General Report of the Auditor-General : discussion & Special Investigating Unit’s Relationship with SCOPA
Public Accounts (SCOPA)
20 November 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
PUBLIC
ACCOUNTS STANDING COMMITTEE
20 November 2007
GENERAL REPORT OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL 2006/07: DISCUSSION & SPECIAL
INVESTIGATING UNIT’S RELATIONSHIP WITH SCOPA
Chairperson: Mr T
Godi (APC)
Documents handed out:
SIU: Presentation
to SCOPA
Audio recording of
meeting
SUMMARY
The Auditor-General (AG) presented a report to the Committee,
highlighting the major issues that arose with qualified reports of Departments.
The concerns addressed
the number of qualified
reports, the timeliness if the reports
and compliance issues. There was often lack of leadership within the
departments and lack of skills within the management and accounting
departments. A major reason for qualifications across the board was incorrect
reflection of assets, and qualifications in respect of expenditure as departments
were not disclosing vital spending information. Ideas for improvement included
having a clearly defined action plan, goals and milestones as well as clearly
defined skills sets and a monitoring tool.
Members also discussed the need for a proper fixed asset register, the need to
consider hiring more people with experience rather than overqualified people,
the non-attendance of key officials during the audit process, training courses
for auditing, a more coordinated framework, a need to implement a better
business process and the need to strengthen support units.
The Special Investigating Unit gave a report on its aims, mandates and
activities to the Committee and discussed the possibility of forging a
relationship with SCOPA. It indicated that type of work that it undertook, and
described the relationships with other departments involved in law enforcement.
Lack of capacity within the state was a problem and the Unit was building new
capacity which would enable it to deal with more cases of corruption and
maladministration, rather than outsourcing to private investigators.
The Committee discussed referrals of departments to the SIU, adequate reasons
for referrals, the methods of contacting the SIU, forming a more cooperative
relationship with the government and the steps of the investigation process.
MINUTES
Auditor General’s Report 2006/07
Mr Terence Nombembe, Auditor General, stated that the purpose of his Report
was to highlight certain issues and root causes of problems, as this would
assist the Committee to pick up issues and help with identifying symptoms of
problems in the future. The information would assist in collaborating with
other oversight structures to ensure that problems would be taken care of, as
well as to encourage other Portfolio Committees to do better.
Mr Nombembe indicated that the analysis of the reports had indicated that most
departments had an issue with asset management. He also noted that over 30% of
the departments still had qualifications relating to expenditure. This was
worrying as it meant that departments were not disclosing information. He
warned that more of an effort was needed so that the problem did not go
unattended.
The issue of disclosure centered on the ability of departments to account for
the number of assets or liabilities that they held. There were also issues
regarding compliance with legislation, particularly the Public Finance
Management Act (PFMA) as well as with the National Treasury regulations.
Mr Nombembe gave some pointers as to how departments could achieve a better
audit result. He looked at the role of leadership in entities and the need to
implement an action plan so that departments could move to having unqualified
opinions. The plans must have clearly defined milestones that would facilitate
ongoing and effective monitoring of progress in addressing their shortcomings.
At a strategic level, milestones enabled leadership to ask the right questions
at the right level.
The effectiveness of the internal audit committee was very important as it
meant that the bulk of the labour that was required to undertake the detailed
analysis to pick up areas of effectiveness could be deployed. It was a reality
that accounting officers would never be effective in dealing with issues unless
the right assistance was given by the internal auditing department in ensuring
that there was compliance and that the right controls were being used by the
departments.
There was also a need for an effective monitoring tool or checklist to enable
leadership to do effective management and monitoring of controls within
departments. The AG’s staff were looking at how this
could be piloted or implemented for the assistance of departments. They were
also looking at strengthening their own unit as well as that of the Provincial
Treasury.
