Hansard: NCOP: Unrevised hansard
House: National Council of Provinces
Date of Meeting: 02 Nov 2023
Summary
No summary available.
Minutes
UNREVISED HANSARD
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
THURSDAY, 2 NOVEMBER 2023
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
Watch here: Plenary
The Council met at 14:02.
The Chairperson took the Chair and requested members to observe the moment of silence for prayers of meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, the first announcement is that the Amabhokobhoko will be starting their victory parade tomorrow at 10 o’clock in the morning here in Parliament. “Ja.” That is the correct kind of hackling.
[Laughter.] That must be encourages.
So, that will be 10 o’clock in the morning. The event will take place in front of the National Council of Provinces, NCOP, steps just outside here. The Chief Whip has requested the NCOP permanent delegates to indicate their interest to attend.
I am told that the team will spend an hour here at Parliament. From here they will continue to the victory parade that will be held at the Grand Parade down the road. For those who are at the parliamentary villages the buses will depart the villages at about seven o’clock in the morning. Yes.
Secondly, I would also like to wish the hon Masuku here, a special delegate from Gauteng, a happy birthday. I am sure that would be in order. [Laughter.]
I hope and trust that his special birthday will be appropriately celebrated, but we a 100% behind you. Thank you very much.
Having said that I will also like to remind delegates of the rules relating to the virtual and hybrid meetings and sittings. In particular sub Rules (21) (22) and (23) of Rule 103 which provides as follows: That the hybrid sitting constitute a sitting of the National Council of Provinces. That delegates in the hybrid sitting enjoys the same powers and privileges that apply in a sitting of the National Council of Provinces. That for purposes of the quorum all delegates who are logged on to the virtual platform shall be considered present. That delegates must switch on their videos if they want to speak. Delegates who experience connectivity issues are encouraged to use a still photograph for identification in the virtual platform as has been the practice until now. That delegates on the virtual platform are encouraged to log on with one device only, as logging on with two more devices further lowers the bandwidth. That delegates should ensure that the microphones and their gadgets are muted and must always remain muted unless they are permitted to speak. That all delegates in the Chamber must insert their cards to register on the Chamber system. That delegates who are physical in the Chamber must use the floor microphones. That all delegates may participate in the discussion through the chart phone.
Lastly, I would like to remind delegates that the interpretation facility is active. Permanent delegates, members of the executive, special delegates and SA Local Government Association, Salga, representatives on the virtual platform are requested to ensure that the interpretation facility on their electronic devices are properly activated to facilitate access to the interpretation services. That
permanent and special delegates, and Salga representatives should use and members of the executive in the Chamber should use the interpretation instruments on their desks to access the interpretation facilities.
Hon delegates I have also been informed that in accordance with Council Rule 229, there will be no Notices of Motion and Motions without Notice.
Having done so, let us move on then to welcome before we proceed to questions, welcome the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans as well as the Minister in the Presidency, State Security as well as all permanent delegates, MECs and all special delegates to this House. So we welcome the Ministers from the Peace and Security Cluster.
Further, I would like to remind delegates that that in terms of Rule 229 of Council Rules, this is just a reminder and we all try the best we can comply. Firstly that the time for reply by a Minister to a question is five minutes. That only four supplementary questions are allowed per question. That a member who has asked the initial question will be the first to be afforded the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.
That the time for asking a supplementary question is two
minutes and the time for a reply to a supplementary question is four minutes. Lastly, that a supplementary question must emanate from the initial question.
Hon members, I would like to ask the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans to take the podium as she answers Question
256. This question is on combating escalating crimes. The question is from the hon M Bartlett and it is to the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans. Hon Minister, please come through. The Minister is the former Chairperson of the NCOP. We are very familiar with her. Please proceed, hon Minister.
CLUSTER 1B: PEACE AND SECURITY (Defence and Military Veterans and State Security)
Question 256:
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Hon House Chairperson, I still remember the rules and that is why I was trying to go around.
My response is to the question from the hon Bartlett: Is that no, as the Security Cluster of Ministers, we have not approached the Head of State to deploy us or to start implementing any provisions of the state of emergency. We can ay that we are also watching the space. We have had several meetings. We keep taps of the going-ons of the zama-zamas and the cash-in-transit gangs.
Therefore meeting regularly we have also drawn in other Ministers who are outside our cluster. The Minister of the Mineral Resources and Energy and the Minister of Water and Sanitation and the Minister of Human Settlements very deliberately because of the impact of the zama-zamas also affect these two Ministries, especially the human settlements because in parts of Gauteng the zama-zamas have actually began to threaten people. In the North West, they have started doing what we know as sexual offences where young women are taken for R3 000 and mothers must shut up.
We also know that they interfere with the water resources which are then diverted to underground mines to cleans or smelt whatever it is they are taking illicitly.
So, yes, we are keeping taps as I said through the natjoints. However, we are also very clear that for now the Police seem to be doing very well on their own. We are as Defence on standby for whenever we are called. However, if hon members are honest you would have seen that the Police have been
matching them bullet-for-bullet, hit-for-hit out there in the streets. However, if the President says it is time for us all to come in, yes. Do we have a plan? Yes, we do. Do we think that that plan if called upon will work? Yes we do. Do we see a role for the Defence in dealing with the zama-zamas? Yes, we do.
However, we think we have not trained members of the Defence to deal with the cash-in-transit, but if you go to the military exercises you will also realise that whatever it is that we train our people for hostage and hostage breakages and evacuations can be applied there. So, whatever situation if the Head of State ever calls us to be in support of the Police and other Ministries on this one we will be ready. Thank you, House Chairperson.
Ms B M BARTLETT: Hon Minister, thank you very much for your elaborate response to this critical question which continues to generate public interest. Hon Minister, in welcoming your response, that the SA National Defence Force, SANDF, is on standby, if called upon to assist the law-enforcement agencies, the pertinent follow-up question is therefore how do we ensure that innocent and law-abiding members of the
communities are not caught in a crossfire during these criminals with these criminal acts? Thank you very much.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: If Defence is called in support of the Police, members of the Defence are led by the Police. They would be the lead Department. They would do the arresting and we would do the back-up.
If however, we are called upon to go underground into the mines we would exactly know what to do because some of the weapon system that the illegal miners carry, can be matched by the Defence.
We also think that we would be useful there because we have certain skills in the Defence. Your engineers would be coming very handy there.
Will we endanger the public if the Defence is brought in? We think not. We have had too many operations in support of the Police when members of the Defence are deployed in support, whether they had been deployed many times before, they still undergo training just before any operation in support of the Police.
So, from our side we would not. We would serve to protect and to be a layer between our people and the illegal miners and the cash-in transit people. Thank you, House Chairperson.
Mr F J BADENHORST: Hon House Chairperson, let me just take the opportunity to welcome my nephew and niece in the public gallery, Sabrina and Dimitru from Mauritius. Welcome in the House. Hope you enjoy your visit.
Hon Minister, didn’t your zama-zamas and cash-in-transit heist is the Police competency?
The SA National Defence Force is already not sufficiently resourced to assist the SA Police Force, SAPS, with work for which they should have capacity.
Minister, if your department is indeed requested to assist with plans: What plans do you have in place for such assistance and how do you plan to budget for such assistance? Thank you.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Hon House Chairperson, if the Defence were to be asked as I have said, we are on standby we are not yet been asked, but we have been part of the planning since we are in the same cluster. We do not think that we necessarily would have to come up with the budget. We think that our Treasury would be approached to bring such a budget on board. We do not think that we necessarily have to spent money for special training as I say we have engineers. South African Soldiers are known for their bravery and therefore, we think that other than to transport members between the events and between the mines, and for the subsistence and travel allowance, SNT, and for whatever else that we would look to Treasury. So, we would not be diverting any resources that are already inadequate in the Defence for such an operation. However, we cannot fault members of the Defence and say we would be we have not been able to be trained enough to deal with any situation which would protect livelihoods and property of South Africans. That is our role and that is the role that we would not want to be in within the confines of the boarders of South Africa. However, if needs be and if we are called upon to protect South Africans against anything we would be ready. Thank you, Sir.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: The next question will be from the hon Magwala. Oh it is the hon Mokause. The hon Mokause! The hon Mokause is not there. Going, going, gone!
Mr M J MAGWALA: Ha! What rules are those now?
Thank you, House Chairperson.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hay, [No] Magwala, because you caused the initial problem and then you perpetuate it after telling us that ... [Inaudible.]
Mr M J MAGWALA: No, Chairperson.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: But please, go ahead.
Mr M J MAGWALA: No Chairperson, even on the last [Lantuka]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Please go ahead!
Mr M J MAGWALA: But I am speaking to the Chairperson. Why is it a problem?
Greetings hon Chairperson and Minister.
Hon Minister, residents in the area such as Kagiso and surroundings are for years struggling with illegal mines who have turned their area into a crime hotspot, while you and the department of community safety are silent on action that is being taken against the zama-zamas and the ongoing shootings. Why has it taken you so-long to find a solution to these ongoing challenges? Thank you.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: I have said
that we are on standby to come in support of the Police. I have also stated that it is Police responsibility to deal with all internal crime issues. I have also said that we have been studying and looking at what kind of amerments are being used? I have also said that it is not just we have actually beginning to deal with this matter. We have been talking our counterparts in the neighbouring countries where we have identified where these people come from. Lesotho, Zimbabwe and Mozambique and that we have agreed that if we find any of their citizens and they are caught in the crossfire we have already alerted them.
However, it would not be true that the Defence should have jumped in at the first instance. It is not our responsibility, it is the Police responsibility. However, we serve in the same cluster, so we have been observing.
You would also not say that there has nothing that has been happening. In the past, the Police have been accused of not doing anything. They were also accused of going after the lower ranks those who actually get in and smuggle out.
However, in the recent past, you will acknowledge that the Police have been going up the ladder. They have been addressing, arresting, going after, asking for attachment of properties and for people to face the wrath of the law in the courts of the people who send in these lower ones inside the mines.
We cannot say that we have not been doing anything. For if you rush into anything without preparation, you may actually be coming out with an action that will cause more harm to the people you are trying to protect.
So, no hon member, I will not say that we have been useless and just sing there. The Police have been doing something. What we do need to do though is to have a situation where when the Police arrest the zama-zamas the lower courts do not let them walk. For actually that is what makes South Africans think that the Police have not being doing their job even when they have been arresting and trying to put these people away. So there is that disjuncture which says that the executive
part try to do their job and the judiciary does the other thing. So that discussion we are asking the Head of State to organise so that we can deal with the matter once and for all. Thank you, Sir.
Mr S F DU TOIT: Hon House Chairperson and hon Minister, with reference to the initial question and the declaration of state of emergency by the President: Would you say that in the events of the President declaring of the state of emergency whether the SANDF will be in a position to fulfil its mandate since it is a known fact that the SANDF fleet is not 100% operational and very little equipment have been maintained and acquired over the past few years in spite of the fact that the Cuban technicians are working on it and for the past few years the bulk of the SANDF budget was utilised for salaries and also taking in mind that hundreds of SANDF vehicles that was destroyed in the fire at Walmansdal and the recent vehicles that were destroyed at Lohatla that has not been replaced yet? Thank you, hon Minister.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Hon House
Chairperson, I think that we must debunk what the hon member is saying. I said earlier on that we would be in a position to defend the property of South Africa.
The hon members says hundreds of our equipment was burnt. I wish to through you hon House Chairperson send a list of what was burnt. And both Walmansdal which in Walmansdal was the equipment that had actually been standing there for months and probably years which we should be auctioning and giving out there.
In Lohatla, I wish through you House Chairperson, send the list of what was burnt. So, it is not hundreds and hundreds of staff.
Hon House Chairperson, it is also not true that all our equipment are useless and cannot be used. The same member will remember that the Operation Thusano has enabled SA Defence Force to maintain and in some instances even upgrade. We have also not lost the opportunity to train our own sons and daughters South African young people in the military to do the same. You can put what has been done by the Cubans alongside by what was done by the South African troops. You will be proud to see what your own children have done.
Therefore, it is absolutely not true that we are completely unable to move and to protect. We do have equipment in storage which we still need to upgrade and renew. Yes we have not had
enough budget to re-equip and to maintain because there are instances where we have issues with the original equipment manufacturers when we want parts, but it does not mean that we have been unable at all to be able to move.
What happened in July 2021, actually gave us the energy to start going for all of our move bolt equipment in the army to and to start refurbishment.
We must also not forget that since 1994, the army has not received anything in the Re-equipment Bill. Therefore in the next round which we will be proposing to this country after we finish with our Defence review, we would think that the army of all of them would be the first in line for replenishing and rejuvenating their equipment and their systems. Thank you, House Chairperson.
Question 263:
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Thank you,
Chairperson. The hon Badenhorst asked us what benefits, financial or otherwise, our co-operation with the country of Indonesia is all about. Whenever countries and whenever militaries, enter into agreements and co-operations, it is because there is something that each of the partners gives.
When you make friends, you end up inheriting your friend’s friends, and sometimes you inherit their enemies too.
This agreement that we signed off in August is actually a reinstatement of the 2008 agreement that was signed and lapsed in 2018. Is there any financial benefit for us directly, as Defence? No! Is there any financial benefit for the South African economy? Yes! Because, when you look at this agreement between Indonesia and South Africa, and it has done for the South African defence industry, you will learn that companies like Paramount, Milko, Denel - itself, Greens, and OTT, have actually been making sales and been making money. Therefore yes, there is a financial benefit for this country in this agreement.
Have we, as Defence, lost any money in the in this agreement? Not really! However, if you enjoy the exercises you have to pay your way to the place where the exercise is. You have to pay the subsistence and travel allowances, S&Ts. But can the subsistence and travel allowances and the monies that you pay for airfares and accommodation equate the quality of the training that you built? No! We also must remember that both of us, Indonesia and South Africa, belong to the Indian realm family.
Therefore, we do benefit by sending our troops on the naval exercises - the exchanges. So, I would not say that there is nothing that we are benefiting from them. We attend to their defence expos. They attend very religiously our AADs. We share information on a defence-to-defence. So, the agreement does not benefit Indonesia alone; we will also benefit from it.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr F J BADENHORST: Hon Minister, thank you. According to Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2022, allow me to quote:
The Indonesian government frequently violated basic civil and political rights, especially of disadvantaged groups based on religious, ethnic, social, gender and sexual orientation grounds. Military and police abused rights across the country with impunity, and especially in Papua and West Aqua provinces, where diplomats, foreign rights monitors and international media are largely excluded.
