Public Service Commission on the utilisation of head-hunting in the public service; Briefing by the Public Service Commission on the turnaround time in dealing with complaints

Meeting report

Opening Remarks

The Chairperson welcomed all Committee Members and representatives from the Public Service Commission (PSC) to the meeting. He acknowledged the presence of all present and noted apologies from those who were unable to attend. He invited the PSC to deliver its presentations.

PSC briefing on head-hunting

The PSC presented the results of a study into how often head-hunting was used in recruitment to the public service, its challenges, and whether departments complied with regulations when head-hunting. Although open recruitment was the standard process, some senior and specialised positions remained difficult to fill, leading to the use of head-hunting. While head-hunting was legally permitted under Regulation 67(7) of the Public Service Regulations (2016), it was used only rarely due to a lack of understanding. When applied, departments generally followed the required processes, often relying on external agencies to identify suitable candidates.

Certain positions, particularly those in senior management and in specialised fields like engineering and healthcare, were more likely to be filled through head-hunting. However, there were concerns regarding the potential for non-compliance with laws and regulations, such as appointing unqualified candidates, nepotism, or bypassing standard hiring procedures. Despite these concerns, the study indicated that most head-hunting appointments adhered to regulations and involved competent individuals.

The PSC emphasised the importance of ensuring that head-hunting remained ethical, transparent, and aligned with recruitment policies to prevent unfair hiring practices. To improve the process, it recommended that human resources (HR) practitioners and managers receive proper training on when and how to use it. Additionally, the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) should establish clearer guidelines and a standardised approach to maintain consistency across all departments.

The PSA concluded that while head-hunting was a useful tool for filling critical vacancies, it should only be used as a last resort after traditional recruitment methods had failed. Departments need to ensure strict compliance with regulations, and ethical considerations must guide decision-making. By improving awareness, training, and oversight, the public service could enhance the fairness and credibility of its hiring processes.

See presentation document for further detail

Briefing on cases handled by the PSC in the 2023/24 financial year and Q1-Q3 of 2024/25

Ms Faith Mashikinya, Chief Director: Public Administration Investigations, PSC, delivered the presentation. A total of 1,551 cases had been reported to the National Anti-Corruption Hotline in 2023/24. Most (1178 cases) are related to social grant fraud. All cases were assessed and referred to the relevant department, entity or law enforcement agency. Those cases which related to appointment and procurement irregularities (33 cases) were handled by the PSC.

The PSC had handled a total of 506 complaints in 2023/24, of which 137 were cases carried over from previous years. 400 (79%) of these were finalised. The remainder were carried over into the next year. Of the 369 new complaints, 79% had been finalised with 90 working days of receipt against a target of 85%.

In 2024/25, the PSC revised its performance targets to distinguish between 'complex' and 'early resolution' investigations. Its new targets were 75% of complex complaints finalised within twelve months, and 80% of early resolution complaints finalised within six months. Ms Mashikinya provided a detailed statistical analysis of progress on these targets as of the end of Q3 of 2024/25 (slides 14-19). She added that rapid response investigations were conducted for urgent service delivery issues, including assisting pensioners with unpaid benefits and helping matriculants obtain identity documents.

Despite these efforts, the PSC faced capacity constraints due to unfilled vacancies and budget limitations, which slowed down investigations. To improve efficiency, the presentation recommended filling critical posts, streamlining processes, and strengthening compliance measures within departments. Ethics training and awareness programmes to prevent future cases of misconduct were also emphasised. While progress had been made in resolving complaints, challenges such as resource shortages and delays in departmental cooperation still remained. Strengthening investigative capacity and enforcing compliance would be essential in improving service delivery and reducing corruption in public administration.

See presentation document for further detail

Discussion

Ms M Pholwane (ANC) inquired about the number of departments that had utilised head-hunting as a recruitment method. Specifically, which senior management positions had been filled in this way? She also asked for information on the salary levels at which head-hunting was deemed permissible. Clear guidelines were needed to ensure transparency and prevent any misuse of the process.