The Auditor-General addressed the issue of the skills level. He wanted to look
at how to identify and define a proper skills set for
financial management in government. A clearly defined strategic framework was
needed to cover the type of skills that were needed. The reality was that
departments did not necessarily need everyone to be highly qualified
accountants but rather they needed a blend of qualified people who could deal
with complexities in certain departments and who could do basic administration
of funding.
Audit standards were premised on the international standards of auditing. Audit
quality was assessed through two critical processes. When the audit was
completed a review was given and a second auditor, who was not involved with
the audit itself, would go through the file again. It was important to ensure
that all the quality aspects were accurate. The second aspect was the
consistency review, where a comparative analysis of all the findings was made
to ensure that similar conclusions were reached. The two internal processes
were superimposed by an internal review from the regulatory report of auditors.
This helped to ensure that conclusions were authentic, valid and of good
substance.
On the accounting side, the AG would use the framework that was prescribed by
the National Treasury (NT). The AG ensured that there was an understanding
between his office and the National Treasury so there was no dispute about
which accounting treatment they should be auditing. An important principle was
established between the AG and the NT, that auditors
did not get involved in accounting matters. It was the role of the NT and
Provincial Treasury to prescribe and provide clarity on accounting treatments.
The auditors’ role was to pick up on issues and refer them to NT.
The departments’ ability to make positive conclusions
on information depended on the rollout of guidance from the National and
Provincial Treasury. It was therefore important to strengthen the Provincial
Treasury’s capacity structures to allow for better support. The AG also worked
closely with the Accounting Standards Board (ASB) to ensure that the basis of
the standards prescribed for government were based on the analysis of the
readiness of the departments to cope with these standards and to ensure that
the migration from cash to accrual accounting was appropriate.
Mr Nombembe focused on consolidated financial statements, looking particularly
to the consolidation that related to the aggregation of numbers. The NT and ASB
were making an effort to interpret the consolidation standards as defined by
the ASB. They were looking at how the standards applied to the public sector.
Mr Nombembe also described good practices of financial management and
reporting. There were highlights from other practices in moving from the cash
to accrual accounting systems. Certain departments could, with the right amount
of effort, move toward having unqualified opinions. Provincial departments
could also move to getting unqualified reports. Issues of disclosure must be
considered in order to make that move. He stressed again that incomplete
treatment of assets was most often the basis of the qualifications.
This Committee should examine what those departments with unqualified reports
had done to reach that status. Regular interaction was observed. Even for
departments with unqualified reports, issues of concern were timeliness,
quality, availability of key officials and internal control practices. These
departments would need to use the framework as a checklist so as to achieve
unqualified audit opinions. Measuring themselves against the framework would
help them to move to where they should be.
Mr Nombembe identified the extent to which departments submitted their
financial reports on time and to what extent auditors responded to legislative
responsibilities to finish the audits on time. It was noted that there were
high levels of compliance in achieving targets and completing all audits on
time. Reasons for incompletion of audits stemmed from delays in submissions of
financial information. There were also sometimes delays from the auditing side
as they wanted to ensure quality in their own internal practices.
Discussion
The Chairperson thanked the Auditor-General for the presentation, which
contained important and useful information and was well-structured.
Mr M Stephens (DA) wanted to know, with regard to troublesome departments and
entities, if the reason for the qualifications to the reports was that some
people in management did not take bookkeeping seriously. He also noted that
many advertisements for financial positions indicated many years experience as
a requirement. Top qualifications were not necessarily needed as sound
knowledge and experience were also important. He wondered if departments were
targeting the right people and if they should approach advertising
differently.
Mr E Trent (DA) informed members that his question stemmed from a previous
briefing, when Mr Nombembe informed the Committee that there was a leadership
problem. He was concerned about the turnover in top management of departments.
He enquired if this impacted adversely on the leadership roles of those
departments or entities.
Mr B Pule (UPSA) asked what the general reasons were for not producing the
financial statements on time. He also asked what the reasons were for the
non-attendance of key officials during the audit process.
The Chairperson looked at root causes linked to qualifications for departments.