How do these pacts align, Minister, with our Bill of Rights? And why would we want to enter or maintain co-operative agreements with the country whose government shows no respect for the principle contained our Bill of Rights.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Thank you for
the question, hon Badenhorst. Why would we really? And why do we continue to maintain relationships with like countries. The hon member is not asking us whether we want to cut ties with Israel or what is happening currently. The hon member is not asking is not asking us to consider cutting ties with the US after they sent banned cluster ... No, no, no, let me respond to you! cluster bombs to an area where we, as South Africa, have said we are neutral to.
So, we talk about the rights - human rights. We talk about sexual rights. We talk about the rights of women and children. It does not matter whether South Africans are there, but we stand for the rights of human beings. When we take a stint as a country, we must be able to then be very consistent with each and every partnership that we will be entering into it.
It does not mean that when you get into a partnership and into a co-operative agreement with people, you do everything ...
Sesotho:
O ba Mpho le Mphonyana!
English:
It means that on your bilateral you have the right to ask. We have not cut ties with the with Uganda. It is at exactly the same spot with sexual orientation and the rights of people who are otherwise interested in orientation. I am simply saying that. You cannot cut and paste. You cannot choose the others. So, hon Badenhorst, we have not cut the tiles, we have just renewed, but we will not support sexual discrimination.
No, no! Check, hon Badenhorst is not interested in what I am saying, and therefore, I think we should allow him to continue.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon Badenhorst, if I can just ask you one more time, and this is in the interest of having progress: Can we avoid - just two people talking as if the house doesn’t exist. Please! Thank you very much.
Ms S SHAIKH: Thank you very much, hon Chairperson, and thank you very much, hon Minister, for your response. Also, hon Minister, kindly accept our support to the department in this particularly important initiative. Oring minister, can you explain to the people of South Africa: How does this cooperative agreement contribute towards international peace and security; and what are the benefits for the military
capabilities of the South African National Defence Force? Thank you.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Well, thank
you, ma’am. We are obviously not in the same continent and therefore we do not have the ability to learn and to participate in every peace-keeping effort. But, because we have exchange programs; because our Chiefs regularly visit each other; because we sometimes serve in the same international platforms, we are able to learn and to exchange views.
It is important for us to continuously try and learn, because we sometimes have our officers training in their institutions. What they pick up from there, and when, and if, they send people to our institutions, it is in that way that we will cross pollinate. However, we as South Africa are always truly clear: We will stand for peace! We will stand for democracy!
We will stand for the protection of those who are vulnerable in societies!
Therefore, we are never ashamed to say this is our stand, even if we are the only ones who say it. So, in the peacekeeping
missions, nobody would want to better our record, but we have so much to learn because, as the hon members say, you only learn when you integrate; when you see what other people are doing; but when we also share.
You will also remember that, we have the Indonesian defence attaché. So, diplomatically we also learn to exchange views, but the regular visits between the two countries and the two defence forces help us get on. We train together on the real family of navies and, therefore, that also helps us prepare for whatever eventuality which might happen at sea. Thank you very much.
Mr N M HADEBE: Thank you so much, Chairperson. Hon Minister, I would like to know, whether there are any similar co-operative defence agreements, past or present, that have successfully yielded positive results, such as those expected by the Republic in the defence agreement in question?
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: I earlier on
referred to the benefits that our South African defence industry gets in selling weapons. I think that we have a long category of what they are buying from us. And therefore,
financially, South Africa has been making it, and milking it, from the relationship between us and Indonesia.
So that is a success! The fact that we can share defence- related information, and we can train together, save us lot of money, sometimes, if we were to simply concentrate on sending our troops only to the Western countries. Thank you, Chair.
Mr M J MAGWALA: Thank you very much, Chairperson. Minister, once again: What measures are put in place to protect South Africa’s national sovereignty and interest in the event of conflicting objectives with Indonesia, or changes in your political landscape? Secondly, does the agreement reach include provision for joint humanity and peace peacekeeping operations? If so, how will it contribute to regional and international peace and security? Thank you.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Indonesia is
that way; we are here. We do not share borders; we share interests. We share training. We share ... Perhaps, we can say that Indonesia, having been so close to East Timor, has also witnessed and seen what happened when a tiny state is bottlenecked. What we do share is the ability to train together; the ability to look out to the future together; and
the ability to use our defence industries, to continuously resuscitate our own.
For instance, they are interested in buying ... [Inaudible.]
... from us - our old ... [Inaudible.]. We are not so keen in selling because we want them upgraded. We want them here.
However, the experience of even sharing like weapons is good for us. It is invaluable that when our Navy is on its knees, as the hon Badenhorst would happily remind me, we do have friends who will enable us to continue to send our troops to the naval exercise, and to extend their capabilities on the sea.
Do we share information on things that happen in the ocean? I think when it comes to crunch time, yes, we will share. If Indonesia, gets wrong anywhere - because we have an agreement where we share: We would be able, as South Africa, to say, ‘watch out;’ and we think that they would be able to also enable us to watch our backs, to be prepared for whatever.
And therefore, when you enter into this agreement, sometimes it is not just about monetary value. It is also to lessen your basket of enemies. It is also to increase your line of communications, because until the world communicates over and
over, we cannot pick up on conflicts that start, and we cannot plan to mitigate those conflicts. Thank you.
Question 257:
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Hon Maleka, we
as the Republic of South Africa have signed an agreement concerning defence co-operation with the Republic of Cuba on
10 January 2012 and it is still in force. The identified areas of operation on the ongoing activities between the two-armed forces are in the field of military training, education and development. We also exchange information and defence intelligence we also deal with issues of defence logistics and acquisition.
Also, it must be clear that it is not only the Department of Defence, but also the Health department of this country that has benefited from sending a large contingent of the South African youth to Cuba to train in the military health. We also want to say, not only that, the fact that we have two contracts with Cuba which have helped us to upgrade our fleets, especially in the army, it’s something that we are also very happy about.
Also, we must say that the relationship predated the year 2012 because, the hon members will remember that in the dark days, Cuba was one of those countries that stood up and went for it. They did not expect to be paid in order to help those that were oppressed in the world. They tried to free those bonds.
Today, I am standing here alive because when the apartheid regime was in the military camp in which I was training, the Cuban doctors arrived on time. So, that bond is not the bond that you throw away very easily.
When we mention the contribution of Cuba, who can forget the importance of Cuito Cuanavale and the role that Cuba played in? The project democratisation of Southern Africa was because of the largeness of the hearts of the Cuban people who sent their children, their sons and daughters out there to go and fight, and who sometimes lost their lives there. It is not only a contract between government to government, but also a people-to-people government. We hope that wherever Mandela and Castro are, they must know that we will try and endeavour to keep this relationship between the Cuban people and the South African people. Thank you, Chair.
Ms A D MALEKA: Hon Minister, we reaffirm our support for the co-operation with the government of Cuba which dates back from
the period of the anti-apartheid struggles, recognising and re-note the expertise of Cuba in military issues ranging from military engineering, technology and health. Minister, how has the department concluded of the findings and the recommendations of the Auditor-General on Project Thusano, which is one of the critical arms of military co-operation with the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces? Thank you.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Hon member, we
are following up on the comments and the remarks of the Auditor-General. We have started an investigation on the two Thusano projects, and we must also say to the House that Thusano will come to end in January 2025, depending on the results we will get from the investigation and the review of the two contracts that we will take a decision.
We’ll take a decision not because we think that the two contracts themselves on Thusano are faulty, but we will take a decision if we find any wrongdoing from either side. In other words, whatever the review and the investigation into what is going on concerning the two contracts reveals, we will take an action and there will be consequences.
Mr S F DU TOIT: Hon Minister, in a previous engagement you replied to my question and indicated that all contracts that pertains to Cuba would have been revisited, not only two, but we have not yet received any outcome and the final decision. It’s also a fact that the SA National Defence Force, SANDF, sent soldiers to Cuba for medical training was 136% more expensive than if they would have received the training locally.
So, Minister, why does the government value its historical ties with Cuba above the needs of the South African citizens that are in urgent need of poverty alleviation, infrastructure dilapidation that is taking place, as well as the water crises? In short, Minister, why do you spend more than it is needed on training that could have been provided locally, and when will we have the final decision and outcome of all the contracts that pertains to South African-Cuba? Thank you, Chair.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Chairperson, I
have referred to the two contracts that we have with Cuba. We have only two contracts, but there are subcontracts in both contracts, maybe that is why the hon member thinks that there are multiple contracts. The investigation is on, and that is
what I was referring to. When we integrated the different forces in 1994, it was very clear that we would not be represented as the former nonstatutory forces, unless there was a deliberateness from our side to find different ways of training the nonstatutory force members to be able to compete equally in the defence force for space in all the different masteries and services.
So, the hon member is asking, why we would train people in a country which cost us 136% more? It is part of the investigation whether or not that is true, but if we find that we are doing anything wrong from our side, we will take a decision. That is why I said that there will be consequences when I get that report, because the whole idea is to enable all the South Africans to find and to feel equal in every aspect of the South African’s lives and for them to choose any field of life and profession in South Africa.
When we started off, we did not have enough to get into the navy, and we did not have enough to get into the air force. Therefore, we had to find the alternative spaces and places to train the other people who are now firmly beginning to come into their own. Is it because we want to favour Cuba? No, we don’t, and that is why I want to emphasise, Chairperson, that
if we find out that there is anything untoward that we are paying towards Cuba, we will stop it. Thank you, Chair.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: We move forward to hon Dlamini. Hon Dlamini, going, going, gone.
Mr K MOTSAMAI: It’s hon Motsamai.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Huh?
Mr K MOTSAMAI: They have changed it to hon Motsamai.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Alright, proceed, Motsamai.
Mr K MOTSAMAI: Okay, Chairperson. Minister, following the acquisition of unregistered, heuristic COVID-19 drug through the Thusano initiative, what measures has the department put in place to ensure that the acquisition processes are not wasteful, give value for the money and remain within the framework of the law? I thank you, Chair.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: I should have
expected that this question will come up if you speak about Cuba. Hon members, we have followed up on how the drug was
acquired and we did exactly what the investigators and what the Auditor-General said we must do. We returned the drug to Cuba, not because we felt that the drug was ineffective, but because we felt that the acquiring process for the drug was faulty, and therefore, we couldn’t as the defence and the defender of South Africa’s integrity, allow the defence itself to get away with murder. So, we returned the drugs to Cuba.
Therefore, we are making sure that not a single tablet or injection that comes through to this country through the defence or any other way, that is why when we had another offer to get Covid medicine through China, I said no. If the drugs are accredited in South Africa, we will fetch them, but until we follow the correct processes, we will not. So, I think that we should also say to the hon member that, that exercise will never ever be repeated in the defence. The right procurement systems will be followed.
We have also taken the issue with the Department of Health and its entities who instead of coming to the party and be helping out, because if you remember, there is a provision, and I’m sure the soldiers in the House would remember that the Chief of the National Defence Force has the duty to protect the force. In that capacity, when the defence was forced
unprepared to go out in the streets and be in the first line of defence with the people in a Covid that did not have anything, we are told that the Chief of Defence then started looking and brought them in, and they were asked to follow the right processes through the system, and the system according to the defence, have let them down.
However, I don’t know if the members were given part of the report because the former Minister started an investigation into that. We have said that it does not matter how urgent it is, all the laws of the country will be followed. Therefore, you might have noticed that the C-loco that was responsible for defence is no longer part of the defence because we shall not tolerate any of us taking a decision on the huff without following the correct processes. It doesn’t matter how hurtful it is, but we want to say that on those few entities, I forgot the name, please pardon me, where they have allowed the defence to test out the drug, the people recovered, and they are ...
Afrikaans:
... sterk en fris.
English:
The people who were very sick are running up and down. As South Africa, sometimes we must say that we will miss good things, simply because we are looking at the colour of a country, and not go for what is in the best interest of South Africa. Therefore, we will not repeat the irregularities that came in when that drug was imported. We will still make a follow-up, and anybody who may still be on the system, will be flushed out eventually.
Mr F J BADENHORST: Minister, it is recently reported that medical training for the South Africans troops in Cuba costs more than 136% than training them in South Africa, resulting in R122 million loss in the South African taxpayer, with the Auditor-General finding another R308 million of the irregular expenditure through Project Thusano. How much longer must the poor South Africans whom many of them includes the military veterans that are living from hand to mouth suffer, to fund this long-distance romantic relationship with Cuba?
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Romantic or
nonromantic, there is a relationship between the people of Cuba and this country. We must go back to the original reasons why we took the black kids from the townships to Cuba for medical training. Yes, when you look at the costs, we want to
agree that they might be a bit more expensive, but that is not the only difference, hon Badenhorst. You would also know that the Cuban training for medical doctors is very different from ours. They focus on preventative, and we as a country focus on the curative.
Now, hon members will know that when we started at looking on the National Health Insurance, NHI, we were going to start looking at the preventative medical boquay for the country.
That is why it was important for us to start getting people who will be the forerunners on the shift in the focus of medical training. I am not saying that it is true, but it is proper that we are spending 136% more. I am repeating myself by saying that part of the reasons why we are in the review of both contracts with Cuba, is to see whether that 136% is wholly the total amount charged by the Cubans or whether there is something untoward us here in South Africa and Cuba, and if there is something, that is part of the review.
Few minutes ago, I’ve already said, and I’m on record in this House, that if we find something, we will take action.
However, the fact of the matter is that, for us who have been on the other side, we know that preventative medicine is better than the curative one. We need to be able know street
by street who has what and what can be done, so that we don’t continue to be in a situation we are in. Expensive as it is, you’ve got more to gain. Perhaps what hon Badenhorst is talking about is that, after they are trained in Cuba, yes, we need to pay a little bit extra to get them accredited in South Africa, that adds to the costs, and we are looking into all of that.
I also said that both of the Thusano contracts come to an end in 2025. When we finished with the investigations under review, should we find that there are grounds for us to stop it before 2025, we shall do so. In other words, we shall try to be clinical as possible so that we are not seen as people who just throw money in Cuba. Where we think that we are married and we need to defend the relationship, we will, and where we think that there is something untoward that is happening between and among these contracts, we shall act.
Thank you.
Question 260:
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Thank you,
Chairperson. The question is whether we have determined the costs at the Lohatla Military Base and whether we will review the conditions of training there. Hon members, Lohatla Army
Combat Training Centre is one of the bases’ biggest and the best training centres in the Southern Hemisphere. It is a tough base, and it is not very nice, but it gives us the opportunity to train people under extreme conditions. Those of us who come from the Northern Cape and the North West know the extremes of the weather there. That are the conditions that enable us to train and bring out the best of our soldiers.