Ms P Xaba-Ntshaba (ANC) was happy to see that the presentation had mentioned the Mahlangu family, whom the Commission had assisted in obtaining smart card IDs. Issues related to identity documents were a challenge faced by many citizens daily. She commended the Commission for working tirelessly to resolve such matters. She mentioned a similar case in her own constituency. An individual there named George Mafikeng had faced significant difficulties due to an issue with his identification document. As a result, he had been denied access to some government services. He had even been dismissed from his job on the grounds that he did not possess a valid ID. However, she clarified that he did, in fact, have an ID, but it had been duplicated, causing complications. She requested the Commissioner’s assistance in resolving this matter to ensure that Mr Mafikeng could regain access to his rights and benefits.

Ms Xaba-Ntshaba next raised several concerns regarding the practice of head-hunting in the public service. She asked whether the PSC had a specific policy that guided selection committees in recommending head-hunting as a recruitment method. She asked whether there were any official records of selection committees recommending head-hunting in instances where no suitable candidates had been identified through standard recruitment processes. How many departments had made use of this method, which senior management positions had been filled through head-hunting, and from which salary level head-hunting was considered permissible? Concluding her remarks, she wondered whether the public service should consider eliminating the practice altogether, given the risks of systemic abuse as highlighted on Slide 7 of the presentation.

Ms L Potgieter (DA) asked whether the PSC’s directives on head-hunting extended to local government, given that municipalities operated under their own regulatory frameworks regarding recruitment practices. This was an area where serious issues had been observed, and she noted that understanding how these directives applied to local government was essential to mitigating future concerns.

Ms Potgieter asked how the expert panel that was in the process of being populated would influence or be influenced by the practice of head-hunting. Would the existence of such a panel have an impact on recruitment processes, and would it affect the manner in which positions were filled?

Ms Potgieter noted that the presentation had made reference to standard operating procedures (SOPs) for lodging complaints with the PSC and asked for a copy to be provided to the Committee. Were the SOPs publicly available on the PSC’s website? It was important to understand the exact process for lodging complaints so that Committee Members and the general public could be fully informed on the proper channels for reporting grievances.

Ms Potgieter then asked about the finalisation of PSC investigations. Did the reported finalisation rate include only the completion of investigations by the PSC or did it also include the implementation of recommendations and corrective actions by the relevant department? Did the finalisation statistics reflect only the point at which the PSC concluded its investigations, or did they track departmental compliance with its recommendations? What was the average turnaround time for departments to act on PSC findings? Specifically, what percentage of PSC recommendations resulted in responses or actions taken by departments and what percentage resulted in no response or action? She acknowledged that this data might be technical and might not be readily available but requested that the PSC provide it at a later stage if necessary.

Lastly, Ms Potgieter addressed the issue of critical vacancies within the PSC, particularly in relation to investigator positions. How many unfilled positions were there, and how many were a result of budgetary constraints? How many were the PSC actively in the process of filling? Had funding challenges impacted the Commission’s ability to recruit investigators, or were recruitment efforts already underway?

Mr J Malinga (MK) sought to understand the powers of the PSC in situations where a department failed to implement a recommendation. What actions could the PSC take if a department either did not act on the recommendation or presented a counterproposal to it? What authority did the PSC have to initiate or enforce its recommendations in such cases? He was interested in understanding the processes and mechanisms in place to ensure that recommendations led to tangible outcomes.

Responses by the PSC

Prof Somadoda Fikeni, Chairperson, PSC, assured the Committee that the PSC was willing to assist with cases where individuals had difficulties obtaining identity documents. The Commission had regularly received such matters, both from previous Portfolio Committees and from the general public. If the relevant information regarding the individual in question were provided by lunchtime, the PSC’s rapid response unit would contact the person before the close of business that day. In cases requiring escalation, the Commission directly engaged with the Minister to ensure swift resolution.

Turning to the issue of head-hunting, Prof Fikeni emphasised that this practice had to be understood within a specific context. It could be credible and justified in departments or entities with a proven record of clean governance and no history of corruption. However, in cases where HR units had been involved in unethical practices or where a department had a track record of irregular appointments, head-hunting would not be advisable, as it could create a legitimacy crisis.

In response to the concern raised by Mr Malinga regarding non-compliance with PSC recommendations, Prof Fikeni outlined how the PSC had adjusted its strategy to enhance implementation. The Portfolio Committee could play a crucial role by ensuring that departments were held accountable for unresolved issues, particularly during budget discussions and policy reviews. He proposed that unresolved matters from oversight bodies such as the Auditor-General, the PSC, the Public Protector, or the Human Rights Commission (HSC) should be treated as standing matters in Committee discussions, thereby increasing pressure on departments to act.

