Gupta Early Naturalisation; North West, Mpumalanga & KZN Home Affairs reports; with Minister

Home Affairs

22 August 2017

Chairperson: Mr B Mashile (ANC).

Audio
Gupta Early Naturalisation; North West, Mpumalanga & KZN Home Affairs reports; with Minister 1
Gupta Early Naturalisation; North West, Mpumalanga & KZN Home Affairs reports; with Minister 2

Documents
North West Province presentation
KwaZulu natal Province presentation
Mpumalanga Province presentation

Meeting Summary

The purpose of the meeting was to engage the current Minister of Home Affairs on the early naturalisation of the Gupta family, and to receive briefings from the Department of Home Affairs’ (DHA’s) provincial managers on the status of the Department in North West province, Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal.

Members expressed concern that the current Minister, Prof Hlengiwe Mkhize, was not the person to answer questions, because former Minister Malusi Gigaba had made the judgment call to approve the citizenship of the Guptas. They also felt that the time allocated for the engagement with the current Minister on the issue was not sufficient. They therefore proposed that a full day be allocated for the deliberations.

Minister Mkhize said that the law had empowered Mr Gigaba to consider ‘exceptional circumstances’ when considering applications for naturalisation of citizenships. The importance of strengthening the economy and investment potentials of the Guptas must have informed his decision. Based on the investment potentials, she would have taken the same decision. The enabling legislation for the naturalisation of the Guptas was based the Immigration Act of 2002 and the Citizenship Act of 2010. In addition, administrative guidelines such as the preparation of a Note Verbale, renunciation of Indian citizenship and the presentation to Parliament of a list of people granted citizenship, needed to have been followed.

The document from the Director General (DG) of the DHA showed that the approval had been based on the proviso that the applicant renounced the citizenship of his parent country. It was verifiable that the Guptas had made investments, but it had not been verified if they had built hospitals, assisted in the treatment of HIV patients and participated in wellness programmes. The law only required proof of investment, which the applicant had submitted, so in terms of the legislation there was no illegality in the process of granting the Guptas citizenship.

Members said that the explanation of the current Minister lacked depth, and condemned her agreement with the decision the former Minister had made, based on investments alone. They faulted the reasoning used by the DHA to explain why the Guptas had received citizenship, and expressed disappointment that the current Minister had not instituted an investigation based on the media concerns against the Gupta family. They observed that the DHA had not followed formal procedures because the citizenship had not been presented to Parliament, so the early naturalisation of the Guptas had been flawed.

Members proposed that the Committee set another date to deal with the matter after receiving information on the issue, because it could not finish the deliberations within the time allocated. They also wanted to know if the former Minister had had any direct or indirect engagements with the Guptas on the naturalisation issue before and during the time they received citizenship. The DHA was asked to confirm when the Guptas had renounced their Indian citizenship of India; whether other permits could be granted, apart from citizenship based on investments; and if the SA Revenue Service (SARS) had confirmed that the Guptas had made an investment of R25 billion. Prof Mkhize was also asked if she would revoke the citizenship of the Guptas based on the provision in law that gave her the power to conduct such revocations if it was in the best interests of the country.

Members agreed that the Committee needed to follow the House Chair’s instruction to investigate the matter to ensure that Members were not labelled as “captured.” They questioned the authenticity of the letter that confirmed renunciation of the Guptas’ Indian citizenship, because the letter had no stamp. It was proposed that the Committee should meet to deliberate on the issue on Friday 25 August, pending the availability of the former Minister.

Highlights of the presentation on the status of the DHA provincial offices in the North West, Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal included the stakeholder engagements, the provincial performances against annual targets in 2017/18, and the strategies developed to achieve the targets, the challenges and interventions proposed.

The Committee applauded the efforts of the three provinces on counter corruption cases, but questions were limited owing to time constraints.  Members also addressed some concerns to the DHA’s head office. These included cross-border management issues in KwaZulu-Natal, where the people of Matatiele had to travel to Colesburg to receive Smart ID cards. The Committee expressed concerns on service delivery, and asked the provincial managers (PMs) if they were serious about alleviating poverty in the country. The PMs were advised to adhere to the two months’ timeframe for filling vacancies. 

