Special Investigations Unit and Department on Corruption: briefings

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
7 June 2005
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT AND DEPARTMENT ON CORRUPTION: BRIEFINGS

Chairperson:

Ethics, Compliance and Corruption Prevention: Department briefing
Department Medical Aid Investigation Report: Special Investigations Unit briefing
Jali Commission findings

SUMMARY
The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) gave a report on its investigation into corruption in the Department of Correctional Service’s medical aid scheme. The presentation focused on how doctors and Department staff had worked together to defraud the scheme, as well as progress made in the investigation. The Department, in the presence of the Minister, then presented on their Corruption Prevention Strategy. This briefing focused on how corruption could have been prevented through more staff ethics education. The Department wanted to identify corrupt staffmembers in their communication strategy. This should act as a deterrent to possible culprits.

The Members’ main concerns were how a convicted corrupt practitioner could be identified by other schemes, the extent of the corruption and its cost to the state. The Department report also raised concerns over how the ‘whistle-blowing policy’ was being enforced. The Committee agreed on the need for ongoing ethics education. The Department needed an estimate on the extent of the corruption.

MINUTES

Special Investigations Unit briefing
Mr F Davids, SIU Deputy Head, gave a presentation on their progress in uncovering medical aid corruption. He reviewed the background, mandate, growth and why the Unit had become involved. He highlighted the partnership between the SIU and the Department, starting with the Jali Commission in September 2001.

Mr Davids listed the advantages to the Department, including the recovery of funds, disciplinary hearings for officials, and building staff anti-corruption capacity. The most important focus areas of the investigation had been the medical aid payments at pharmacies, private medical aid connected practitioners, and staffmembers at 179 correctional centres around the country.

Three typical frauds were the charging of payments to innocent Department officials’ accounts; excessive claims; and the supply of non-medical goods (such as groceries) on the patient’s medical aid scheme. Mr Davids gave a summary of the methodology used to investigate the case. The medical scheme database was analysed and a claims profile had been drawn up for individual medical practitioners. If a practitioner was suspected, s/he was turned over to the Department, SAPS or Asset Forfeiture Unit.

The results of the investigation were that R12 million had been recovered, 163 Department staffmembers had been referred to disciplinary hearings, and 132 people now faced criminal charges.

Discussion
Ms S Seaton (IFP) asked whether other medical aid schemes had been notified about corrupt practitioners found guilty as a result of these investigations. Mr Davids replied that practitioners had been ‘red flagged’ after they had been found guilty. The Department Administrator of the medical scheme would notify the scheme.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) enquired about the extent of the damage and corruption. Ms S van Tonder (Chief Forensic Investigator) replied that it was hard to give an exact breakdown of medical and non-medical fraud. Such an inquiry could be done at the Committee’s request. Mr G Visagie (Head of Operations) said that these figures were hard to determine as people generally ‘did not keep records of their wrongdoings’. A string of arrests would follow soon, and they would be able to get information as a result of these arrests.

Department briefing
Ms J Schneider (Department Chief Deputy Commissioner) gave a presentation about their strategy to prevent corruption. The programme had a three-pronged approach: prevention, investigation and social responsibility. The aim was to ‘close the gaps’ in the system.

The Department had established their own Fraud Detection Unit. A culture of intimidation prevailed in the Department that hampered ‘whistle-blowing’ policies. She emphasised the need to make responsibility to report corruption a part of the Department’s communication strategy. Coupled with this was the need for ethics training for senior staff, and the need to report the results of disciplinary hearings as a deterrent.

Discussion
Mr J Selfe (DA) asked if the Department had estimated the extent of the corruption. Mr L Mti (Commissioner) replied that the scope of corruption was too wide to even give an estimate.

Mr Selfe then asked whether appointing people from within the Department had hampered the impartiality of the investigation. Mr Mti answered that it was important for the Department to build its own capacity to investigate corruption, but that they still needed outside assistance in handling cases and monitoring investigations.

Mr Selfe wanted to know how staff were protected from inmates with ‘gang connections’, and whether the ‘whistle blowing’ policy had been extended to inmates. Mr Mti said there were particular steps to be taken if a staffmember’s life were threatened. The policy had been extended to prisoners, but that the system was open to abuse as inmates could earn shorter sentences by exposing corruption. Ms Schneider added that inmates were regulated by a different policy, and that the remissions system would be reviewed soon.

Mr Selfe’s requested a copy of the ‘whistle blowing policy’ for the Committee to use at future meetings.

Ms S Rwexana (ANC) asked how the Department dealt with staffmembers who were not breaking the law, but who did not operate in an ethical manner. Would ethics training be given to staff at all levels? Mr Mti said they would look into this option.

Mr N Fihla commented that the continuous education of staff might have prevented this corruption situation.

Minister N Balfour said that there was a culture of intimidation within the Department. He proposed employing new people who had not been tainted by previous corrupt practices.

The Commissioner concluded that cases of corruption would be reported as soon as possible. He echoed Members’ and officials’ desires for ongoing staff ethics training.

The meeting was adjourned.