Defence Force Service Commission (DFSC) 2024 Annual Activity Report and related matters; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the meeting, welcoming Members and the delegation from the Defence Force Service Commission (DFSC). He requested the DFSC Acting Chairperson, Ms Sebina Hlapolosa, to introduce the delegation. Before proceeding, he asked the Committee Secretary to render apologies, which included the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, Ms Angie Motshekga, Co-Chairperson Mr P Phala (ANC, Limpopo), and several other Members.

Agenda

The agenda was presented for adoption.

Mr C Niehaus (EFF) moved for its adoption but requested an addition regarding a response to his letter dated 11 December 2024 to the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC) about armament exports to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). He noted that the standard seven-day response timeframe had not been met and urged the matter to be prioritised.

The Chairperson agreed to address the matter after Item 5.

Mr P Noe (ANC, Free State) seconded the adoption of the agenda.

The Chairperson then noted an apology from Ms T Legwase (ANC, North West), who was attending despite being unwell.

Ms Sebina Hlapolosa, Acting Chairperson, CDFSC, introduced the delegation:

• Dr Siphelele Zulu, Part-Time Commissioner
• Adv Gloria Khumalo, Part-Time Commissioner
• Adv Linda Mbana, Part-Time Commissioner
• Ms Salome Mabilane, Commissioner
• Mr Philly Motsepe, Director, DFSC

Defence Force Service Commission: Annual Activity Report for the Financial Year 2023/24

Mandate and Responsibilities

Ms Hlapolosa explained that the DFSC derives its mandate from Section 62B of the Defence Act 42 of 2002 (Defence Act), as amended by the Defence Amendment Act 22 of 2010. She outlined the DFSC’s role, which includes making annual recommendations to the Defence Minister on improving salaries and service benefits for officials, as well as advising on policies related to conditions of service. In addition, the DFSC is tasked with promoting measures to ensure the effective implementation of these policies within the South African National Defence Force (SANDF).

She detailed the DFSC’s responsibilities, which include conducting research, reviewing policies, and monitoring the implementation thereof. The DFSC consults with the Secretary of Defence, the Chief of the SANDF, the Reserve Force Council, and other stakeholders. It engages with National Treasury (NT), the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), and the Public Service Commission. The DFSC considers the rank structure, the affordability of remuneration, and inflationary increases when making recommendations.

The DFSC operates impartially and without bias. It may call upon SANDF members or departmental employees to assist in its functions, and such assistance is obligatory. The Defence Minister determines conditions of service for SANDF members in consultation with the Minister of Finance, based on the DFSC’s recommendations.

Vision and Mission

Ms Hlapolosa stated that the DFSC’s vision is to be a world-class advisory body on military conditions of service, with a mission to provide quality advice to the Defence Minister to improve soldiers’ lives.

Financial Performance

She then turned to the financial performance of the DFSC. The total budget for the year was R15.6 million, with R10.036 million allocated to human resources and R5.5 million to operational expenses. Due to administrative delays and late invoice submissions, the DFSC surrendered R1.75 million to the Department of Defence (DOD). Total expenditure was R13.5 million, with R8.551 million spent on human resources and R5.29 million on operational costs.

Underspending was attributed to unfilled posts, including a Level 9 researcher and three commissioner vacancies. Performance incentives were not paid due to NT directives. Operational delays included a moratorium on post advertisements and late invoice submissions from a travel agency, AB Logistics.

The DFSC reported no unauthorised, irregular, fruitless, or wasteful expenditure. Asset management was managed by the DOD’s logistics section, with no discrepancies found. The DFSC did not own any public capital or infrastructure assets exceeding R500 000 and received no gifts or donations requiring recording.

Non-Financial Performance and Stakeholder Engagements

Regarding non-financial performance, the DFSC conducted no audits during the year but executed its mandate within the allocated budget. It engaged with stakeholders, including the Joint Standing Committee on Defence, and conducted consultative visits to seven military units. These visits aimed to assess conditions of service and inform recommendations to the Defence Minister.

Key recommendations included cost-of-living adjustments, a group life insurance scheme, and a remuneration philosophy for the SANDF. The DFSC highlighted the need for amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Fund Act 63 of 2001 to include Reserve Force members and addressed the financial sustainability of the Regular Force Medical Continuation Fund.

Governance and Challenges

On governance, Ms Hlapolosa noted that the DFSC submits quarterly and annual reports to the Defence Minister. Challenges are faced due to a shortage of Commissioners (six out of a required eight to ten) and an inadequate Secretariat structure. The DFSC has submitted recommendations to address these issues but has yet to receive feedback.

An Ethics Committee was established in 2022 and the DFSC adheres to the King IV Report on Corporate Governance principles. No incidents of fraud or corruption were reported, and a health and safety representative was appointed to report hazards to the South African Medical Health Service Headquarters.