Meeting report

The Chairperson recalled that during last week’s meeting on 15 August, a tentative meeting date of Friday 25 August had been proposed to engage on the early naturalisation of the Gupta family. However, because the current Minister of Home Affairs had communicated that she would not be available to attend on Friday, the meeting to deliberate on the matter had been rescheduled for Tuesday 22 August, and so the agenda of the meeting had been changed to accommodate the deliberations. The former Minister of Home Affairs would not be available for the meeting.

He welcomed the current Minister of Home Affairs, Prof Hlengiwe Mkhize and her team. The  team included officials from the Department of Home Affairs (DHA), the Acting Provincial Manager (PM) from North West, Ms Irene Mantlhasi, the Acting PM from Mpumalanga, Ms Dolly Chiloane, and the PM from KwaZulu-Natal, Mr Cyril Mncwabe.

Apologies had been received from Dr C Mulder (FF+) and Ms S Nkomo (IFP).

The purpose of the meeting was to engage the current Minister of Home Affairs on the early naturalisation of the Gupta family, and to receive briefings from the PMs of North West, Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal on the status of the DHA in each province. He invited Members to make comments before the deliberations began.

Mr D Gumede (ANC) observed that Members had not yet received the minutes of the previous meeting on the early naturalisation of the Gupta family. Hence, there could be no reference to decisions of the meeting. If the previous Minister, Mr Malusi Gigaba, was to be invited, Members should state the specific reasons why.

The Chairperson pleaded with Members to continue with the day’s agenda.

Mr M Hoosen (DA) remarked that the discussions had got out of hand because the decisions of the previous meeting on the early naturalisation of the Gupta family had not been respected. He appreciated the presence of the current Minister. The issue was not about the availability of the current Minister of Home Affairs, Prof Mkhize, but Members wanted former Minister Gigaba to be available give answers to questions. He recalled that Members had asked for feedback on the summons of the former Minister, so he asked the Chairperson if he had written to Mr Gigaba and when the former Minister would be available.

Ms H Hlophe (EFF) remarked that the Chairperson had introduced only some of the DHA officials and the PM’s. According to the proposed agenda, engagements on the early naturalisation of the Gupta family was billed to take one hour, when it should be accorded a whole day. Members wanted a full day to deliberate on the matter to ensure that the engagements would be fruitful. She proposed that, the PMs be excused to ensure that the PMs would not be traumatised by the deliberations on the early naturalisation of the Gupta family. She also asked the Chairperson to make pronouncements on her observation, because the time allocated would not be enough to do justice to the deliberations on the Gupta matter, as Members had other Parliamentary functions at 2.00pm.

The Chairperson said that although the current Minister of Home Affairs was available to answer questions, Members’ comments were eating into the time for the deliberations. The trauma faced by PMs was caused by Members so, he appealed to Members to wait for the PMs to leave to ensure that the day’s agenda was discussed.

Mr Gumede proposed a motion that the deliberations continue, so as to save time. (

Mr Hoosen supported Mr Gumede’s motion to carry on with the meeting, but asked the Chairperson to answer his question on whether he had written to Mr Gigaba to confirm his availability.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had applied to Parliament to hold the meeting on Friday 25 August, and the former Minister of Home Affairs, who had not been initially invited, could not be summoned. The Committee would meet on Friday 25 August, and Members would be duly informed of the availability of Mr Gigaba and the agenda of the meeting for that day.

Mr Hoosen countered that it was not true that Mr M Gigaba had been invited, because the invitation had included Mr Gigaba and the Director General (DG) of the DHA. Members had decided that Mr Gigaba should be summoned if he was not available for the meeting when he had been invited. He asked the Chairperson to confirm if Mr Gigaba had been summoned.

The Chairperson confirmed that Mr Gigaba had not been summoned.

Mr Gumede indicated that Members had not yet received the minutes of the previous meeting on the early naturalisation of the Gupta family. Members therefore needed to adopt the minutes before confirming Mr Hoosen’s statements.