He focused on the monitoring leadership tool and stated that it was applicable
to all the issues that had been identified. Leadership also featured as a root
cause for problems. There were similar problems with leadership with regard to
Provincial Departments. The key question was to what extent the leadership role
deficiency was the result of the inability of people to do their work
effectively, and to what extent it was a product of skills shortage resulting
from vacancies.
The AG stated that the attitude towards accounting was a very real problem as
there were instances where people who attended training programmes who had very
little or no understanding of accounting practices. Other people who attended
the training courses were not going to be the ones doing the report or those
who would be held accountable. Some people attending the training sessions did
not even know what Generally Accepted Accounting Principles were.
A more coordinated framework was needed for the level of accounting skills
needed by the Government. The National Treasury had a framework, but there was
a question of how it would be implemented across the board.
Mr Freeman Nomvalo, The Accountant-General, informed members that this
framework was developed for local government institutions. The concepts in the
framework could easily be applied nationally and provincially, with slight
modifications. He confirmed that some departments were sending the incorrect
people to the training sessions and this did not achieve the desired effect.
There were also issues relating to the understanding of accounting principles,
and the training programmes were geared to those who already understood the
basics of financial management, so they could go back and apply what they
learnt in training to the financial statements.
Mr Nombembe then addressed the issue of the availability of key officials
during the audit. He stated that this was a practice that the AG wanted to
encourage as the availability of officials during the audit process improved
the reports immensely. He noted that there was a great correlation between
requirements and results of the audits but that the lack of an accounting
practice resulted in difficulties when resolving issues.
Mr Nombembe said the general reason for the delays with financial statements
had to do with the quality of the statements. There was an inability to support
and substantiate the numbers with credible information, and this led to
material adjustments having to be done during the audit.
With regard to the leadership issue, the involvement of leadership during the
analysis of information created a higher degree of awareness of what roles and
responsibilities leadership had in government. The AG created a template for
monitoring financial management and were in the
process of implementing the system to work through financial matters. This
specialised area was affected by a competency issue.
Where there were vacancies, this was aggravated by instability in leadership
and was also affected by the competency issue. Where there was a lack of
leadership, the situation became even worse. The AG would like to see a level
of leadership that was less susceptible to volatility. This meant leadership at
the level of administrators and premiers.
Mr Nombembe stated that there was a need to strengthen support units such as internal
auditors, audit committees, as well as Provincial and National Treasury, so
that the leadership could be given the right amount of information to allow
them to make better business decisions. Empowering these structures would mean
better collaboration and coordination towards goals.
Mr V Smith (ANC) thought that the Auditor-General’s road shows were too
narrowly focused. He thought the AG should educate the Public Accounts
Committees as well as the “man on the street”. There needed to be a broader
education that highlighted shortcomings found in the report. Often people did
not understand the reports. Useful information was not being utilised.
Mr Smith stated that they had correctly highlighted responsibilities of the
Accounting Officer and Auditor-General in the report, but warned that they
needed to include consequences as this added pressure. They needed to make more
of an effort for the process to work. He wanted to know what the AG was
planning on doing differently. National Treasury needed to find a solution to
the problem.
Mr Smith noted that most of the disclaimers or qualified issues stemmed from
not having any reliable fixed asset register. This would be one of the biggest
problems when moving from a cash to an accrual basis.
It would not be possible to move to accrual if the issue with the fixed assets
register was not regularised.
Mr Smith also raised the issue of leases. He stated that the report showed that
the Government did not know its liabilities with regard to lease commitments or
future commitments. The AG needed to inform the Committee when lease
commitments were being exceeded as future generations would have to pay for
them if the problems went unattended.
Mr P Gerber (ANC) stated that it appeared that Provincial Public Entities were
worrisome as the number of disclaimers had doubled, as well as the number of
qualified reports. He asked the AG to comment on this problem and asked if the
issue related to the capacity of provinces to manage public entities.
