Statistics South Africa on Qualified Auditor-General’s Report: hearing

Public Accounts (SCOPA)

16 March 2005
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report


16 March 2005
Statistics South Africa on qualified Auditor-General’s Report: HEARING

Mr F Beukman (NNP)

Documents handed out:
Statistics South Africa: Annual Report 2003/2004 is available at
Auditor-General’s Report on Statistics South Africa (see Appendix)

Statistics SA website

The Committee questioned Statistics South Africa on its qualified Auditor-General’s 2003/2004 Audit Report. Serious concerns had been raised about over-expenditure on service contracts, circumvention of tender board regulations, the inadequacy of information technology controls, open-ended consultancy contracts, tax compliance and the lack of human resource capacity at Stats SA that had led to a concern with the quality of the official statistics released by Stats SA. The Committee requested a more detailed response on the issues raised by the Auditor-General and clear indications of how these would be resolved.

The Chairperson said that the aim of Standing Committee on Public Accounts hearings was to oversee the efficiency of executive action and evaluate the financial statements of organs of the state as detailed in National Assembly Rule 206. The focus that day would be on the Annual Report 2003/2004 of Stats SA and the Auditor-General’s qualified audit report.

Mr V Smith (ANC) noted that when the
Committee had reviewed in 2003 the Auditor-General’s Report on Stats SA of 2001/02, it had already been in difficulty and that this had not changed with the review of the 2003/2004 Report. It was crucial for the Accounting Officer to explain their position and Stats SA needed to implement a comprehensive plan to improve their credibility.

Internal audit, risk delegation, asset management, internal controls
Mr E Trent (DA) raised the point that in the Report by the Chairperson of the South African Statistics Council, it had admitted that SCOPA had correctly identified that the Council had overspent by a small amount, but the Council would not take responsibility since they had had no sight of the budget and did not receive financial reports. Mr Trent asked how any organisation could operate, not knowing how their budget was being spent.

Mr P Lehohla (Statistician General and Accounting Officer) replied that it had only been a small amount that was unaccounted for without it having being overseen by the Council.

Mr Trent asked whether the problem was to be found in the Council or whether the Council had a feasible answer for this form of negligence.

Mr Lehohla admitted that the Council had overspent, but that they had difficulty in managing their expenditure.

Mr Trent was concerned that Stats SA was responsible for inadequate management control and inefficient remedial action for two years in a row, after in-depth investigations had been done by this Committee to identify underlying issues. He referred to the Auditor-General’s Report of Points 5.2.2 (Implementation of internal audit recommendations is delayed) and 5.3 (Absence of a risk management strategy) and asked how far the Council had gone to improve on these inefficiencies during the two years since its 2001/02 Report was investigated by the Committee.

Mr Lehohla replied that since the last time they had appeared before the Committee, they had addressed a number of issues in terms of holding management accountable in order to improve on problem areas.

Mr Trent asked what the Committee could expect from the Council in their forthcoming report and whether the same issues would have to be addressed in the absence of effective action.

Mr Lehohla assured the Committee that the issues were being addressed and said that the next audit would take into account the issues that were raised during the meeting.

Mr Trent emphasised the weaknesses of the internal control elements in Stats SA and said that proper and effective delegation of management was needed. He asked if the Accounting Officer agreed that this was the heart of good financial management.

Mr Lehohla agreed that this was a matter of concern and that the Council had already put effort into treating these issues between 2001 and 2003, but there had been underlying difficulties preventing them from solving these issues.

Mr A Fanoe (Stats SA: Chief Financial Officer) said that the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) had seen to it that annual budget delegation was made. It had focused the Internal Audit division on determining whether Stats SA’s network of risk management, internal control systems and governance processes were adequate and functioning in a manner that ensured risks were appropriately identified and managed.

The Chairperson said that it was unacceptable that delegation of authority was inadequate (Point 5.2.1 of Report of the Auditor-General) and that R290 million had been requested by a person without the necessary authority. He asked the Accounting Officer to explain how this had occurred.

Mr Lehohla replied that this issue had been identified and rectified and he could assure the Committee that the Council had solved this problem.

Mr Trent asked what the underlying problem was with Stats SA’s inefficient management. He asked if it was a capacity problem that caused proper delegation to take so long.