Mr Hoosen commented that the Committee needed to confirm with the recordings as well.

The Chairperson agreed with the submissions of Mr Gumede and Mr Hoosen. He indicated that the meeting of 29 August had been re-scheduled due to the International Women’s Conference. He also indicated that Members had received the document on the renunciation of the citizenship of the Gupta’s and the list of persons that had received early naturalisation, but he was not sure if the audit report had been communicated to all Members. He said that Prof Mkhize had sent a prior request that she be allowed to leave early to attend a Cabinet meeting. He invited Prof Mkhize to give her address.

Minister on Gupta family naturalisation

Prior to her address, Prof Mkhize made some clarifications for record purposes. The instruction to investigate State capture issues had been given by the House Chairperson of Committees, Mr Cedric Frolick, so it was important for all Members to comply with the directive. There was a common understanding in Government offices that persons that took over must take responsibility for their predecessors’ actions.

The DG of the DHA must have examined legislation before taking any decision. The official who had initially rejected the application had articulated reasons for rejecting the application, and he had been correct. The Gupta family had appealed, and particular laws governed appeals. The former Minister of Home Affairs had made judgments based on the recommendations of staff. The importance of strengthening the economy and the investment potentials of the Guptas must have informed his decision. Based on the investment potentials, she would have taken the same decision.

The enabling legislation for the naturalisation of the Guptas was based the Immigration Act of 2002 and the Citizenship Act of 2010. In addition, administrative guidelines such as the preparation of a Note Verbale, renunciation of Indian citizenship and presentation of a list of people granted citizenship to Parliament, needed to have been followed. The document from the DG of the DHA showed that the approval had been based on the proviso that the applicant renounced the citizenship of his parent country. It was verifiable that the Guptas had made investments, but it had not been verified if the Guptas had built hospitals, assisted in the treatment of HIV patients and participated in wellness programmes.

The law did not specifically say that applicants must have assisted in the treatment of HIV patients and participated in wellness programmes, so in terms of legislation there was no illegality in the process of granting the Guptas citizenship. Minister Gigaba must have questioned the Department, and the DHA had recommended that he approve the citizenship of the Guptas. From what she had seen from the documents, the issue of this family being investors in this country dominated the correspondence. The law empowered Mr M Gigaba to consider ‘exceptional circumstances’ when considering applications for naturalisation of citizenships.

The Chairperson asked the Prof Mkhize to explain the role of her two advisors.

Prof Mkhize explained that her two advisors would address legal issues, service delivery and border issues.

The Chairperson invited Members to make comments and ask questions.

Discussion

Ms Hlophe said that Prof Mkhize’s explanation lacked depth on the matter. Members had expected that her report would give in-depth details on the action of the former Minister, but were disappointed with it. She reminded the Minister that the issue of the naturalisation of the Guptas was important. She condemned her agreement with the decision her predecessor had made based on investments alone, because from issues trending, the Guptas had been alleged to be criminals.

The DHA had used statistics of how many people Oakbay Investments had employed as one of the reasons why the Guptas had received citizenship. However, media reports had indicated irregularities in the Oakbay Investments’ documents. Media reports also showed that the Guptas had accumulated money from the dairy farm in the Free State. She expressed disappointment that Prof Mkhize had not stated that she would start an investigation into the media concerns against the Gupta family.

In addition, the DHA had not followed formal procedures, because the citizenship had not been presented to Parliament, so the early naturalisation of the Gupta’s was flawed. The Chairperson had initially had disputes over the letter on the early naturalisation of the Guptas that had been leaked by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) to the media, but the current Minister had read the same letter during her address. The EFF wanted an investigation on the letter, because the DG of the DHA had said the letter was questionable. In addition, the early naturalisation of the Gupta’s was uncalled for and needed to be investigated.

Ms N Dambuza (ANC) stated her opinions on the matter. The letter from the Auditor General (AG) had not been a response, but a request for more information from the DHA. Some of the questions asked by the AG in the letter were the same questions that the Committee had asked initially. It would therefore be unfair to ask the current Minister further questions, since the time would not be enough and it would be unfair on the DHA PMs. Mr A Figlan (DA) had initially wanted to distribute information on the naturalisation of the Guptas that the Committee had agreed to distribute through the Chairperson’s office. She proposed that the Committee set another date to deal with the matter after receiving the information from Mr Figlan, because the Committee could not finish the deliberations within the time allocated.

