Question NW1755 to the Minister of Finance

Reply:

NATIONAL TREASURY

Minister and DM don’t use security services.

ASB

The CEO of the Accounting Standards Board does not make use of security services paid for by the State or the entity for the CEO, her immediate family or any of their staff members.

CBDA

The Co-operative Banks Development Agency’s Managing Director did not make use of security services paid for by the State for him / herself, his / her immediate family members or any of their staff members at any stage.

DBSA

No

FSB

c) Financial Services Board

(i) No, with regard to the Executive Officer.

(ii) No.

(iii) No.

(aa) Not applicable.

(bb) Not applicable.

(cc) Not applicable.

FIC

FIC does not make use of any security services paid for by the state for the head of the FIC or his immediate family of any other staff member of the FIC.

GEPF

The GEPF did not make use of any security services paid for by the State.

GPAA

• No, the head of the GPAA has never used security services paid for by the state; neither have his immediate family members and staff members.
• (aa) is not applicable because of the above.
• (bb) and (cc) are not applicable because of bullet one.

IRBA

The IRBA hereby declares that;

(i) Not application

PFA

1. No
2. No
3. No

LAND BANK

1. Ther is no Land Bank staff member who using the security services paid for the State.
2. No immediate family member of any Land Bank employee is using such a service.
3. No staff member.

FAIS OMBUD

1. No
2. No
3. No

PIC

The Chief Executive Officer of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) and his immediate family members do not use security services paid for by the State or the PIC.

SAA

There is no use of security services paid for by the State or SAA for the acting CEO, his / her immediate family or any of their members.

SARS

Does (a) he, (b) his Deputy Minister or (c) any of the heads of entities or bodies reporting to him make use of security services paid for by the State for (i) him/herself,

Security services at SARS are paid for by SARS and not by the state. Only threat and risk assessments are borne by SAPS as part of police services.

(i) SARS is a critical institution tasked with revenue collection. Due to the nature of its mandate it is vital that the Commissioner and some SARS employees, who by virtue of their roles, who are threatened or deemed to be threatened by individuals or syndicates under investigation, are provided with personal protectors. The current Commissioner including previous SARS Commissioners have all been allocated protective service for this reason.

The Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service, Mr Tom Moyane does have Protective Service Officers allocated to him.

(ii) his/her immediate family members

(ii) The Commissioner’s spouse is allocated Protective Service Officers, as has been practise at SARS. The protectors of family members are allocated in line with previous practice at SARS.

iii) Any of their staff members; in each case (aa) what are the reasons for it, (bb) from which department or entity’s budget is the security services being paid, and (cc) what are the relevant details?

(iii) The above applies to those employees in SARS, who based on a threat and risk assessment, receive protection.

(aa) The relevant details in respect of Protective Service Officers (PSO) vary from individual to individual of those being protected by the threat and risk assessment (TRA) which is compiled in advance by South African Police Service.

Divulging the number protectors allocated to the Commissioner will be a breach of security measures currently in place.

(bb) SARS budgets for security service for SARS employees.

(cc) Divulging the relevant details would compromise security measures in place.

The entire SARS environment is audited on an annual basis by the Auditor General.

SASRIA

Sasria SOC Ltd does not make use of security services paid for by the state for any of its personnel.

TAX OMBUD

The Office of the Tax Ombud did not make use of security services paid for by the State for himself/herself, his/her immediate family members nor any of its staff members, in each case there was no need for such services, no provision was made in the budget for such service, and no amount was paid, and no relevant details.