No, we do not think of reviewing and closing Lohatla as I think this question is suggesting. What we want to do is to relook at what the fire has done and see how we can beef up the preventatives of fire because this was not the first fire. In fact, within days of this fires we are dealing with the second fire, but we were better prepared because that fire’s direction did not change as much as the first fire was.
Therefore, no, we do not wish to close this base. We want to say that, yes, we have lost people. What is the point of training soldiers? It is for us to accept that there is life that we must save and there is life that we must sometimes give.
Chairperson, we went to Lohatla to meet, firstly, with the members who were training in the base. Yes, we have lost six members out of close to more than 1 200 people who were
training in the base on that day. We satisfied ourselves that the conditions could not ... We pointedly ask questions whether the Lohatla had any fire trucks and whether they had early warnings. We came back knowing that that wind was very strong. When the second fire started, we also wanted to find out. Just like the first fire which had started in the mines, the second fire started in the village. Fortunately, the villagers dealt with the person who started the fire. We want to say that it is unfortunate that we have lost quite a number of equipment, but the most important equipment for us were the human lives that have passed on.
We have had the opportunity to interact with the families. We split up the members of the high command to be in all the funerals that ensured. We have committed to look after the widows and the children of those who have departed as is usual in the Defence. We have by now compiled a list of what we lost in the fire. We have also accepted that part of our weakness there was the water availability. Therefore, we are doing something about that. We are making sure that we are putting in wells, we are digging water and we are replacing the fire equipment that was there. Of course, we can’t replace the human beings, but with the equipment we think we can.
So, Lohatla must stay on. The loss of lives is something that we really regret and we will live with it, but we will not sacrifice the trainings in that base. Thank you, Chair.
Mr N M HADEBE: Thank you, hon Chairperson. Hon Minister, there is no functional state that can thrive without a strong well- equipped and well-funded Defence Force. It is therefore concerning that when we lose members of our Defence Force in such a cruel yet completely avoidable manner. My question to you, hon Minister, were all established preventative measures and protocols followed on the day in question as the S A National Defence Force, SANDF, had foreseen the danger posed by training under the circumstances present on that day? If not, why not, and if so, what are the relevant details? Thank you, hon Minister and hon Chairperson.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Thank you,
Chair. I have said that that area, its fires and the speed of the fires in that area are quite interesting. On that particular day the base received a two hours’ notice that the fire had started in the neighbouring mines. That fire arrived at a speed of, I think, 73 km per hour. It was very fast. The base was ready to deal with the fire. We must also say that the main base was not burnt, but it was the training sites
that were burnt. We must say that the relationship between the Defence and the farming communities in that area and the ordinary households there is in place, that there are fire warnings from one to the other, and that on that particular date it was there. We do regret that people have died, but we also say that it is the toughest military base you have in the Southern Hemisphere. We do not only train South Africans there, but other countries do ask to be trained there.
We are saying that the fact that over the years the Department of Defence has suffered losses as far as the budget is concerned, and this is deplorable. It is something that we fight. We are engaging with the Treasury and we are also engaging with the head of state that we cannot continue with the budget cuts.
We also said that the equipment that were dilapidated a few years back have been brought back to life. It is not all of it, not with all the agility because even as we brought them back to life you need to recapacitate, you need to rejuvenate not only the people, but the equipment itself. We are saying that all of that is what keeps us awake. We are arguing that we cannot be kept at 0,7% and 0,8% of the GDP when in fact we
should be slowly clawing back to at least 1+% of the GDP so that we can begin to re-equip and rejuvenate better.
Whether we had all the best equipment in the world, would we have prevented that fire which changed the direction so quickly? Were the right commands given on the day? We asked those questions very directly and we were assured. Am I certain and convinced from where I am? I am waiting for the full investigation report to come before I can say, yes, I find a fault here, or I did not.
Like all the things, when we have that report we will be very public about it. Did we ask what was happening for those who were responsible that day? Yes, we did put the questions. We were assured that everything possible was done to prevent the loss of lives and the loss of equipment. So, yes, when we have that we will take the report to Parliament, and Parliament will judge us there. Thank you, Chair.
Mr W A S AUCAMP: Thank you, hon chairperson. Hon Minister, I am from the Northern Cape, and Lohatla is within my constituency. I have been there on the day that those people burnt down, and it was terrible. The wind came from all directions. That should have raised a flag for Lohatla. I can
promise you now, Minister, if you can go and speak to any farmer there, and I have spoken to many, the firebreaks around Lohatla are not sufficient. Would it have stopped the fire which killed these people? No, it would not have because the wind was terrible, but it would have made it easier to fight those fires.
On the second fire the farmers adjacent to Lohatla contacted Lohatla and said there was a fire and please stop your military drills and allow us to go in so that we can assist to fight the fires. Initially, that was refused. Later in the afternoon they allowed them in. I think they need to bear co- operation.
But irrespective of that, Minister, South Africa has been embarrassed by soldiers being repatriated from the United Nations peace keeping duties in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC, after allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse. Members have been arrested for stealing arms and ammunitions for military armies and Russin cargo ships use our strategic military harbours as dumps for armaments.
As if this is not enough, you are faced with the potential budget shortfall of R6,7 billion because of the unauthorised
employment expenditure through unfunded salary increases, and not to mention the possible claims that farmers adjacent to Lohatla will have due to the fires that spread from Lohatla.
Minister, in all these somebody must take responsibility. Somebody must be acted against. My question to you is, with all that what happened in the SANDF, had there been any actions taken against any senior officers, generals, brigadiers, admiral or any senior officer within the SANDF with regard to all that I have mentioned? Thank you, hon Minister.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: If I may,
Chairperson! I have said that the investigation is on. I am not going to pre-empt that board of inquiry. I have said that I have been there. If you come from that area, you also know that it was not the first time there is fire there. You would also know and understand the speed and the change in directions the fires in that area took. Were we negligent? The board of inquiry will reveal. And if they do, we will deal with that.
The rest of what you are quoting is pre-emptive. We do not know whether soldiers of the SA National Defence Force
committed the sexual exploitation and abuse, SEA. We are investigating. We have taken issue with the UN because in terms of the protocol they were, first, supposed to tell us as the true country and our members before they went public. They did not. We have repatriated our soldiers. They will be held accountable if indeed they were responsible for SEA. But sometimes we need to believe a little bit in the others. Give them the chance to prove or disprove the charges put on them - until that report is in front of us and until that investigation is done. We have sent our own investigators to work with the UN. If anybody is charged, they will be charged, if anybody must be sanctioned, they will be, and if we have to kick anybody out of the Defence, they will.
The truth of the matter is that a few months back the UN was praising us for the measures we are taking on sexual exploitation and abuse because unlike all the other countries we do what is right. We train our soldiers before they leave. They will be charged if they are found that they have done something wrong, whether it is the breaking of the curfew or whether it is SEA, we will deal with our troops. But we will not prejudge them before the investigations are concluded.
We have a mirage of problems. It does not mean we should push our hands in the air and say, hey, we have lost. No! If the investigations of the Lohatla fires comes and point a finger at a person or persons, they will face what they must face. I cannot pre-empt the reports. We will act when we have to act. Thank you, sir.
Mr M J MAGWALA: Thank you again, Chairperson. Minister, this is my last question to you for the day and thank you for all the responses that you have given us. How would the Minister ensure that the identified root cause of equitable addressed in the training operations? Which timelines have been put in place for the completion of the review and the implantation of the necessary changes for training operations? Thank you.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Thank you,
Chair. I don’t think we want to change our training. If anything and if we change, we must up the antic. The training must get tougher because it must anticipate anything and everything that can happen on the base. So, it will not get easier but rather get tougher so that we survive and our equipment survives.
We have taken stock of what we have lost in the fire. We are making sure that we are able to replace that which is lost including the tents and whatever. What we will find a little bit difficult to replace are the personal stuff and the things that people really held dear to their hearts which were burnt in the fire. But the tents, the belts and the radio equipment we are in the process of replacing them.
Surely, when you have lost people like that you would like to honour them. Instead of our tail to be between our legs and run away, we would rather honour those members who died on the field trying to be as equipped as possible to protect their country right there in Lohatla. And in their name, we must make sure that any time people who train in that base come out alive and come out ready to protect. So, we will not ...
IsiXhosa:
... asinakuqi... kuku...
English:
... we will not ...
IsiZulu:
... ngqilaza ...
English:
... we will withstand and we will make sure that the best ever troops come out of Lohatla.
How do we ensure that we don’t have tragedies? We can train better, we can plan better, we can try and find the resources and upgrade the systems in the base because clearly when you have not looked at how fast those were and how slow our equipment might have been, you know that it is time to get something newer, something readier. You also know that you need to do exactly what the hon member was talking about, being careful about firebreaks, being careful about the warning systems, being more in touch with the neighbours and dealing with the fire as it breaks.
But I would say that we do need to be realistic. We will not run away from Lohatla. We will stay and train there. It might not even seem so, but Lohatla is in the middle of nowhere. The little that the Defence is economically contributing to that area is also something that we must consider to them. That is why when we were approached by the Gift of the Givers we said, no, not us, but the communities who have just lost so much. We can use the power of the state dilapidated in our bank accounts as we are, but the people who are in our
neighbourhood would need that help best. We will continue to say that we will not only shield our people against the fire, but we would also listen to them when they warn us about the fire. I am very, very happy about the relationship which the base command told us that is existing between them and the farmers. When I got that report it was before the second fire. Even then they said we have a very strong system with the farming communities and the communities here. That is why when the second fire broke out we knew exactly who started it, and it wasn’t.
Whether or not the neighbouring communities are going to sue the Defence for the first fire which did not originate in our base, we will see that when it comes. But that fire did not. It cost us damage as much as it cost them damage. Otherwise, if we get sued does it mean that we must go and sue the mining area where it originates? I don’t know. Sometimes I think as human being we go after petty things. Yes, financially high, but for me you celebrate saving lives at any moment. For me the most important thing is that out of the about one thousand one hundred and something we lost people ... and we could have lost all of them, and for that we thank God. Thank you, Chair.
Mr E M MTHETHWA: Thank you, hon Chair. Chair, first allow us to join many other voices to extend our deepest condolences to the families of the deceased and their colleagues. Minister, we intend to be inspired by your speed and prompt response by instituting the board of enquiry into this deadly incident.
While your immediate, medium-term to high intervention is appreciated, can the Minister take the country into confident as, firstly, why the SANDF did not accept the offer from the Gift of the Givers during that trying and difficult moment?
How is the department assisting the soldiers in the camp who witnessed this incident and the families of the deceased with counselling and other forms of social support? I thank you very much, Chair.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Thank you very
much. We did not accept the troughed help from the Gift of the Givers. We were grateful that they made the offer. We thought that the communities surrounding the base were more deserving because we knew that we could replace the tents, we could replace the food and we could replace the uniform of our members. But the community mostly unemployed in a very difficult part of South Africa, would have needed those blankets and the food even more than our soldiers. It wasn’t out of disrespect. I spoke to the Gift of the Givers to
transfer and to look after our people first. It wasn’t a rebuff, but it was our way of saying these are soldiers, and we will deal with it. If they sleep a little bit without a blanket today, it is part of their life, but we will look after our own.
Yes, the families will receive and are in the process of receiving counselling. The families and the dependents of the deceased will continue to get the support. The Army Foundation has a fund. It takes contributions from members. We are undertaking to ensure that all those kids go through school to the highest level that they want. That is what the Army Foundation has been doing and it will not be a new thing. We will make sure that the families are taken care of. The business of burring and barring where the families had asked us to make space so that they do their cultural stuff and so on and so forth, were part of our responsibility. We will not run away from our own responsibilities. We will look after our own. We will make sure that those kids who have lost fathers and mothers are not fatherless and motherless.
Continuous visits and continuous support for the families that is what we have given instructions to ourselves to continue doing. If it means that amongst us, we actually begin to adopt
on top of what the Army Foundation will be doing to those children, we will do so. We are not going to run away from our own responsibility.
When a man or a woman gives their lives to their country it doesn’t matter whether it was at the boarder or by the fire at their training base, the country must acknowledge it and the country must be there for them because they have given us their lives. So, we are there. Thank you, Chair.
Question 270:
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Hon Ryder,
somebody pre-empted to us. [Laughter.] But we did after we queried, receive a report from the United Nations, UN that contained the allegations of serious acts of ill-discipline and misconduct, by the members of the SA National Defence Force who are deployed in the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC. We did also formally inform the UN that the members concerned will be withdrawn by us and we immediately sent both the investigators and the Military Police to go and bring them back and those members are here at home.
They are not here free because we are investigating, and we will charge them if we find them wrong on any ground. We just
felt that we could as a country have been treated a little bit better, rather than to see things on the TV screens before we were formally told. That does not excuse any member of the SA National Defence Force to go out of line. And because we do not know what really happened, we want to take that space to say they must quickly finish off with their investigations, so that we can take action if we have to take action as quickly as possible, because we also think that delaying matters will not help.
We will continue with our mission in the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Monusco, because we committed. But we will also say that we hope that we have not lost faith as South Africa because of the young men and whatever it is that they are being accused of. Because we don’t think that the sacrifices, the time we have spent there, the utilisation of our equipment there, trying to pursue a mission of peace in that country must just be thrown down the drain because of these youngsters’ misdemeanours if they are found guilty. Thank you, Chair.
Mr D R RYDER: Minister, welcome back to your House. Thank you, Chairperson. Minister, this is not the first time that this
has happened. While your swift actions are welcomed, this now points to a bigger discipline problem, almost systemic problem. Now, the command should be taking constant steps to ensure that these abuses and violations are not permitted. The President of South Africa is the Commander in Chief, and he is ultimately responsible, and he appointed you Minister to be solely responsible for defence.
So, as much as there are perpetrators of this vile behaviour, there are victims too. Victims who deserve to be acknowledged. So, Minister I want to ask you: What have you done to support those victims? Thank you.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Hon Ryder, I
see something on TV. I get a report which is not comprehensive when I press for it. I do not know where I stand here, who is guilty and who is not guilty. I have on my desk allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse, Sea. I have two reports which do not point me directly to say, indeed now these ones must go to the cells, or they must be kicked out of the defence. And that is the dilemma. But members of the SA National Defence Force before they are deployed, we do what other countries don’t do. We harvest the DNA so that when there are issues
like this, we are able to confirm. The victims are free to come in and say, indeed.