Human Resource Management

Human resource management challenges included staffing only 12 out of 19 posts, with vacancies at various levels. The Secretariat’s structure was deemed inadequate, leading to Commissioners performing tasks typically handled by Secretariat staff.

Conclusion and Acknowledgements

Ms Hlapolosa acknowledged the support of the Portfolio Committee, the Joint Standing Committee on Defence, the Defence Minister, and other stakeholders. She concluded by reaffirming the DFSC’s commitment to its mandate despite ongoing challenges and expressed gratitude for the opportunity to present the Annual Activity Report.

[See attached for full presentation]

The Chairperson invited the Deputy Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, General Bantu Holomisa, to present item 4, which concerned the coexistence of the DFSC and military unions. He noted that hands had already been raised but proceeded with the invitation to the Deputy Minister to make a presentation.

Mr Niehaus intervened, stating that the Committee had been remiss in not requesting the reason for the absence of Minister Motshekga, as the Defence Minister was expected to make the presentation. He requested that the Deputy Minister provide an explanation for the Defence Minister’s absence. Mr Niehaus further emphasised that it was important for the Committee to note the reasons whenever Ministers or other expected attendees sent apologies for their absence.

Deputy Minister

Holomisa responded by stating that Ministe Motshekga had asked him the previous day to represent her at the meeting due to other commitments. He clarified that he had not enquired further into the reasons for the Minister’s absence.

He then moved on to the matter at hand, explaining that long before the establishment of the DFSC, military unions had already formed within the SANDF. These unions played a significant role in advocating for the rights and welfare of their members. However, many soldiers felt that their grievances were not adequately addressed within the bargaining council, nor were the members effectively represented. Complaints regarding poor living conditions, lack of transparency in promotion policies, and inadequate transport from bases to key areas had been raised with their commanders, but these concerns remained unaddressed, leading to widespread dissatisfaction among SANDF members.

The Deputy Minister recounted that during the tenure of the then Defence Minister, Ms Lindiwe Sisulu, in response to a historic march to the Union Buildings, President Jacob Zuma and Ms Sisulu had asked for his involvement in a small team to engage with aggrieved soldiers. The team visited military bases across the country. The Deputy Minister noted that they encountered a consistent pattern of dissatisfaction and neglect. Soldiers voiced similar grievances at each base, which indicated that the situation within the SANDF was far from stable.

The Deputy Minister explained that an interim report had been compiled as part of the Interim DFSC. The report was submitted to the Defence Minister, the Commander of the SANDF, and the Secretary for Defence. While some of the recommendations had been addressed, the majority had been ignored. This lack of implementation led to the establishment of a permanent DFSC, which was expected not only to advise the Defence Minister, but also to have the power to enforce its findings and recommendations. Unfortunately, this vision had not materialised, as the DFSC had never been granted independent authority or powers.

He further explained that after his term at the DFSC ended, he observed a gradual decline in its effectiveness. Successive Defence Ministers had failed to provide the necessary support to ensure that the DFSC’s work continued unhindered, meaning that many of the issues that led to its creation remained unresolved.

The Deputy Minister then clarified the difference between the roles of the DFSC and military unions. He explained that the DFSC, which was established by an Act of Parliament, had several powers. It submitted annual reports, maintained direct accountability, and was allocated a budget to function independently. It also had the authority to visit military bases and engage directly with all soldiers, not just those who were members of a specific union. In contrast, unions were limited to representing only their members, which restricted their scope. The DFSC, by contrast, had a broader responsibility to advocate for the welfare of all SANDF personnel.

In conclusion, the Deputy Minister urged the Committee to ensure that the DFSC was not undermined or reduced to a symbolic entity. He stated that if the DFSC was to be truly effective, it must be given the necessary powers to enforce its mandate. He appealed to the Committee to critically assess the Commission's current status and take decisive action to reinforce its authority, ensuring that the legislation governing it was fully respected and implemented. He concluded by emphasising that the DFSC was established to be the voice of all soldiers and warned that if it became ineffective, the very injustices that led to its creation would persist.

Discussion

The Chairperson thanked the Deputy Minister, noting that he had since inquired about the reasons for the Minister's unavailability and had been advised that Minister Motshekga was accompanying the President of South Africa on his official programme in Gauteng.

Mr C Hattingh (DA) had several questions. Firstly, regarding the functioning of the DFSC, he referred to slide six, where it was stated that the previous chairperson of the DFSC, Mr Ian Robertson, was responsible for the year under review (2023/24). Mr Hattingh pointed out that this was not accurate, as Mr Robertson had left by December 2023. He questioned why this information had been included in the presentation if it was incorrect. He further asked the Deputy Minister why the position of chairperson had not been filled for 15 months.

Secondly, Mr Hattingh referred to Section 62 of the Defence Act, which mandates the appointment of a Deputy Chairperson. He noted that there had been no mention of the Deputy Chairperson and asked who this person was, or if the position had not been filled, why no appointment had been made.

