Nationality of Married Women Convention on; Births & Deaths Registration Amendment Bill; Committee Report on Director General Co

Meeting report

HOME AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
23 October 2001
NATIONALITY OF MARRIED WOMEN CONVENTION ON; BIRTHS & DEATHS REGISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL; COMMITTEE REPORT ON DIRECTOR GENERAL CONTRACT

Chairperson: Mr. Mokoena (ANC)

Relevant Documents:
Births and Deaths Registration Amendment Bill [B53-2001]
Immigration Bill [B79-2001]
Committee Report on Department Director General's Contract (See Appendix 1)
DA Response to Draft Committee Report (See Appendix 2)
Letter from Minister on Director General's Performance (See Appendix 3)

SUMMARY
The Committee approved recommending the international Convention on Nationality of Married Women and the Births and Deaths Registration Amendment Bill for approval by the National Assembly.

The Committee discussed their proposed report on how to proceed in dealing with the controversy concerning the status of Director General Masetlha's contract. The DP, NNP, and UDM continued to object to the Chair's recommendation that this matter be referred to the Public Service Commission. This was particularly in light of the comprehensive summary received from the Minister detailing the Director General's poor performance. The DA's response was read into the record and minor amendments suggested by the IFP were included and the report was then approved.

Due to time constraints, discussion of the Immigration Bill was deferred to October 24.

MINUTES
International Convention on Nationality of Married Women
Mr. Kritzinger, Director for Citizenship, Travel Documents & Population Register in the Department, noted that Section 231 of the Constitution calls for ratification of international agreements by the National Assembly and National Council of Provinces. This 1957 Convention is designed to foster gender equality, consistent with the Constitution, by ensuring that a woman retains the right to make decisions regarding her citizenship, regardless of her husband's status or actions. The intention and effect is that a married woman has her own choice of citizenship, and is protected from being coerced by her husband to renounce her original citizenship, or to take his citizenship.

Articles I and II of the Convention provide that the celebration or dissolution of marriage, or a change in the husband's citizenship status, do not automatically act to deprive his wife of any citizenship rights she may enjoy. Article III of the Convention provides that signatory states must enact legislation affording an expedited procedure for the foreign spouses of its citizens to become naturalised.

The state law advisor, Adv. Malatji, noted that he and his colleagues in the Department of Foreign Affairs recommended ratification. As there were no questions from members, the Committee unanimously moved to report the matter to the National Assembly with a recommendation that the Convention be approved.

Births and Deaths Registration Amendment Bill
The state law advisor described how the Births and Deaths Registration Act, No. 51 of 1992, regulates registration of births and deaths. The proposed amendments are:
- Reduce the age of majority from 21 to 18;
- Allow children to be registered in the name of either or both parents;
- Regulate alteration of a minor's surname;
- Allow a widow to assume a prior surname.

He stated that these changes are necessary for consistency with the Constitution, and to address recurrent practical issues arising in administration of Department registries.

The Chair queried whether there would be extra costs (such as increased incidences of name changes) arising from the legislation, and Prince Zulu (IFP) asked if the Department was not being "overly responsive" to public requests as to how names were registered. In response, Ms. van Wyk (UDM) noted that the amendments create no more work since there is already a provision governing name changes, and observed that bringing laws into line with the Constitution, as the proposed amendments do, is desirable. Mr. Waters (DP) agreed.

After confirmation by the presenters that no additional costs were anticipated, the Committee unanimously accepted the Bill without amendments.

Committee Report Concerning the Director General
The Chair suggested that the text of the Report (indicating the Committee's recommendation that the dispute concerning Director General Masetlha's contract be referred to the Public Service Commission for consideration) be reviewed paragraph by paragraph.

Mr. Beukman (NNP) requested that the conclusion be reconsidered before review of the text. Ms. van Wyk (UDM) concurred with this request.

In response, the Chair reiterated his position that it is not proper for the Committee to intercede in this matter and thus become entwined in a "quagmire" and "imbroglio", and that the PSC is the proper forum to deal with it. He elaborated by noting that Committee involvement in this instance would do a disservice to Parliament, and is not part of the legislative oversight function.

Mr. Morwamoche (ANC) endorsed the Chair's position, suggesting that by following the procedure members will be able to voice views to the PSC, and monitor its proceedings.

