Questions and Replies

Reply:

The Liquor Amendment Bill will be submitted to Cabinet in the first quarter of 2017. In terms of the cabinet process, the Socio Economic Impact Assessment System (SEIAS) report must accompany all legislation. Once approved by Cabinet, the SEIAS report will be made available.

Reply:

No, the backlog of applications for Letters of Authority that are older than 120 calendar days were not eliminated by the deadline of 14 November 2016 that was given to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry;

(a) The complexity of the required skills, human resource and systems interventions to deal with the backlog have taken longer than anticipated.

(b) The backlog on 30 October 2016 was 1615.

(c) The meeting to inform the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry on progress is scheduled for 29 November 2016.

(d) The NRCS has taken the following steps to address the backlog as a matter of urgency.

(i) Separation of administrative from technical processes – Progress: The NRCS has developed and implemented administrative and technical evaluation checklists and processes.

(ii) Develop and piloted risk-based approach - Low Risk: Renewals, Local Manufacturers and Low Risk Application in terms of Products, Companies and Countries - Progress: Implemented RBA on Low Risk Applications, Implemented RBA on Renewal Applications; Medium Risk: Products, Companies and Countries, Progress: Piloting RBA on Medium Risk Applications; High Risk: Products, Companies and Countries; Different approval routes used based on risk classification.

(iii) Human Resources – Progress: LOA approvals section resources have increased from 5 to 7 inspectors; Additional 2 candidate inspectors – Short-listing completed, recruitment process underway; 4 more positions are being created to further increase the staff complement to 13 inspectors. Overtime has also been approved to assist with the reduction in the backlog in the short-term.

Progress is reported to the Director-General bi–weekly through the oversight process led by the Group COO and the Deputy Director General.

(e) the backlog will be eliminated by 31 March 2017.

Reply:

1. Mr Moetsoeneng’s income for the period 18 November 2011 when he started acting as COO has been fully disclosed in the Audited Annual Reports of the SABC for 2011/2012, 2012/2013, 2013/2014, 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. There were no fixed bonuses agreed upon in both positions. However, he was one of the employees who have received ex- gratia amounts during the 2014/2015 financial year. With regards to other fringe benefits, these are aligned to his condition of service which is in line with the internal policies of the SABC.
2. The SABC has not paid performance bonuses to staff as there is no Performance Management System in place.
3. Since Mr Motsoeneng has been appointed as COO, the only increases that were awarded were aligned to the annual wage increases as approved by the delegated authority.

MR NN MUNZHELELE

DIRECTOR GENERAL [ACTING]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS

DATE:

MS AF MUTHAMBI (MP)

MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS

DATE

Reply:

Yes, in line with the implementation of the Department of Basic Education’s (DBE) Integrated Strategy on HIV, STIs and TB, 2012-2016, the DBE reviewed the 1999 National Policy on HIV/AIDS, for Learners and Educators in Public Schools, and Students and Educators in Further Education and Training Institutions and developed a new DBE National Policy on HIV, STIs and TB that aims to provide comprehensive sexuality education programme in schools. In addition, the Policy also seeks to create access to Sexual and Reproductive Health services to learners.

Sexuality education is implemented through Life Orientation as a subject in the curriculum, other programmes include HIV and AIDS Life Skills Education Programme and Peer Education Programme which support and strengthen the content of Life Orientation; as well as, Keeping Girls in School Programme - targeting mainly girls, and the Integrated School Health Programme which is conducted in partnership with the Departments of Health, Social Development, development partners and non-governmental organisations. In addition, the DBE is working with UNESCO to explore the online educator training on comprehensive sexuality education. Training is currently implemented in the Eastern Cape province and will be rolled out to other provinces in subsequent years.

Reply:

In terms of the National Norms and Standards for Funding Technical and Vocational Education and Training Colleges (NSF-TVET Colleges), paragraph 59 refers to the output bonus as a monetary bonus, which the college receives in recognition of efficient or outstanding service delivery. The output bonus is over and above a college allocation and is determined based on the following criteria:

• The ratio of past successful completions to past enrolments, and previous versions of this ratio, applicable to previous years, both the absolute levels of this ratio, and improvements in this ratio overtime, should be taken into account.
• Attainment of development targets in the strategic plan of the college, including targets relating to the representivity of students.
• Average examination scores attained by students.