Now, I don’t want to pre-empt that investigation and say what I have read is this or that. Therefore, I want that investigation to be concluded and as I say, if we find anything that ties those young men to that. What is quite clear from the report I have hon members is that they did go out and drink after they celebrated Heritage Day. That is the one thing that I am certain of. And that is the one thing that the commanders must tell us how it happened. Why if they were drinking, they were not drinking within their own confines.
But I’m told they had to go somewhere else for the celebrations. So, it is not as though the victims of Sea are left ... [Inaudible] ... unattended.
In the past, when there were complaints when children resulted from the sexual exploits of their young people, you would know that we are the first country that takes ... [Inaudible] ... their salary and they look after those children. So, we will not take shortcuts at this time. If the women come forward and say we were forced, we will act. If the women say they are ... [Inaudible] ... they will pay for that. But in the defence, all the other laws and regulations will follow. But if there
is a victim that comes out of this particular incident and raises their hand and says - we will deal with them. But I want to be fair to say, as I stand here, I do not have anything that says private so and so, sergeant so and so has done this exactly. I’m waiting for that report. Thank you Chair.
Mr S F du TOIT: Hon Minister, we appreciate the fact that you are thorough in your investigation. But hon Minister, will the Minister commit to ensure that not only a disciplinary inquiry will take place and that the case will only serve before a disciplinary council, but if needed, it will be served before a Military Court.
Will the Minister ensure that if these individuals are found guilty of committing these sexual offences, the costs to government that pertains to the cost incurred in the investigation, the special flights, the repatriation back to South Africa for their cues to be billed against their pensions, for the taxpayer not to carry the burden of the misconduct if it was indeed the case. Thank you, Minister.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Hon Du Toit, we
will do that. We will not allow South Africa’s name to be
soiled, because we have taken every precaution to prepare our soldiers before they are trained. We will use everything in our power. The Military Code, the laws of the country, if they are found guilty. But if they are not found guilty, we will also accept that they are not. As I say, right now I do not know. If they are found guilty on all accounts of whatever it is that they are being accused of, we will take strong action.
The Military Justice System is a little bit slow for my liking when it deals with sexual offences. We have a pile-up of cases as longer than my arm from back then. And we are trying to push them to deal with these issues, so that no one sits and falls asleep when other people are waiting for justice to be done. So yes, if the Military Justice System fails, we will go out into the open courts and we will take hon Du Toit’s advice that we should recoup the expenses. That we will take to the high command. We will not protect anybody who soils the name of South Africa, because if we do, it will continue to happen.
Ms N NDONGENI: Hon Minister, thank you for your comprehensive response to this question. Whilst we do not condone rape by any person as a common knowledge, soldiers and military operation are exposed to all sorts of psychosocial challenges. In this regard, can the Minister explain the extent to which
these allegations are being tested by the SA National Defence Force, SANDF and the UN peacekeeping mission.
Secondly, the kind and level of psychosocial support provided by the department to the soldiers deployed in peacekeeping mission. Thirdly, the challenge and gaps identified in such support. And the last one, the plan of the department in improving such support in the future. Thank you, hon Minister. Thank you, Chairperson.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Hon member,
earlier on I said in fact, South Africa leads on the issues of sexual exploitation and abuse. Last year and earlier this year, the UN was in South Africa. They are trying to do what we are doing and encourage other countries to do. We follow up. Whether a soldier wants to admit it or not, as soon as that DNA of that child, says ...
IsiXhosa:
... ngumntwana wakhe ...
English:
... we deal with that person’s salary. But we must make sure that the rights of women especially - and the reason why we
took these steps was that we understood that in times of conflicts that there is a tendency. We actually even had a discussion on this with the UN to say that you know sometimes it is not really exploitation, human beings do fall in love. But when a deployed person goes into a foreign country and as a fighter, we put the higher test on this person. Because where the people are in conflict, they are female, they are poor, they are susceptible to be exploited.
Therefore, the pressure is on this soldier of South Africa to resist using their position, using their resources to take that which the woman who is there vulnerable, who they are supposed to be protecting cannot give into. That is why it is going to be very tough for these young men to prove that they did not exploit and they did not abuse. That thing that we are saying we will do, we are already saying even within the Defence Force right here inside the country, I do not want to hear about an officer up there fraternising with a younger officer down there.
So, we are dealing with fraternisation. We are making sure that people don’t use their ranks and their positions to get what they want from those who are vulnerable and may be dependent on them for safety and for leadership. So, for us we
will do what we need to do. So far, we have not actually gone to where I can say to you that no, no, no, we are now going to send at team that we will deal with the victims of this accusation, because so far, I do not have that in front of me. But if push comes to shove, we will do so.
We are not going to let up on our soldiers, we sympathise. What we actually need to put in place is: Is it fair for the system as it is, to allow youngsters to go and spend so many months out there without remembering the other needs that human beings have? And so, we are wrapping our mind around that. How many times and how often should we rotate the troops so that they have family time, and the temptation does not get in. So, grappling with that whole atmosphere, we will make sure that we don’t set up our own kids also and then go out when they have volunteered to save others, we turn against them because they gave in to a weakness that all of us have.
So, we will try and do what is right by the victims once they are identified. Thus far, I do not know them. They have not been identified. I do know that the young men drank. I do know that they were women in the same vicinity, but I’m not told they were caught fondling. So, I do not know at this stage whether there is a case other than that of breaking curfew and
on that one, I’m not backing down. But when the facts are on the table, we will because we do not want a repeat of this thing. We will take hard in action. Thank you Chair.
Setswana:
Rre K MOTSAMAI: Ke a leboga, Modulasetulo.
English:
Was the Minister aware of allegations of sexual assault by the South African soldiers before the announcement was made by the United Nations? If yes Minister, please provide details. If not, why not?
Setswana:
TONA YA TSHIRELETSO LE BAGANKA BA SESOLE: Ke a leboga. Rre
Motsamai, ...
English:
... I think I’ve said twice already in the House that we learnt first on the media that our guys were being ... [Inaudible.] That is why we took the matter back to the UN to say to them, but you've broken your own protocol, you should have a letter to us before you went public on this matter.
That does not mean we want to protect our children from doing
the wrong thing. So, on that part we are busy, we are correcting because we do not want any other country to be treated the way we have been treated on this one. Alert us so that we deal with our soldiers. But we have also brought them back home and therefore everything else will have to follow.
We think that our interaction with the UN actually says, we do appreciate this. Because in many ways when you send your troops out there, they get to see real action. So, experience comes in. But we also got to do what we as South Africans say, spread a little bit of peace. Make sure that the vulnerable groups are protected. So, we cannot go out there and become the jackals amongst the lambs. That is why we are very clear, if they are found to have done anything, they will get the full wrath of the military laws and even the civilian laws of this country. That one ...
Setswana:
... re ka se tseye tsotso. Ke a leboga, Rra.
Question 258:
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Chairperson,
the SA Defence Force is an essential department that contributes to the creation of peace, and we take this from
section 202 of the Constitution which says that, we can be deployed in civilian rules in support of.
It is important for us to look at the contributions that we have made as contributions not only towards nation building but also towards disaster management and all the operations that we have gone into. And it is also important for us to remember that sometimes this rule in itself becomes an issue because it is not really budgeted for as it should.
Therefore, as we review the SA Defence Review of 2015, which was never actualised. We are looking at coming back to the goals set out within the SA Defence Review which sets out what we need to do in terms of support to assist the civil authority of our country.
When we are done with the review and Members of Parliament will be part of that, we will be able to start shifting the way we balance the budget. We will begin to look at which areas, if any, that we need to create within the defence structure to focus on disasters. We will then begin to look at how we get the resources. We participate in the disaster operations, chariot is never budgeted for.
We are in prosper. You take from Paul to give Peter and you are never completely compensated. We are part of the Welisizwe Bridges, which are very, very important because young children in the rural areas often risk drowning and old people can’t get around their business because of the lack of this.
So, when you divert your engineers, you benefit as a department because they gain the experience and the exercise. But you take the resources that you don't have and also divert them at a time when you need to be taking every little cent that you have and pushing it towards maintenance and pushing it into acquisition of new things.
Yes, we want to increase the level of training. We want to continue doing what we need to do. We think that the issues of the zama zamas will not be completed without us, but the truth of the matter is that we don't have a budget line that says we're going to do XYZ, please. And this time around, at least in these preparations, we are putting our foot down to say, we will continue to do this, but please, remember that when we take this money from this pocket and we go there, we get regular audits and when we do that in the name of helping out in these operations, nobody thinks that you get a bad audit of an irregular expenditure in trying to go do good.
When you get an irregular expenditure people always think it is because you've done something wrong. And most of the time we've not done anything wrong. We've simply shifted resources to go and deal with a pinching shoe when we shouldn't have.
But if we don't do that and everything falls apart, the same nation will turn around and blame us.
So, we think that we would use the 2015 review to begin, to come up. We want to propose that we have a permanent disaster relief structure within defence and train accordingly and equip accordingly. We want to be able to say that when other departments ask us to intervene, we are ready. We want to say that sometimes, even unreported. I don't know how many municipalities have had a crisis of water and we've had to relieve and release soldiers to go and tanker because the people need water.
Therefore, we want to say that that SA Defence Review will be a make or break, but we are already thinking that we are gearing for a big war because there must be a shift in the way we budget and in the allocation of that budget, and so we're beginning to fight. Thank you, Chair.
Ms S SHAIKH: Hon Minister, thank you for your response and we note the review process as you've indicated. Hon Minister, as you may be aware, that floods have become a common occurrence in South Africa with devastating socio economic and human costs. In light of the poor capacity of various municipalities to mitigate the disasters associated with bad climatic conditions, Minister, what are the future plans in terms of tapping on the capabilities of the SANDF in a more structured way to assist during these disasters? Thank you very much.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Hon members, we
have very good engineers who came on their own during the KwaZulu Natal floods. We have a works formation which is not big. What impressed me when I went into defence was to find that every soldier in defence has been equipped with an alternative skill.
You've got a, a lieutenant who is also an electrician or a plumber or a builder, or an ironmonger. And it doesn't matter what gender. So, we think that when the floods in the Eastern Cape happened and the premier there was scratching his head. We said to him, don't go looking for expensive companies if you are looking for temporary or even permanent because there
are builders, there are furniture makers in defence, and we can put that whole fleet at your disposal.
So, for us it is part of contributing towards a nation. You also have the defence at - that nice one where they are into agriculture. When I first went into defence, I was very angry about the bakeries. And now I notice that even justice has begun to use their own bakeries, because that way they bake and what they don't use they can donate.
In many ways the defence has become self-sufficient. We must just drive it to be extremely efficient in the use of the resources. We want to say that SANDF would be very, very handy. We want to look at whether the way the Narysec project is structured is still online.
We want to look at how we will even be tapping into the military veterans’ skills and to continue to build better lives within our countries. But the building of bridges is one of those, the problem there is that it is our responsibility. We are in support of.
So, we want to say that there are skills in the defence which are important, which can be put at the disposal of people.
When this country came into a standstill during Covid and even in the last Nehawu strike, the military jumped in. So, we don't want to lose the essence of protection in a different kind to our citizens. Where the gun comes second, the brains and the hands come first to the protection of our people.
So we think that we should continue doing that. We're looking at issues of morality, we're looking at issues around youth and we still see a role that defence can play there. We're looking at working with the Women's Ministry to try and be at the forefront of dealing with issues of sexual exploitation. And this case that we just had might just be the thing that pushes us to even be in your face on the protection of the rights of women in our country and elsewhere in the world.
Thank you Chair.
Ms T L HLABANGWANI: Minister, given that South Africa is in the grip of a gender-based violence, GBV, epidemic and that the SA National Defence Force is also subject to this epidemic. Does, the social responsibility policy which you refer to, also include programmes addressing GBV not only within the Defence Force, but in society at large? Thank you, hon Minister.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Chairperson, in
the nation at large we will not throt on people's toes, we will go by invitation. But in the existing programmes that we envisage expanding which deals with men becoming men and fathers and protectors where we deal with the young people via Narysec when we - in our next intake, the new recruits into the SA National Defence Force, we think that we should use that example of a soldier who is a protector and who is a father figure and a mother figure.
We must also not forget that the dynamics in South Africa are also changing. So sometimes it is not just the men who exploit sexually. Sometimes women do too. So that education, that change of the mindset, that preparations of responsibility to be real leaders, we will do across the genders, that we take responsibility so that we build very balanced young people
We've called on the men, in particular in the Defence Force to be real men, real heads of their families, not absent fathers not fathers who run away from responsibility. Because we also seem to get the picture that where men are absent in the lives of the young children, you end up having more incidences of gender abuse later on.
So, we encourage the men in uniform to be an example and to lead by example. But we also want to say that our chaplains, people in the medical in sense would be on hand sometimes and sometimes when we go out on fields in different provinces, we do unleash whatever skills we have.
Members, you will remember that in the last one in KwaZulu Natal in Richards Bay, we were concentrating in animal health but sometimes we want to concentrate on human beings too, and maybe the next one will be on the girl child, to try and protect.
And yes, we have had incidences where we're not sure whether we are protecting the young female entrants enough in the defence. But we will make sure with the new intake that we've really socialise them to be equals, to get wherever they want to get without being exploited by anybody, of any rank or any gender. Thank you, Chair.
Mr N M HADEBE: Hon Minister, I would like to know whether inensuring that internal policies such as the ones spoken of are actually adhered to, there have been instances of violations of such social responsibilities by members of the Defence Force during peacekeeping missions in foreign
countries, if so, what punishment was exerted on the members in question and what are further relevant details? Thank you, hon Minister and Chairperson.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: In the past –
I’m part of the antiques of this Parliament. I remember when I was the Chairperson of the Joint Standing Committee that we dealt with issues of sexual abuse in the Democratic Republic of Congo. So, it's coming back.
We took strong exception towards our own soldiers. We went to the DRC as a committee to go and confront. So, I don't think we are going to be lenient even this time. This time around, we want to allow the process to finish and then put pressure so that people face whatever it is that they must face.
I am on record as saying that the military justice system is a little bit too slow for my liking when it comes to issues of sexual abuse. There are cases which have been lost for years. And the excuse was that the laboratories were, whatever, whatever.
Now the police have state-of-the-art equipment, and we intend to send our materials there so that people can face their own
demons. But we will not countenance, and that is why I am saying even amongst the high-ranking officers. If we get a general who is busy with a corporal or a private down there, we will deal with them. Because with that rank disparity, it cannot be a normal thing. We will deal with people who are married in their defence to their age, mates who dump their wives and go for their young little girls because they are still naive, and they are agreeable.