Mr. Beukman (NNP) disagreed. He noted that in light of the involvement of the Public Service Director General in the Masethla contract matter, it would be difficult for the PSC to act as referee. Moreover, the allegations contained in the Minister's letter, detail a dilatory course of conduct by Masetlha. This suggests that the performance problems are of a more serious nature, affecting the Department's overall performance, which must surely be a matter of concern for the Committee. He requested that if the draft report favoured by the Chair was adopted, the Democratic Alliance position on the matter be read into the record, which the Chair agreed to.

Mr. Waters (DP) concurred with Beukman. He observed that the Minister's "unprecedented allegations" necessitate Committee review of the situation even if the PSC deals specifically with the Director General's contract. He continued that it is the Committee's duty to address the "meltdown" in the Department.

Prince Zulu (IFP) agreed that the Committee has a duty to look into the Minister's allegations. He asked if the Chair had seen the contract in question, which had been notably omitted from the materials and correspondence supplied to the Committee.

Mr. Grobelaar (DP) commented that the feud between the Minister and Masetlha has been evident for some time, and that the Committee itself is "becoming a laughingstock" given its ineffectiveness in exercising its oversight function.

The Chair stated that the issues must be dealt with one at a time, and that the Minister's allegations are separate from the contract matter. In advising that he himself had not seen the contract, he stated that he is not "omnipotent, omniscient or inclined to act like a bulldozer in a china shop".

He began review of the text of the draft report. However Ms. van Wyk stated that such a review was a waste of time as the report could not be supported. While the PSC must be an aspect of the process, the Committee should not abdicate its oversight responsibility.

The Chair replied that allowing the PSC to act as arbiter "empowers members' voices to be heard". In this spirit, Beukman (NNP) was then requested to read the DA's position into the record. Prince Zulu (IFP) then proposed amendments to the draft report clarifying its introductory paragraph, and noting that the opposition parties were not in concurrence with its recommendations. The report was then approved, as amended.

At that point the Chair noted the lateness of the hour and suggested that the Immigration Bill be dealt with at the October 24 meeting, with other matters, including the issue concerning repatriation of Zimbabwean farm workers from the Northern Province, to be considered on October 30. It was also noted that there would likely be an evening meeting on October 31 for continued work on the Immigration Bill. The meeting was then adjourned.

Appendix 1:
Final Report of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs on the employment contract of the Director-General of Home Affairs:
The Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs has learnt through several media reports that the Director-General of Home Affairs did not sign his employment contract. This prima facie impression concerned the Committee and as part of our oversight duty a letter was sent to the Director-General on 29 August 2001, wherein he was asked to explain his position in writing to the Committee.

He responded by explaining that as Cabinet extended his contract as Head of the Department of Home Affairs, it was not necessary for him to sign an employment contract different from the one that he signed when he was appointed.

He further explained that by means of a letter to the Department of Public Service and Administration, he accepted the decision of Cabinet to extend his employment contract on the same terms and conditions as stipulated in his original employment contract. Mr Masetlha also provided us with a copy of an undated letter that was sent to him from Mr M R Ramaite, Director-General of Public Service and Administration. In this letter Mr Ramaite informs Mr Masetlha that Cabinet has approved the extension of his contract for 12 months and also that the same conditions of service as were applicable during his first term of office would apply.

Mr Ramaite also advised Mr Masetlha to enter into a new performance agreement with his executing authority.

The ANC was of the opinion that the letters from Mr Masetlha cleared up the questions regarding the status of his employment contract. We informed him accordingly but, for the sake of our records, requested a dated copy of the above-mentioned letter from Mr Ramaite.

After the above-mentioned events, we received a letter, accompanied by two legal opinions, from Dr Buthelezi, the Honourable Minister of Home Affairs, wherein he informed us that both Senior Counsel opinions indicate that Mr Masetlha does not have the type of contract legally required to establish and maintain an employment relationship as Head of the Department.

The matter of Mr Masetlha's contract was thus again discussed at a Committee meeting on Tuesday, 25 September 2001. The New NP moved that a subcommittee should be established to investigate the issue. The Chairperson overruled this opinion and explained that it would be better to refer the matter to the Public Service Commission to investigate.