The Chairperson also wanted the AG to expand on the instability of public
entities.
Mr Nombembe said that there was instability in terms of the registering of
public entities and the ability to know how many there were. This resulted in
the AG not knowing how many entities to audit. He informed members that the AG
and Treasury were having ongoing discussions to put systems in place that set a
stable register of public entities. The reality was that the list of public
entities was not properly formalized, and there was a need for a formal audit.
It would have to establish capacity to do this.
With regard to the question on provincial entities, he noted that at a Provincial level issues coincided with reporting
requirements of the International Standards of Auditing (ISA). The AG was
mindful that more elaboration was needed on the impact on some of the findings.
The report had just focused on root causes at this stage, but would focus on
impacts next.
Mr Nombembe expressed confusion at what Mr Smith meant by “consequences”.
Having looked at the impacts, he assumed that Mr Smith was looking the actions
that would be taken if people did not perform. This was an area that the Public
Service Commission (PSC) could take up effectively. Collaborations had already
started with regard to goals set out in the mandate. Government would be
encouraged to deal with consequences properly.
The Auditor-General agreed that the road shows needed to be extended in terms
of coverage and broader education. There was still more work to be done and the
AG’s office was establishing a stakeholder relationship unit simply to address
questions that were raised. IT was also working on popularising and making the
reports more understandable to the general public. There was also more action
with civil society.
Mr Nomvalo addressed the public entities issue. He stated that part of the
problem was the establishment of the public entities, as there were certain
steps that needed to be taken. This process was not always followed.
Departments needed to inform the Treasury that an entity had been established.
There were instances where departments established public entities against the
Treasury’s advice. Although there was a formal process, it was not always
followed. The Treasury had established a Public Entity Governance Unit, which
was looking into issues and updating the list. Treasury also worked through
this Unit to follow up on some of the issues.
The Chairperson asked for and received confirmation from the Accountant-General
that this was a compliance issue.
Mr T Mofokeng (ANC) commented on the issue regarding qualifications of
accountants. He stated that the requirement of formal qualifications was often
unfortunate as there were people who did not have the qualifications, but knew
what they had to do.
Mr Trent noted that the Department of Home Affairs had been included under the
category of having a qualified report. He wanted to know why this was, as the
Committee had not received a report from Home Affairs. He also looked at the
issue of leadership. He stated that business processes were about management
and that management was about leadership. Very often the AG noted that there
were no business processes in place. This was of particular concern as the
civil service had moved to a more management-orientated style years ago. By now
management should have been able to put those processes in place.
Mr Trent also noted that there was a trend of the same National Departments
receiving qualified reports over the past few years. He said that it was
understandable for the larger departments, where management was more difficult,
but wanted to know why there was still a problem in the smaller departments. He
wanted to know what the AG could do about it. He also wanted to know if the AG
had raised the bar too high and too fast.
Mr Nombembe did not think that the bar was raised too high or too fast. He
stated that the reasons for qualifications had nothing to do with the
standards, but rather with the attitudes of people that were in charge. It also
had to do with the supporting the results of the audit. The AG was also looking
at the framework put through by the Treasury that allowed them to see which
departments had responded adequately in terms of skills and leadership
responsibilities, as well as whether they had achieved the desired results.
Reports were analysed meticulously to minimise speculation as to why
departments were being qualified. Areas that were qualified were clearly
defined, as well as the reasons for qualification. All that was needed was a
clearly defined action plan. Most departments were committed to achieving
better results in the future.
The Auditor-General responded to issues regarding the business process and the
leadership’s readiness to cope with them. Given the culture of the leadership
and management, an issue that was identified was the importance of the support
structures within Government. The roles of internal auditors, audit committees
and Treasury were very important, as a lot of team work was needed to assist
departments in prescribing appropriate business processes. They needed to
employ the right resources to enable them to do the work. All that leadership
could do was to act on the advice provided.