Thirdly, he noted that the DFSC was supposed to have a minimum of eight commissioners but currently only had six. He inquired how long these vacancies had existed and the reasons for not filling them. He also asked when the terms of the current commissioners would end.

Mr Hattingh further questioned the quorum for meetings, noting that if the minimum number of commissioners was eight, the quorum should be five, which seemed unusual. He asked who had decided this and whether it had been approved by the Defence Minister.

He then asked for clarification on the number of meetings held by the DFSC during the year under review, whether an attendance register existed, and whether quorum had been a problem during these meetings.

Lastly, Mr Hattingh referred to the various recommendations made to the Defence Minister and asked about the status of these recommendations. He requested feedback on whether the Defence Minister had responded to them, whether any recommendations had been rejected, or if any amendments had been made.

Mr Hattingh also raised concerns about the forfeiture of funds allocated to the DFSC, the absence of commissioners at meetings, and the impact of these issues on the DFSC’s work. He noted that although part-time commissioners were absent, this did not have a major impact, but there were still considerable costs associated with vehicles. He further questioned whether the DFSC had implemented any measures to address the overspending of the Human Resources budget.

Mr Niehaus observed that he did not find the explanation for the Defence Minister’s absence acceptable, especially given the importance of the Defence Minister being present for the presentation on the DFSC. He criticised the Defence Minister for choosing to accompany the President on a walkabout rather than attending the meeting.

He continued by stating that the background provided by Deputy Minister Holomisa about the DFSC indicated its importance, but the report being discussed in the meeting painted a picture of dysfunction. Mr Niehaus argued that the DFSC failed to meet basic corporate governance standards, manipulated its quorum, had insufficient commissioners, and had an under-spent budget. He expressed concern that despite making over 200 recommendations, there had been no clear feedback or positive response from the Defence Minister.

Mr Niehaus described the DFSC as a “glorified employment agency,” pointing out that the majority of its expenditure went towards employment costs. He criticised the DFSC for visiting seven military bases but failing to report on the conditions or make recommendations based on their findings. He asked whether the DFSC was merely offering recommendations, with no binding force, and whether the Defence Minister was under any obligation to implement these recommendations. He questioned whether the DFSC had a mandate to investigate the conditions of soldiers, both in South Africa and abroad, including in conflict zones like the DRC.

Mr Niehaus continued by agreeing with Deputy Minister Holomisa's call for the DFSC to be strengthened. He argued that the DFSC needed to be properly financed, given enforceable powers, and made truly independent. He also inquired about the relationship between the DFSC and military labour unions, questioning whether the two entities cooperated or whether the relationship was antagonistic. He urged that the DFSC be restructured to ensure it addressed the serious concerns raised by SANDF members.

Mr Niehaus finished by expressing concern over the underspending, the low number of commissioners, and the prevalence of acting positions, all of which he believed pointed to dysfunction. He called for the DFSC to be overhauled, given the necessary powers, and made independent, with enforceable recommendations. He reiterated his concerns about the lack of response to the DFSC’s recommendations, which, in his view, rendered the DFSC ineffective.

Mr M Shelembe (DA) expressed his concerns about the R1.7 million surrendered by the DFSC, noting that this amount, which could have been used to support the DOD's activities, is now returned. This raised a worrying question about the DOD’s ability to spend allocated funds efficiently, especially when it is seeking additional funding to run optimally. He highlighted that this surrender could affect the DFSC's ability to secure priority funding in the future.

Mr Shelembe also inquired about the seven areas visited by the DFSC, requesting a full report of the findings, including the Defence Minister’s responses to those findings, if any action had been taken. He questioned the DFSC’s failure to meet the minimum structural requirements, as it appeared to manipulate the quorum to circumvent the legal framework set by the Defence Act. Mr Shelembe emphasised that this could potentially call for the dissolution of the DFSC if it cannot function within the parameters of the Defence Act.

Further, he referred to a tragic incident where a vehicle transporting soldiers in the Northern Cape had an accident, resulting in casualties. He asked whether the DFSC was investigating the incident, particularly regarding the vehicle’s condition and suitability for long-distance travel. He questioned if the transport met the requirements outlined by the Defence Act and whether the lives of soldiers could have been saved with better transportation. Mr Shelembe requested updates on any investigations or follow-up actions concerning the soldiers involved in the accident, particularly their current condition and treatment after being hospitalised.

He concluded by stressing the importance of accountability and expressed concern over the safety and welfare of soldiers, urging further investigation and attention to these issues.

Mr E Noe (ANC, Free State) raised concerns about the report presented to the Committee, emphasising the absence of a strategic plan for the DFSC, which hindered the ability to assess the report’s accuracy. Without a strategic plan, it was unclear what informed the report and how it aligned with the DFSC’s goals. He requested that the Committee be provided with the strategic plan for the period under review, to ensure an effective evaluation of the DFSC’s performance.