Mr Lehohla replied that the Council had taken a liberal stance and allowed them to consult outside the Council in order to delegate responsibilities.

Mr Trent said that he failed to see how the core function of the Council was being implemented effectively. He asked if it should be blamed on poor management and if so, whether they were being held accountable for the money for which they were responsible.

Mr Smith queried whether attempts had been made to recover the debts that had been written off (Point 3.2 of Auditor-General’s Report). Mr Smith said that the Auditor-General believed that people were not being held accountable for their actions and asked the Accounting Officer if this situation had been rectified, and if so, how.

Mr Lehohla replied that the census programme had been managed by temporary staff, employed for two weeks or a month, and that this made it difficult to hold management accountable. This had delayed their implementation process and constrained their funds in each department and that this made it difficult to account for. It was not possible to track the people that were responsible for wrong census information (that was taken to form statistics), but that those that were in fact found were held responsible for their actions. There had been three cases where such action had been taken.

Mr Trent asked why the Auditor-General had provided a qualified audit report if it had indeed been incomplete.

Mr S Labuschagne (Auditor-General’s Office) said that the asset register was incomplete, resulting in the problems as mentioned in his Report under Point 3.3.

Mr Trent asked if assets were being taken home and whether they were accounted for and if not, whether the problem was being addressed.

Mr Lehohla replied that all assets had received a bar code in order to register them. He said that this new system was now tracking assets and that this was part of their future development plan.

Mr Trent asked if employees were allowed to take assets home.

Mr Lehohla replied that employees were allowed to take laptops home, but that these were tracked down and reported as soon as they were returned.

Mr Labuschagne said that the implementation of the asset registry service had not been faultless and that it had problems with determining the value of assets.

Mr Fanoe said that the new registry plan had recovered a huge amount of money, but that R6 million (computers) and R800 000 (other assets) still had to be reconciled. These losses had not been written off yet and that they were still attempting to reconcile these assets.

The Chairperson asked if a specific time frame for this reconciliation of assets could be given.

Mr Fanoe said that the Committee could expect a full report during the following week regarding how much time they would need to reconcile these assets.

Tax, ghost workers and advances
Ms L Mashiane (ANC) questioned the validity and accuracy of the deductions and tax payments made from 2001 to 2004, and asked why the documentation lacked this accuracy. She asked what had been done about these inaccuracies and if nothing had been done, why not and when would this be completed? Why had the supporting documents (on tax payments, deductions and reconciliations) been submitted late and had the taxes been recovered?

Mr Lehohla replied that these inefficiencies were mainly due to insufficient skills caused by a lack of effective financial management and that this had delayed the submission of their reports. Stats SA had recruited a company to do their reports but that they had done it incorrectly and Stats SA had to pay them. The reconciliation project was still in the process of recovering these taxes.

Mr Fanoe said that Stats SA managed their reconciliation programme along with SARS, but that they had not received a clarified report from the SA Revenue Services (SARS) on 26 February 2004 and that Stats SA was still waiting for this report.

Ms Mashiane asked if Stats SA and the service provider had effectively interacted with each other at managerial level in order to ensure that the requirements were being met.

Mr Lehohla answered that they had meetings where it became clear that their provider had not been effective and they therefore moved to Standard Bank to give them the service they required.

Ms Mashiane enquired that if any recoveries were made by Stats SA they had to give a written report to the Committee in order to evaluate their decisions and achievements. She asked what the initial problem and cost had been and what strategies had been implemented to prevent this from happening in the future.

Mr Lehohla replied that the cost of the reconciliation project had been influenced by high salary costs. In order not to be subjected to this expense in the future, they would implement a strategy of separating the duties of managers to take greater responsibility for what was being done with the money that was allocated to the different departments.

Ms Mashiane asked if the unaccounted for amount of money referred to in the Report, had been recovered by the responsible managers.

Mr Fanoe replied that he could not recall if it had been recovered and that he would have to send a written response within the next week. Mr Lehohla added that the person responsible for this loss had been convicted and that he would also report on this in the written response to the Committee.

Ms Mashiane requested that the South African Statistics Council be given a month to respond to the Committee with an update regarding unreconciled tax payments and also the actions that were followed in order to rectify this matter. She asked what had happened to the R1.3 million tax payments that had not been reconciled where the Auditor-General reported that this written off amount had not been investigated.