Paragraph 15 of the TVET funding norms states:

In the interests of quality TVET services in the public sector, and in order to minimise inefficient utilisation of funds, it is important that the new funding system should be sensitive to the outputs achieved by public colleges. There are two ways in which the new system deals with the matter of efficiency and outputs. Firstly, the system allows DHET to expand enrolment in colleges that prove to be efficient and to decrease enrolment in inefficient colleges. This is made possible through the joint DHET-college planning process. Secondly, the system includes an output bonus, which should be considered a performance incentive that eligible colleges can utilise to improve their facilities, conduct further research, or for some similar developmental activity. The output-related aspects of the system are obviously dependent on the credible measurement of college performance, both in terms of successful completions (or the throughput rate) and in terms of the labour market performance of graduates.

(a) The Department has not been able to implement the payment of output bonuses to TVET Colleges because the TVET system was migrated to the Department on 1 April 2015 from Provincial Departments of Education and prior to this, it was the responsibility of Provinces to determine output bonuses. Since 1 April 2015, the Department has not paid any output bonuses as the TVET funding norms in paragraph 15, quoted above, indicates that the payment of the output bonuses is dependent on the credible measurement of college performance. The Department has started developing credible measurement tools. The TVET sector remains underfunded and with the current budget constraints, it is not possible for the Department to fund any output bonuses. It must be noted that the Department is currently only able to fund TVET Colleges at 57% of the required 80% funding level due to limited budget and increased enrolments. It must also be noted that the Department has submitted bids to National Treasury since 2010 specifically indicating the funding shortfall of which no additional baseline funding was received.

(b) The Department is committed to a system of output bonuses for TVET colleges and is developing a robust, reliable and incontestable measuring tool for performance; ensuring that the TVET examinations system managed by the State Information Technology Agency is cleaned up to produce reliable data on throughput and success rates; instituting a verification process for data supplied by TVET Colleges; implementing for the first time in 2016, a unit record TVET management information system; instituting monitoring and evaluation systems as well as a DHET-college strategic and annual performance planning system, among others. Once the credibility of these measures is tested and consulted, and the Department is able to manage over-enrolment and thereby releasing funds, the system will be implemented.

(i) No amounts have been paid as output bonuses to TVET colleges.

(ii) There are no terms for the payment of bonuses, as no amounts have been paid as output bonuses to TVET colleges.

COMPILER/CONTACT PERSONS:

EXT:

DIRECTOR – GENERAL

STATUS:

DATE:

QUESTION 2582 APPROVED/NOT APPROVED/AMENDED

Dr BE NZIMANDE, MP

MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING

STATUS:

DATE:

Reply:

1. (a) - (c) There were no international trips undertaken by the Chief Executive Officer, executive or board members in the 2015 calendar year and to date.

2. Not applicable.

3. Not Applicable.

COMPILER/CONTACT PERSONS:

EXT:

DIRECTOR – GENERAL

STATUS:

DATE:

QUESTION 2477 APPROVED/NOT APPROVED/AMENDED

Dr BE NZIMANDE, MP

MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING

STATUS:

DATE:

Reply:

1. (a) - (c) There were no international trips undertaken by the Chief Executive Officer, executive or board members in the 2015 calendar year and to date.

2. Not applicable.

3. Not Applicable.

 

COMPILER/CONTACT PERSONS:

EXT:

DIRECTOR – GENERAL

STATUS:

DATE:

QUESTION 2470 APPROVED/NOT APPROVED/AMENDED

Dr BE NZIMANDE, MP

MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING

STATUS:

DATE:

Reply:

1. (a) - (c) There were no international trips undertaken by the Chief Executive Officer, executive or board members in the 2015 calendar year and to date.

2. Not applicable.

3. Not Applicable.

 

COMPILER/CONTACT PERSONS:

EXT:

DIRECTOR – GENERAL

STATUS:

DATE:

QUESTION 2485 APPROVED/NOT APPROVED/AMENDED

Dr BE NZIMANDE, MP

MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING

STATUS:

DATE:

Reply:

The Department of Energy (DoE) takes the lead in the domestic IPP strategy including the sourcing and contracting component of these arrangements. This strategy is driven by the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) which is the country’s plan for electricity. The IRP is currently in review and will provide appropriate guidance on technology, scale and timing of the electricity requirements for the country with the objective of meeting energy security and diversifying the energy mix.