In addition to the questions previously raised, Mr Noe inquired about the part-time commissioners, questioning whether their status was accounted for in the Defence Act and the duration of their part-time service. He also sought clarification on the consequences of having fewer part-time commissioners than required, pointing out that the report did not address whether this lack of full composition affected the DFSC’s ability to perform its duties. He suggested that a second report, addressing the DFSC’s inability to execute its functions due to this issue, would be necessary.

Mr Noe then turned to the financial audit, expressing concern that no audit had been conducted during the period under review. He questioned how the DFSC could assert that there were no unauthorised expenditures or financial discrepancies without an audit. He further questioned the credibility of the financial report and sought an explanation for its lack of audit, stressing that all government institutions are required to have their finances audited. He expressed doubts about the accuracy of the financial report and the findings of no fraud or corruption in the absence of an audit.

In closing, Mr Noe expressed support for the Deputy Minister's background information and performance overview, underscoring the Committee’s need to understand where the DOD was failing or struggling to support the DFSC in fulfilling its mandated functions. He concluded by stating that, without such a report, the Committee would be unable to provide the necessary support to the DFSC.

Mr Hattingh expressed his gratitude and noted that many of the questions might have been addressed if the report had been available. He referred to Section 216 and Section 62 H of the Defence Act, which states that the DFSC must report within two months of the end of the financial year, providing a better report on its activities and findings to the Defence Minister. He pointed out that the Defence Minister is then required to table that report in Parliament. Mr Hattingh mentioned that he had not seen such a report and requested clarity on whether it had been done.

Further, he referred to Section 62H. (4), which stipulates that the DFSC must annually publish its findings and recommendations in the Government Gazette (GG). Mr Hattingh sought confirmation as to whether this requirement had been fulfilled for the 2023/24 year.

The Chairperson thanked the Members for their input and proceeded with his comments and questions. He noted that there seemed to be a general trend of governance issues within many structures under the SANDF. He pointed out that similar concerns were raised regarding the DFSC's findings, where recommendations were made but were not implemented. He proposed that an audit of all these findings should be conducted to ascertain why these were not acted upon. The audit would involve identifying which findings were outstanding, in which year the findings were made, what the issues were, and the reasons why the recommendations remained unimplemented for such a prolonged period.

The Chairperson expressed deep concerns about governance, specifically regarding the DFSC. He highlighted that it was unclear when the current commissioners were appointed, given that commissioners typically serve a five-year term. He stressed the importance of understanding the appointment details, including when the current commissioners' term would end, the governance framework for appointing new commissioners, and the potential implications of leadership changes. He noted that continuity in leadership and institutional memory was crucial, especially after every five years when new commissioners and possibly a new chairperson could come in. He argued that this might create challenges in ensuring continuity and knowledge transfer regarding ongoing cases.

He also questioned the rationale behind a five-year, non-renewable term, suggesting that the term might be too long. He explained that, in many institutions, term limits are renewable at least once to allow for continuity. He suggested that if the five-year term was indeed too long, then the terms of commissioners could be shortened to three years, with a renewal option to ensure a balance between fresh perspectives and institutional memory.

Further, the Chairperson raised the issue of the vacant chairperson position, which had been empty for several years. He questioned why the current acting chairperson had not been confirmed, or why a new chairperson had not been appointed. He acknowledged that some of these questions may not be directly answerable by the commissioners, as they fall under the purview of the political executive, but he felt it was important to raise them to ensure accountability.

He then turned to the financial issues and expressed concern that the DFSC seemed to be operating under capacity. This raised the possibility that the DFSC was not being prioritised within the SANDF, which could suggest that the conditions of service for soldiers were not being taken seriously. He further noted that the report indicated budget recommendations had not been implemented, which could reinforce this perception. He called for clarification on whether these conditions were indeed not being prioritised and asked the new administration to explain what steps they were taking to address these issues. The goal, he said, was to dispel the negative perceptions and assure the ordinary members of the SANDF that their grievances were being taken seriously.

The Chairperson agreed with earlier comments regarding the need for a review of the DFSC’s framework, which he said should be independent but still aligned with the military structure. He raised further concerns regarding the financial management of the DFSC, specifically in relation to personnel spending. The report indicated that much of the budget was consumed by personnel expenses. He questioned whether this spending was justified, asking whether it was proportionate to the DFSC’s performance and delivery.

He then raised the issue of underspending in the 2023/24 financial year. He asked whether it was accurate to assume that there was a general trend of underspending and, if so, why that was the case. He highlighted that the DFSC had surrendered R1.7 million to the SANDF, yet there was also a reported underspending of over R2 million. He noted that this totalled approximately R4 million when combined with the surrendered amount, which represented a significant portion of the DFSC's R15 million budget. He questioned whether the underspending was justified and whether it was a result of the DFSC’s inability to spend the allocated funds due to operational challenges. He also raised the issue of how the DFSC could justify the need for the remaining funds in the next financial year if the SANDF controlled the DFSC's budget.