The Committee recommends that the Public Service Commission be requested to investigate the issue as they are the proper authority with the necessary capacity and personnel to investigate the issue.

Report to be considered.

Appendix 2:
DRAFT REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON HOME AFFAIRS ON THE
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HOME AFFAIRS: RESPONSE OF DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE

We refer to the above-mentioned matter and the invitation to submit comment on the draft report.

We are of the opinion that the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs or a subcommittee, should be the body to investigate the matter of the employment contract of the Director-General of Home Affairs.

We cannot support the position that the matter should be referred to the Public Service Commission.

We believe that the handling of the Director-General's contract by the Public Service Commissioner should also be investigated.
Correspondence provided to the Portfolio Committee and referred to in paragraph three of the Draft Report supports this position.

We are also of the opinion that Rule 201 of the National Assembly Rules compels the Portfolio Committee to be pro-active in it's oversight role, namely:

A Portfolio Committee:
Must maintain oversight of:
(i)the exercise within its portfolio of national executive authority, including the implementation of legislation;
(ii)any executive organ of State falling within its Portfolio;
(iii) any constitutional institution falling within its Portfolio; and
(iv)and any other body or institution in respect of which oversight was assigned to it;
(v)may monitor, investigate, enquire into and make recommendation concerning any such executive organ of state, constitutional institution or other body or institution, including the legislative programme, budget, rationalization, restructuring functioning, organization, structure, staff and policies of such organ of state, institution or other body or institution.

We believe that it is a unhealthy situation to base an important report of a Parliamentary Committee only on written submissions, and not to obtain oral evidence.

It is the duty of the Portfolio Committee to call the Chief Accounting Officer of the Department to the Committee to explain his position in view of the two legal opinions.

It is part of the oversight duty of the Committee.

We believe that the report is in terms of process and merits defective and incorrect.

We can therefore not support the report of the Portfolio Committee.

It would be appreciated if our objection to the report could be recorded for the record.

Appendix 3:
From: Minister M Buthelezi, MP
To: Chairperson; Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs
October 22, 2001

I have been informed that during the last meeting of your Portfolio Committee discussions took place on whether the Portfolio Committee should invite me to explain the facts and circumstances of the breach of trust which occurred between myself, as the Executive Authority of the Department of Home Affairs, and my Head of Department. I understand that your Committee could not reach consensus on whether I should be invited, or whether a report should be produced for Parliament without the benefit of this fact-finding stage. I also understand that your Committee is considering a draft report to Parliament on the position of the Director-General of Home Affairs which may include the reasons relating to my unwillingness to retain his services in the long term.

In order to facilitate the monitoring role of your Committee and assist it in its work1 I felt it was important for me to produce and submit to your Committee within the scope" of the exercise of its functions, the enclosed document which lists some of the main problems I have encountered during my relationship with Mr BL Masetlha.

SOME THE PROBLEMS I HAVE EXPERIENCED WITH MY DG
BY MANGOSUTHU BUTHELEZI, MP
MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
October 12, 2001

This document lists some of the problems I have experienced with my Director-General, Mr BL Masetlha ["the DG"]. This list is neither complete nor detailed, for I sought to keep it short without belabouring the points. The document shows how over time the intensity of the insubordination and defiance has increased.

1. The DG is in the habit of publicly ignoring me or not greeting me when we meet at public venues. Moreover, I am informed that he never mentions me or my policy or views in any of the lengthy managements meetings he holds every week or in his public addresses. There is no record of any press statement he has issued highlighting my leadership of the Department.

2. I received several credible reports that he undermines my authority within the Department by referring to me with denigratory epithets.

3. The standard of draft replies to questions in the National Assembly, which I receive from the DG, is generally poor;

4. Without my instruction or policy directive and without even consulting me, the DG embarked on a restructuring and redesign project for the Department, which led to the so-called R10 million "TIRO project" reportedly funded by the European Union. When I received preliminary and indirect information that such restructuring was being contemplated, I specifically instructed the DG that no restructuring be worked on until and unless I directed it in accordance with the strategic vision and policy plans I formulated for the Department. Nonetheless, in October 2000, the DG prepared draft remarks intending to inform the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs of such restructuring, which I had to publicly pre-empt by making remarks of my own clearly stating in his presence that the restructuring was not authorised, which, however, did not stop him from either pursuing such restructuring nor publicising it in other statements he made in other venues. In the end, the TIRO project was finalised, but I did not even receive a copy of it, despite my having clearly stated that I had no information about it during my speech in the Department's strategic workshop in January 2001.

