputy Ministers standing in the House of Parliament, giving half-hearted responses. The logical step would be for the JSCD to be made fully aware of this strategic plan before it went for debate in the two Houses of Parliament. He stressed that it was critical to develop a standard model for the letters the Committee had to deal with. He concluded that in terms of the functionality of this Committee, he thought it was a good idea for it to meet on a weekly basis, even if it was done virtually, to avoid the situation where many Members were not at the same place at all times.

Mr Hattingh focused on three areas. Under the overarching oversight focus area recommendations, he stressed that Parliament should ensure thorough oversight of SANDF deployments, and that the SANDF was efficiently equipped and funded. This should be seen as a high priority under recommendations. Funding was the core reason the defence industry and arms industry in South Africa were failing.

His other issue dealt with the rehabilitation of the 2015 Defence Review. The non-funding and non-implementation of this review was a reason why the SANDF was in such a terrible state today. He said that this should also be top of the list of priorities to be included under recommendations.

Mr Noe questioned the overlapping of this Committee with others. He asked if there had been challenges in the past as far as the functioning of committees was concerned. He raised this as just recently, an NCOP committee had had a concern with a Minister, and they had responded by saying that too many Committees mentioning the same issues could become repetitive.

The Chairperson said Committee proceedings required Ministers to engage and account, and they ultimately had to accept this. The biggest constraint was that there were different meeting schedules for both Houses of Parliament, so Members and Committees needed to exercise flexibility to enable Members to meet. The co-chairpersons would make a written request for flexibility from the parliamentary programming committee.

On the issue of committees overlapping, Dr Janse van Rensburg said that in the previous Parliament, there had been an overlap specifically between the PCDMV and the JSCD. This had played out as a positive level of oversight, as it allowed Members to gain more clarity on the issues they were faced with. The PCDMV, for example, dealt with many functions, which took a lot of time of this Committee, whereas this Committee, the JSCD, had the constitutional mandate to focus on a specific aspect in terms of the SANDF, and provided quite a unique opportunity to dig deeper around matters concerning the SANDF.

Regarding Mr Noe’s comment, he said that committees could work on this through joint planning. Currently, they are waiting for the Seventh Parliament's strategic plan. Once it was received, all the committees would have an opportunity to sit down and deliberate on five-year plans. It would be advisable that the PCDMV and the JSCD work together on a five-year plan, which would eliminate a lot of the unhealthy overlaps.

JSCD Mid-term report on the status of the SANDF

Dr Janse van Rensburg then presented the JSCD mid-term report on the status of the SANDF (6th Parliament).

Mr Niehaus noted that his takeaway from the presentation tackled the issue around which type of defence force the country needs. As long as this was not answered, there would be a continuation of this trend of greater reliance on the SANDF for all kinds of domestic deployments. He added to Deputy Minister Holomisa’s comment that the defence sector would now be receiving 1.5% of GDP. He commented that this increase could be effectively utilised only if they understood what defence force the country needs. This would impact on the type of equipment purchased and the decisions taken on the maintenance of primary equipment.

He reiterated that this presentation on the report to be tabled was even more critical, as it dealt with the strategic plan on the way forward. Both Deputy Ministers had stated that this would be presented in the next couple of days. With this said, critical engagement was needed between all respective entities to have an effective defence force. He concluded that all issues impacted very significantly on matters such as how to deal with cost of employment, how to rejuvenate the ageing SANDF, and how to make sure that there was a proper exit strategy for members of the defence force who had reached a certain age and/or their respective ceilings in terms of current performance. He ended by suggesting that determining what kind of defence force the country needs would help answer all other questions attached.

Mr Noe touched on the last recommendation. Regarding the type of defence force the country needs, he highlighted the 1998 and 2015 Defence Review reports. He expressed his belief that these reports were not mandated, and questioned if these two reports were intended to answer the pertinent questions raised around the SANDF. Were these reports about the current SANDF, about the constitutional provisions, or about the failure of Parliament to effectively comply with what the Constitution requires in terms of the defence force the country needs? Around this underlying question, was it based on concerns or on particular findings which warrant the need to determine a change in defence strategy?