Mr Lehohla responded that the R1,3 million had been investigated in the last audit but that the problem was again that they had employed temporary census staff. In order for them to evaluate which offices had the highest amount that was not reconciled, they had to attempt to investigate those offices. They were financially constrained, because the costs of attempting these investigations amounted to a salary of R3 000 per worker for 100 workers.

Mr Labuschagne (Auditor-General’s Office) said that Stats SA needed a permanent staff structure in order for them to be accountable for the money delegated to them. The problem with accountability lay with the lack of responsibility taken by the authorities who had only temporary status. He asked the Accounting Officer to explain the current structure in terms of accountability.

Mr J Jacobs (National Treasury) explained that all monies were directly (electronically) placed into the many offices’ accounts in order for them to take responsibility and that there was no formal structure in place. He said that the Treasury had checked if the Accounting Officer followed all steps to reconcile monies and that if it was in fact the case; it was within the Council’s discretion to write it off.

Ms Mashiane said that she still was not satisfied with the Accounting Officer’s answer and asked if any financial planning was done before any census was undertaken. The Council should have planned for assistance to be in place regarding the management of the programme. She asked if any planning was taking place and if more effective planning would be done for the future in order to prevent the occurrence of the same problem.

Mr Lehohla replied that they had planned and were still planning. They had employed a person to manage the recruitment process in order to maintain permanent staff members, but that this person could not ‘handle what he was doing’. They were currently continuing the process themselves.

Procurement and non-compliance
Mr V Smith (ANC) referred to the years 2002 - 2004 where Stats SA had signed a contract with the same supplier, that had led to R19 million being overspent. Mr Smith asked if the Accounting Officer was aware that the approved tendered amount would be exceeded by R19 million and if they had followed the necessary steps to adjust the original budget.

Mr Fanoe replied that he had spoken to the manager responsible in order to attend to the tender allowance, but admitted that he did not go to the Tender Board.

Mr Smith said that the Council would have had to have back-up information in order not to go to the Tender Board but that this was not the case. The Council knew that they had to address the Tender Board in order to proceed with the transaction, but that they were in fact disregarding the rules. It seemed like a conscious decision not to follow the required procedures and that this was not only a case of negligence.

Mr Fanoe said that he would answer part of the question by stating that it was a business decision made by management in order to continue with the transaction.

Mr Smith asked if there was no other contractor available to do the transaction at a lower cost and why the Council had justified this over expenditure from the same contractor.

Mr Lehohla replied that their current supplier was the cheapest and that they had received the quotation showing that the amount would be much more only after the contract had been signed. They had to decide whether to end the contract and lose their money, or to provide the supplier with the extra funds in order to continue with the contract. He said that they were by then already in the middle of the process and had therefore decided to proceed with the transaction.

Mr Smith asked how management could justify the supplier being the cheapest option when it amounted to an extra R19 million. It was inexcusable that management had proceeded without considering the Tender Board’s requirements. He asked how a R19 million ‘mistake’ could have been made and blamed it not on negligence but on the Stats SA’s failure to ‘fight for a better price’ or to hold the supplier accountable to the original agreement.

Mr Lehohla replied that the their supplier did not know what it would actually cost until engaging with the project, because it was difficult to estimate the financial costs.

Mr Smith again raised his concern that the Stats SA did not make an informed decision and asked how they had penalised the contractor for increasing the price of their services.

Mr Lehohla admitted that it was not only the contractor that had raised the price, but that Stats SA also needed more HPE software than they had initially required.

Mr Smith said that the Auditor-General had written in his Report that tender procedures had not been followed, and asked how management could have had the attitude of disregarding tender procedures as required by the Tender Board.

Mr Lehohla admitted that the right procedures were not followed, but again said that management made the decision to use the same supplier.

Mr Smith asked if Mr Lehohla was saying that there was a ‘loophole’ in the state tender board regulations, and asked what should be done to ensure that the Council got permission from the Tender Board.

Mr Jacobs explained that Treasury had made provision for deviations and that if Stats SA had found that it had a problem that would lead to over expenditure, the Tender Board would have allowed them to continue the transaction if approached. The issue was not which supplier was being used, but that the Council could not be allowed to circumvent the Tender Board.