5. A detailed account of how the Local Government Election Bill was mishandled by the DG and how my instructions and Cabinet directive were defied and not implemented, would be too long. It should suffice to say that my office had to intervene on numerous occasions to rescue it from flaws and problems which, unless dealt with, would have caused the local government elections not being held within the envisaged time-frame.

6. When speaking together before the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs, I sought the assurance of the DG that the 2000 Annual Report would be tabled on time before my budget speech, which assurance he publicly gave. In spite of several postponements in my budget speech, the Annual Report became available only four hours before my budget speech, and then only because my office intervened to organise its extraordinary printing and distribution, which otherwise would not have happened.

7. In spite of my request to him to do so, since he took office, the DG has refused to interact and work with my Adviser, or even accept his invitation to socialise, using several occasions to discredit him instead.

8. In general, I receive inputs on Cabinet Memoranda too late for the meetings for which they are intended.

9. Together with other officers of the Department, the DG embarrassed me in front of the 7 March 2000 Home Affairs Portfolio Committee meeting by publicly advising me to categorically state that the Department did not appeal against the Cape High Court decision in respect of fees payable by foreign spouses, when in fact it had done so. On 8 December 1999, I gave instruction not to appeal against such decision. My gaffe was reported in the media, causing great embarrassment to me, and I requested that the appeal be withdrawn immediately, which the DG resisted for several days compounding my embarrassment, indicating that the instruction had gone to the lawyers when in fact it had not. When the instruction was finally given, it was a partial one and my office had to complement it.

10. On December 7, 1999, at the end of a crisis management meeting with all the relevant officials, I took a number of resolutions in order to expedite applications for temporary work permits and applications for permanent residence, and instructed that these resolutions be implemented with immediate effect. My request was met with intransigence and delays on the side of the DG.

11. On 20 April 2000, I asked the D-DG to request the DG to inform me on various aspects of the identity card as compared to a smart card. I received a reply three months later which, however, failed to address all the issues I raised.

12.On May 27 I gave instruction that Mr Tlhomelang be excluded from any discussion dealing with migration policy matters in general and the White Paper and draft immigration Bill in particular, which instruction was often defied, for instance when such individual was sent to speak at the D group conference.

13.On 27 May 2000, I learnt to my dismay that an officer in the Department informed a Work Permit Committee meeting attended by, inter alia, members of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Industry Business South Africa and Labour, that the White Paper on International Migration had no standing and that the whole process would be restarted from scratch. I immediately wrote to my DG instructing him to write to each of the participants of the above-mentioned meeting clearly stating that the officer had no right to make such statements and that such statements are wrong and without basis. I also asked that copies of the relevant correspondence were to be copied to me before 29 May 2000, which instruction was defied and other officials in the Department had to write these letters on 5 July 2000.

14. On July 6 and 7, 2000 we held a high profile international conference on our draft Immigration Bill. The DG did not participate in its preparation and defied my instruction that he chair it, claiming that he did not have sufficient knowledge of the new policies and draft legislation of our Department. He also instructed our Head of Communications, who was crucial for the successful organisation of the conference, not to come to Cape Town until the opening of the conference, when it was too late, and he himself arrived late.

1 5. On 2 November 2000, I had to remind the Director-General of the need to have the 5th of December declared a public holiday in order to allow voters to exercise their democratic right in the then upcoming local elections. My office had to correct the document on five separate occasions before it was in an acceptable format to be submitted to the President. In fact, we only just made the deadline to have the 5th of December declared a public holiday

1 6. During October 2000 the DG requested permission to visit certain foreign countries for the purposes of the HANIS project. I approved the trip and wrote to the DG that I did not recall giving approval for a previous trip he undertook to France. To date this matter has not yet been resoled and the expenditure for the France trip is still reflected as unauthorised.