Prof Fikeni further explained that the PSC had established mechanisms to meet with ministers and directors-general to provide direct feedback on outstanding recommendations. These engagements had proven effective in the past, as delays in implementation were sometimes due to senior officials not being made aware of certain matters or junior officials deliberately delaying action due to vested interests.

Prof Fikeni also highlighted an important legal development that had strengthened the enforceability of PSC recommendations. He referred to a recent court ruling in a case where an employee had challenged a department's failure to implement a PSC recommendation. The court ruled that because the PSC is a constitutional body, its recommendations could not simply be ignored without providing a reasonable justification. This ruling significantly strengthened the authority of the PSC, much like previous rulings had done for the Public Protector and the Auditor-General.

Adv Dinkie Dube, Director-General (DG), PSC, explained that the PSC monitored its own timelines to assess how long it would take from the receipt of a case to the completion of an investigation. She assured the Committee that this was a key performance measure that had been reported on during the presentation.

Responding to the concern raised by Ms Potgieter, Adv Dube confirmed that the PSC kept a detailed report tracking the number of recommendations issued and the progress made in implementing them. She committed to submitting this report to the Committee following the meeting, as it would provide a clearer picture of the extent to which departments are implementing PSC recommendations. She clarified that PSC engagement did not end once an investigation was completed. Commissioners actively engaged with executive authorities to follow up on the implementation of recommendations. She highlighted that she personally participated in DG cluster structures and forums, which provided additional platforms to appraise Heads of Departments (HODs) on outstanding recommendations and encourage their implementation. Despite these efforts, she acknowledged that compliance with PSC recommendations remained an area of concern.

Adv Dube reiterated the remarks made by Prof Fikeni regarding jurisprudence on the binding nature of PSC recommendations. While the Constitution did not explicitly state that PSC recommendations were legally binding, recent court rulings had affirmed that they could not be ignored without justification. Furthermore, the Public Service Commission Bill, once promulgated, would strengthen the PSC’s authority and provide additional mechanisms to ensure proper implementation of its recommendations.

Turning to the investigation procedures, Adv Dube confirmed that the PSC’s rules guiding the investigation process were available on the Commission’s website. She noted that the PSC was in the process of reviewing these rules along with SOPs to ensure they remained efficient and relevant. She noted that this would be one of the key agenda items in the upcoming commissioners' meeting next week, where they would focus on refining the rules and enhancing the work of the Rapid Response Unit. She committed to sharing the revised rules with the Committee once they had been finalised.

Dr Kholofelo Sedibe, Deputy Director-General (DDG): Leadership and Management Practices, PSC, clarified that public service prescripts permitted head-hunting primarily at the senior management level, which meant salary level 13 and above. In some cases, occupation-specific dispensation (OSD) posts could also be filled through head-hunting, but only at the highest level, where they were comparable to senior management positions. She stressed that head-hunting was rarely used in the public service. The PSC had requested information from all national and provincial departments, and most respondents had indicated that their departments did not use head-hunting or were unaware of when it had last been applied. Some responses from officials with long-standing public service experience who had worked across multiple departments indicated that while they had encountered head-hunting in the past, it was not used at the departments at which they were currently based. Officials who had experienced head-hunting over the past five to ten years had reported that their departments did not have formal head-hunting policies and simply relied on existing regulations. At the national level, positive responses regarding the existence of head-hunting policies had been received from the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy, the Department of Science and Innovation, the Department of Small Business Development, and the Department of Trade and Industry. A similar pattern had been observed at the provincial level, where most departments had reported that they did not have formal policies or guidelines and simply relied on the existing regulatory framework. The low response rate reflects the fact that departments generally do not use head-hunting, and in cases where it was used, it was not an annual occurrence.

On the second question, which concerned whether prescripts on head-hunting applied to local government, Dr Sedibe clarified that the PSC’s mandate does not currently extend to local government. However, local government did have its own regulatory framework. Based on the experience of PSC commissioners and senior managers who had worked in local government, head-hunting did occur, albeit in isolated cases, and was predominantly used at the senior management level. Some municipalities had adopted elements of public service prescripts, tailoring them to their specific needs. As the PSC expanded its work into the local government space, further research into the use of head-hunting in municipalities would be conducted.