The key assumptions in the IRP need to be updated to provide a robust plan. In the last month, Eskom presented its Interim Results which shows that year on year demand for electricity only grew 1.2%. In fact demand for electricity has been fairly flat for the last decade.

The current capacity being added on the grid is based on the IRP 2010 which projected higher demand for electricity based on the economy growing close to 6%. This means that we are currently adding on capacity to the grid at rate higher than what is required. The biggest risk with having too much capacity is what happens to the plants that will potentially become stranded. While Eskom can push for a more aggressive export strategy to mitigate this, it comes with its own limitations including Transmission capacity. The challenge then becomes that Eskom would still need to collect the same level of revenue to cover the incurred costs. This is particularly critical at a time where Eskom balance sheet is highly indebted due to the build cycle. So with low volumes, the price of electricity will have to rise to sustain the required level of revenue, meaning consumers will have to pay more for electricity. These Eskom assets belong to the South African public, I have a responsibility to safeguard these and ensure that South African derive maximum value. The current trajectory will potentially be detrimental to consumers and it is critical that the IRP is concluded so we can have plan that offers maximum protection for consumers

ADVISORY NOTE TO THE MINISTER:

DEAR Minister,

Eskom has written to yourself, ministers finance and energy as signatories to the Government Support Framework Agreement (GFSA). Even though some of the arguments raised can be seen as survivalist, there are some valid arguments raised that warrant the attention of the government as a shareholder and policy maker. Specifically the fact that there is no new demand for electricity in South Africa, and therefore the addition of new power is likely to result in the shutdown of Eskom plants to create space for renewables resulting in lower revenue. The challenge is that in the cycle of build where Eskom is, the balance sheet is highly indebted and Eskom requires the correct revenue to be able to pay its debt obligation and in the absence of demand prices will have to rise to sustain the revenue level resulting in negative impact on consumers. Alternatively Eskom could write off the assets and have the National Treasury honor its debt obligations linked to those assets (which, at 60% debt the fiscus can barely afford which means more taxes to raise the cash). So an evolutionary approach is required in the addition of new capacity to ensure maximum protection for consumers.

Reply:

(a) & (b)

Yes, the Minister will make the teacher union reports available to the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education (b) before the end of the financial year 31 March 2017.

Reply:

(a) The main difference between the National Education Evaluation and Development Unit (NEEDU) and the Office of Standards and Compliance for Basic Education (OSCBE) is that through a Bill, NEEDU would be established as a statutory body whereas pursuing the new legal pathway (i.e., establishing NEEDU as the OSCBE) will create a ‘component of government.’

Where NEEDU is established as a statutory body, it would be governed by a board whereas the OSCBE will be governed by a Governing Advisory Council to oversee, guide and monitor its activities. The process of nominating and appointing members of the Board or the Council, to ensure that the functions of NEEDU or the OSCBE are performed according to the highest professional standards, is the same, and so are the functions of these bodies.

Except for these differences, where NEEDU is established as a statutory body (through a Bill) or as a component of government (in terms of section 7(5)(c), read with section 7A(1) of the Public Service Act,1994, NEEDU and OSCBE are basically the same in all respects, including governing principles, vision, strategic objectives, functions, authorities, and requirements to report to the Minister of Basic Education on the activities and outcomes of their work.

(b) The Bill no longer has any status following the advice by the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) to pursue a new legal pathway. It was argued that, the most appropriate organizational form for NEEDU will be that of an independent government component, established in terms of section 11 of the National Education Policy Act, 1996 (Act 27 of 1996) read with section 7(5) and section 7A of the Public Service Act.

(c) In terms of the Administration and Operations clause in the Business Case and Business Plan for the Establishment of the OSCBE, the OSCBE founding document, the Head of OSCBE will be the accounting officer of OSCBE and will report and account on progress and the achievements of functions to the Minister of Basic Education.