1 7. In January 2000 I approved certain posts being filled in our missions abroad. During March 2000 I received an enquiry from one of the candidates complaining that his/her transfer is being blocked. On 8 March 2000 I requested the DG to inform me by return of post what happened to the filling of the foreign posts, to which the DG only replied four months later saying that he decided otherwise. He did this without even consulting me.

1 8. The DG failed to take corrective measures to implement a December 2, 1999 court decision declaring the unconstitutionality of the legislative provision barring homosexual life partners from the benefits extended to spouses and criticised the action I took to ensure compliance with such decisions by adopting regulations on 25 April 2000, and further, attempting to take his own measures to deal with the matter by issuing contradictory instructions and circulars on the 3rd of May.

19. Around April/May 2000, I had to repeat my instruction three times to transfer the Deputy Director-General from the Government Printing Works back to the Department to assist with the crisis in migration, whereas the DG wrote to me saying "the crisis in migration is but only a storm in a teacup". After the DG having defied my instruction, I personally wrote a letter to the DDG instructing him to report for duty in the Department of Home Affairs. My written instruction that the DDG deals both with civic affairs and migration has been defied to this day by limiting him to migration only.

20. The DG delayed informing me about the signing of two UN protocols dealing with migration matters at a high level conference in Palermo in December 2000, erroneously commenting on the relevant Cabinet Memorandum that "the Department is not involved", and failing to arrange for the Department's own representation at the conference, which led to the fact that my instruction that certain reservations be noted during the signing of such protocols was not carried out, with significant negative repercussions for our country.

21. The DG defied my instruction that Deputy Director-General Mr I Lambinon be sent to the aforesaid high level conference in Palermo, claiming a lack of available funding.

22. The DG did not comply with my instruction to tie the length of a work permit for religious workers to the length of their contract up to three years, which I had to do myself.

23. The DG initiated disciplinary enquiries against those who had followed my instructions relating to the preceding paragraph.

24. The DG repeatedly presented to me proposed amendments to the Aliens Control Act contrary to our policies, misrepresenting their being required by Constitutional Court judgements. I wrote to him, but my letter was questioned and rejected; but in the end when the officials studied the proposed amendments they acknowledged their discretionary nature and undesirable underlying policies.

25. The DG defied my written instruction to table my speech at the opening of the January 2001 Department's strategic workshop for discussion during such workshop, and went so far as to instruct that my speech should be ignored;

26. For months the DG delayed complying with my written instruction to present me with a written report on the Department's strategic workshop, which I only received several months later.

27. The DG has failed to comply with my written instructions requesting him to draft Cabinet Memoranda to implement the various proposals, which I put forward in my statement to the Cabinet Lekgotla. The instruction called for at least a memorandum on the Immigration Bill, one on the electoral law, one on the grouping of holidays and one on the establishment on a commission to monitor the HANIS procurement project. None of such memoranda were ever produced by the DG and my office had to produce some of them, while the matter of public holidays still awaits attention.

28. The DG instructed the Ministry's Parliamentary Officer not to distribute a briefing document which I prepared for, and requested to be distributed at the 2000 parliamentary media briefing;

29. The DG rejected a request of DDG Mr I Lambinon to conduct certain business in, and visit the Durban and Ulundi offices, coinciding with the holding of the funeral for my eldest grandson which the DDG intended to attend;

30. The DG appointed Mr M Tlhomelang as Acting Chief Director of Migration without consulting me and defying my written instruction that such individual should hold no policy position;

31. The DG sent Mr M Tlhomelang to brief the Standing Committee on Social Services in spite of my written instruction that such individual should not be involved in any policy-related activity. Even though dispatched to Cape Town, Mr Tlhomelang failed to show up at the meeting which, apparently, he could not locate;

32. The DG caused, authorised or condoned the presentation of three draft bills together with the three draft Cabinet Memoranda marked "Secret" to the Standing Committee on Social Services as the Department's intended legislative programme before such documentation was even submitted to and approved by me, as the Minister, in spite of its significant policy implications and in breach of the Minimum Information Security Standards;

33. The DG did not implement my instruction that some high level officials of the Department always be present in Cape Town to assist me when I am there. This compounds the difficulty of his not being in the habit of appointing an Acting DG when he goes abroad, which causes the DG's work not to be performed during such time.

34. Without having the authority to do so, the DG has taken steps to cancel the appointments of immigration agents.

35. Against my policy directions, he sent out a circular cancelling the automatic right to work of those who acquire permanent residence on the grounds of being a spouse, thereby causing us to lose a case in the High Court. I also had to suffer the humiliation of my office being confronted by the foreign spouse of the Leader of the Opposition who was not permitted to work, pointing out that my Department does not live up to my instruction.

36. The DG was the source of, and/or failed to rectify a cover story and leading article in the authoritative Financial Mail which categorically stated that I, as the Minister, was side-stepped and the drafting of immigration legislation and policies was taken away from me without my knowledge and secretly conducted in the President's Office by an inner circle to which the DG claimed to belong, thereby embarrassing me and the Presidency alike, for such information had no basis.

37. The DG submitted to me amendments to the Refugee Act withholding a legal opinion he received from the UN High Commission for Refugees that such amendments would cause our country to breach its international law obligations in a very substantive manner. Had I approved the amendments, I would have been discredited and targeted with international contempt. The draft Memorandum marked "secret" was distributed to Parliament and the public before it was presented to me for consideration.

38. In his June 4, 2001 letter to my Adviser, the DG purports to "raise very serious questions" on the suitability of my Adviser to advise me and on the "nature of [his] advice", making reference to its "political grounding". He also suggested that the delays in the processing of the Immigration Bill were due to my having tasked my Adviser to draft a Bill implementing the White Paper. When asked to corroborate his allegations, the DG failed to do so. His is a criticism of my own sound judgement in employing my Adviser by carbon copying the letter to me and the Deputy Minister, he placed on record the criticism indirectly levelled at me.

39. On June 11, 2001 I received a letter from my colleague, the Minister of Finance indicating that the facts and figures used by the DG in his presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs and those which were supplied to me by the Department in preparation of my budget speech were not accurate and do not support the statement that the Department is under-funded. My colleague went so far as to state that we used the opportunity "to direct misinformed criticism at the national budget process". This situation is very concerning and potentially embarrassing.

40. The DG rejected my instruction to make provision for the funding of the Haysom Commission approved by Cabinet and the van Zyl Slabbert Task Team, and took the absurd position that these initiatives should be funded from the Ministry's budget, which is obviously meant only to provide for my support and not to draft legislation or run the HANIS project. This was a clear attempt to frustrate these two initiatives

41. In his interaction with the anti-corruption Haysom Commission, the DG was not forthcoming.

42. The DG attempted to distribute a Cabinet Memorandum on the HANIS project without my seeing it first, also circumventing the scrutiny of the Haysom Commission. When this was discovered, the Haysom Commission caused such Memorandum to be changed substantially as it found it problematic in many disturbing respects.

43. In his August 15, 2001 letter to me, the DG requested a meeting to discuss his "draft employment contract". This was the first time I was officially informed that an employment contract between the DG and me had not yet been finalised after the expiry of his previous contract on June 20, 2001. In terms of law, the DG could only be employed in terms of a prescribed contract, and the fact that no such contract exists creates a highly irregular situation in which all departmental actions he has taken or authorised since June 20 may be invalid. On or about June 25, I sent him a contract offer duly signed and executed by me and ready for acceptance, hearing nothing until August 15. Mindful of the DG's legal obligations, I had assumed that he had accepted and counter-signed the contract. The terms and conditions of the contractual offer he received from me reflect each and every aspect of the prescribed contract as set out in regulations. Any blank portion of such prescribed contract was filled in on the basis of my discussion with the President of June 20 last and its contents were duly reported to, and noted by Cabinet on June 27. Cabinet concurred with my action of offering the DG the contract with all the features I explained. To date the DG has not yet signed the contract, in spite of his knowing that I have received three senior counsel opinions stating that he his breaking the law and all the Departments' actions he authorizes or conducts may be invalid and incapable of being cured at a later time.

44. Without consulting me, the DG appointed a new Chief Director of Migration, tried to disband an entire Chief Directorate to move some of its elements into his office, and instructed that D-DG I. Lambinon be removed from the Department to be relegated to the Government Printing Works, with the exception of certain policy matters. It was my decision to bring Mr Lambinon back from the Government Printing Works to carry the primary responsibility of migration and to assist me with any other departmental matters at the management level. On discovering the DG's decisions, I instructed that all such actions be reversed immediately, together with any other transfer or promotion made without my knowledge after June 20. The DG indicated in writing in a letter carbon copied to me that he had not implemented my instructions to re establish the status quo antea in respect of the re-deployments he made without my approval. My instructions have been openly defied. In subsequent submissions to me he refers to the relevant officials in their new capacities, as if my instruction did not exist.

45. I received reports that certain officials may have been threatened with disciplinary action if they complied with instructions I gave them, when my instructions conflicted with the DG's, thereby defying my instructions and compelling my officials to insubordination.

46. On several occasions I requested that I be provided with sufficient departmental assistance while in Cape Town for Parliamentary sessions. I even wrote such a requirement in the performance agreement of the DG. In spite of all this I have never been provided with the required Parliamentary support and had to give specific instructions to have departmental officials attend critical meetings of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs where our legislation was discussed.

47. In my September 19, 2001 letter to the DG, I instructed him that our Department be represented only by the officials I designated during a visit to Gaborone for the pre-Excom consultation for refugee commissioners of SADG member states. In contravention of my instruction, the DG indicated that he represented the country and the Department. I had allowed the DG to go to Gaborone on the basis of representations that a "personal invitation" had been received and all expenses were paid by those inviting the DG. I had indicated that it would be unreasonable for me to allow the DG to be involved in such long-term processes.

48. Following the Gabarone meeting, the DG accused D-DG I Lambinon of "not put[ting] up a position in the context of the deliberations", which was untrue. Mr Lambinon's position was captured in the minutes of the meeting and he in fact represented my brief and captured the contents of the conversations we held on the matter with our counterparts in Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Australia.

49. In his September 25, 2001 letter to me, the DG accuses Mr Lambinon of racism and sexism, without the corroboration of detailed facts and circumstances.

50. In his October 2 letter to the Deputy Director General, the DG accuses Mr Lambinon of "frustrating and manipulating" and failing to make "a constructive contribution". The letter was carbon copied to me and to the Deputy Minister. I have no reason to question Mr Lambinon's conduct. Mr Lambinon has worked closely with me and, as far as I know, has made a number of constructive contributions in the three major strategic policies which should be pursued by our Department, namely the reform of migration control along the lines of the Immigration Bill, the planned devolution of the delivery of civic affairs service to municipalities, and the development of a HANIS which is efficient, effective and corruption free.

51. On several occasions, important policies have been surreptitiously subverted or hindered. He has not strategised the policy of bringing about the long-term devolution of the delivery of civic affairs services to municipalities which was endorsed by the President on several occasions, including the remarks he made during his interview flowing from his State of the Nation Address of this year. This policy is obviously the only rational way to provide a sustainable long-term solution to the dramatic spatial inequalities in our service distribution, which we inherited from apartheid. By the same token in his June 4, 2001 letter, he suggests that a new migration Bill needs to be drafted on the basis of a new framework better known to him, while the Immigration Bill had already been approved by Cabinet and was due to be tabled in the National Assembly the following day.

52. In spite of numerous requests, the DG never caused our Directorate of Strategic Planning and other structures of our Department to begin producing a strategic plan to restructure our Department on the basis of the strategic vision I repeatedly presented to Cabinet and Parliament, characterised by the two pillars of the Immigration Bill and the long-term devolution of civic affairs service delivery functions to municipalities.

53. The DG did not include in the Department's draft strategic plan the strategy of devolution of civic affairs service delivery functions to municipalities, which I had to add myself when reviewing the draft. This was in spite of the DG's performance contract specifically calling for this strategy to be pursued and his having given me personal assurance that this strategy would be pursued during a meeting we held on the matter. Along the same lines, the DG failed to inform me that Minister Mufamadi, through his Director General, circulated correspondence to all Departments requesting the list of functions each Department intends to devolve or assign to municipalities. I discovered that the DG had given instruction that our Department answered indicating that we have no function to devolve. I had to instruct that a letter be written with different contents and that its draft copy be sent to me by the deadline of September 24, but this instruction was defied.