Ms Amanda Kelengeshe, Director: Human Resources Best Practice, PSC, explained that head-hunting was primarily used to fill senior management positions that required specialised expertise or leadership skills that could not be sourced through the conventional recruitment and selection process. Given these factors, eliminating the practice entirely would not be feasible. Instead, the DPSA had put regulations in place to govern the process and ensure its proper implementation.

Ms Kelengeshe addressed the question of whether the introduction of expert panels would have a negative impact on the head-hunting process. She explained that expert panels and head-hunting served different functions and did not conflict with one another. Expert panels were responsible for selection, while head-hunting was a recruitment method used when the traditional selection process did not yield suitable candidates. If an expert panel determined that no applicant from the initial selection process met the required competencies, head-hunting would still be necessary to identify and secure a suitable candidate. However, the presence of experts within the selection panel was beneficial. These experts could assess the candidate pool early on and determine whether the required level of expertise existed and if head-hunting was necessary. In this way, head-hunting remained an integral part of the recruitment strategy, complementing the expert panel’s evaluation process.

Adv Dube said that the current vacancy rate stood at 12.6%, with the provincial offices and the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Branch being the most affected. A significant number of investigator positions remained vacant, which posed a growing challenge to the Commission’s ability to carry out its investigative mandate effectively. To mitigate the impact of these vacancies, the PSC had implemented internal measures to reorganise and optimise available resources. It had become increasingly evident that the Commission's ability to conduct investigations would be severely compromised without additional funding. The escalating vacancy rate represented a critical risk to the PSC’s operational effectiveness. She recalled that this concern had been raised during the Commission’s last sitting.

Follow-up questions

Ms Potgieter requested that the Committee receive a copy of the court judgement that Prof Fikeni had referred to. She added that a detailed report on departmental implementation of recommendations would also be highly beneficial.

Mr Malinga sought clarity on complaints and recommendations related to case law. He specifically asked the Commission to share cases involving departments and municipalities which had already been investigated and resolved by the PSC. This would help prevent redundancy, as the Committee could refer to previous rulings and recommendations when addressing similar issues in municipalities and departments.

Prof Fikeni explained that while the PSC did not currently have the legal authority to force departments to comply, it had adopted a multi-pronged approach to enforcement: engaging directly with ministers to ensure implementation, leveraging the role of Parliament to exert pressure on non-compliant departments, and strengthening collaborations with Chapter 9 institutions such as the Auditor-General (AG), the Public Protector, and the HRC. The new PSC Bill would significantly enhance the enforceability of the Commission’s recommendations. He stressed the importance of alignment among oversight bodies. The PSC had worked on ensuring consistency so that findings from institutions like the Auditor-General did not contradict those of the PSC, the Public Protector, or the HSC. This "ecosystem of mutual reinforcement" strengthened the accountability framework envisioned by the Constitution.

Prof Fikeni acknowledged that the PSC's legal recourse was currently limited, as court processes were costly and impractical given the progressive budget cuts the Commission had faced. To mitigate this challenge, the PSC has taken proactive steps, including engaging ministers to resolve compliance issues, collaborating with other oversight bodies to collectively hold departments accountable, and participating in induction processes for new legislators and executives. These strategies yielded positive results, improving the overall rate of response and compliance with PSC recommendations.

The Chairperson noted that the PSC Bill had successfully passed through both the Committee and the National Assembly without a single objection. This was a clear indication that building a professional, merit-based, and independent public service was a priority shared by Parliament as a whole. He hoped that the National Council of Provinces would approach the Bill with the same urgency and diligence displayed by the National Assembly.

Shifting focus, the Chairperson noted that Minister of Finance, Mr Enoch Godongwana, had announced that National Treasury would commence with ghost audits to identify and eliminate ghost workers within the public service. He humorously referred to these fraudulent employees as “Casper the unfriendly public service ghosts,” but underscored that it was no laughing matter—the existence of these ghost workers represented a serious criminal operation that undermined the goal of a professional and accountable public service. Parliament had a duty to actively support and oversee this initiative. He therefore declared that the Committee would fully commit to hunting down these "ghosts." He proposed a multi-pronged oversight strategy to ensure public funds were no longer siphoned off through fraudulent salaries. To achieve this, the Committee would request a joint briefing by the Minister of Finance with the Standing Committee on Finance on the strategy, scope, and progress of the ghost audits. It would also conduct oversight visits to all provinces, beginning with Gauteng and Northwest the following week, to engage provincial governments and assess their own ghost audit strategies and progress. The Committee would also request a special sitting with the PSA, the DPSA, and the Minister of the DPSA to understand their current efforts to eliminate ghost workers across government departments. These steps were only the beginning of the Committee’s commitment to rooting out this criminal practice. He pointed out that fraudulent salaries are not disappearing into a void. Behind every ghost salary was a criminal stealing from the taxpayer, and the stolen funds were being funnelled into the pockets of corrupt individuals who must be identified, arrested, and prosecuted. He described the Committee’s new role as the “ghostbusting squad” of Parliament. By taking immediate and decisive action, they would demonstrate their sincere commitment to ensuring professionalism in public service and eliminating wasteful expenditure.