(d) OSCBE will be established when all the prescribed processes have been completed. The process entails the following:

• Approval of the Regulations for the establishment of the OSCBE by the CEM.
• Declaring the establishment of OSCBE through the promulgation of the Regulations (via the Government Notice) by the Minister.
• Submitting the updated business case and promulgated Regulations and Government Notice to the DPSA [by NEEDU].
• Arranging a meeting of the Interdepartmental Assessment Committee to make recommendations on the organizational form for the OSCBE—with NEEDU participating as a member in the Committee and making a presentation to the members [by DPSA].
• Preparing a submission to inform the Minister for Public Service and Administration and the Minister of Finance of the Committee's recommendation and obtain the concurrence of the said Ministers for the establishment of the OSBE as a government component [by DPSA].
• Preparing (following concurrence from said Ministers) a presidential proclamation to list the OSCBE in schedule 3 of the Public Service Act so as to establish the OSCBE as a government component [by DPSA].

Reply:

1. (a) - (c) There were no international trips undertaken by the Chief Executive Officer, executive or board members in the 2015 calendar year and to date.

2. Not applicable.

3. Not Applicable.

 

COMPILER/CONTACT PERSONS:

EXT:

DIRECTOR – GENERAL

STATUS:

DATE:

QUESTION 2468 APPROVED/NOT APPROVED/AMENDED

Dr BE NZIMANDE, MP

MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING

STATUS:

DATE:

Reply:

(1) (a) R2, 176 530 611.99 accrued as at August 2015.

(1)(b) This penalty has not been paid by Optimum to date.

(1) (c) No agreement has been reached.

(1) (d) The matter is still the subject of arbitration, no agreement has been reached.

(2) Yes.

(2)(a) Fines normally referred to as penalties have been levied in all instances where coal quality is at the bottom end of the expected range. A coal penalty regime is a standard condition of Eskom contracts.

(2)(b) For Eskom’s long-term coal suppliers, excluding Optimum Colliery which supplies Hendrina Power Station, a total of R90 million in penalties was levied for the period 01 April 2015 to 30 September 2016.

(2)(c) The price adjustments are effected in the month that payment for the respective coal supply was made and are reflected in both the invoice and in Eskom’s payment assessment.

(2)(d) The price adjustments are effected in the month that payment for the respective coal supply was made.

Reply:

(a)-(bb) There were no international trips undertaken by the Chief Executive Officer, executive or board members in the 2015 calendar year and to date.

(b) (i)-(iii) Not applicable

COMPILER/CONTACT PERSONS:

EXT:

DIRECTOR – GENERAL

STATUS:

DATE:

QUESTION 2466 APPROVED/NOT APPROVED/AMENDED

Dr BE NZIMANDE, MP

MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING

STATUS:

DATE:

Reply:

1. (a) - (c) There were no international trips undertaken by the Chief Executive Officer, executive or board members in the 2015 calendar year and to date.

2. Not applicable.

3. Not Applicable.

COMPILER/CONTACT PERSONS:

EXT:

DIRECTOR – GENERAL

STATUS:

DATE:

QUESTION 2480 APPROVED/NOT APPROVED/AMENDED

Dr BE NZIMANDE, MP

MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING

STATUS:

DATE:

Reply:

1. (a) - (c) There were no international trips undertaken by the Chief Executive Officer, executive or board members in the 2015 calendar year and to date.

2. Not applicable.

3. Not Applicable.

 

COMPILER/CONTACT PERSONS:

EXT:

DIRECTOR – GENERAL

STATUS:

DATE:

QUESTION 2475 APPROVED/NOT APPROVED/AMENDED

Dr BE NZIMANDE, MP

MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING

STATUS:

DATE:

Reply:

(a)-(bb) There were no international trips undertaken by the Chief Executive Officer, executive or board members in the 2015 calendar year and to date.

(b) (i)-(iii) Not applicable.

 

COMPILER/CONTACT PERSONS:

EXT:

DIRECTOR – GENERAL

STATUS:

DATE:

QUESTION 2448 APPROVED/NOT APPROVED/AMENDED

Dr BE NZIMANDE, MP

MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING

STATUS:

DATE:

Reply:

1. The SABC has fully complied with the ICASA ruling. The SABC is now broadcasting news bulletins that covers all violent protests.
2. Yes, the Minister watches news and no complaints were received.