The Department of Home Affairs report had not been tabled but would be
processed in the next few weeks. The result in the AG’s report was the same as
the information that would be contained in the Annual Report.
The Chairperson thanked the Auditor-General for a very useful report but warned
that the report showed that managers were not working efficiently and
effectively. He noted that this was the greatest challenge for accounting
officers and stated that they needed to know what the consequences were for
underperformance.
Special Investigating Unit (SIU): Briefing
Mr Willie Hofmeyr, Head, Asset Forfeiture Unit, presented a report to the
Committee and said that he wanted to discuss where the Special Investigating
Unit (SIU) fitted in relative to other organisations, what their mandate was
and what they achieved. They also wanted to look at how they could strengthen
cooperation.
Bribery was the second most common crime that South Africans were exposed to,
but most cases were not being dealt with in the system because of lack of
capacity. The SIU was focusing on building capacity to enable them to deal
better with corruption and maladministration. SIU had noted, from its work with
departments, that there was an opportunistic use and more organised
exploitation of systems gaps. When the systems were weak there was a systematic
exploitation of opportunities. This was often done by organised crime units.
The SIU listed various bodies that had a mandate to deal with corruption. The
first major body was the South African Police Service (SAPS). The main focus
was on the commercial branch, which mostly looked at corruption cases. More
serious cases were referred to the Organised Crime Unit. A small office was set
up for Serious Economic Crimes in Pretoria, which would deal with very complex
economic crime issues, including corruption.
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), had a National Prosecution Service
that dealt with cases in the normal courts, but increasingly corruption cases
would be dealt with in the Specialised Commercial Crime Courts. This had
boosted the State’s capacity to deal with corruption. This was also a joint
venture between the SAPS commercial branch and the prosecution service.
Mr Hofmeyr informed members that the Scorpions formed part of the NPA, and that
corruption cases were an important part of their mandate. The Asset Forfeiture
Unit (AFU) also dealt with cases of corruption. Other bodies that played a
great role in preventing corruption were the Auditor-General, the Department of
Public Service and Administration (DPSA), the Public Service Commission, the
Public Protector and South African Revenue Services (SARS).
The mandate of the SIU centred on investigating corruption but now allowed it
also to institute civil legal action to correct irregularities. He described
the SIU as working like a standing commission on enquiries. It had similar
powers and did not just produce a report; but also found solutions to problems.
The mandate mostly focused on the public sector and corruption, but also looked
at maladministration. It was also looking at abuse of systems within
departments.
The SIU and Commissions of Enquiries operated similarly. The President would
issue a proclamation that would allow the SIU to investigate the matter. It had
the power to subpoena documents and records in a normal law enforcement agency,
had had powers of search and seizure and was allowed to summon and interrogate
witnesses and suspects under oath.
The key challenge was to build sufficient capacity in the State to enable them
to do the investigative work that was required. There was still a great level
of outsourcing in Government to the private sector, especially to forensic
accounting firms. Sometimes there was also an issue of lack of skills.
Mr Hofmeyr informed members that there were significant increases in the SIU
budget from Treasury over the past few years, due to the work that
accomplished. It now had an effective national presence with offices in all the
provinces except the Northern Cape.
Key performance indicators against which SIU measured itself were savings,
preventions and cash recoveries. Savings included savings to government
departments. The second measure looked at prevention of future loss. SIU also
measured itself against the amount of evidence that was prepared for use in
civil litigation. Targets had increased to massive amounts. These targets
related mostly to the recovery of benefits from people who had been illegally
receiving social grants.
The SIU did not have the power to do arrests or prosecutions,
so much work was done with the police or the Scorpions. It did its best to work
with agencies and measured how well it was working by seeing how many cases
they managed to get through the system.