The Chairperson emphasised the need for clarity on governance, financial management, and the DFSC’s operational capacity. He concluded by stating that these issues required detailed attention from the executive authority, and called for responses from the commissioners and the Deputy Minister.

Deputy Minister response

Deputy Minister Holomisa briefly explained that he was also rushing to attend the Defence Force Military Industry Conference. He then proceeded to respond to the concerns raised by the Members. He assured the Committee that many of the questions raised, including those about the DFSC and soldier welfare, would be addressed now that the Defence Minister had entrusted him with responsibilities in these areas.

He outlined his additional tasks, which included oversight of the Duty Audit Action Plan, the modernisation of the SANDF curriculum through the Military Academy in Stellenbosch, infrastructure development and maintenance for military hospitals, procurement oversight—particularly of services provided by Armscor, Denel, and the DPSA, as well as military discipline and the prevention of fraud and corruption. He noted his responsibility for overseeing SANDF’s operational commitments and deployments related to Eskom infrastructure and mining security.

Deputy Minister Holomisa added that the acting chairperson of the DFSC would confirm that he had already communicated with her and her team. He had requested meetings with relevant officials to discuss the challenges they faced and assess their progress. Further, he advised that Members of Parliament (MPs) clearly state the responses they had received from the Commander of the SANDF, the Defence Minister, and the Secretary of Defence regarding any reports submitted. He explained that the Secretary of Defence, as the accounting officer, would be crucial in addressing issues related to vacancies and other challenges, and the Committee needed to know what responses had been provided.

In the meantime, Deputy Minister Holomisa assured the Committee that he would be meeting with the Secretary for Defence and her committee, as well as the DFSC, in line with the mandate given to him by the Defence Minister. He promised that detailed findings would be shared, and clear steps would be outlined to address the issues raised, ensuring progress in resolving the problems.

On the issue of the DFSC's independence and any potential amendments to relevant laws, he mentioned that the matter would be discussed with the Defence Minister. If the Defence Minister approved, he would engage the legal advisers to prepare an amendment to the relevant Defence Act. However, he emphasised that it was still too early to provide a definitive answer on this matter.

Regarding the question of transport and the specific accident raised by the Committee, Deputy Minister Holomisa assured the Committee Members that a follow-up would be made to address the concerns raised.

He then concluded his remarks by stressing that if the Secretary for Defence was present, she should respond to the Committee regarding why the vacancies had not been filled. If she was not present, he would ensure that the matter was placed high on the agenda of their next meeting. The minutes of that meeting would be shared with the Committee.

Mr Niehaus offered congratulations to the Deputy Minister, commenting on his impressive ability to manage the extensive list of responsibilities he had been given. He added the comment in a light-hearted manner, but then asked the Deputy Minister, in all seriousness, to provide the Committee with his thoughts on what necessary actions needed to be taken to ensure that the DFSC would be effective and able to function properly.

He noted that the Defence Minister had indicated her intention to provide such information. Mr Niehaus suggested that it would be beneficial for the Committee to have a direct session with the Deputy Minister to further discuss this. He emphasised the importance of receiving further details on how the Joint Standing Committee on Defence could assist in strengthening both the Deputy Minister’s position and their own efforts to ensure the DFSC could operate effectively.

Ms Hlapolosa indicated that she would be responding alongside her colleagues from the DFSC, including the Secretariat. She remarked that several questions had already been addressed by the Deputy Minister but noted that there were outstanding matters requiring further clarity, particularly regarding the position of the Deputy Chairperson. She acknowledged that she may not have previously stated that she had been appointed as the Deputy Chairperson. The Chairperson vacancy arose at the beginning of 2024, following the departure of the previous Chairperson at the end of December 2023. She emphasised that this was the context in which the report had been compiled, as the leadership had recently changed, with only three months remaining to conclude the work.

She then responded to questions regarding appointments, clarifying that these matters fell outside the DFSC’s mandate and would be addressed at a higher level. Regarding the term of office for Commissioners, she confirmed that each term lasted five years and could be renewed, in line with standard appointment processes.

Ms Hlapolosa further addressed questions on the status of recommendations, explaining that while the DFSC had received acknowledgements of receipt for its recommendations, a detailed report would be provided after the meeting with the Secretary for Defence. She acknowledged that, while vacancies had impacted the DFSC’s capacity, it had executed its work to the best of its ability within the available resources. She asserted that the Commissioners had worked within the constraints of their numbers and expertise, despite limitations in capacity.

She also referenced a letter from the Deputy Minister directing the DFSC to continue engaging with the Secretary for Defence, who was leading efforts in this regard. Ms Hlapolosa elaborated on the DFSC’s operational structure, stating that its meetings were conducted as a plenary due to uncertainties around the appointment of new Commissioners. Vacancies had arisen at various intervals, with the majority occurring in 2022.