And we will also agree that we are human beings, we do fall in love. But, as much as possible, that temptation should not be allowed. And if an officer wants to do that, it had better be very clear that there has not been any cohesion, there has not been any inducement, that the young person who is so approached does not jump steps and suddenly get into ranks that they do not qualify for because we are also looking at that. So, we will do everything possible to protect the youngsters in the defence against the seniors, but also against themselves. Thank you, Chair.
Mr F J BADENHORST: Minister, Chapter 11 of the Constitution, section 202, states, and I'm going to quote:
“The primary object of the Defence Forces is to defend and protect the Republic, its territorial integrity and its people in accordance with the Constitution and the principles of international law regulating the use of force.”
The SA National Defence Force is unable to meet even the bare minimum of the primary objective, as outlined in our Constitution. Don't you agree that you cannot execute unfunded mandates such as social responsibility programmes when military veterans are left destitute without support and our soldiers are actually sent on peacekeeping missions without adequate equipment? We don't have money, Minister.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: The hon member
conflicts the two departments, the Military Veterans is a separate department with its own director general, DG and its own budget. That is a story for another day. [Laughter.]
Whether we sent our people out there and we leave the country unprotected, it's another debate that we can get into. We don't have the latest equipment in the world, but I referred to what Thusano through the Cubans was able to do to help us resuscitate. And what the young people, your sons and daughters are doing today within there to ensure.
My fight right now is to rejuvenate, not only the persons, but the equipment and the systems. And that is a battle that we are logging horns on and that is why we have already started. Hhen we come back in January, hon members might get what we have already done so far. The journey to greatness and all the documents that we've been working on. We will, during the festive season, try and sit down and synthesize that which we think will be the beginnings of the White Paper on the review of the 2015 Review.
We don’t want to come with a new one because that 2015 Review was never actually practicalised but if I stand up here and say South Africa is without defence, so what? Must we send everybody home? Because it will not be true. Our vulnerability has been at the Navy. But your in-shore patrol ships are coming in one by one. When we finish with them, we will be bringing in the out-shore patrol vehicles and we're trying to get them bigger than the in-shore ones so that they are urgent enough even to wage war not just to apprehend the crooks on our seas because we have actually seen what the other countries are doing. So, plans there, we need the resources.
When the country's economy is not doing well, you can scream all you want, Godongwane is not going to get money out of a stone.
So, the clever thing to do is to lobby Godongwane so that he understands fully why the economy will not grow when the country's integrity and sovereignty is under attack. So, we're talking to the relevant people, but we're also being smart about it because we're looking at the options that we can put in place to mitigate.
Whilst we're looking at the Navy, our primary and biggest service is the Army, and so we want to focus there. We are very happy with what they have done, the modifications and what they intend to do. We're talking to the defence industry. to get into deals with them, long term deals which will enable us to pay over a longer period.
We're looking at helicopters and I'm hoping that nothing comes in the way of that because we need to be able to bring in new helicopters into the sea in this country. So, it is not as though, you know, we just sitting there not worrying. We are worrying. I now have more white hairs than when I went into the defence because it would be a pity to see South Africa crumbling because consistently, we're not given the wherewithal.
Hon members, we're also looking inwardly what the inefficiencies within the system are. What can we cut and what can we divert so that we begin to address our needs better.
What training is paramount, what can we delay and what can we fast-track. That is where we are. But ultimately, it must make South Africa proud. To see their uniforms in the street. Not abusing them but see that uniform as protection. It includes even looking at the type of uniform we're giving our soldiers.
I have looked at the boots and I've told the Chief SANDF that I’m not impressed. These guys must run in these, they must live in their boots and they are not comfortable.
So, we're trying to look at every aspect of the person in uniform life including the Russians, we are even going back to the Russian provisioners of South Africa, who we have not been buying from. Make South African money circulate in South Africa so that all of us get a little piece of it and can get all that we need. So, we're looking at all angles, as I say, can we make our run stretch further because we are expanding it here and where we can't, we can't.
We have been speaking to all the equipment manufacturers we intend if we ever get into new contracts to police them better
than they were policed in the past? Because part of the paralysis that we have is not because the defence is stupid, it is because those who were supposed to police the contracts we entered into fell asleep on the job.
So as I say, it is a matter of you don't know which iron to put on the fire and to take off because all of them are important. But we hope that we will finally have something that we can use, that we can leverage, that will enable us to get at least - if we can begin to glow back on the gross domestic product, GDP, we'll be able to start making a difference in the lives of soldiers and that, we think will translate into a better South Africa. Thank you, Chair.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: As the Minister prepares to take a seat, allow me to indicate that we've come to the end of the questions from the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans. And father to thank the hon Minister for willing herself to answer questions. I will now proceed and call upon honourable Ngwenya to come forward and take over the chairing. Thank you very much.
Question 253:
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY - STATE SECURITY: I am
requesting permission to keep my video off so that I can proceed without disruptions. We are currently in load shedding. [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms W Ngwenya): Order, hon members ... [Interjections.] ...
Ms M O MOKAUSE: On a point of order! [Interjections.] I am calling a point of order here.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Minister, you can continue.
Ms M O MOKAUSE: Chairperson I am calling a point of order. Can't you hear?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Wait, hon Mokause, there is another point of order in the House.
Ms M O MOKAUSE: I was first. Chair, I rose on a point of order first.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): You may speak, Ms Mokause. What is your point of order?
Ms M O MOKAUSE: It is the culture of this House that either you come to the House or you show us your face. We don't want to speak to faceless people here. We understand that the President of the ANC is answering questions ... [Interjections.] ... [Inaudible.] ...
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE NCOP: No, no, no, no, Chair ... [Inaudible.] ...
Ms M O MOKAUSE: I do not know who is disrupting there. Who is disrupting there as I am speaking now?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE NOP: That is not an order that ... [Inaudible.] ... [Interjections.] ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): I would like to take the ruling now to call hon Labuschagne.
Ms M O MOKAUSE: But I am not done.
Ms C LABUSCHAGNE: Hon Chair, hon Mokause, please put off your
... thank you. Hon Chair, on a point of order: I think the point of order that is being raised is valid because we said that we should be in the House and all on the platform and for members when they have connection problems, the Presiding Officers, very often allowed for the videos not to be on, but this is a different setting. This is accountable ... this is where the executive is being held accountable not to the members in this House only, but to the broader public, and I think that is a sort of disrespect when we talk to people out there and they are not visible. I would request that the Minister be in a place where when she answers the questions she is visible not only to us in the House but to all the other members who are looking at Parliament because this is the Parliament of the people. Thank you.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Thank you very much, hon Labuschagne. Chief Whip? [Interjections.]
Mr I NTSUBE: ... In terms of the approach, there are times, about 90% of the time ... [Interjections.] ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Order, hon members ... [Interjections.] ...
Mr I NTSUBE: ... when they are not in the House.
Ms M O MOKAUSE: Why are you speaking?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Order! Chief Whip?
Ms M O MOKAUSE: Why is he speaking without being recognised? Why is he speaking?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE NCOP: Chairperson, if the Minister is able to put her face on the screen, we would appreciate it. If not, I think we should allow her to proceed so we can proceed with the business of the House.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms W Ngwenya): Thank you very much, hon Chief Whip.
AN HON MEMBER: Point of order, Chair.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms W Ngwenya): What a point of order, hon Motsamai?
Mr K MOTSAMAI: Chairperson, on a point of order: We want to see the Minister, the Deputy Minister. The Minister is here,
so how we are going to know the Minister that we serve on our committee if she cannot even show her face to see this particular person? We want to see her and she has the right to be in Parliament. What makes her not come to Parliament and don’t even want to see us? Meaning that we are nothing to her. We want her to come here or we just collapse this meeting and wait for her. I thank you.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms W Ngwenya): Thank you very much, hon member. Hon members, I think we are still talking one language, comrades or do you want to say something different to what hon Labuschagne had said and hon Motsamai and hon Mokause? We are talking about the same thing comrades.
Mr M J MAGWALA: No, Chair. Don't predict what I am going to say.
IsiZulu:
USIHLALO WENDLU (Nk W Ngwenya): He-e! Bengingakakuvumeli ... manje wenza kakhulu ... ngizokuhlalisa phansi. Uthini?
English:
Mr M J MAGWALA: Chair, I am a member. They are members and they have a right to speak. Mine is, Chair, before you make a
ruling, the precedence that you are going to set because in the House we are always saying if members have a problem with connectivity, they show their faces and ask the Presiding Officer to do that.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): But it is the same thing, hon member,
Mr M J MAGWALA: Yes, but you must have consistency, Chair.
Ms M O MOKAUSE, Chair take a ruling!
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms W Ngwenya): No, don’t
force me. I am a human being.
Mr M J MAGWALA: No Chair, I think you can rule on this matter.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Hon Magwala, I am a human being. Hon Labuschagne I want you to take your seat but I don't know whether you want to add to what you have said.
Ms C LABUSCHAGNE: I want to add.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms W Ngwenya): Thank you very much, hon member. [Interjections.] You are noted, hon Ntsube.
Ms C LABUSCHAGNE: I am staying with my original point of order
... [Interjections.] ...
Ms M O MOKAUSE: My hand is also up. You are going to note me
... [Interjections.] ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Hon Mokause, you are disturbing the House. I can't hear.
Ms M O MOKAUSE: I am not disturbing any House. I am just telling you that my hand is also up.
Ms C LABUSCHAGNE: ... but I want you to also take into consideration, if the President as the Commander-in-Chief of State Security, is with the Minister and, therefore, she can't be on camera. It's your ruling if he wants to support her in answering the questions, so let it be. If that is not the case, let the Minister be on TV so that we can see that she is answering questions on her own. Thank you.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms W Ngwenya): Thank you very much, hon Labuschagne. Hon Minister, you have heard what the members are saying.
Ms M O MOKAUSE: My hand is up!
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Can you please show your face ... [Interjections.] ...
Ms M O MOKAUSE: My hand is up.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): ... as the members are asking. Show your face at least.
Ms M O MOKAUSE: I am speaking on a different issue here. My hand is up.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Hon Mokause, I didn't give you the permission to speak, therefore, I don't want to listen to you because I didn't give you a chance ... [Interjections.] ...
Ms M O MOKAUSE: But I said that my hand was up.
IsiZulu:
USIHLALO WENDLU (Nk W Ngwenya): Angikunikezanga imvume yokukhuluma. Musa ukuzimema emcimbini wami.
Nk M O MOKAUSE: Akuwona umcimbi wakho.
USIHLALO WENDLU (Nk W Ngwenya): Ngqongqoshe, veza isithombe sakho sikubone khona sizokwazi ukuqhubeka.
English:
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY – STATE SECURITY: Hon House
Chair ...
IsiZulu:
USIHLALO WENDLU (Nk W Ngwenya): ... Siyabonga, Mama.
English:
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY – STATE SECURITY: ... my camera
is on, House Chair.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Yes, we can see you, hon Minister.
IsiZulu:
Siyabonga.
English:
You can continue.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY – STATE SECURITY: I need to
apologise ...
Ms M O MOKAUSE: I am rising on a point of order still.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms W Ngwenya): Hon Mokause, what is the point of order?
Ms M O MOKAUSE: Chairperson I am the Whip of the EFF in the NCOP, therefore, I do not agree with the manner in which you are treating our benches. [Interjections.]
AN HON MEMBER: Don’t tell us that, Mokause, you must come to the House.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): I can’t hear you because your members are making noise.
Ms M O MOKAUSE: When our benches speak, you must afford them an opportunity which is ... [Interjections.] ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Hon Mokause, that's not a point of order. Can you please sit down? [Interjections.]
Ms M O MOKAUSE: We were not voted in by the ANC.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): ... or I am going to mute you.
Ms M O MOKAUSE: We've got our constituency, not the ANC ... [Interjections.] ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Can the Table close the microphone of hon Mokause? I am insisting. Close, Ma’am Mokause, right now. Hon Minister ...
IsiZulu:
... siyaqhuba.
English:
Can you please continue?
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY – STATE SECURITY: Hon House
Chair, in terms of responding to Question 253, we are busy with implementing the recommendations of the State of Capture Commission and also of the High Level Panel Review. We had 14 recommendations ... there is an interruption on the line, House Chair ... that relate to our work and as of 31 October 2023, 10 of those recommendations have been implemented and these recommendations can be summarised as follows;
Prevention of abuse of the State Security Agency, SSA, vetting to serve the interests of certain individuals; strengthening financial control and accountability enabling the Auditor- General to audit the SSA; tightening up the process of issuing firearms; strictly adhering to the SSA recruitment criteria; putting in place mechanisms to sift out false intelligence reports and prevention of abuse of the SSA resources for political purposes; and taking the findings and reports of the Inspector-General of Intelligence seriously, and the remaining recommendations such as the further investigations into the affairs of the SSA as well as ending ministerial interference in intelligence operations are also being implemented by the agency. With regard to the implementation of the High Level Review Panel recommendations, has also been taken as a priority and as far as we are concerned, we have also made
progress with such implementation. The SSA management is also on course in terms of professionalising the agency and implementing financial management systems in line with the Public Finance Management Act. Thank you, hon House Chair.
Question 253 (cont):
Setswana:
Rre K M MMOIEMANG: Ke a leboga, Modulasetulo.
English:
Greetings to the Minister, and also my colleagues in the House. Allow me to express gratitude to the Minister for explaining to the House and the public that indeed there is progress in taking forward the recommendations of the State Capture Commission and also the High-Level Panel recommendations. Also, Minister, I think it is also important for members of the public and also members of the House to appreciate the fact that not all recommendations from the High-Level Panel report rests with the State Security department.
There are other recommendations that talks to the strengthening of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, amongst others. Also, they need to ensure that we strengthen
the work of the office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence through regulations. But I think also critical to that Minister, is to note progress in relation to the progress that we are making in amending the current Intelligence Act, through the adoption by the National Assembly of the ad hoc committee that will be processing General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill, Gilab.
So now the question that I want to pose to the hon Minister is, following the enactment of the General Intelligence Law Bill, there will be two intelligence services, namely the Domestic Branch and the Foreign Branch. So, the question is what mechanisms are in place to ensure that upon the completion of that process Minister, the department will be ready in terms of regulatory and policy framework to ensure that there is efficient and functioning of the intelligence services. Thank you, hon Minister. Thank you, House Chair.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY - STATE SECURITY: Thank you,
hon Mmoeiemang for the follow up question. We are indeed preparing as an agency for the new agencies to be established immediately after the enactment of the Gilab 2023. In terms of the work that we have done, we have set up a task team that is working - not only on the policies and regulations - but also
working on the change management that will be required with the establishment of the two services.
In terms of regulations, work continues to be done on a variety of regulations that will be needed during that time. Hon Mmoeiemang, with a draft that has been submitted by the executive to the National Assembly for their consideration and your consideration later, there are a number of regulations that we have tabled that we require to be ready for. The teams at the State Security Agency are busy with drafting those. At the right time we will then share with yourselves, even when the work of the ad hoc committee is under way. So, we will share with the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence. Thank you.
Mr D R RYDER: Minister, legislation is the backbone of intelligence organisations for safeguarding national security, upholding civil liberties and to maintain the rule of law.
Furthermore, legislation provides the framework within which intelligence organisations can operate, ensuring that their activities remain transparent and subject to oversight. It is common knowledge that the High-Level Panel report and the State Capture Commission recommended as one of the most important issues, the separation of the State Security Agency
into two departments, Domestic and Foreign. To be able to fully implement this and more of the recommendations, the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill, Gilab, needs to be processed.
Now Minister, given that our intelligence services have often been under attack for not doing their work, what is the reason that Gilab is still not being processed through Parliament? Is there a problem with the constitutionality as has been averred in the press recently? Thank you.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY - STATE SECURITY: Thank you,
hon Ryder. The Gilab 2023 draft has been submitted to Parliament for processing. Parliament has adopted an ad hoc committee made up of six members to process the Gilab. The Gilab when submitted, it is accompanied by the certificate from the office of the Chief State Law Advisers that confirms that the clauses in the Gilab that were submitted by the executive are constitutional, or they meet the constitutional master. Thank you.
Mr M A P DE BRUYN: Hon Minister, the Chief Justice Zondo recently stated that he believes that the Public Procurement Bill being processed or considered by Parliament is
insufficient to address corruption concerns that are raised in the State Capture Report, and that only four of these recommendations are contained in the Bill. He further stated that:
The commission made extensive recommendations on procurement because most of the corruption comes from procurement. The taps relating to tenders needs to be closed and that was the attitude of the commission. I am aware that the Public Procurement Bill of 2023 does not make reference to a public procurement and the corruption body, and it would be a pity if the President does not embrace this recommendation of the creation of a public procurement agency because of all the recommendations. In my view, this was the most important.
Now hon Minister, by not including these recommendations, tender corruption will not be prevented. As Chief Justice Zondo correctly stated, if another group of people were to do exactly what the Guptas did to pursue state capture, Parliament will still not be able to stop it. My question hon Minister is, were these recommendations conveniently left out of the Public Procurement Bill to protect and ensure the further enrichment of corrupt companies and the ANC cadres, or
was it left out because of incompetence and a lack of political will? And if not, what were the reasons for these recommendations not being included into the Bill? Thank you.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY - STATE SECURITY: Hon House
Chair, I think hon De Bruyn will recall that I am not the Minister responsible for finance. Therefore, I am not a Minister responsible for Public Procurement Bill. I hope he will await the Minister of Finance to appear in the NCOP and then he can respond on the Public Procurement Bill. Thank you very much.
Question 261:
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Thank you, hon
House Chairperson. The response to these questions will be lodged with the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence. Thank you.
Ms C LUBUSCHAGNE: Chairperson, can the Minister just repeat, I couldn’t hear clearly. Can she just repeat her answer, please. Thank you.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): You want her to repeat. Hon Minister, can you please respond to hon Labuschagne.
Repeat again.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Hon House
Chair, the reply to this question has been lodged with the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence.
Ms C LABUSCHAGNE: Thank you very much, hon Minister. You know as well as I know that what has been reported to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence cannot be spoken to by me, because based on legislation and what goes with it. This question was in the public domain, it was in the papers and therefore I ask this question because it has never been put correctly in the public domain. It was claimed and I would like to know if it is true. It was claimed that the top SSA official that I won’t mention the name, but it was in the papers has been the one to take the fall for this event and has been fired, especially in light of the fact that he is allegedly not responsible, in any way, for the cyber unit within the SSA. How quickly was this investigation completed and the man removed and what criminal charges have been laid against him in this regard? Thank you.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: As earlier
indicated, the response to this question has been lodged to the Standing Committee on Intelligence.
IsiZulu:
Nk L C BEBEE: Ngiyabonga Sihlalo, ngibonge ngempendulo eshiwo uNgqongqoshe woMnyango. Njengoba eseshilo Sihlalo ukuthi lo mbuzo lo uzobuye uye ekomidini lezobuNhloli. Kunjalo mina akukho engingase ngikusho ngoba usekhulumile uNqonqoshe washo ukuthi lolu daba lusasiwe ku-JSC. Ngiyabonga Sihlalo.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: There is no
response required. Thank you to the hon member for understanding and protecting the national interest.
Mr N M HADEBE: Thank you so much, hon Chairperson. Hon Minister, I would like to know whether there are any programmes set in place to ensure the constant training and upskilling of the State Security Agency, if not, why not, if so, have any of these agreements been signed with other nations? How often is the recruitment of personnel into the agency carried out? Thank you.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: May I request
that he repeats the question?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Okay, hon Hadebe can you please repeat your question?
Mr N M HADEBE: The question, hon Minister is: Are there any programmes set in place to ensure the constant training and upskilling of the State Security Agency, if not, why not, if so, have any of these agreements been signed with other nations and how often is the recruitment of personnel into the agency carried out in our workforce? Thank you.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: The State
Security Agency has an intelligence academy which continuously trains members, and they also have a bursary scheme that continuously trains members. In terms of recruitment is part of the issue if the hon member can legislate in writing, we will lodge them through to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence.
Mr M J MAGWALA: It is very much disturbing, Chairperson that we are going to get responses like these from the Minister in the Presidency. That proves to you that South Africa must
learn today that the incompetency of President Cyril Ramaphosa in his office, which is all people that are working in his office. What is the use for us to come to the House Chairperson and ask questions and then we are going to be told that these questions have already been referred. Why did we come to Parliament to ask a question? I don’t have time for mediocre. I don’t have a question for this Minister.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: I would like to
respond to the insinuation that says it’s mediocre. It shows that hon Magwala is not vested with issues of national intelligence, national interest, and national security. It is for that reason that we would not want to put in the public domain matters that compromise the national security of this country. Hon members, and it is for that reason that I have responded to the first question because it did not ... and I provided the details because it did not compromise the national security of this country, including the follow up question about the training and how the training is conducted. I responded to that question to say we have the intelligence academy and the bursary for training, but the follow up question added to that, talked about the frequency of training and the relationships with other countries and other entities, which are matters I could not provide in this platform because
then they divulge how we recruit and train our people and the
...[Inaudible.] .... Thank you.
Ms C LABUSCHAGNE: On a point of order, we can’t hear the answer. I am lost, where are we now because the Minister is answering, and we are talking. We can’t hear each other. Can we just again ask the Minister to repeat her answer.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON Ms W Ngwenya): Hon Labuschagne, the Minister was answering hon Magwala, but hon Magwala is just next to you. He is the one who was speaking when the Minister was speaking. I would like to make a ruling to continue with Comrade Nchabeleng.
Mr M DANGOR: Hon Chairperson, firstly, let the Minister to answer the question and then Nchabeleng can have the follow up question. Thank you.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON Ms W Ngwenya): Hon Chief Whip, I have taken a ruling to continue with the follow up question. The next person that is going to speak is hon Nchabeleng. Hon Minister, can you please assist me by answering Question 254.
QUESTION 261
Question 254:
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Hon House
Chair, based on widespread media coverage, the Minister in the Presidency, as well as the State Security Agency is aware of the state-owned company that procured the services of a private-sector provider, allegedly to gather intelligence. The details pertaining to this matter will also be formally transmitted to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence.
However, we are aware of the state-owned company that procured the services of a private-sector provider, who allegedly was gathering intelligence information. Thank you very much.
Mr M E NCHABELENG: House Chair, my camera is a bit blurred, so I am requesting to switch it off, because it is not adding any value. May just continue. Hon Minister, thank you very much for your elaborate response to this important question of national interest. With specific reference to Eskom’s contracting of a private security companies to investigate corruption, one, was there any breach of the law, and if so, what are the consequences of that. Two, will the department consider developing and enforcing uniform minimum standards that guide all state organs in their design of internal security management, especially as it relates to intelligence
gathering? If not, and if so, what are the relevant details? Thanks a lot.
IsiZulu:
USIHLALO WENDLU (Nk W Ngwenya): Lungu elihloniphekile Nchabeleng uchaze uMagwala yazi, ngoba ugqoke nenyufomi yakhe.
Mnu M E NCHABELENG: Akuyona eyakhe ngeyamakomanisi.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Hon Minister, please, respond to hon Nchabeleng on the follow-up question of Question 254.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Hon House
Chair, hon Nchabeleng, in terms of the first part of the follow-up question, we are going to transmit that to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, JSCI, but in terms of the second part of the follow-up question, only the State Security Agency is allowed to gather intelligence in the country domestically. So, there is no need to enforce minimum standards of gathering. The only agency that is allowed to gather intelligence is the State Security Agency in the country.
Any other person or any other company that gathers intelligence information in the country is in violation of the rules and laws of the Republic, and we will take the relevant action when that is established. Therefore, we said that the response to that question and the details of that question will be forwarded to the JCSI, so that it can be followed up, in terms of the details of the work that we are doing, to ensure that such incidents do not take place again. Thank you.
Mr M A P DE BRUYN: House Chair, hon Minister, you have said, according to your knowledge, there was no other service providers appointed to gather intelligence for any state organ and so forth. When you investigate this, and I hope you do, and it comes to the point where it has actually been proven that there were companies hired or service providers hired to do so, will you then commit to this House that the funds that were used or the funds that were spent on private security service providers will be recouped from the individuals or those companies or those service providers who contravened these prescripts? Thank you.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: House Chair, I
cannot commit to something that I do not have the outcome of, but I am sure the members of the Joint Standing Committee on
Intelligence are competent enough to hold us accountable for our actions, if there are any findings. Thank you very much.
Ms T L HLABANGWANI: Hon House Chair, my question is directed to you, the Minister, wherever you are. Has the Minister considered abolishing the tender system in its entirety and rather adopt a policy that does not include contracts with the state? If so, please, provide details in this regard. If not, why not? Thank you very much.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Hon House
Chair, again, hon Hlangwani is confusing me with the Minister of Finance and I hope the question will be referred to the Minister of Finance. I know I have too many responsibilities, but I do not have the responsibility of a Minister of Finance, as yet. Thank you.
Ms C LABUSCHAGNE: Hon Chair, hon Minister, in the era of refined technology, I am sure that it is possible that there are private companies that have the ability to gather intelligence on various levels, due to the nature of their work. Reports in the media stated, and some of my other colleagues have mentioned that the state-owned company, namely Eskom got information from such a private company. Minister,
did you have knowledge of such a process and did you have insight in such a document? And what is the relevance of it in the effort to curb the corruption and mismanagement of funds in Eskom, as was the recommendations of the Zondo Commission? Thank you.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Hon House
Chair, as indicated, what hon Labuschagne is asking is the details in that report and those details will be lodged with the JSCI. Thank you.
Question 266:
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Hon House
Chair, the reply for this question has been lodged with the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence as well.
Ms C LABUSCHAGNE: Chair, on a point of order. I think there’s no use in this Oral Questions session. The Minister refers everything back to the joint standing committee and I’m not going to go into whether she reported or not, I can’t divulge
... [Inaudible.] ... we will sort it out in the committee.
But I propose that we just dissolve this session because there’s no point in a Minister for every question that is
being asked to say she will go back to the committee, because these questions, through the Question Office, have been put to the Ministry and if we are doing our work to being held accountable for what you do, then you should send back and say ‘I will not be able to answer this question in the House, rephrase this, etc.’ Because as I’ve stated before, this session is not here for us, the session is for the public out there. And none of these questions that have been asked were not in the public domain, and people are still ... no, I don’t know who’s going to answer my question because the Chair is leaving. [Interjections.] This is becoming more and more ridiculous, really, Chair ... [Interjections.]
Mr M DANGOR: Chairperson, if I may ... [Interjections.]
Ms C LABUSCHAGNE: ... just adjourn this House and ask the Minister to come back ...
THE HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): You can continue, hon Labuschagne!
Ms C LABUSCHAGNE: ... yes ... because we cannot go on like this, because this is making this House a mockery ... [Interjections.]
Mr M DANGOR: If I may, Chairperson ... [Interjections.]
Ms C LABUSCHAGNE: ... and this is further strengthening the fact that the South African citizens, the public in this country, does not have any trust in the security services. And being treated like this in this House further serves that mistrust. So, really ... [Interjections.]
Mr M DANGOR: Chairperson, if I may respond to ... on a point of order ... [Interjections.]
Ms C LABUSCHAGNE: ... I’m very serious. I do understand that there are certain things that we cannot, and the Minister and we cannot divulge in this House because it will have an effect on state security. But I also am sure and I am convinced of that, because I’m a responsible citizen that takes my oath very seriously, that I did not ask any question in this House that the Minister could have breached any security issues in answering it.
So, therefore ... [Interjections.]
Mr M DANGOR: If I may, Chairperson ... [Interjections.]
Ms C LABUSCHAGNE: ... I’m taking a very, very strong objection
...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Wait until she finishes, I’ll recognise you ...
Mr M DANGOR: If I may, Chairperson ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Are you done, hon Labuschagne? Okay.
Hon Chief Whip!
Mr M DANGOR: Chairperson, I wanted to actually agree with hon Labuschagne on the first part of what she was saying, the rest of it was politics.
I think that we need to adjourn this particular meeting, that it cannot go forward because most of these issues are subject to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and I think hon Mmoiemang may be disagreeing with me on this particular point. But without the politics that were followed on, I think hon Labuschagne had a point.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Hon House Chair
...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Hon Minister, please sit down. I didn’t recognise you.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: ... I was
saying ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Hon Mmoiemang!
Mr K M MMOIEMANG: Hon House Chair, it’s not for the first time when ... where issues of ... that belongs to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence are deferred to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence. Even this week we had one of the responses that was given by the Minister of Police on Criminal Intelligence. Thank you, hon House Chair.
