Financial Misconduct in Government Departments: Public Service Commission report
Public Service and Administration
21 September 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE; JOINT BUDGET
COMMITTEE
21 September 2007
FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS: PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPORT
Chairperson: Mr P Gomomo (ANC)
Documents handed out:
Public Service
Commission Report on Financial Misconduct for 2005/06 financial year
Public Service
Commission (PSC) presentation
Audio
recording of meeting
SUMMARY
The Public Service Commission briefed both the Portfolio Committee on
Public Service and Administration and the Joint Budget Committee on their
2005/06 Financial Misconduct in the Public Service Report. The report showed an
increase in the number of cases of financial misconduct, which could be due to
the better reporting by departments. In total, there were 771 cases. The high prevalence of the fraud and theft offences remained
disconcerting and could be ascribed to a lack of proper control systems. Of the 771 cases,
81% of the employees were found guilty of financial misconduct. In 23
disciplinary cases, the matter was not finalised because the people concerned
had resigned. Criminal proceedings were instituted in 25% of the cases. The
departments needed to provide reasons to the PSC why criminal proceedings were
not instituted in 49% of cases but failed to do so.
Members were concerned about the follow-up strategies to ensure implementation
of the PSC recommendations. The Committees agreed that they would have to come
up with a resolution addressing the financial misconduct problems in the public
service such as tightening control systems.
MINUTES
Ms Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko (PSC Commissioner)
opened the briefing on the Financial Misconduct Report for 2005/06. She
identified financial misconduct as an indicator of the extension of corruption
in the public sector. The Financial Misconduct Report flowed from the Public
Finance Management Act (PFMA) that required the Minister of Public Service and
Administration to make regulations prescribing the manner, form and
circumstances in which allegations, disciplinary and criminal charges of
financial misconduct should be reported.
Treasury regulations specify that all departments report the outcome of their
finalised misconduct cases to the Public Service Commission.
Ms Caroline Mampuru (Chief Director) continued, saying that the report’s role
was to indicate the current status of financial misconduct in departments.
Public servants were expected to administer public resources in an accountable
and transparent manner, hence the need for such a report. She noted that the
Public Service Commission found that not all departments reported to them on
financial misconduct although they were compelled to do so in terms of Treasury
regulations. Alternatively the prescribed information supplied was insufficient
which meant that PSC had to do much follow-up work. There had been an increase
in the number of cases in the 2005/06 financial year, which could be ascribed
to better reporting by departments.
All 34 national departments had submitted reports with 10 reporting no
financial misconduct cases. All provincial departments had submitted reports
except for Gauteng’s Education Department. Of the 105 reports, 54 reported no
financial misconduct cases. In total, there were 771 cases in 2005/06. The
results showed that financial misconduct in national departments was higher
than the provincial departments.
Ms Mampuru provided a detailed overview of the
statistics for 2005/06. Fraud and theft had been the most prevalent offences
with employees in the salary range 6 and 7 having the highest number of
financial misconduct cases. The high prevalence of
these offences remained disconcerting and could be ascribed to a lack of proper
control systems.
Of the 771
cases, 81% of the employees were found guilty of financial misconduct. In 23
disciplinary cases, the matter was not finalised because the people concerned
had resigned. Criminal proceedings were instituted in 25% of the cases. The
departments failed to give reasons why criminal proceedings were not instituted
in 49% of cases.
In conclusion, Ms Mampuru said that the PSC had recommended
that the National Treasury should review the Treasury Regulations with a view
to compelling departments to report financial costs as a result of financial
misconduct and their success in the recovery of the debt.
Discussion
The Chairperson congratulated the Commission on their report.
Ms Diseko stated that the report enabled one to understand the scale of the
problem by providing tangible figures as opposed to perceptions. She pointed
out that there were 771 cases out of a total of 1.2 million public service
employees. The Commission did have concerns where they received returns from
departments stating nil cases.
Mr B Nguni (ANC) appreciated the input and commented on the effort that went
into the construction of the Public Finance Management Act since it was
instrumental in the proper functioning of government. He requested clarity on
the number of misconduct cases that were detected at production level (salary levels 1 to 8). He wondered what role the Education Department should
play in educating citizens about values. Non-compliance meant that there was a
problem and whenever a problem needed solving, one could take various routes.