Mr Hoosen said that the comments of Ms Dambuza justified the points he had made earlier. Mr Gigaba had made a judgment call, and he alone could answer why. He also wanted to know if Mr Gigaba had had any direct or indirect engagements with the Guptas on the naturalisation issue before and during the time the Guptas received citizenship.

He observed that the citizenship application and waiver of the Guptas had not been presented to the Committee, and the waiver had been signed in 2015. Citizenship was supposed to be granted after confirming that the person had renounced the citizenship of his parent country. Citizenship had been granted to the Guptas in 2015, however, and the only evidence that the DHA had secured confirmation of the renunciation of the citizenship of India was after the citizenship had been granted in 2017. He therefore asked if the DHA had confirmed whether the Gupta’s had renounced their Indian citizenship.

He also asked the Department to confirm if other permits could be granted, apart from citizenship based on investments. Had the South African Revenue Service (SARS) confirmed whether the Guptas had made an investment of R25 billion? If Mr K Singla was an adult, why had his citizenship been granted as part of the Guptas’?

He observed that the role that the Guptas had played in the country was questionable, so he asked if the current Minister of Home Affairs would revoke the citizenship of the Guptas, based on the provision in law that gave her the power to conduct such revocations if it was in the best interest of the country.

Mr M Kekana (ANC) said that he pitied the current Minister, because she had to take responsibility for the actions of the former Minister. He also supported Ms Dambuza’s proposals. The Committee had the power to perform oversight and establish inquiries, so it needed a full day to perform the inquiry. Also the Committee needed to follow the House Chair’s instruction to investigate the matter to ensure that Members were not labelled as “captured.” The office of the Minister could come up with the terms of reference and the Committee would subpoena any person involved.

He questioned the authenticity of the letter that confirmed the renunciation of the Guptas’ Indian citizenship, because the letter had no stamp. He proposed that the Committee should agree to meet to deliberate on the issue on 25 August, or on a date that the Committee decided.

The Chairperson remarked that it was correct to see if administrative processes had been followed.

Mr Mkuseli Apleni, DG of the DHA, was asked to verify if the Gupta’s had renounced the citizenship of India. He had verified that the Guptas had renounced the citizenship of India immediately after acquiring citizenship of South Africa, from the letter.

Mr Hoosen observed that the letter had not stated that the renunciation of the citizenship rights by the Gupta’s was immediate.

The Chairperson asked Mr Hoosen to interpret the letter correctly. He pointed out that Mr Apoleni had followed-up on the Committee’s request to confirm in 2017, so the letter could not be back dated to 2015.

Ms D Raphuti (ANC) recalled that Mr Hoosen had not been present when the DG had made the confirmation. During the meeting, the DG had thoroughly explained the process that had been used to grant the Guptas naturalisation. He had also stated that he had omitted to request the former Minister to sign the memo to present the family’s naturalisation application to Parliament. She appreciated Prof Mkhize’s presence, to take responsibility and account for the action of the former Minister. The Auditor General of South Africa (AGSA) had requested some information from the DHA, so the Committee should await the audit report on the letter that had presented on the naturalisation of the Guptas before it deliberated on the matter.

Mr Figlan asked Prof Mkhize when she had found out that the DHA had not followed formal procedures. He added that there had been a report that the one of the Guptas had had two identity documents (IDs), and the DHA had had to withdraw one. He asked for her assurance that the corruption allegation would be investigated.

Ms T Kenye (ANC) said that time was against the Committee because of the other Parliamentary function at 2.00pm, so she asked Members to follow-up on the two proposals of Ms Dambuza and Ms Raphuti, and await the availability of Mr Gigaba.

The Chairperson said that the meeting had been requested based on the availability of Prof Mkhize, so he advised Members to ask her relevant questions based on the agenda.