Mr Smith raised another issue concerning one of the departments of Stats SA employing the same consultant for a period of three years without binding this employee to a contract. A consultant was normally needed for only a short period of time and asked why his services were needed for such an extended period.

Mr Lehohla admitted that the person did not have a signed contract and that this salary formed part of other irregular payments that were made.

Mr Smith asked why the person was still assigned to do consultancy work in April 2004 without a signed contract because this had cost the organisation much money. Mr Smith asked if this was pure negligence or if this action had been based on a ‘no-care attitude’ that condoned irregular expenditures.

Mr Fanoe replied that this person had left the organisation in 2004 and that the situation had therefore been rectified.

Mr Smith asked if the person had been employed by the Human Resources department, and if so, whether the person responsible for this had been removed from the Human Resources department.

Mr Lehohla ended the topic by saying that all their employees normally signed contracts and therefore the situation had been rectified.

Mr Smith expressed his concern at the response that "it has been rectified" especially since SCOPA evaluated Stats SA’s performance only every two years. If SCOPA had to evaluate Stats SA’s performance every month, they would want a specific answer on what had been done at that moment, or else Stats SA had been neglecting the problem at the moment it had occurred. Mr Smith said that the Accounting Officer must see to it that the people responsible for such negligence were dismissed. He did not accept the argument that "things had been rectified", because the people responsible for the wrong-doings had to be punished in one way or another. Stats SA needed to develop a culture of accountability as seen in the corporate world.

Information Technology, BAS and LOGIS
Mr D Gumede (ANC) said he was concerned that a proper security and recovery plan did not exist within Stats SA - seeing that the integrity of the whole National Treasury rested on the credibility and accuracy of Stats SA. Corrupt information, as well as unauthorised access to information, was not permissible. He expressed his concern that the mainframe activity logs reflected that access was made by unauthorised people and that this had not been followed up or rectified by management. Mr Gumede asked how critical information could be reliable.

Mr Lehohla replied they were implementing a disaster recovery plan, but that it required more time in order to be effective. He said that employees had to change their passwords on a monthly basis.

Mr Gumede referred to the section stating, ‘Programmers had access to the live environment and the activity log files were not reviewed on a regular basis. User identifications and passwords were shared and the lack of proper segregation of duties made it impossible to determine responsibility for actions on the system’. He asked the Accounting Officer to clarify the cause for this.

Mr Lehohla admitted that it was true, but that as said before, the disaster recovery plan needed more time in order for the implementation to be more successful.

Mr Gumede asked if Mr Lehohla was indicating that the disaster recovery plan was working.

Mr Lehohla replied that the detail they had regarding this plan was fully backed-up and that they now needed a more comprehensive disaster recovery plan to improve on the success of the programme. He said that the storage space they had was inadequate and therefore the latest technology had to be installed.

Mr Gumede asked if the plans were included in a report and asked why the IT strategy was not in place.

Mr Lehohla replied that statistics were technology invested and that they had no implementation technology strategy and the information looked at issues of confidentiality and protection of access.

Mr Gumede asked what IT measures were used to ensure compliance with IT management.

Mr Fanoe said that various contracts on expenditure were made but that none was made with the IT management.

Mr Lehohla replied the project implementation would take about three years to succeed and that compliance had been assured from the IT management.

Mr Gumede emphasised the complexity of IT, but said that control measures that had to be taken were not as complex and that one did not need high qualifications in order to comply. He asked if Stats SA had improved on their operational control.

Mr Lehohla replied that all employees had information to guide them on how to use the technology and that their passwords were changed monthly in order to ensure compliance. He admitted that the control environment was still not adequate.

Mr Gumede asked what corrective steps had been taken in order to address control weaknesses, because the Committee did not want the same report from the Auditor-General in the future.

Mr Lehohla assured the Committee that the IT assets and qualifications would be taken care of.

Mr Gumede asked Mr Lehohla what resources and capacities they needed in order to comply with accountability requirements.

Mr Lehohla replied that funding was not the problem, but that they needed employees with the right skills as well as productive management and functional structures in order to implement their programs more efficiently.

Mr Gumede asked how the State Information and Technology Agency (SITA) was being used to help Stats SA improve their quality of service.