Mr Gericke commented that the above question was critical, but felt it was not possible to answer this in one session. He said that a workshop was required, agreeing with Mr Noe that there were already agreements and documents available in terms of the type of defence force the country wants. There were a lot of concerning issues in the report, with transformation and colour highlighted as key concerns during oversight visits from Members.

He stressed that the country needed to fully transform its defence force in terms of colour, from the previous era, as it could cause a revolt from members of the SANDF and communities at large. This, of course, would lead to the SANDF having to step in again. He suggested that respective entities should gather for a workshop to deliberate on the way forward, but also added the manner in which the news had favoured only a few military bases and deployments. Many opinion makers were suggesting that the SANDF was on the verge of collapse, but he stressed that they, as a JSCD, should not allow this to happen.

The Chairperson noted that two issues have risen from these deliberations. One was related to the debate the JSCD had requested on this report, with the critical issue being to find time for such a discussion to take place. The second issue dealt with the discussion with the leadership of the DoD, stressing that the JSCD should also begin to participate in determining what type of defence force the country needs and wants.

Dr Janse van Rensburg claimed that in terms of the observation around what kind of defence force the country wants, the previous Minister had raised this question after the 2015 Defence Review. This document mapped the way forward for South Africa’s military, specifically Chapter 9, where five milestones were set out, with each achieving different things. These milestones varied in terms of capabilities. He emphasised the need for debates on this matter. There had not been much debate or discussion in Parliament. Through a parliamentary debate, this would perhaps bring the rest of the country on board to be involved in the decisions which were taken. Within any debate, the question of the state’s willingness to fund any milestone of the Defence Review of 2015 was the underlying matter.

Regarding Mr Gericke’s suggestions, he added that experts had already been brought in to express their opinions, with members from academia having engagements with the PCDMV -- particularly members from the Faculty of Military Science at Stellenbosch University. He suggested that future engagements between the JSCD and academia should definitely be kept in mind.

To answer the Chairperson's questions, he agreed that the report was from the previous Committee, with no changes being made to it, but stressed that it served as a starting point for this Committee to build for its own midterm report.

Mr Niehaus said that this Committee could not say that they agreed to this report, as it was from the previous Committee, but suggested that the JSCD could say that they had considered the report, recommended and were in agreement with it, based on the previous Committee.

Mr Noe agreed with Mr Niehaus.

Mr Gericke agreed with his party colleague, but added that the report was here for noting purposes.

Committee minutes

The minutes of 29 October, which dealt with the election of the co-Chairpersons, were then tabled.

Mr Niehaus moved their adoption, with Mr Noe seconding.

In closing, co-Chairperson Phala expressed his appreciation for the presentation by Dr Janse van Rensburg and the support staff for the comprehensive work done. He said that Members had thoroughly interrogated these reports to come up with solutions in areas which had not yet been achieved. As Members had noted, this was work from the previous Committee, so the current JSCD needed to develop new recommendations to tackle the current pertinent issues the SANDF faced.

He added that the 1996 White Paper on Defence, the 1998 Defence Review and the 2015 Defence Review, specifically chapter 9, where five milestones were set out, were critical documents which needed to be analysed and implemented, to ensure that the DoD did not fully collapse.

The funding aspect of the DoD had also been highlighted in the 2015 Defence Review, and in his opinion, this was a key reason as to why the Department, as well as its connected entities, were in the troublesome state they found themselves. Currently, the defence budget amounts to 0.7% of GDP, with future targets amounting to 1.5% of GDP. He believed that this would be a disaster, and proposed that Members of the JSCD should take this matter seriously.

The co-Chairperson stressed that the country could not have a DoD that could not protect its citizens. As mentioned in the Constitution, the defence force must be structured and managed as a disciplined military force, and its primary object was to defend and protect the Republic, its territorial integrity and its people in accordance with the Constitution and the principles of international law regulating the use of force.

There were challenges which were not reflected in the report from the previous Committee. This would be discussed with Dr Janse van Rensburg to ensure that the issues, comments and reflections of this current Committee were taken into serious consideration.

He agreed with Mr Hattingh on the issue of time management, claiming that joint planning was needed from respective departments to minimise the possible delays and clashes in schedules.

He closed by thanking all parliamentary support staff and Members.

The meeting was adjourned.