Home Affairs Response to Committee Requests for Provincial Reports

Meeting report

Opening Remarks by Chairperson
The Chairperson announced that several provincial managers from the Department were scheduled to engage with the Committee. This interaction was considered necessary because the Committee was unable to exercise oversight in all of the provinces. Accordingly, this briefing was intended to enlighten the Committee on the state of affairs, achievements, progress and the depth of the crisis in the respective provinces. 

However, in a series of correspondence with the Chairperson, Mr Mavuso Msimang, the Director General of the National Department of Home Affairs (DHA) had voiced his opposition to this engagement. In defiance of the Committee’s earlier resolution, he prevented the provincial managers from appearing before the Committee and continued to assert that he was the accounting officer, and that all issues should be raised with him personally.

The Chairperson asked the Committee to comment on this matter.

Discussion
Ms I Mars (IFP) commented that the correspondence from the DG was distressing. She argued that oversight was vested at a national level and that nothing prevented the Committee from dealing with officials based at provincial level.

Dr S Huang (ANC) expressed shock and unhappiness that the Chairperson needed to convey four letters to the DG on this issue. Consequently, he reasoned that the Committee was not being respected and advised that it take some kind of action.

Mr I Mfundisi (UCDP) contradicted the perception that only the Chairperson had wanted provincial managers to account, and asserted that this was a resolution of the Committee. He advised the Chairperson not to engage with the DG in his attempts to defy the rules of parliament. In principle, parliament had the mandate to summon anybody and the DG did not have any jurisdiction to circumvent this authority. Finally, he stated that provincial managers were assigned certain responsibilities, in terms of the devolution of powers, and therefore needed to be held accountable.

Mr M Lowe (DA) perceived the DG to be competent and approachable. Consequently, he was troubled by the substance of his letters, and suggested that the Committee interact directly with him to understand the reasons behind his position. He preferred this route instead of a confrontational approach because “there might be more than meets the eye”. Lastly, he emphasised that the Department could not afford to have another DG.

A member of the Committee criticised the high handed manner in which the DG communicated with the Committee, and characterised his behaviour as “out of order and unacceptable”. Further, he advanced that the Committee’s oversight role and responsibilities went beyond the head office of the Department. 

Mr M Sikakane (ANC) recommended that the Committee invite the DG to explain himself.

Mr F Beukman (ANC) cautioned that the Committee’s oversight role would be hampered if the Executive raised technical points for not wanting to appear before the Committee.

Ms N Mathibela (ANC) claimed that the DG was personalising the issue and that all references to the Committee in his correspondence were in fact inferences to the Chairperson.

Mr W Skhosana (ANC) reiterated the prevailing sentiment that this was an “unfortunate and unnecessary” situation. He added that the DG had no authority to prevent the provincial managers from engaging directly with the Committee, particularly when they had been requested to do so.

Ms M Maunye (ANC) concurred with the sentiments expressed by her colleagues.

Ms Mars declared that that the DG had “a total lack of understanding of parliamentary rules and its oversight responsibility”. As a result, she supported the Chairperson’s insistence that the Committee be allowed to engage with whomsoever it wished.

The Chairperson remarked that that the DG needed to explain the content and tone of his letter. In addition, he stated that parliament would not allow itself to be dictated to and that all those who were supposed to appear before the Committee would still have do so. He motivated that it was better for the Committee to meet the provincial managers separately, so that they could communicate freely on their challenges and frustrations. Finally, he suggested that the DG be invited to appear before the Committee on the following day.

Mr Lowe countered that to give the DG a notice period of less than 24 hours was unreasonable.

After some debate, it was decided that the Committee would meet with the DG on Tuesday in the following week. The Committee would set aside one hour for this interaction and thereafter continue with its engagement with the provincial managers.

Mr Lowe, noting that the meeting had concluded early, proposed to Members that they conduct an announced visit to the Department’s offices in Barrack Street.

The proposal was accepted and immediately implemented by the Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.