Mr Gumede said that the African National Congress (ANC) did not support the Gupta family in any way, neither did it condone the crimes that people were referring to. The ANC supported a judicial commission of inquiry into the matter, headed by a judge, which would conduct a thorough investigation of the matter. The ANC was waiting for the documents to be authenticated. It wanted to confirm who had been negligent in completing the administrative procedures, and to hold the person accountable. The ANC would accept the recommendations of the final arbiter -- the judicial commission of inquiry -- when they were given.

The Chairperson observed that Members still wanted to comment on the matter, but he asked Members to refrain because they had spoken before.

Mr Kekana asked the Chairperson to allow Members to speak to ensure that there would be clarity in the submission of Members. He requested a two-minute caucus meeting of the ANC, based on the response of Mr Gumede. He also said that he would not allow anyone to dictate to him.

The Chairperson pleaded with Members to give the Minister a chance to respond to the questions, to ensure that time was not wasted.

Ms Hlophe said she was not disputing that time was being wasted, but the Chairperson needed to allow Members to speak.

Mr Gumede requested a five-minute caucus meeting of the ANC so that the party could resolve its issues.

The Chairperson pleaded with Members to allow the Minister to respond before the ANC caucus meeting.

Ms Hlophe said that the Committee could not allow factional meetings during deliberations.

The Chairperson asked the Minister to proceed with her responses because of her earlier request to leave the meeting early.

Minister’s response

Prof Mkhize stated that the deliberations should be based on the rules of law. The questions that should be asked were whether the former Minister had adhered to the law in treating the Guptas case, or if the Guptas had come in to the country legally. Persons could wish to naturalise after gaining permanent residency status. The investigation called for a check on whether the former Minister had followed the Immigration Act and Citizenship Act. In this case, she believed the legislation empowered the former Minister to approve the naturalisation. She could not justify the former Minister’s action, but the Committee needed to work with the information available then and not the new information available now.

The administration of the DHA must take responsibility for the administrative issues, such as the issuing of the Note Verbale, confirming the renunciation and preparing memos for presenting the list of citizenship to Parliament. She promised to confirm from Establishments whether the DHA had confirmed the renunciation of the Guptas’ Indian citizenship initially, or after the allegations. She agreed to work with the DG, Mr Apleni, to ensure that all relevant documents were submitted to the Committee.

She noted that the Committee wanted to discuss issues with the former Minister. As pubic representatives, Ministers met persons and could give account of the meetings. Permanent residency and long visa stay options were part of the options open to foreigners. In this case, the Guptas had opted for citizenship of the country, and the application had been approved. The Immigration and Citizenship Act did not stipulate that if the party was a business person, the investments must be investigated, but asked only for proof of the investments. However, the allegation of corruption needed to be established.

Mr Singla should have applied as an adult, but the Citizenship Act provided for persons who applied as part of a group. In most countries, this was allowed and citizenship could be granted as a group.

Allegations of being “captured” were difficult to deal with presently. People were talking about it, so it was vital to deal with the state capture issue. Parliament needed to be allowed to investigate and establish illegality before citizenship could be revoked. The DHA could not pre-empt the decision, so the DHA needed to wait before taking action. She appreciated that some Members were sympathetic to the plight of the DHA, but the issues needed to be settled.

The instruction stated that an investigation on state capture should commence, but information should be collected as a foundation before investigations start. The time the High Commission of India had been approached to clarify the renunciation of the Guptas’ citizenship needed to be verified. The explanation of the DG on the omission of administrative processes was appropriate. The DHA was working on its administrative systems.

On allegations that the Guptas had acquired their citizenship status fraudulently, she said she would be careful about pre-empting the investigation, to ensure that people perceived the Committee as objective.

She was not aware of the possession of two ID’s by a member of the Gupta family, but she would investigate. The discussion on the naturalisation of the Guptas was important and should be given more time. She pledged her availability for further discussions on the issue.

The Chairperson indicated that the Minister had responded, and she had promised to collate more evidence. He allowed the Minister to leave the meeting early, and with Members to have the ANC caucus meeting after the PMs had briefed the Committee. He also informed Members that the House Chair had requested a meeting with him at 12.00 pm, and Mr Gumede would chair the meeting in his absence.