The SIU focused on achieving a level of success including ensuring that they
provided quality forensic investigations. They aimed to become the Government’s
forensic investigation unit by showing that they were able to implement and
ensure that corrective action was taken in all projects. It was also cheaper
and more effective. Of advantage was the fact that it focused mainly on
corruption and maladministration issues, and the best resources were used so it
was more effective. If a department had a problem, then the SIU would solve
every part of the problem from the investigation to ensuring that they had the
proper evidence, to preparing evidence and testifying. This had enabled them to
establish good working relationships with different departments and
organisations.
Funding from different departments contributed greatly to the SIU’s budget but
Mr Hofmeyr explained that it did not want to become too reliant on departments’
money as not all investigations were done in a cooperative manner. Treasury had
provided the SIU with additional funding and therefore Treasury funding would
become the majority funding in future.
SIU had partnerships with the Departments of Correctional Services, Transport, Local Government in Eastern Cape, Social Development,
Housing and the National Treasury.
The SIU had experienced growth and it was therefore important to ensure that it
remained clean and untainted by corruption within the organisation. In order to
achieve this, they adopted a harsh internal integrity programme which included
lie detector tests, drug testing and asset disclosure. There had been no major scandals.
Another important challenge was building extra capacity, as well as new
capacity in the State. One success had been the trainee investigator programme,
which was set up to improve capacity and ensure better representation in the
profession. The SIU had also started to recruit people and attract skills from
the private sector.
The SIU essentially dealt with two types of investigations. One involved a
specific procurement or transaction that went wrong. The other dealt with
systemic weaknesses in the system. Capacity had been created to enable them to
deal with these issues on an ongoing basis.
Possible areas for discussions with SCOPA included the role of SCOPA in
alerting them to specific cases, as well as the recommendation of the use of
the SIU to certain government departments. The SIU also tried to set up
research capacity to achieve a better understanding of where the problems were
in different levels and areas of Government. The SIU suggested joint research
and assessments with SCOPA, as they could provide better insight into certain
issues in the country.
Discussion
Mr Smith welcomed the proposal that SCOPA and the SIU work together. He
informed the SIU that they had indicated that they did quite a bit of
outsourcing to the private sector due to lack of capacity. This created
concerns in other areas. He worried that a project would be given to the SIU
and they would then pass it on to the private sector.
Mr Smith also commented that many of the smaller departments were not taken
seriously when they approached the State Attorney about recovering loans. He
wanted to know if he could refer these departments to the SIU.
Mr Hofmeyr stated that Mr Smith may have misunderstood the issue of
outsourcing. He informed members that the SIU did very little outsourcing. SIU
was marketing itself as a replacement for private companies that were being
used traditionally by government departments. The SIU was in the process of
building capacity to replace the outsourcing that was currently taking place by
other State departments.
Mr Faiek Davids, Deputy Head of the SIU, added that with regard to their
investigation and specialist support capabilities, the SIU had considered
outsourcing with regard to business processing and high level forensic
accounting. They were still looking into it as some capabilities were not
needed on a sustainable basis.
Mr Hofmeyr responded, in regard to recovery of loans, that the SIU had become
one of the biggest debt collecting agencies in the country. They employed
specialist trackers and tracers. The SIU also set up a special department to
ensure that acknowledgement of debts were signed and also recovered. It was not
doing the work on behalf of the state attorney, as it had its own civil
litigation powers. If there was a high level case of debt collection that
needed intervention, then the SIU would offer its services if the case fell
within its mandate.
Mr Trent commented that he did not think that the general public knew what the
SIU did. He also spoke about business processes and systems. He said that the
AG often reported that there were inadequate risk management policies and
systems in place. Departments would then be asked if this had resulted in
losses. In some cases they reported that there could be losses, but that they
were not sure. He wanted to know if that was an adequate reason to refer the
SIU to a department. There were also cases where the AG reported that there
were definite losses. He asked if those cases would also have to be referred to
the SIU.
Mr Trent also commented that there were only five proclamations signed since
April. He noted that this was very few, given all the things that were taking
place. He also wanted to know to what extent the SIU would be contacted by
private whistle blowers, and if they knew about the SIU. He asked what the
difference was between the SIU of today and the former Heath Commission.