She then clarified that all Commissioners, including the Chairperson, served on a part-time basis. This differed from the first term when the Chairperson had been appointed in a full-time capacity. As part-time Commissioners, all members had additional professional commitments, which affected their availability. Given these constraints, she underscored the importance of flexibility, as secretariat members often had to assume additional responsibilities to ensure the work was completed.

She proceeded to comment on matters related to the DRC, noting that the Deputy Minister had already addressed these concerns and that the DFSC would report back to the Joint Standing Committee on Defence in due course. Turning to financial management, Ms Hlapolosa assured the Committee that the DFSC’s financial records and statements were credible, as the DOD maintained oversight through a Budget Control Committee that convened monthly. She affirmed that the DFSC’s budget was closely monitored within the DOD and could be verified against departmental records.

On the subject of audits, she confirmed that while the DFSC did not form part of the DOD’s internal audit schedule, it had previously been audited by the Auditor-General of South Africa. She clarified that the DFSC was not independent in the same manner as entities such as the Military Ombud or the Reserve Force Council, as its budget was administered within the Defence Minister’s office, similarly to a departmental budget.

Ms Hlapolosa then addressed queries regarding the strategic plan, confirming that the DFSC would submit a revised plan outlining its priorities for consideration. She reiterated that while the DFSC generally only received acknowledgements of receipt for its recommendations, further feedback would be provided after the upcoming meeting. She subsequently invited her fellow Commissioners and the Secretariat to provide any additional information or address outstanding matters.

Further discussion

Mr Niehaus expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of response to his question regarding a report on the findings of the DFSC’s seven visits to various military bases. He stated that merely acknowledging receipt of the recommendations was insufficient, as filing them with the Office of the Defence Minister was not an achievement. He emphasised that the Committee should receive a report detailing the findings from these visits, as well as the responses from the Defence Minister. Further, he sought clarity on whether any of the recommendations had been implemented, stressing that this was a clear and pertinent question he had raised during his input.

Mr Hattingh raised concerns about the issue of quorum, noting that it had not been adequately addressed. He referenced Section 62 of the relevant legislation, which stipulated that six members were required to form a quorum for a DFSC meeting. He asserted that any meeting with fewer than six members would be illegal and requested a written response on how many meetings had been affected by this issue.

He also sought clarification on the term of office of the DFSC. He stated that his question was not about the duration of the term but rather when it ended. The response provided had only indicated that the term lasted five years. Based on comments made during the meeting, he inferred that the term had started after the 2019 elections and had therefore expired with the 2024 elections, leaving no DFSC currently in place. He requested correction if his understanding was incorrect.

He further inquired whether the DFSC’s report on its activities had been submitted to the Defence Minister by 1 June 2024 and whether it had subsequently been tabled in Parliament. He noted that the report was also required to be published in the GG and requested confirmation of whether this had been done. Specifically, he asked for the GG number for the 2023/24 financial year’s report and, for completeness, the GG numbers for the previous two financial years’ reports.

Mr Noe stated that he was unsatisfied with the response to his question regarding the financial audit. He requested a clear reference to the specific legal provision under which the financial statements had been prepared, rather than relying on the belief of the Chairperson and Secretariat that their method was correct. He emphasised that government financial statements must be subject to checks and balances. If they had not been audited, compliance remained an issue. He stated that financial statements could not be deemed correct unless they were audited in accordance with the law. He further highlighted that the internal audit committee and the Defence Force Council had not been included in the planned audits by the Financial Audit Division, nor had the statements been audited by the Auditor-General South Africa (AGSA). He maintained that it was improper to assume correctness in the absence of legal compliance.

The Chairperson reiterated his earlier question on whether there was an established trend of unspent funds being surrendered to the DOD. He sought clarity on whether the presence of surplus funds had been used as justification for the DOD to reduce the DFSC’s budget.

Ms Salome Mabilane, Commissioner, DFSC, responded, first addressing the matter of surplus funds and underspending. She confirmed that there were justifications for the underspending. She explained that the DFSC prepared an annual visit plan, but before conducting any visits, it was required to write to the relevant chief official to request cooperation and facilitation. Some planned visits had not taken place due to these procedural requirements, which had affected the budget’s execution. She stated that the DFSC factored these visits into its operational budget, but underspending occurred when some visits were not conducted. She assured the Committee that the DFSC always provided justifications when such questions were raised.

Regarding the term of office, she confirmed that the DFSC’s term had ended in December 2024. However, she stated that the former Defence Minister had issued letters extending the term, as only the Defence Minister had the authority to appoint or extend Commissioners' terms.

She acknowledged the Committee’s concerns about the DFSC’s performance and stated that strategic and annual performance plan matters were under review. She further noted that discussions with the Deputy Minister and other stakeholders would be held to address these concerns, given that the DFSC’s administration fell under the DOD.