The Chairperson invited the Northwest DHA Ag PM Ms Irene Mantlhasi to brief the Committee on the Provincial status and excused himself.

Presentation by North West DHA

Ms Irene Mantlhasi, Acting Provincial Manager (PM): North West DHA, highlighted the footprints at health facilities in the Province, but said that the Ramatlabama health facility had major network challenges. She outlined the annual performance planned targets, overall performance status and planned actions to achieve targets in 2016/17 and the first quarter of 2017/18.

The birth registration targets had not been met in the first quarter of 2017/18 due to labour challenges, as some districts were not registering births during weekends and public holidays. She outlined the statistics on the late registration of births in all categories. Targets on Smart ID cards had not been met in the first quarter of 2017/18 because radio stations were no longer willing to provide free slots to market the Smart ID cards, and the North West DHA had limited funds available for the project. The system in the mobile offices could not connect due to network problems.

The statistics on equity showed the distribution on gender and people living with disability. The PM position had had to be re-advertised after if it had been suspended due to lack of funds. She outlined the labour-related cases and counter-corruption cases which showed the allegations, status and outcomes. She highlighted the budget, with the expenditures and revenue collected for the period. She indicated the number of vehicles, and how they were allocated. She explained the reasons for the unverified assets and outlined the stakeholder interactions in the province.

The major challenges were the lack of DHA footprints in two municipalities due to budget constraints, delays in finalising labour work-hour matters, the shortage of branded immigration services vehicles for detection, arrests and deportation, and the need to increase the band widths of ADSL routers for improved network connectivity.

Presentation by Mpumalanga DHA

Ms Dolly Chiloane, PM: Mpumalanga DHA, outlined the planned annual performance targets, the overall performance status and planned actions to achieve targets in 2016/17 and the first quarter of 2017/18.

The birth registration targets had been met in the first quarter of 2017/18, but had not been met in the 2016/17 financial year. Targets on Smart ID cards were not met in the first quarter of 2017/18 because the high population in the rural areas found it difficult to come to collect them. However, cadres were being used as an intervention mechanism to record improved achievement of targets on the ID cards.

Mr Figlan asked her to clarify what she meant by the term ‘cadres’.

Ms Chiloane said that cadres were young officials who assisted with achieving the Smart ID cards targets. The other interventions on Smart ID cards included holding stakeholder forums, marketing awareness through free media slots, and Operation Vuka Sisebente.

The Nkangala district municipality had challenges over office space that would accommodate the modernised offices. The province experienced challenges with health facilities, as currently 15 were functional while 16 were not functional. She identified the strategies and impacts of the interventions used to improve birth registrationa within 30 days. She gave statistics on the late registration of births for all categories, and explained that files were closed when applicants had been invited for interviews and refused to show up. The statistics provided included information on mobile offices, stakeholder forum engagements within the Province and detailed reports on immigration services.

Statistics on the capacity levels included the advertised posts which were handled provincially. She explained that PM posts were handled at the headquarters. She presented reports on the number, allegations, status and outcomes of labour-related and counter-corruption cases during the period under review. She highlighted the budget, with the expenditures and revenue collected for the period. She indicated the number of vehicles and how they were allocated. There were no audit findings for the province on revenue, human resources, asset management, finance and supply chain management.

The major challenges were lack of infrastructure in rural areas, delays in finalising labour work-hour matters, the need to acquire more immigration service vehicles, the need to increase the band widths of ADSL routers for improved network connectivity and the issue of blocked ID numbers. She explained the allegations on blocked ID numbers to the Committee.

The Acting Chairperson asked Ms Chiloane to state the numbers of blocked ID numbers, and to give a detailed report on the issue in a written response.

Presentation by KwaZulu-Natal DHA

Mr Cyril Mncwabe, PM: KwaZulu-Natal DHA, outlined the annual performance planned targets, the overall performance status and planned actions to achieve targets in 2016/17 and the first quarter of 2017/18.