Mr Lehohla replied that SITA was providing Stats SA with the framework for the IT environment and could therefore help them to streamline their infrastructure in the future.

Mr Gumede asked what long-term Human Resource strategies were going to be implemented in order to rectify the skills shortage in critical areas.

Mr Lehohla replied that South Africa had a 30-year educational deficit and that there was no short cut in taking away this reality as well as no short-term solution. The only solution was to train people locally in skills to bring South Africa up to international standards. Therefore Stats SA had send 60 employees to multiple training centres outside the country. They were overseeing extensive training and that it was necessary to have an adequate training institute in South Africa in the future.

Human Resources issues
Mr R Mofokeng (ANC) said that the human resources figures (2001 until 2004) had identified some issues regarding open vacancies and SCOPA wanted clarity on why there were so many.

Mr Lehohla replied that the position of Deputy Director of Economic and Social Statistics had not been filled and that they had been trying to recruit a qualified person for the past couple of years without any success. It was difficult to find people with the required skills to fill the vacancies since South Africa had a sophisticated statistical system. They had only managed to get two adult trainers (during the past three years) to help them implement the structure of the new statistical system. They had reached the conclusion that one in every four people had to acquire the required skills from outside South Africa. They had employed short-term consultants from Chile and Australia to assist them in training processes.

The Chairperson said that the same response was given to the Committee on 22 August 2003 and asked if they had followed the right approach in addressing the issue if the same problems reoccurred.

Mr Lehohla replied that they were advertising the posts locally but that they could not get the right person to fill the opening. There was no university or organisation that taught the specific skills and that it took experience.

The Chairperson said that he still felt that they did not do enough to get the right person to fill the vacancy.

Mr Mofokeng said that he was concerned about the management of Stats SA. They had had three years to fill one vacancy, yet could not do so.

Mr Lehohla replied that they generally employed people if they were equipped with the right skills in the right disciplines, but that they could not find the right person to fill the post of the deputy director of economic and social statistics.

Mr Mofokeng asked if Stats SA was ready for the sample census in 2006 considering their high levels of human resource and skills shortages. He asked how often that census would have to be updated because of delays resulting from not having skilled people to perform the tasks.

Mr Lehohla replied that they planned to reach 300 000 households with their community service census programme in 2006. This sample would still be too small for such an exercise to be accurate, but that there was no shortcut in implementing the programme.

Mr Mofokeng said that the Committee would grand a period of 60 days to Stats SA to revise their reports and audits in the light of what was required from them, and to present a detailed and updated report on the effective steps they planned to take to fulfil these requirements.

The Chairperson concluded that Stats SA needed a pro-active strategy to ensure that the posts were filled and that South African people were involved and not mostly foreigners.

General questions
The Chairperson asked what assurance they could give to the Committee that there was a quality control programme within Stats SA being effectively implemented.

Mr Lehohla replied that Stats SA measured their quality by international standards and that it was crucial for South Africa to form part of the international community. They had completed some control programmes in Mpumalanga and Gauteng and that the full implication of these implementations would be seen in 2006. He said that the economic statistics must be addressed, covering what units were paying tax (with the help of SARS) and which were not in order to provide credible statistics. He said that this would be a step in the right direction in reporting credible statistics. He said that SARS provided user-friendly databases that were more effective than those provided by Microsoft, and by putting factual information into spreadsheets, more problems could be resolved.

Mr R Ndou (ANC) asked the Treasury to do checks and balances on Stats SA to ensure compliance and effective implementation of programmes for asset registration to be more efficient and to prevent further over-spending. He asked why Treasury had not been actively listening to and rectifying the problems that occurred within Stats SA.

Mr Jacobs (Treasury) replied that they could not be held responsible, nor take the blame for the inefficient management. The Treasury was only there to provide guidance to Stats SA, but that they had to implement and monitor the programmes on their own account. It was the Auditor-General’s responsibility to put in a report in order to be reviewed by SCOPA. The Treasury had taken up certain issues, but that they could not do it on a daily basis and that was why the Auditor-General had been assigned his post. He concluded that the National Treasury worked in a team with Stats SA and needed them to hold themselves to the requirements as agreed upon.