On the financial audit, she explained that the DFSC’s budget functioned as a cost centre within the Defence Ministry. When the AGSA audited the Defence Minister’s budget, it did so by reviewing line items and taking samples, but the DFSC did not always have visibility on whether its transactions were included in these audits. She stated that the Secretariat might not have been required to provide specific portfolio evidence related to a particular transaction. She further noted that efforts had been made to engage with the internal audit team to ensure the DFSC’s inclusion in the annual audit plan. However, securing meetings with stakeholders, including the DOD, remained a challenge.

She concluded by stating that the DFSC would continue working on these matters and reiterated her commitment to providing open and transparent responses to the Committee’s concerns.

Mr Niehaus stated that his question had not been answered. He emphasised that this was the second time he had asked whether a report was available on the findings of the seven visits. He further noted that another question he had raised had also not been answered, specifically regarding the level of cooperation, or lack thereof, between the DFSC and the existing Defence Force Union within the SANDF. He requested that these questions be addressed, as they had thus far been ignored.

Mr Noe pointed out that discrepancies existed between the report and what had actually been submitted, making it difficult to follow up, even with internal audit processes. He questioned why the DFSC had not been included in the audit programme, as no clear reason had been provided for its exclusion. Given the struggles that had been outlined, he argued that the financial report appeared to be based on unverifiable information rather than concrete facts.

He clarified that he was not dismissing the DFSC's efforts to account for the funds. However, he noted that the report stated that auditing the DFSC’s budget was the DOD’s responsibility, yet this aspect was not clearly reflected. He stressed that the DFSC remained accountable for the funds appropriated to it, leaving the question of auditing unresolved.

Mr Noe maintained that a full explanation of the auditing process was still required and should be provided in a formal report. He added that this issue aligned with the concerns raised by the Deputy Minister about the DOD’s apparent lack of attention to the DFSC’s performance and related matters. He argued that the absence of an audited financial report was indicative of this neglect and questioned how the DOD accounted for this failure. He concluded that only a clear and factual explanation from the DFSC regarding the auditing of its finances would provide clarity, rather than what had been presented in the current report.

The Chairperson expressed concern regarding the statement that the finances of the DFSC were accounted for within the Defence Ministry. He sought clarity on this matter, emphasising that if this were the case, it would blur the distinction between the executive and the administration, which should remain separate entities, particularly in financial accounting.

He then instructed the acting chairperson and relevant officials to respond to Mr Niehaus’s questions, which he noted had not yet been answered, as well as other issues that had been raised. Further, he posed another question regarding the extension granted by the Defence Minister in December of the previous year. He sought confirmation on the duration of the extension for those whose terms that had expired, specifically requesting clarity on the period from January 2025 onwards.

Ms Hlapolosa began by addressing the issue of extensions, clarifying that the extensions were granted from a specific period, referred to as "Term 1 to Term 2." She then provided further details, stating that one member’s term would end this year, while three others would serve until 2028 and two until 2029. She noted that the extension was permissible under the Defence Act, which allows for two terms.

Turning to Mr Niehaus’s question regarding the status of recommendations made by the DFSC, she stated that they did not have information on whether the recommendations had been implemented. She explained that the DFSC had only received acknowledgements of receipt for their submissions. She referred to an earlier statement by the Deputy Minister, emphasising that the purpose of the process underway was to secure feedback on the implementation status of each recommendation. She reiterated that the DFSC's role was limited to making recommendations, and beyond that, it had no authority to enforce or track implementation.

On the issue of auditing, Ms Hlapolosa maintained that their responses reflected the reality of the situation. She explained that since the DFSC’s inception, the budget had always been allocated in accordance with its current structure. However, she acknowledged that this matter would be taken forward, and once the meeting with the Deputy Minister took place, a report would be compiled to address the concerns raised. She assured the Committee that Members would be copied on the report once it was finalised.

Lastly, she reaffirmed that the DFSC was unaware of any recommendations that had been implemented in the reporting year under discussion. She reiterated that feedback on this matter would be obtained through the Deputy Minister and included in the report to be submitted to the Committee. She concluded by stating that she had addressed the questions raised.

Chairperson’s closing remarks

The Chairperson stated that the Committee required a record of all recommendations made by the DFSC during its first five-year term. He clarified that the Committee sought to understand the nature of each recommendation, the matters these addressed, and the current status. He emphasised that the DFSC should be able to track its own recommendations and implementation status.

He informed the DFSC that the Committee would provide a list of all outstanding issues requiring further clarification, covering governance, strategic planning over the years, spending, and financial accounting. The Committee also intended to engage with the Deputy Minister regarding the DFSC’s budget and its management. He raised concerns about the administration of the budget through the Defence Ministry, stating that such an arrangement contravened good governance principles, undermined the separation of powers between the administration and the executive, and compromised the DFSC’s independence. The Committee would therefore pursue these matters further with the Defence Ministry and the Deputy Minister while expecting a detailed response from the DFSC on the issues raised.

The Chairperson acknowledged that compiling all the requested information within the usual seven-working-day timeframe might not be feasible. The Committee would deliberate on the matter and communicate a reasonable deadline for submission. He stressed that the Committee sought fairness for both the DFSC and itself in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities.

He further requested information on the procedure for appointing the DFSC, including eligibility criteria, the skills required, the process for rotation, and the renewal of Commissioners’ terms. He questioned whether the Defence Minister’s decision to extend or terminate a Commissioner’s term was based on a formal performance assessment or a report submitted by the Commissioners. These matters remained unclear, and the Committee sought comprehensive explanations. He added that the Committee Secretary would compile all unresolved questions from the discussion and ensure that the DFSC received them for response, along with a specified timeline.

Addressing concerns regarding financial accounting, the Chairperson emphasised that the requirement for an audited financial report was not arbitrary but rather a standard governance procedure. He clarified that the Committee was not seeking to uncover wrongdoing or set anyone up for scrutiny but rather to ensure compliance with financial regulations. He warned that any errors in financial reporting could have serious professional consequences for those involved. Therefore, it was in the DFSC’s interest to ensure that its financial accounting was conducted correctly and verified by independent auditors.

He advised the DFSC to begin compiling records from the start of its term, documenting all findings and recommendations over the past five years, along with their implementation status. This would form part of the Committee’s review. The Committee would subsequently provide a detailed list of additional information required, along with the deadlines for submission.

The Chairperson concluded by expressing appreciation for the DFSC’s appearance before the Committee and its willingness to provide detailed responses. He hoped that the measures announced by the Deputy Minister would be taken seriously to enhance the DFSC’s effectiveness. He thanked the Commissioners for their engagement and excused them from the meeting.

Committer matters

National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC)

The Chairperson stated that the Committee had not yet received a response from the NCACC to the question Mr Niehaus had asked. He queried what steps should be taken to ensure that the NCACC provided a response expeditiously.

Ms Nandipha Maxhegwana, Committee Secretary, informed the Committee that she had spoken with Mr Sipho Mashaba, Acting Director, Directorate for Conventional Arms Control (DCAC), over the phone regarding the two responses the Committee was awaiting. Mr Mashaba had indicated that he expected to provide a response either later that day or by Monday, 10 March 2025, at the latest. He explained there had been a misunderstanding, as he believed that a media article—published on the Independent Online (IOL) webpage reporting remarks by Mr Niehaus—constituted a sufficient response. Ms Maxhegwana had informed Mr Mashaba that she could not control what Members said in the media and reiterated that the Committee had adopted a formal resolution requiring a response. Following this, Mr Mashaba agreed to provide the outstanding replies.

The Chairperson criticised Mr Mashaba’s stance, describing it as mischievous. The Committee expected responses that addressed resolutions, rather than being directed at individual Members. He reiterated that while Members might make public statements, whether in Parliament or to the media, the NCACC remained accountable to the Committee as a whole, which acted on behalf of Parliament. He then invited Mr Niehaus to speak.

Mr Niehaus expressed his full agreement with the Chairperson’s remarks, stating that Mr Mashaba’s response was entirely inappropriate. He emphasised that Committee meetings were open to both the public and the media, making it inevitable that Members’ statements would receive media attention. However, he rejected the notion that media coverage negated the NCACC’s responsibility to respond formally to the Committee. He described this stance as unacceptable and reiterated the seriousness of the matter.

He reminded the Committee that concerns had previously been raised about the NCACC’s functionality, including the fact that it had not been operational for a significant period. He noted that the Committee had flagged serious international concerns regarding the NCACC’s ability to regulate arms exports from South Africa, particularly in relation to allegations involving Rheinmetall Denel Munitions and the supply of arms to both apartheid Israel and Ukraine.

Mr Niehaus maintained that the Acting Chairperson of the NCACC had demonstrated an unacceptable attitude towards the Committee’s authority. He urged the Chairperson to formally communicate the Committee’s displeasure regarding Mr Mashaba’s response and insisted that the NCACC provide a proper reply as required.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee would close the item on the recommendation. He confirmed that a letter would be prepared and sent to the Chairperson of the NCACCC, noting that this matter involved the Acting Secretary of the DCAC. He emphasised the need to escalate the issue to the Chairperson of the NCACC to ensure the necessary interventions were taken.

Adoption of Minutes

Minutes dated 21 February 2025

Mr Niehaus moved for adoption, and Mr W Plaatjies (ANC) seconded the motion.

Minutes dated 28 February 2025

Mr Niehaus objected to adopting the closed meeting minutes as proposed by the Chairperson. In response, the Chairperson advised that such minutes should be adopted in a future physical meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.