The target for birth registrations within 30 days was not achieved in 2016/17, but had been achieved in the first quarter of 2017/18. As 16 of the health facilities had connectivity challenges, manual birth registration was used. In contrast, the Smart ID cards target had been met in 2016/17, but not met in 2017/18. He indicated the interventions used to meet both targets. There was still high number of late birth registration in border areas, especially in the 15 and above category.

He indicated that the number of uncollected Smart ID cards had reduced since he joined the DHA due to interventions such as radio interviews and engagements with traditional leaders and councillors through the operation Sukuma Sakhe. He outlined the active stakeholder forums within the province. The province achieved its targets in immigration services despite shortage of staff. He explained that the province had only five district managers for 11 districts, and 684 positions had been filled out of 715.

He also presented the provincial equity statistics and said that all performance agreements had been signed. He reported on the number, allegations, status and outcomes of labour-related and counter-corruption cases during the period under review. Under budgets and expenditure in the first quarter 2017/18, there had been over-expenditure under transfers and subsidies due to gratuity payments for deaths and resignations, but the budget expenditure stood at 25%. The asset management and supply chain function had recorded a 99% compliance. He explained the reasons for not achieving the 30-days payment of valid invoices in 2016/17, but said the province had met the target in 2017/18. The balances on the point of sale were lower than cash collected in 2016/17 and the first quarter 2017/18 because of the reluctance of clients to use cards.

He analysed the fleets in the province, based on kilometres travelled. The 46 vehicles that had travelled above 150 000 km were still in use, due to lack of resources. He outlined some defects in the accommodation of some of the DHA offices which were been addressed through day to day maintenance. The challenges had been reported to the Department of Public Works (DPW) on numerous occasions. The audit findings on a missing scanner and fridge in 2016/18 had been addressed.

The major challenges were the lack of adequate office accommodation, delays in finalising labour work-hour matters, the need to acquire more immigration services vehicles, the absence of mobile solutions for the Smart ID card roll out, the lack of human resources in immigration services, the need to re-prioritise budgets based on population numbers, and the lack of human resources in small offices.

The Acting Chairperson appreciated the PMs for meeting the targets on the 30-day payment of invoices. He invited Members to interrogate the briefings, but stated that responses would be written because of time.

Ms Raphuti suggested that the new advisors needed to suggest ways to address the issue of Acting PMs in Northwest and Mpumalanga. She applauded the efforts of the three provinces on counter-corruption cases. She remarked that she had received calls on service delivery from KwaZulu-Natal, and she would pass the messages on to the PM.

Ms Kenye proposed that due to the time issue, some of the questions should be sent in written form but each Member could ask one question each. She asked the North West PM to state the time frame to fast track manual services in the province

The Acting Chairperson asked Members to submit questions to the relevant provinces, in line with complaints received from clients. He apologised for not having time to engage with the PMs sufficiently.

Ms Hlophe agreed with Ms Kenye’s proposal, because time was against the Committee. She said that the Committee was at fault because of the timing. She asked the KwaZulu-Natal PM to give a formal response on the case of rudeness that had been reported in the media. She also asked him to give feedback on the new offices.

Ms Dambuza said that her concerns were with the DHA head office. The concerns included cross-border management issues in KwaZulu-Natal, as the people of Matatiele had to travel to Colesburg to receive Smart ID cards. In addition, the other two PMs from North West and Mpumalanga had not addressed population issues which affected service delivery issues.

Mr Hoosen expressed concerns over service delivery.

The Acting Chairperson suggested that the Committee still needed to engage with the PMs, and said that he would ask the Chairperson to give Members the opportunity. The DHA head office, however, needed to respond on issues such as vacant posts.

Mr Kekana addressed a question to all provinces. He expressed concern that despite reports that 50% of South Africans were living in poverty, PMs were still reporting that some posts were still vacant. He therefore asked the PMs if they were serious about alleviating poverty in the country. He advised PMs to adhere to the two months’ timeframe for filling vacancies.

The Acting Chairperson said he appreciated the PMs’ input, and said that Members would still interact with them on service delivery issues.

The meeting was adjourned.