Mr Hofmeyr stated that the mandate had not changed but the focus had changed in
many ways. SIU had tried to develop a more cooperative relationship with the
Government. It also found that there were more than enough government
departments who were keen to fight corruption. He warned that the cooperative
model had its limitations but that it had served the SIU well and allowed them
to develop capacity over the years. The SIU also improved coordination with
other law enforcement agencies and many issues had been resolved.
Mr Hofmeyr confirmed that there had been only five proclamations, as the
slowness of the process had become quite an issue over the years. The process
was quite lengthy as it would have to go through the departments as well as the
Presidency and the lawyers. The focus had now changed, shifting towards working
with the National Departments on ongoing investigations. This was not an ideal
model but it helped to make a difference. The SIU was also looking at methods
of achieving a quicker referral process.
In regard to systemic gaps that may or may not have lead to losses, this was
difficult to answer in general terms as it would have to depend on the specific
case being spoken of. For example, with the social grants investigation, there
was some work that was done. However, there were problems with the speed at
which the system had been rolled out. Action would be taken to mend the
problem. Losses could also have occurred from weak financial services.
Mr Stephens asked the SIU what it did between the time of receiving the
allegation and getting the proclamation, as it could not investigate officially
until such time as there was a proclamation. This in turn needed a certain
amount of evidence. He asked if whistle blowers needed to contact the SIU
directly and who they needed to report to. He wanted to know what SIU did after
receiving the information, and how long whistle blowers would have to wait to
receive protection.
Mr Gerber wanted some examples of where the Provincial SCOPA and the SIU had
interacted. He also asked for an explanation of what was meant by “unlawful
conduct by any person causing serious harm to the public interest”.
Mr Nombembe stated that an issue of concern was that departments could not
provide evidence for expenditure. This area consisted of multi-millions of
rands, and was mainly in the area of procurement.
Mr Davids informed Members that the SIU received matters from a number of
sources, both direct calls and through the hotline, soon to be re-launched.
When people come to them, the SIU would interview them through the
Opportunities Management Section that would look into the matter, conduct interviews
with the relevant people and decide whether the matter fell within the SIU
mandate. Once the determination was made, the case would be referred to the
Forensics Investigations Section and an assessment would be made as to whether
a proclamation would be pursued. More information would be gathered and
submissions would be made to the Department of Justice (DoJ), who would then
submit it through the Minister of Justice to the President. A proclamation
would then be achieved.
A proclamation allowed the SIU to use its special powers to investigate the
matter. This included the power of interrogation as well as search, seizure and
subpoena, which allowed it to investigate the matter fully. There were times
when an investigation was done before a proclamation as the information was
already available. The process sometimes took quite a bit of time but working
with the DoJ has resulted in shortening the procedure.
Mr Hofmeyr indicated that SIU was often contacted by a range of people who had
confidence in the SIU but whose problems did not fall within the mandate. In
this case the matter would be referred on to the police or the Scorpions. In
regard to serious allegations raised in communities, people could contact SIU
through the website as well as through a land line and 24 hour hotline.
Protection of whistle blowers was still an issue. The SIU would try to protect
them as details of the case were exposed.
With regard to Provincial SCOPAs, there was some interaction with Limpopo and
the Eastern Cape. Unfortunately, nothing concrete or practical had developed
from the engagement.
Mr Hofmeyr agreed that there were huge gaps in audits in some departments where
money was not being accounted for. This sort of problem would fall in to the
SIU’s mandate.
He stated that there were huge capacity problems, which resulted in the volume
of work being larger than the number of people who were involved in security
issues. Even though there was growth, there were still a limited number of
cases that could be taken on.
The Chairperson thanked the SIU for their interaction and warned that they
needed to clarify their referral mechanism. It was also important that issues
raised by the Auditor-General did not recur. The SIU and AG would need to have
more interaction.
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.