Mr K MOTSAMAI: Chair, I have to come in on my follow up question.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Hon members ... hon Bara!
Mr M R BARA: Chair, I think that ... [Interjections.]
Mr M DANGOR: On a point of order, Chairperson.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): No, hon Chief Whip. Can you please allow hon Bara then I’ll allow you? This is not a smallernyana [a very small] thing, that’s why I want to listen to all of you before I make a ruling, please. I’m not suppressing anyone, please.
Hon Bara!
Mr M R BARA: Chair, I think mine is more to say that: At what point are we able to get some form of accountability from this specific department? Because I think that questions that are raised are questions that require to be responded to. But I guess all that we are getting, these questions are redirected elsewhere, which is not this House, and this is the only platform that the public can get a sense of what is happening in that specific department.
But, Chairperson, I support the fact that let’s adjourn the House and probably this needs to be discussed or dealt with by our Whippery and the leadership of the NCOP to kind of guide
us as to ... at what point are we able to engage on what is happening in this specific Intelligence Department? Thank you, House Chair.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Hon Dangor!
Mr M J MAGWALA: He’s going to withdraw because the caucus is saying that, withdraw ... [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Order, hon Magwala!
Mr M DANGOR: Chairperson, I had indicated that I was going support hon Labuschagne on that particular point, but now I withdraw that particular issue because you’ve taken matters forward in a very different direction. Thank you.
Mr K MOTSAMAI: Let me take my follow up question. Chair, let me take my follow up question.
Chairperson, I’m so disappointed by the hopeless Minister. I mean the Minister acts exactly like her father, Ramaphosa ... [Interjections.] ... by Minister refusing us to ask the question, that shows to us that she is undermining us and that is the reason why the Minister didn’t come to this Parliament.
I mean the Minister by not coming here, meaning that she’s undermining us and there is something that she is busy with
... she’s in a hurry, she cannot answer our question.
With that, I don’t see I can put my follow up while the Minister is not willing to answer my first question. I thank you, Chair.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Hon members, I want to listen to all of you and I will make a ruling, and after that I’m not going to take any hands.
Ms H S BOSHOFF: Hon Chair, this is so clear of what’s happening within the ANC; it’s a 180-degree turn. Hon Dangor supported, now all of a sudden he withdraws. Why is he doing it? He known that he’s on the right track with having this meeting stopped because we have no reply from the Minister. She is not standing up to be held accountable, all she says is she can’t answer, she can’t answer, she can’t answer.
So, please, Chair, make a ruling so that we can go home as requested by hon Labuschagne.
Mr T J BRAUTESETH: Point of order, Chairperson. On the virtual platform!
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Hon members! Hon Mmoiemang, I did give you a chance to speak on this one, I don’t know what you want to do ... [Inaudible.] ... again? ... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.] ... Okay
Mr T J BRAUTESETH: Point of order, Chair. Hon Brauteseth on the virtual platform!
Mr K M MMOIEMANG: It was only an ... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.] ... I was just raising a matter of unparliamentary language, Chair. But I know that you must still make a ruling on this. So, I’m comfortable.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Can you please allow me to finish about this problem?
Mankosi [Ms Nkosi], I said you are the last one, please ...
IsiZulu:
... ningaphindaphindi into eyodwa.
English:
Mr T J BRAUTESETH: What about the hybrid platform, Chairperson?
Ms N E NKOSI: Hon House Chair, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.
IsiZulu:
Engifuna ukukusho la ukuthi ngeke kwalunga ukuthi sivume kukhulunywe kabi ngoMongameli wethu ...
English:
... because our President, most of the time ...
IsiZulu:
... uma kufanele ezophendula imibuzo uba lana ePhalamende, uyeza ...
English:
... and when we speak of ...
IsiZulu:
... yilapho ziphendula khona ezokuphepha. Ngakhoke uma uNgqongqoshe ethi ...
English:
... the matter is referred to the committee; we must listen to her. Thank you very much.
But our President ...
IsiZulu:
... bangadlali ngoMongameli.
English:
... we are not going to allow that, Chair, because the President is always here and most of them are not here when the President is here answering the questions. They are not coming to the House when the President is here. Thank you.
Mr T J BRAUTESETH: Point of order, Chair. Hon Brauteseth on the virtual platform!
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Hon members, I think I have allowed you to speak ...
Mr T J BRAUTESETH: Chairperson, point of order ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): ... all of you ...
Mr T J BRAUTESETH: ... hon Brauteseth on the virtual platform, this is a hybrid sitting ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): ... and all of you ...
Mr T J BRAUTESETH: Chairperson, point of order. Hon Brauteseth on the virtual platform, this is a hybrid sitting ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): ... are crying about the Minister, that the Minister is not answering the question.
AN HON MEMBER: Yes!
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Now, my ruling is that: Can the Minister answer the questions that the members have asked her.
Hon Minister, please answer the questions that the members have asked you! Thank you.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Hon House
Chair, Question 266 requires me to disclose intelligence interventions that were made to deal with the torching of long-distance trucks along the country’s major transport
routes. I cannot disclose that because it will compromise the work of the intelligence and the operations of intelligence. That question has been lodged with the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and that response was forwarded ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Hon Minister ...
IsiXhosa:
... ndiyacela sana!
English:
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Hon House
Chair, it says I must disclose ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Hon Minister, hon Ministers, I’m the one that is making the ruling here. We are here for questions and you are here to answer the questions.
Hon Minister, can you please answer the question that has been asked by hon Motsamai from the EFF Gauteng, please!
... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.] ... make a ruling. Can you please ... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.] ... that I have asked you.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: No, no, no,
haa, haa [no, no,]. Comrade ... hon House Chair, the question I’m supposed to answer is Question 266 from Ms M Dlamini, Mpumalanga EFF. The question says: What intelligence interventions ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Yes, you are correct. Please answer the question!
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: May I have
protection from yourself, so that I can speak?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): You are protected, hon Minister. Please answer the question.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: The question
says I must disclose intelligence interventions that were made to deal with the torching of long-distance trucks along the country’s major transport routes.
And I’m saying, hon House Chair, with all due respect, with all humility, I cannot disclose intelligence interventions because it will compromise intelligence operations on the very
... [Interjections.]
AN HON MEMBER: You are correct, hon Minister.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Thanks very much, hon Minister.
Hon Motsamai!
Mr K MOTSAMAI: Chairperson, why the Minister came to this committee and answer the questions? If she cannot answer a question, why she can’t answer this question? This is not a secret.
Mr M J MAGWALA: Point of order, Chair. I want to ask, Chairperson. When these questions are sent to the Ministry and everyone else, they get to prepare response and everything, and we have to prepare reply, response or questions. So, now we come to the House ... this is the second time ... and if you notice, the Minister is always blushing off like she’s in a hurry to go somewhere.
My point of order is: Why are we still here Mama [Ms] Ngwenya, and wasting the Minister’s time because, obviously, she wants to go to the beach with that Springbok jersey that she’s wearing? Why are we here?
For the first time Mama Ngwenya is that she never came to the House. Why are we asking questions? Who is she reporting to if she’s not going to respond to us? This is a second question, now she’s not answering. It’s completely wrong ... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.] ... it’s completely wrong, it’s wrong.
Ms T L HLABANGWANI: She must answer questions!
Mr I NTSUBE: No, no, House Chair, the House is literally getting out of order.
House Chair, I’m rising on a point of order ... [Interjections.]
Ms T L HLABANGWANI: She must answer questions!
Mr M J MAGWALA: Defend this as much as you want, this is wrong.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Hon members, order! Order ...
Mr M J MAGWALA: We can’t allow this thing to go on ... to continue, House Chair ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): Hon members, Question
266 ... it’s understandable that the Minister can’t answer this question ... [Interjections.] ... for all of you that have asked that question ... [Interjections.] ...
IsiZulu:
... anifuni ukumamela ...
English:
Ntate [Mr] Motsamai ...
Mr K MOTSAMAI: She’s not special, she must ...
Mr M J MAGWALA: Why did you bring it to us? Why did you bring it to us for ... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.]
Ms T L HLABANGWANI: We are here for the answers ... [Interjections.] ... she must answer the questions ... [Interjections.] ...
Mr M J MAGWALA: You are treating this Parliament as your own house, it’s wrong. No, no, no ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms W Ngwenya): I would like now to invite the Chairperson of the NCOP to take over. Hon Chair, come!
Ms T L HLABANGWANI: She must answer the questions or else we adjourn ... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.] ...
Mr M J MAGWALA: This Minister, haa [no] ... an incompetent Minister. She must hear it. She’s incompetent ... [Interjections.] ...
Mr I NTSUBE: No, House Chair, we are being undermined here ...
Ms T L HLABANGWANI: The Minister must answer the questions. we are here for the answers ... [Interjections.] ...
Mr M J MAGWALA: ... because she’s the daughter of Ramaphosa
... it’s not going to happen. Always referring questions to other Ministers. It’s wrong what she’s doing. It’s completely wrong ... [Interjections.] ...
Mr I NTSUBE: Chairperson, these people don’t want to be in the House let them leave ...
Mr M J MAGWALA: ... [Inaudible.] ... doesn’t respect this House, she doesn’t come to this House, she doesn’t want to answer questions. What ... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.]
Ms T L HLABANGWANI: ... and she’s undermining us ... [Interjections.] ...
Mr I NTSUBE: ... Chairperson, if EFF doesn’t want to be in the House, let them leave ... [Interjections.] ...
Mr M J MAGWALA: ... this is completely wrong. It’s wrong what you are doing as the ANC. You are giving us incompetent people who can’t answer simple questions, simple questions ... [Interjections.] ...
Ms T L HLABANGWANI: ... she’s failing to answer the simple question ... [Interjections.] ...
Mr M J MAGWALA: ... [Inaudible.] ... come to the House, she’s
... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.] ... completely wrong, no, it’s wrong ... chase us out, she’s not going to answer
anything. No. she can’t answer anything, why must we continue? Why must we continue? ... [Interjections.] ... it’s wrong, Chairperson, it’s wrong ...
Mr K MOTSAMAI: ... we cannot allow that ...
Ms T L HLABANGWANI: ... you can’t come here and try to intimidate us, we are not scared of that. We are here for the answers ... [Inaudible.] ... here, and she must answer. She must ... [Inaudible.] ... the answers ...
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members! Hon members of the EFF, I’m now calling for order. And if members do not
...[Interjections.] [Inaudible.] ...
Mr M J MAGWALA: What kind of a Minister fails to answer the questions?
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members ... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.] ... that part of the problem is in relation to Question 266, okay? Let’s go there for a moment.
Now, a question has been placed before the House. I now request the member of the executive, hon Ntshavheni, to respond to the question very, very briefly.
Hon Ntshavheni!
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Hon
Chairperson, thank you for the opportunity again. And may I explain that I’m wearing the Springbok jersey because the country was today celebrating the Springbok victory, having welcomed them from representing us ... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.] ...
Mr K MOTSAMAI: It’s not the answer. That is not the answer!
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: ... and for
that reason we were given permission by the Whip of the ...
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon Ntshavheni, I know there may be members who have made a comment or two about this or that, but I’m requesting you respond to Question 266. The Question was asked by hon Dlamini, I guess.
Mr K MOTSAMAI: Yes. To be taken by Motsamai, Kenny.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Ya [yes], actually the first supplementary question.
Why don’t we have ... let’s do it this way. Let’s do this way: Hon Motsamai, do you want to follow up on the question asked, replacing hon Dlamini, I’m told?
Mr K MOTSAMAI: Yes. Chair, I’m requesting Chairperson to allow the Minister to answer this question so that I can do a follow up.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Okay. Thank you very much.
Hon Ntshavheni!
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Chairperson, as
indicated earlier when I responded. The question requires me to divulge intelligence interventions that ... how we are dealing with the torching of long-distance trucks along the country’s major transport routes. I’ve indicated to this House, that will mean we are divulging details of the intelligence operations and therefore, we’ll compromise the work of the State Security Agency, SSA.
For that reason, as indicated to our draft responses to yourself, the response as the details have been lodged with the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence.
And it’s no true that I’ve not answered questions; this is the third question I’m referring, but the previous other questions I’ve responded to, and I’ve also responded to follow up questions which do not compromise operations of the Intelligence Agencies.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Follow up question, Motsamai!
Mr K MOTSAMAI: Chairperson, the very same follow up question, she’s not going to answer it.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Motsamai, what’s your question?
Mr K MOTSAMAI: Let me say this, Chairperson, okay. Minister, continuing tarching and attack of trucks is a long-standing issue which you have failed to desafely deal with. As to date, there exist no backup as to what are the causes of those acts of criminality.
This affirms the sentiments of the EFF that South Africa is filled with incapacitated Ministers who are mandated to be able to track such coordinating action and yet fail to respond.
In light of these, what urgent measures have you taken to deal with those acts of organising criminality as we have not seen any competence?
Sesotho:
Ha ke tsebe hore na o tla nkaraba, ka hobane o sebetsa le ... [Kena hanong.]
English:
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: We move on to ... I’ll come back to you just now. Not unless you want to rise on a particular specific point of order or something.
Sesotho:
Mof L MOSHODI: Modulasetulo ke a leboha. Ke ne ke kopa hore fela Ntate Motsamai a kwenye puo ya hae eo a e entseng kamora potso ya tatelano.
English:
Mr K MOTSAMAI: Withdraw the question? I cannot withdraw the question. Withdraw the question? This is the question, what is wrong there? What is wrong there on the question? Must I withdraw what?
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order, members. Hon Ntshavheni, please respond to the question.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Hon
Chairperson, I request hon Motsamai to re-read the question that they wrote for him because I could not hear what he was saying even when he was reading.
Mr K MOTSAMAI: Minister, you must understand ... Chairperson, you must understand maybe the Minister is busy with something, that’s why she cannot answer me. I was speaking loudly, I don’t ... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.] ... I want the Minister ... [Inaudible.] ... to explain to him what I was saying.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon Motsamai, I’m giving you an opportunity to repeat the question. Please repeat the question!
Mr K MOTSAMAI: Minister, the continuous tarching and attack of trucks is a long-standing issue which you had failed to safely deal with ...
The CHAIRPERON OF THE NCOP: Order, hon members. Please repeat that, hon Motsamai, there was a bit of noise.
Setswana:
Rre K MOTSAMAI: Fela o nkutlwile!
English:
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Please repeat the question!