The first would be taking action, educating and correcting. The only option
evident from the Commission’s report was punitive sanctions such as dismissal.
He asked what measures were taken to educate these people and put corrective
measures in place.
Ms Diseko agreed that education should be at the core and one should keep on
educating employees.
Ms N Dambuza (ANC) agreed with the PSC that it was the lack of proper control
systems within departments. They had also observed such challenges as the
Portfolio Committee on Housing.
Ms Diseko stated that the recommendations were to tighten the control systems
within departments. Focus would be on developing appropriate mechanisms.
Ms Dambuza wondered how employees who resigned in one department due to
investigation of financial misconduct, could be appointed by another
department.
Ms Diseko replied that they had noted the long, dragged-out investigations of
financial misconduct cases, which resulted in departments employing people that
were being investigated in another department. It was the onus of the
individual departments to do a follow-up and compel potential employees to
provide referees from their former department.
Ms Dambuza asked what kind of powers did the Commission have to enforce the
regulations for departments to report on financial misconduct. She also
commented on the financial implications of someone being suspended on full pay
and wondered how that could be addressed.
Mr G Scheeman (ANC) was interested about the impact these cases would have on
the running of the department and the implementation of government programmes.
Ms Diseko responded that every Rand lost had an impact on service delivery as
that money could be used in a programme that would benefit society. For
instance money that could be used for feeding had direct consequences on the
child.
Mr S Dithebe (ANC) referred to potential collaboration between the Public
Protector and the Public Service Commission. He asked if the Commission had had
cases where members of the public who knew of financial misconduct, had
reported it to the Public Protector that in turn referred this to the Public
Service Commission - instead of relying on the departments only.
Ms Diseko replied that they do get cases reported by ordinary citizens to the
Public Service Commission through the National Anti-Corruption hotline. She
noted that it would be important for the Commission not to duplicate the Public
Protector’s role but resolve issues speedily that relate to corruption and
redress.
Mr Dithebe agreed that 771 cases out of a million public service employees were
not alarming. However, he was alarmed by the financial costs associated with
it, which was R45 million.
Ms Diseko replied that the R45 million figure was provided in relation to the
total cost emanating from unauthorized, irregular and
fruitless and wasteful expenditure plus losses resulting from criminal conduct
reported by departments. Members would be able to question the
specific departments on those figures. The role of the Commission was to do
oversight and report on what had happened.
Ms Mampuru added that the figures should be viewed with an understanding that
there was an amount of R92 million that represented a single case in the
Eastern Cape last year so that might have inflated the cost shown. The R92
million had been recovered.
Mr Dithebe referred to cases where no criminal charges were instituted by the
department and asked what powers did the Commission have to compel the
departments to do so.
Ms Diseko replied that they have begun to issue summons to Directors General of
departments to invoke their power. They hope to draw on the benefits of the
Public Service Amendment Bill to resolve issues quickly.
Mr Swart wondered why only 25% had criminal proceedings instituted against
them.
Ms Mampuru replied that the nature of the allegations did not require criminal
prosecutions. For example, some of the cases were as a result of negligence or
failure to comply with policies and these do not allow for criminal
prosecution. Referral to law enforcement would only be necessitated by theft
and fraud offences. The biggest challenge the Commission had was the
departments not providing explanations why they had not referred cases for
criminal prosecution.
Ms Diseko mentioned that the Commission did not tolerate any form of
corruption. They had brought the real scale of what was happening in the public
service instead of perceptions.
Mr Dithebe acknowledged these responses but was still not convinced. The
Commission said it was “issuing summons” but the presenter was not
specific. The Commission’s Report
stated on the matter of criminal proceedings instituted against employees
charged with financial misconduct, that “following analysis of cases in fraud,
theft and corruption, it was found that departments indicated in 13 cases that
criminal proceedings were not instituted against employees that had committed
financial misconduct in excess of R100 000”. Given the summons powers conferred
upon the Commission, why did they not act in these particular cases?
Ms Diseko clarified that the Public Service Commission performed an oversight
role where it investigated cases and forwarded recommendations to specific
departments. The Commission unraveled the corruption and recommended to
Ministers to take particular action where they should institute legal
proceedings together with the accounting officers. The Commission could only
pressurise Ministers on Parliament’s behalf as to why the Ministers had not
instituted legal action.