Prof Fikeni acknowledged the positive comments made by the Chairperson and other Members. The issue of wasteful expenditure in the public service extended beyond ghost workers. The alarming reality was that some individuals had been sitting at home for years while still receiving full salaries. He reiterated the importance of working together to curb such inefficiencies and ultimately reduce the growing budget deficit.

The Chairperson agreed wholeheartedly, adding that some public servants continued to receive state salaries while also unlawfully drawing social grants from the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA). Furthermore, he highlighted the troubling number of employees who remained at home for extended periods awaiting disciplinary hearings, as well as those who failed to work their contracted hours due to a lack of sufficient oversight and control measures. These inefficiencies contributed significantly to wasteful expenditure.

Report by Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration on the Update Relating to the Petition of the Memorandum by Former Civil Servants on Unpaid Pensions and Related Benefits

The report addressed grievances from former civil servants regarding unpaid pensions. The Committee acknowledged progress in pension payouts but noted concerns from affected individuals about a lack of consultation and transparency in the process. It recommended further collaboration between government entities and pensioner representatives to ensure all eligible cases were fairly processed.

The report emerged from the joint sitting of the Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration and the Standing Committee on Finance held the previous week. It was an interim report intended to update the Speaker on the joint Committee's progress regarding the petition. It was not the final report, as there were still resolutions that needed to be implemented. Both committees had agreed to approve the report separately rather than convene another joint session since the document was only two pages long.

The petition had been referred to the Committee during the Sixth Parliament. At that time, the Committee had resolved to hold a joint meeting with the Standing Committee on Finance. That meeting had subsequently taken place on 11 March. One of the key concerns the Pension Redress Movement raised at that meeting was their dissatisfaction with the process, citing a lack of consultation and exclusivity in decision-making. The movement believed it should have been included in the National Task Team. The recommendations of the report were:

- that the Speaker of the National Assembly take note of the joint committee’s update regarding the matter.

- that the DPSA, National Treasury, and the relevant entities collaborate with the leaders of the Pension Redress Movement to accurately verify and audit the records of affected pensioners, ensuring the proper finalisation of the matter.

- that a fair and transparent procedure for pension payouts to all qualifying members be established, responding to concerns about the lack of transparency in the current system.

Additionally, the Committee resolved that a comprehensive report on developments related to the pensioners' petition should be presented within three months. This timeframe was meant to allow both the government and the Pension Redress Movement to address outstanding concerns and work towards a consensus on a transparent payout process. Once this three-month period elapsed, another joint committee meeting would be scheduled to review the updated report. Following that, the final report would be submitted to the Speaker, ensuring that all necessary information had been gathered and considered before concluding the petition process.

The draft report was adopted. See full report here https://pmg.org.za/tabled-committee-report/6094/

Conclusion

The Chairperson thanked Members for their cooperation. Before concluding the meeting, he took a moment to acknowledge that the Committee researcher was retiring at the end of the month. He expressed gratitude for his service and wished him a peaceful and fulfilling retirement.

The Committee researcher described the moment as bitter-sweet. He said he would miss working with the Committee. He thanked the Chairperson, Members, and other colleagues for their support, camaraderie, and professionalism, adding that he had valued their friendship and cooperation.

The Chairperson informed Members that final approval for the study tour was anticipated later that day. He acknowledged that the administrative process had been somewhat challenging but assured Members that they would receive confirmation of the final dates and programme as soon as possible.

The Committee Secretary requested that a virtual meeting be convened to brief Members on the itinerary and logistics once approval for the study tour was granted.

A meeting was scheduled for 18:00 the following day.

The meeting was adjourned.