Mr K MOTSAMAI: Okay. Minister, continuously, tarching and attack of trucks is a long-standing issue which you have failed to decisively deal with. As to date, there exists no back up as to what is the cause of those acts of criminality. This affirms the sentiments of the EFF that South Africa is filled with incompetent Ministers who are mandated to be able to track such coordinated action and yet fail to respond.
In light of this, what urgent measures have you taken to deal with those acts of organised criminality, as we have not seen any incompetence?
Sesotho:
Ha ke tsebe hore o tla kgona ho e araba na!
English:
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon Minister, any other measures? Basically, that’s the question. Can you please respond!
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Hon Chair, if
tarching it’s about torching, and if desashi it’s decisively, and incumpetent it’s incompetent, I didn’t hear the other things that he said. So, maybe that’s why ...
Sesotho:
... ke ka se kgone ho e araba ...
English:
... but if it’s the summary you’ve given, hon Chairperson, I’m going to ... [Interjections.]
Mr M J MAGWALA: Point of order, Chairperson. Can just the Minister for once in her life, just answer the question. Don’t try to be a teacher where you are sitting, man. Just answer the question.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: That’s not a point of order. Please proceed, Minister.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Hon
Chairperson, it’s interesting that when people make aspersions, when you throw it back they are very touchy to respond.
Anyway, hon Chairperson and the members of the House and South Africans, you are well-aware that the police have made arrests of people who were found ... who were part of those who were found torching or who torched the trucks and that’s as far as I can disclose, in terms of that, that the Minister of Police has reported on the numbers and the appearances; and you the numbers of people who have been arrested by the police as relates to torching.
To indicate that we are doing the opposite of what hon Motsamai and the EFF are claiming, we continue to make inroads and arrest those who are responsible for destroying the infrastructure and the number of the successes that the police have reported in the space indicates the work that we are doing to make sure that we address the problem in the long-
distance trucking sector, holistically and collectively. Thank you.
Mr M NHANHA: Hon Chair!
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Nhanha, on what point are you rising?
Mr M NHANHA: Chair, I did not have intentions of getting involved in this fight.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I’m asking you, on what point are you ring?
Mr M NHANHA: I’m getting there, Chair. You better be patient with me.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Please, please, proceed!
Mr M NHANHA: I don’t intend getting into this fight. You’ve just set a precedence. Not only Motsamai can’t pronounce some English words in this House, including in the ANC after all, but none of us have ever descended that low and ridicule a member of this House based on pronunciation. It’s very low,
Chair, and if you can’t rule on it, call the Minister to order, rest assured, Chair. I will do it next week and you’ll never call me to order ...
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: We will make the necessary follow up, check Hansard and so on, and come back to you.
Hon Labuschagne, please proceed!
Mr C LABUSCHAGNE: Chair, I duly support hon Mlindi in his point of order.
Minister, the Minister of Police was quoted in a media statement that he’s of the opinion that these attacks were “an attack on the South African economy”. We also ...
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, please, order!
Please proceed!
Hon member, please, if you want to leave, please leave. Please leave.
Hon Labuschagne, please proceed!
Mr C LABUSCHAGNE: Chair, thank you. But it will be very difficult to proceed if the Minister can’t hear me. Okay.
The Minister of Police was quoted in a media statement that he’s of the opinion that these attacks were “an attack on the South African economy”.
We also had the incident of the July 2021 insurrection where our citizens rightfully asked how is it possible that incidences like this can happen on a such a scale without some kind of intelligence to prevent this.
It is further common logic that intelligence gathered by our Intelligence Agencies are being presented to the responsible structures to act on it.
Therefore, Minister, would you agree that the failure to act on high-risk intelligence reports, which in the end result in the loss of lives or severe damage that the applicable Ministers should be held accountable, if and when they did not take preventative measures to prevent these kinds of incidents? Thank you.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Hon Chair, I
must indicate that hon Labuschagne refers to an opinion of the Minister of Police. I have no place to express a view on an opinion of another Minister and therefore, it becomes very difficult for me to then respond to the follow up questions because hon Labuschagne to make a judgement on aspersions that are being casted on my colleagues without any proof. So, I would not want to respond to that question because it’s an opinion of hon Labuschagne; so, I would not want to commit myself ...
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon Ryder, what’s the point of order?
Mr D R RYDER: Chairperson, it appears that the Minister did not hear the actual question and got destructed by the ...
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: What is the point of order?
Mr D R RYDER: Chair, the Minister had presented herself to this House we could have a proper engagement. She has not done so. She’s hiding behind the camera, she’s hiding behind legislation and abusing it, and now she’s hiding behind a misinterpretation of the question ... [Inaudible.] ... not
acceptable, we are here to give accountability of the executive, it’s not been achieved.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon Ryder, please sit down. Please sit down. That’s not a point of order.
Hon Aucamp!
Mr W A S AUCAMP: Chair, thank you. I have been covered by the hon Ryder. If you can give to the hon Labuschagne, thank you.
Ms C LABUSCHAGNE: Chair, on a point of order. If I rephrase my question. The simple question is: If the responsible structures, who are most of the time the Ministers, the executives in this country, does not respond on intelligence reports that are given to them and they don’t have ... they don’t anything to prevent, should they not held accountable for things like that? That is the plain and simple question.
Thank you.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Thank you for
the rephrasing, hon Labuschagne. Indeed, the people who are responsible for acting on intelligence information if they do not act on intelligence information, they must be held
accountable. And I must indicate that the people who are responsible for acting on intelligence information are not Ministers but they are various officials of government including the law enforcement agencies and that is the ... [Inaudible.] ... but thank you for rephrasing the question.
Mr N M HADEBE: Hon Minister, whilst there were some efforts to address this issue we still remain concerned that efforts from the SA National Defence Force, SANDF, and SA Police Service, SAPS, are merely reactive rather than preventative.
My question points to the exact time these intelligence investigations were conducted, was it at the commencement of this criminality or did the intelligence only start investigating once the fire had died down? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Hon Chair, the
question is in two parts. The first part is that efforts of the police and SANDF were reactive to deal with the torching of the trucks. And I must indicate that without jeopardising national security interest, if the police and the defence forces did not react on time, the scale would have been worse.
So, they reacted, they may not have been fast enough, but they reacted on time that’s why the scale was manageable.
You will recall the incidences in previous years where we had a larger scale of those incidences. But thank you for the question, but they reacted at the time and place that they were required to prevent worse situation which was planned.
Setswana:
Rre K M MMOIEMANG: Modulasetilo wa Kgaolo ya Diporofense ya Ntlo ya Bosetšhaba. [Chairperson of the NCOP.]
English:
Allow me to take this opportunity to express my appreciation on the response that the Minister gave, to the extend that as the response to the main question will compromise the operations in terms of the work that is being done by the relevant structures. We are happy to deal with the matter at the level of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence.
Thank you, hon national Chairperson.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY-STATE SECURITY: Chairperson,
there was no question for me to respond, he was simply indicating that they will take the responses from the ... they
will follow up on the matter from the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence as he is a member. Thank you, Chairperson.
Question 262:
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: Hon House Chair, I must indicate that the vetting of the head of Crime Intelligence was not done by the State Security Agency, SSA, but was done by the vetting Directorate of Crime Intelligence of the SA Police Service, the SAPS. So, they are the best people to respond to that question.
Ms C LABUSCHAGNE: Chair, are we now at 262? Minister, I want to know if it is true, as has been reported in the media, that this matter is being investigated by the Inspector-General of Intelligence with a view to pulling the clearance given with such speed to the new head of Crime Intelligence.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: Hon Labuschagne, you will understand that the matter deals with the SAPS’ Crime Intelligence. Therefore, the work of the Inspector-General as it relates to that will then be briefed to the relevant people but not to me as I am only responsible for the SSA.
Mr W A S AUCAMP: Chairperson, on a point of order.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Yes, Aucamp, on what point are you rising?
Mr W A S AUCAMP: I'm rising on the point that it is clear to me that with all due respect, the Minister is really trying to avoid answering any questions. Firstly, and I am repeating what was said before, she refused to be on camera. Now it is clear to me. Just give me a moment, sir. The previous question asked whether she, and I am going to repeat this, whether it’s true, whether it's true. So she cannot say, I don't know.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon Aucamp, the question I am asking you is, on what point are you rising?
Mr W A S AUCAMP: I am rising on the point that the Minister is accountable to this House and she is absolutely absconding that accountability. She is refusing to answer questions. She
... [Inaudible.] ... answer, is it true.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Sorry, it’s not a point of order or any other point. That’s the problem. Thank you very much.
Mr W A S AUCAMP: Protect ... keep on protecting. She is a disgrace of a Minister. She is an absolute disgrace.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: The second follow-up question is from hon Nchabeleng. Hon Nchabeleng?
Mr W A S AUCAMP: This Minister is wasting our time today.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Going, going, gone. We will move on to hon De Bruyn.
Mr M A P DE BRUYN: Chairperson, seeing as the Minister hasn't answered the initial question or any follow up, I really don't see any point in continuing this question and to ask any further questions. Thank you, Chairperson.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Thank you very much. We will pass to hon Magwala, who is not here. Hon Magwala? Going, going, going, gone. Thank you very much. We will proceed to the next question. This question is Question 255 and it is on vetting government officials and/or personnel. This question has been tabled by the hon L C Bebee and is directed to the Minister in the Presidency responsible for State Security. Hon Minister?
Question 255:
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: Chairperson, in terms of the
(a) part of the question, measures to address the backlog, we
are implementing the following measures: We are developing an e-vetting solution which will be concluding soon so that we can then ease up the vetting process; we are also digitising the vetting files that will start in 2024 April; we are also working on employing the intelligence veterans who are on contract that will be ending in 2024; we have done the prioritisation of government departments and state-owned enterprises, SOEs, into primary and secondary priority clients and the model is in practice. We did that to ensure that those security operation centres, SOCs, and departments that are of high priorities are then fast tracked in terms of vetting.
We have started a creation of what we call the vetting of field work units with client departments that will help us to gather the information. The major part of the delays in vetting is the ability of those who are being vetted to supply the information timeously. We are also doing a closure of vetting files that are older than five years in the system and we restarting them again according to the ... [Inaudible.] ... model that I spoke to earlier.
In terms of the status of the vetting backlog currently, we have a total of 19 951 vetting backlog files and the total files process so far is 16 318. Of these, 14 441 are closed
due to being old, that is more than five years old in the system and 1 877 are processed and finalised. The remaining backlog, therefore, is standing at 3 632 and is made up of the following: confidential clearances is 2 300, secret and top secret clearances 1 333. These are expected to be completed by end of the current financial year. Thank you, hon Chairperson.
Ms L C BEBEE: Thank you very much hon Minister for your appreciation for the significance of capacity and also professionalism in the vetting by the State Security Agencies as demonstrated in your intervention. This brings into sharp focus the fundamental question as to, whether there is any collaboration between the SA Police Service Crime Intelligence division and the State Security Agency, SSA, as part of maximising the limited human resources? Hon Minister, if not, why not? If so, what are the relevant details regarding it?
Thank you very much, Chairperson.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: Thank you, hon Bebee for the follow-up question. Indeed, we are working on improving the collaboration between the SA Police Service and the SSA as it relates to vetting, in particular, when it relates to vetting of senior officials. The senior officials in SSA and senior officials in the SA Police Service are not internally vetting
themselves, but there can be cross vetting, meaning that ideally, the head of the Crime Intelligence of the SA Police Service should be vetted by SSA instead of being vetted by the SA Police Service Crime Intelligence, which is the current situation
To do this, we want to improve the quality, the integrity and the robustness of the system. In addition, the work that we are doing to bring in field work and technology is to make sure that we expedite the vetting and also ensure that even those who are joining the Police Service for their vetting system, they can rely on the primary work that we do and can take over to do for their own recruits at the entry level and we can then process the ones that we do. Furthermore, it will also improve the robustness of the system to look at security wholistically. Thank you, hon Chairperson.
Mr N M HADEBE: Hon Minister, this agency has been sitting with a huge backlog since 2019. Evidently, nothing has changed since then. Unfortunately, this defeats efforts to fight corruption and mismanagement of funds. My question to you, hon Minister, what steps are the ministry taken since 2019 to ensure that the necessary recruitment of personnel and funding
needed to carry out the much needed background checks? Thank you.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: Thank you hon Hadebe for the follow-up question. Indeed, the backlog has been huge but we have put in measures as indicated earlier. We are introducing an e-vetting system, we have introduced the field workers and we also brought back the former vetting veterans on contracts to help us expedite the vetting process. Also, the vetting applications that are older than five years have been removed from the system so that we can then prioritise what is confronting us.
We also implemented a model that allows us to prioritise departments that are compromised in line with the commitment that has been made in 2014. That is the work that we have started to do so that we can resolve the vetting backlog. We have been following up on this matter very closely because of the interrelated work that is being done by the Special Investigating Unit, SIU. In their investigations, the majority of people have been found to have occupied higher positions without relevant and necessary security clearances. Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr M NHANHA: Minister, I do get your point about work being done with regards to addressing the backlog. However, can I check with you, what is the process of addressing the backlog of vetting designated government officials and personnel of state-owned companies? Is there also a process of guaranteeing that all vetting processes including those done by the Police and the Defence are of the same high standard, especially, secret and top secret vetting? Thank you.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: As indicated earlier, we asked
...[Inaudible.] ... to standardise the top secret vetting so that it is the same standard and quality across. That is why the collaboration that we started with both the Defence and the SA Police Service to make sure that we retain that required standard. On related matter of the state-owned entities, we have put a mechanism in place to do the prioritisation say what are the priority positions that we must ensure they are vetted quicker. Included in that is the mechanism of finding information because their major part of the delays with vetting is that people are being vetted not supplying the required information as on time. That has been a major delay.
So, we are working to make sure that those type of information that is held by government entities, we sign agreements with the various entities to make sure that we can then directly access that type of information within the confines of the law, which is the Protection of Personal Information Act, POPIA, with the confidence that that information gathered will not be used for any other intelligence gathering but for the purposes of vetting. Thank you.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, we have come to the end of answering the questions. It may be useful to know that as we move closer towards elections, one expect temperatures to rise a bit. Nevertheless, unless we have control and stick to how these sittings of the Council are supposed to be run, we will really get into trouble.
Every member has a right to raise his or her point of view, however, if we use tactics that undermines the operation of the House we will be the only ones to blame. So, this question of the decorum of the House is not some theoretical concept, it has to do with making sure that the House functions and does the work that is set for itself. It is very important that we do that. Having said so, the Council is declared adjourned. Thank you very much.
The business of the day concluded.
The Council adjourned at 17:51.
Audio
No related