Mr Dithebe stated that he was more concerned with what was in the document in
front of him, not the general processes. That was the R100 000 figure where no
criminal charges were instituted in 13 cases.
Ms Mampuru replied that the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act
made it mandatory for amounts in excess of R100 000, to be reported by persons
in authority. She said that it was worrisome to the Commission that this was
not happening.
The Chairperson mentioned that the Committee’s particular concerns were on the
follow-up measures taken after the Commission’s recommendations had been sent
to the departments.
Mr R Baloyi (ANC) said that he appreciated the initiative or structures created
by government that addressed financial matters that concerned the public. He
appreciated the zero tolerance stance initiated by government that was achieved
through such reports. However, it was unacceptable to have increased figures of
financial misconduct. The resignation of investigated employees served as
stumbling blocks in addressing such issues. He noted that 497 of 771 cases were
fraud and theft related.
Ms Diseko said that she was pleased that the Committee was engaging with the
Commission on these issues and that the Committee found these matters were
unacceptable. Government needed these kinds of inputs.
Mr Baloyi stated that the Public Service Commission had reported and now they
collectively had to look at the way forward to try and address these problems.
Members of Parliament would have to do something about these recommendations to
prevent the figure from growing.
Mr Schneeman referred to the 318 cases where no criminal action was taken. He
asked if any action was taken in these cases.
Mr Schneeman asked if strong enough action was taken against everyone
and if the processes addressing financial misconduct were satisfactory.
Ms Mashigo wondered about the recovery plan for the money that was misused.
Ms Mampuru replied that the Pensions Act made provision in situations where
someone stole money from government or was involved in fraud, to enable such
money to be obtained from their pension money. Some departments would use
criminal and civil processes to recover the money However those methods would
take time and they would not be visible in this financial year but in the next
one.
Mr Gcwabaza appreciated the work of the Commission and stated that they would
need the support of Parliament.
Mr Gcwabaza requested clarity on slide 14 where it referred to the
increase in the number of cases yet a substantial decrease in the financial
costs. He wondered about its accuracy in the light of departments failing to
report on the financial misconduct “costs” to the Commission. He asked if the
Commission had information on measures taken to recover state funds that had
been lost through financial misconduct. If someone resigned before criminal
proceedings had been concluded, how would they ensure that the person repays
the stolen money?
Mr Keke asked if the Commission worked with the Auditor General when gathering
information.
Ms Diseko answered that they had looked at the Audit Reports of the Auditor
General, and collaborated and they had a memorandum with the Auditor General to
avoid duplication.
Mr Mkhaliphi indicated that some departments did not report cases of financial
misconduct in their annual reports and asked if there were measures the
Commission had taken to address this.
Ms Diseko replied that departments were required to report misconduct cases in
their annual reports according to Treasury regulations and if they did not
include this, then the report would be incomplete.
Mr Mkhaliphi referred to the Eastern Cape’s large numbers of cases and wondered
if it was not due to the fact that there had been a dedicated focus
specifically on that province.
Ms Diseko answered that the Eastern Cape was a case worth looking at. When they
first went to visit the Eastern Cape, they were worried because there were no
control systems in place in the departments. However, she had visited the
Eastern Cape last month and there had been a major improvement. The Eastern
Cape now had good practices.
Mr Mkhaliphi wondered if there were any follow-up measures for the
departments that had not reported properly.
Ms Diseko responded that they hoped they would get to a point where Parliament
would expect departments not complying with the regulations to account for the
work they had not done.
Mr Dithebe complimented the Commission on their positive role. He wondered
about the internal audit committees that should assist the Auditor General and
asked if procedures for audit committees in the departments were standard and
there was compliance.
Ms Diseko responded that there was a whole new culture of financial management
and accountability that had been put in place. The audit committee standard is
not up to scratch so the PSC is hoping they will improve on a continual basis
with the PSC’s input. Departments had been battling with investigative capacity
in following up corruption cases and this would link with the work of the audit
committee.
The Chairperson noted the privilege of being exposed to this kind of report. He
acknowledged the challenge of conducting oversight work and the importance of
follow-up made by those who had reported. This applied not only to the PSC but
everyone. He spoke of Members of Parliament who forget what recommendations they
had adopted because they do not have follow-up strategies and have to attend
numerous meetings. They had to act on the recommendations emerging from such
reports.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- 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.