Mr Smith asked Mr Lehohla what had been done regarding the suspension of those in managerial posts that should be held accountable for their wrong doings. He also asked Treasury if a ten-year plan was adequate for planning, because the current statistics were out of date. He asked if ten years was not too long and were they already actively planning along with Stats SA.

Mr Lehohla responded that they had already suspended a person that did not fulfil the required duties. They would attend to the requirements as early as possible and that the suspension process had started in May 2004. Regarding their planning, Stats SA was planning for 2011 and that they were doing research in the field. The Minister determined how often a census would be conducted and that he had decided that no census would be done in 2006. His advice to government was that the sample should be adequate. Addresses had to be allocated to citizens for registration purposes. Stats SA had detailed mathematical models that should increase the level of accuracy and reliability of the statistics in order for six million households to be covered. Getting the address register was very important in order to get an integrated research register because the framework for statistics needed to be credible.

Mr Jacobs said that the Minister had communicated with Treasury that the community should stay informed, even though no census would be done in 2006.

Ms T Tobias (ANC) raised a concern on the use of a public address register in the Northern Cape, since people were highly mobile in that province. She asked how Stats SA planned to implement their programme successfully in this province.

Mr Lehohla replied that they were working on a comparative analysis in order to compare Stats SA with other countries like Australia, China and the US. Their census was done via a questionnaire that was sent to the people. He said that their use of the comparative analysis was important in order to understand their methods. He said in order to critique them within Stats SA, comparative analysis was needed. It was important to have a permanent field force in order to follow up on their findings in the years to come.

Mr Smith concluded that SCOPA was still concerned with certain aspects within Stats SA’s Audit Report and that they expected to receive a developed report in the next meeting that addressed the problems that were brought up by the Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.



The Special Defence Account (SDA) was instituted in terms of section 1 of the Defence Special Account Act, 1974 (Act No. 6 of 1974), to defray the expenditure and purchases incurred for special defence activities as approved from time to time by the Ministers of Finance and Defence. Income is derived mainly from interest received and proceeds from the sale of armament, in addition to the amount allocated annually from the vote.

The largest part of the SDA's expenditure, namely R7 073 239 000 (2002-03: R6 150 901 000), was incurred by Armscor, while the balance of R201 204 000 (2002-03: R238 507 000) was incurred and administered by the Department of Defence (DOD). The chief executive officer of Armscor and the Secretary for Defence, respectively, are accountable.

The total expenditure of a sensitive nature, which totalled R49 148 000 for 2003-04 (2002- 03: R41 359 000), was subjected to an audit for the year under review.

The financial statements as set out on pages 212 to 219, for the year ended 31 March 2004, have been audited in terms of section 188 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act No. 108 of 1996), read with sections 3 and 5 of the Auditor-General Act, 1995 (Act No. 12 of 1995) and section 5 of the Defence Special Account Act, 1974. These financial statements, the maintenance of effective control measures and compliance with relevant laws and regulations are the responsibility of the accounting officer. My responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements, based on the audit.

The audit was conducted in accordance with Statements of South African Auditing Standards. Those standards require that I plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatement.

An audit includes:
- examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements,
- assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and - evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Furthermore, an audit includes an examination, on a test basis, of evidence supporting compliance in all material respects with the relevant laws and regulations which came to my attention and are applicable to financial matters. I believe that the audit provides a reasonable basis for my opinion.

3.1 Level of audit assurance
Owing to the following inherent aspects, the level of audit assurance is lower than is normally the case with ordinary audits:
- The nature of certain transactions and the circumstances in which they are incurred and recorded.
- The circumstances in which assets and services are procured and utilised within the sensitive projects.

In my opinion, the financial statements fairly present, in all material respects, the financial position of the Special Defence Account at 31 March 2004 and the results of its operations and cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with prescribed accounting practice and in the manner required by the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No. 1 of 1999) (PFMA).

The DOD has reacted favourably to the SCOPA resolutions, however, corrective actions to resolve the issues may take longer than one year.

The DOD has finalised one of the six items reported on in the previous financial year and is currently in the process of addressing the other outstanding items. For more detail in this regard, refer to annexure A.

The assistance rendered by the staff of the DOD and Armscor during the audit is sincerely appreciated.

S A Fakie
28 July 2004


No related


No related documents


  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: