Department of Foreign Affairs Annual Report 2007/8

Meeting report

Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) Annual report: 2007/2008: Briefing
Dr Ayanda Ntsaluba, Director General, Department of Foreign Affairs, presented the briefing on the Annual Report of the Department. Dr Ntsaluba set out the key strategic priorities for the reporting year, which he described as consolidation of the African Agenda, South-South Co-operation, North-South Dialogue, participation in the Global System of Governance, bilateral relations and strengthening the organization.

Dr Ntsaluba moved on to human resources. The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) had filled 429 posts during the reporting period. 370 Posts were advertised, resulting in 280 external appointments. There were still a significant number of vacancies (422 at Head Office and 103 at Missions), and the Department had lost key member Jesse Duarte. However, salient appointments were made, notably that of Ms Mathu Nompozolo as Deputy Director General. He stressed that Headquarters should be strong, and that new people had to be well integrated. The Department could not always get the people it wanted, and heads of missions were engaged to help address this problem. Transfers between missions could be used as a measure to fill vacancies in missions, but there had been a decline in this. He noted that whenever the Department struggled to find new talent, the strategy adopted was rather to nurture and develop existing staff. Those already employed had to be aware of their options. The Department made use of employer branding to attract new talent, visited institutes of higher learning, and exhibited at the SABC Career Fairs for Grades 10-12.

With regard to performance management, Dr Ntsaluba noted that line managers would assess their own people, which would then be followed up by a directorate evaluation. The same benchmarks were in place across the board. Chief directors regularly reviewed performance.

An Employee Health and Wellness strategy had been adopted. An electronic health care system was implemented for all employees, and those in foreign environments had a 24-hour system hotline at their disposal for help.

The Department had moved towards a more speedy treatment of labour relations issues. 22 out of 34 disciplinary cases had been finalised, and 16 out of 21 grievances resolved. He noted that a high-profile disciplinary case involved the former Ambassador in Palestine, who was returned to South Africa’s head office in 2006. He had been accused of sexual harassment, but this was not substantiated, and eventually charges against the official were withdrawn. The department decided that there had been improper conduct, but of a less serious nature than initially supposed, and had resolved that this official should remain employed, but would not be appointed as head of a mission again.

A problematic case currently before the department, was that of an official recalled because of concerns about his mission, and it had then transpired that he had apparently been advised by his lawyer not to attend work. After 30 days of absence from work, he was dismissed in terms of departmental regulations, and then claimed damages, which the Department had disputed.

Dr Ntsaluba then made reference to the case of Von Abo v Government of the RSA, involving a High Court application for diplomatic protection regarding Von Abo’s dispute with the Zimbabwean Government relating to the expropriation of his farms.

Discussion
The Chairperson decided to allow discussion of matters on which the Committee had been briefed thus far.

Mr F Beukman (ANC) enquired about personnel facing disciplinary measures, who were permitted to stay on in their posts, and asked if they were being scrutinised if they were in positions that involved financial control.

Dr Ntsaluba answered that there were internal and external audits, and that the Department was not at risk. Financial closure with the missions was done once a month. Corporate Services were also involved.

Ms Mathu Nompozolo, Deputy Director General: Human Resources, DFA added that the department also consulted with mission accounts.

Ms M Njobe(ANC) wanted to know if the official against whom the case had been withdrawn would be cleared. In respect to the Von Abo case, she posed the question how far a government  could go in defending someone who was, for instance, affected by Zimbabwean laws.

Dr Ntsaluba responded that the Ambassador in question had been charged with a sexual offence, but had told the Department that it had been a consensual liaison. The Department accepted this, but it was still seen as unbecoming conduct. He was recalled, and it was decided that he would not be heading a mission again. The media hounded the Department when the news broke, but also published the fact that the case against him was subsequently withdrawn.

Dr Ntsaluba stressed that the Von Abo case had not been the first of its kind. The DFA would help South Africans to seek redress, but there was a point beyond which it could not go. A bilateral protection of interest contract had not been signed. The Judge in the matter held that the DFA had not done enough. The Department was granted 60 days to place on record what steps had been taken. Affidavits were filed during the preceding week. The DFA had to help South Africans to facilitate interaction with the legal processes of other countries. In the wake of the Von Abo proceedings, three more farmers had written to the Department. These matters were being evaluated.

A Member congratulated  the DFA on their sterling performance. He referred to the Gangat v Minister of Foreign Affairs case, and said that if the Department had charged him, he wanted to know why the matter was still before the courts, as it was not only a costly procedure but could be perceived as  a vendetta.

Dr Ntsaluba replied that when a person was withdrawn, he or she would sometimes claim forfeited allowances, as if these were a right. In the case of Mr Gangat, the Department had to be hard in order to defend a principle, and he noted that the Department had won its case when it was referred to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA).

The Member suggested an internal enquiry with a view to discipline, seeing that the DFA’s name had been brought into disrepute.

Dr Ntsaluba replied that there was a problem in the sense that Mr Gangat had challenged the Department from outside the mission. There were limitations regarding the official initially charged with a sexual offence. The later statement made by the woman in question, in which she had withdrew charges, in fact closely resembled the statement that the official had made to the Department. The matter had to be seen in context. The woman had not been a local woman, but a contract worker at the mission, who had harboured certain expectations regarding the extension of her work contract. Her initial actions in laying the charge may have been motivated by resentment.

Mr M Skosana (IFP) ventured that there were issues at stake that related to a moral and ethical philosophy. He suggested that the Committee and the DFA might have to consider a briefing of new recruits on such matters. Diplomats about to enter a foreign environment could benefit from some guidance and assistance.

Dr A Luthuli (ANC) asked about procedures followed when officials were guilty of misconduct, in particular whether they were recalled and dismissed, were retained as paid employees, or suspended.

Ambassador Jerry Matjila, Deputy Director General for Asia and the Middle East, DFA, responded that in the event of a transgression, there would first be an investigation to determine whether there should be a charge of misconduct. The decision of a presiding officer in such instances was final, in terms of the labour law. The Department would try to expedite cases. If it was felt that someone who was charged could interfere with proceedings, that person was suspended with full pay. In cases where someone had been charged with insolence and disrespect, there was the possibility of intimidation of witnesses, so the same would apply. The Gangat case was problematic. Mr Gangat had been unhappy with sanctions imposed against him, and had stayed away from work for 30 days. He was then dismissed. Usually the practice was to allow the person to continue work pending the finalisation.

The Chairperson questioned whether it was appropriate for the Head of a mission to get involved in a sexual liaison that could have security implications. For this reason he questioned whether the steps the DFA had taken in this case were adequate.

Ambassador Matjila said that there had been serious consideration of whether the offence justified dismissal. It had to be borne in mind that recall was a significant action against a diplomat. For a former Head of a mission to return in another capacity was itself regarded as a serious matter. He did agree with The Chairperson that there had been a breach of security.

Mr M Sibande (ANC) wondered what criteria could be used for diplomats, especially in the Middle East. There had been a number of damaging statements in Israel about the alleged weakness of the South African Supporting Desk to the mission. In Ramallah it was said that the South African embassy was not visible enough in Gaza.

Ambassador Matjila responded that the DFA trained people, and exposed them to the desk. The Department was in transition. Certain attitudes and personalities pertained to certain officials, and some of these were better suited to diplomatic work than others. However, he felt that it was unfair to suggest a crisis of management in the Middle East, as the situation remained manageable. There were negative statements from the Head of the mission in Israel, about the visibility of the mission in Gaza. The Department of Foreign Affairs opened in Gaza with the express purpose of having contact with both sides. Contact with Hamas was encouraged. In June the department went to Syria and Jordan to hear both sides. The establishment of a fully fledged mission in Gaza was not yet envisaged.

The Chairperson maintained that it was not only Israel who had complained. In general, several Heads of missions had complained about lack of support from the desk. It appeared that there were “good” people at the desk, in the sense that they were well-liked, yet they seemed incapable of rendering much of a service. The Chairperson was of the view that it would be better to have less likeable people who managed to get things done.

Continuation of briefing by the Director General 
Dr Ntsaluba then proceeded to brief the Committee on financial matters. He noted the DFA had spent 98,8% of the budget. Under expenditure was only related to capital works projects at Bujumbura, SA House in London, and Lilongwe, and fees to International Organisations, being the African Union.

With reference to the Head Office Building and the Management of  Fixed Assets, he noted that the DFA had been aggressive in acquiring property, to move away from renting. The Fixed Asset Register was updated.

He responded to an introductory remark by the Chairperson regarding the 10% budget cuts. He stated that the Department had in fact not received such a directive. What it had to contend with was instead an injunction to cut R23 million from transport and entertainment budgets.

He noted that the DFA was a custodian of the African Renaissance Fund, with responsibilities towards hosting the Africa Cup of Nations.

Discussion
Mr Sibande enquired about the adequacy of the budget allocated to missions like Ramallah. He insisted that there was a need for the opening of new missions, citing that there was no office in Western Sahara. There might be one in Algeria, but satellites were needed. He referred to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where investments were made that were directed to other countries.

Dr Ntsaluba replied that the Committee had been informed about what the DFA had requested and what it had been granted. The Department was talking to the National Treasury, but he was not hopeful that more allocations would be made. The African Renaissance fund was an “albatross around the Department’s neck”. Essential functions had been fully funded, but if ambassadors complained, he could relate to their complaints. The DFA tried to move budgets from the more established missions in the USA, for example. Missions were scrutinised, and if they fell back, money was taken from them and re-allocated to other missions.

Mr Beukman asked if the Department was happy with the ICT arrangements.

Dr Ntsaluba responded that there had just been a meeting around that. Much more efficiency was needed, as there was still a lack of technical support.

The Chairperson referred to the R10 million spent in Uganda, and questioned whether that was money well spent. There had to be an assessment of what was put into countries, and to his mind a major question was how the money being spent improved relationships with such countries.

Mr Mxolisi Nkosi, Deputy Director General, Africa Bilateral, DFA, said that it was difficult to assess a situation without indices. The question arose as to how effective the programmes were, and he noted that R3,1 billion had been spent in the African Renaissance Fund, to promote capacity. There had been products for rice production in cooperation with the Vietnamese, for food security in Guinea. Further projects were the Lesotho dam construction project, to augment the South African water supply. There was a commitment to invest in the DRC, Burundi, Sudan and the Comores. Civil servants had been trained in Sudan to assist the peace process between South Sudan and Khartoum. More scientific assessments were required. The opening of new missions in Africa, as in Western Sahara, was an urgent priority. There were 47 missions in Africa, with new missions intended for Monrovia and Liberia, and for Freetown in Sierra Leone, in 2009.

The Chairperson expressed a need for an explanatory memorandum. The country had a commitment to Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and people with resources needed money. He asked if the African Renaissance Fund could be used to invest in African countries, to empower South Africans who wanted to venture into Africa.

Continuation of briefing
Dr Ntsaluba proceeded to report on Consular Services, referring to problems related to the Tsunami catastrophe, where South Africans who could not be traced were affected. The Department had also rendered assistance to the families of seven South African citizens and two citizens permanently residing in SA, who had died in a Kenya Airways incident.

The DFA had also, in consultation with the Department of Social Development (DSD), assisted families of those held in prison abroad to return children born in those prisons to South Africa.

Dr Ntsaluba pointed out achievements of the DFA towards the consolidation of the African Agenda. South Africa had hosted the Retreat of African Ministers of Foreign Affairs in May 2007. It had coordinated the Activity Report on the implementation of the AU Gender Declaration. Support had also been rendered to the Pan African Parliament, and the African Diaspora Ministerial was hosted at Gallagher Estate in November 2007.

South Africa had continued to utilise the African Renaissance and International Co-operation Fund (ARF) to serve as a catalyst for development projects in African countries. Key activities included ongoing assistance to the DRC, including capacity building, and contributing to the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Observer Mission to the Zimbabwe general elections. Ambassadors were briefed towards advancing the African Agenda, and to give further help for Zimbabwe.

Discussion
Mr W Skhosana (ANC) referred to the planned African Diaspora summit. He enquired about the possibility of the Department sponsoring a workshop about this summit, pointing out that there were many schools of thought about it. He reminded the committee of what had transpired when President Mbeki came out strongly for an African Renaissance, pointing out that many people did not want to deal with it. The DFA sustained the idea, but for many it raised the dangerous spectre of black nationalism. This created fears, and similar views could well arise in respect of the African Diaspora project, but it would have to be dealt with.

Dr Ntsaluba replied that an African Diaspora workshop would be carried forward as a proposal. He opined that South African hype for the Summit had been inadequate.

Mr Z Madasa (ANC) asked if the DRC had an integrated army, and whether the reviewing of mining contracts in that country could be linked to the eruption of violence.

Mr Nkosi answered that the DRC had never had a unified army. The Belgians had trained a battalion, and so had South Africa, but there was no coordination. There were efforts to reach uniform and standardised achievements to defend the integrity of that rich but vulnerable country. Rebels had established a foothold in the Eastern region of the DRC, and had acquired missiles. There were tensions between Kinshasa and Kigali which were ominous. As to the review of mining contracts, more information was awaited from the mission.

The Chairperson remarked that at the previous SADC summit, Botswana had been represented by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He had enquired about the DFA assessment of positions adopted by Botswana in international forums. He was concerned about the African Renaissance Fund being employed to assist a country run by an absolute monarch. He questioned how the Department proposed to deal with this issue. He noted that there had been countries that precipitated the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) into crisis. South Africa’s neighbours were compromising this country. Beneficiaries of SACU did not seem to care, and it became a South African crisis. He asked about a DFA response to the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). He noted that xenophobia was not just a Home Affairs matter, and there was a need to give explanations to the countries of origin of the victims.

Mr Nkosi said, with regard to the comments on xenophobia, that the DFA response had been to convene heads of diplomatic missions. Origins of the issue were discussed. Heads of Missions International had been informed on how to deal with these matters. He agreed that Government had to respond, and the Department of Home Affairs also had to respond. He noted that South Africa, as Chair of the SADC, had to build cohesion about Zimbabwe. There were divergent views on how to move forward. The situation was problematic.
 
Mr Madasa ventured that Botswana was a small country that could not possibly integrate one million refugees from another country. Positions that Botswana held could be attributed to political fatigue.

Mr Sibande drew attention to the fact that there had been a SADC march-out because of Mr Robert Mugabe.

Dr Ntsaluba responded that tough issues were being raised. He found it hard to discuss these matters within the context of an open meeting, and suggested that a confidential format would be more appropriate.

Mr Nkosi agreed with him about the need for confidential discussion about sensitive issues.

The Chairperson requested a closed meeting in which the balance of forces in Zimbabwe would be looked into. There had to be an assessment of players in the region, and of their sources of power. In such a meeting, Members would have to make a commitment to secrecy.

The meeting was adjourned.