54. On September 6, 2001 on my instruction, my Adviser attended the UN high level World Conference Against Racism, Discrimination, Xenophobia and other Forms of Intolerance and sat in the Working Group of the Conference. I have been informed that in front of foreign delegations, for no good reason the DG approached my Adviser with abusive, insulting and xenophobic language and then proceeded to physically push him. In harsh language he was told not to "interfere" in the work of the negotiating team because he was not part of the official delegation of South Africa. My Adviser was given no opportunity to reply but was repeatedly insulted, saying that he was a foreigner and did not belong there and that, as a foreigner, none of the matters he was raising should have been any of his concern. When confronted in writing, the DG did not deny these circumstances.

55. The DG was party to the presentation of a Cabinet Memorandum relating to different procedures for the processing of temporary and permanent residents permits and work permits, which basically covers the entire field of migration control, which Memorandum was introduced by the Department of Trade and Industry without my knowledge and was faulty both in law and policy. When the Memorandum was withdrawn by the Minister of Trade and Industry, the DG approached me challenging my instruction to deal with the matter within the processing of the Immigration Bill.

56. In spite of my firm instruction that the DG does not participate in the long-term process of the revision of the Refugee Convention at the international level, he keeps making submissions for him to travel to Geneva for that purpose as if I have never spoken on the matter.

57. The DG provided me with a draft answer to a parliamentary question inquiring on the responsibility of the officials advising me on a refugee matter in respect of which the Department acted incorrectly. In his draft reply the DG concealed his responsibility in the matter and wrongly accused other officials, thereby effectively setting me up to lie to Parliament. I presented Parliament with the correct answer and the supporting documentation, together with a copy of the incorrect draft answer the DG gave me.

58. By going through documentation such as the Quarterly Report produced in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, I have picked up several matters which were never brought to my attention directly and have an enormous policy and organisational importance. For instance, I picked up that the Director-General intends to establish a training academy of which I know nothing about. Its financial implications seem to be very considerable and its scope and purpose uncertain. It seems that various floors of a building have already been rented and furnished and staffed without my knowledge. On September 9, 2001 I requested detailed backgrounds and justifications but I have received no such information.

59. From the Quarterly Report mentioned in the preceding paragraph I also picked up a re-prioritization of our expenditure on completely new policies which have never been discussed with me. It seems that on the basis of such new priorities we are spending much more on security and much less on delivery. It seems that our Department is becoming a security, rather than a delivery department and there is no clarity on the reason for much of these expenses on security or where they are meant to end. For this reason, on September 9, I requested detailed backgrounds and justifications. I received a reply, which merely restated the figures mentioned in the Report with no further detailed explanations as requested.

60. I referred to the DG an enquiry I received from a farming community for a draft reply, which I never received. The matter related to the contentious issue of foreign farm workers. I then learnt from the media that the DG has ordered the repatriation of these workers, which is likely to end up in litigation and public debates without my having had the opportunity of being informed and applying my mind to it.

61. The DG stated to SCOPA that he had a valid employment contract. He then wrote to the Portfolio Committee of Home Affairs that the contractual requirements of his job had been met. He knew, or should have known, that both statements are legally and factually untrue. Erroneous information was provided to the supervisory and monitoring parliamentary committees, thereby perverting their institutional role. Moreover, he was often reported by the press stating that he has a written contract and that it is all he needs, at times indicating that such contract is with the President, other times that it is with the Public Service Commission or the Department of Public Service and Administration. In statements reported by Business Day of October 12, he attacks me and effectively suggests that I am a liar in this respect.

62. On October 12 Business Day reported the DG's statements attacking me trying to blame me for his mismanagement of the Department and making statements about political parties which is impermissible for a civil servant.

63. On October 12 The Sowetan reported a statement of the DG openly calling me a liar asserting that I was not telling the truth when I stated to Parliament that he did not reply to my request for more information on the legal basis of his ill-conceived circular breaching the international law principle of non refoulement of refugees.

64. In respect of almost all the foregoing I took it upon myself to write to the DG complaining about his conduct but generally speaking he has never admitted to being at fault and he constantly argues against my instructions and finds ways and means to elude them without ever accepting admonishment or expressing an apology.

I have been informed that officials throughout the Department openly speak of how often my DG defies me and moves in directions opposite to the one I direct. This is undermining morale and the esprit de corps.