MR NN MUNZHELELE

DIRECTOR GENERAL [ACTING]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS

DATE:

MS AF MUTHAMBI (MP)

MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS

DATE

Reply:

The SABC is not aware of any contract disputes regarding the production of Soap Operas. The process followed in contracting with production companies is fully and clearly spelt out in the SABC supply chain policy on the acquisition of local content and the SABC follows that process.

MR NN MUNZHELELE

DIRECTOR GENERAL [ACTING]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS

DATE:

MS AF MUTHAMBI (MP)

MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS

DATE

Reply:

1. (a) - (c) There were no international trips undertaken by the Chief Executive Officer, executive or board members in the 2015 calendar year and to date.

2. Not applicable.

3. Not Applicable.

 

COMPILER/CONTACT PERSONS:

EXT:

DIRECTOR – GENERAL

STATUS:

DATE:

QUESTION 2481 APPROVED/NOT APPROVED/AMENDED

Dr BE NZIMANDE, MP

MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING

STATUS:

DATE:

Reply:

(1) (a) (i) (ii) (iii)

The Department of Basic Education is in no position to give the exact disaggregated numbers on these statistics. However, as part of the review of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Sport and Recreation South Africa, provinces are undertaking a sports facilities audit in all public schools, including schools for children with special educational needs.

(b)

The Department of Basic Education has no programme of twinning advantaged and disadvantaged schools. However, provinces such as Gauteng have taken the initiative to twin schools in order to share the facilities. The Gauteng Department of Education has three pairs of schools which have been gazetted Section 17GB (Twinning Programme). The three pairs are:

• • • Bovet Primary and Lyndhurst Primary;
    • Cultura High and Zithobeni Secondary; and
    • Alexandra Secondary and Sandown High.

During the respective strategic planning sessions, per pair of schools, each pair identified transport and transport cost as a major risk pertaining to learners accessing the resources at the urban school.

In the case of Bovet and Lyndhurst, both schools have procured a Combi which transports learners / educators in order to access the facilities at Lyndhurst.

Cultura and Zithobeni have conducted inter-school athletics, soccer, netball and hockey. This however, is limited due to transport costs.

Alexandra and Sandown are in a similar position to that of Cultura and Zithobeni. Initially, Alexandra Secondary secured a sponsorship, but this unfortunately has ended.

(2) (a) The Department of Basic Education is in no position to provide statistics on the number of schools with sporting equipment. Every school receives a Norms and Standards budget allocation, which covers a variety of needs, including equipment. Over and above the Norms and Standards allocation, sporting equipment is provided to schools by the Department of Sports and Recreation South Africa (SRSA) as part of the Memorandum of Understanding. A summary of sporting equipment distributed to schools as indicated by SRSA is as follows:

 

2013/14	2014/15	2015/16	Target 2016/17
6 520	1 693	3 000	2 500

(b) A recent situational analysis of the state of Physical Education in South Africa revealed that Physical Education is taught by Life Orientation (LO) Educators who do not necessarily have formal training in Physical Education. As a short-term plan, the Department undertook educator training on Physical Education nationally. The Department is now finalizing a Physical Education qualification framework, developed with the Physical Education Institute of South Africa (PEISA).

(c) The Department provides training to educators through the national federations and school sport codes so that schools are self-reliant for training. There are some instances where schools are supported by local clubs and private entities. The Department has further engaged with the South African Universities on the implementation of Physical Education in schools including support for the educators. This has led to the establishment of the South African University Physical Education Association (SAUPEA). The Association will undertake a national on-site research project within the selected public schools in South Africa in all nine provinces. The Universities that will be part of this research are:

• University of Johannesburg;
• University of Witwatersrand;
• University of Zululand;
• University of KwaZulu-Natal;
• University of Free State;
• Stellenbosch University;
• University of Western Cape;
• Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University;
• University of Pretoria; and
• North-West University.

The rationale is for each participating University to select a sample from the primary and secondary school representative of:

• Ex-Model C schools;
• Township schools;
• Rural schools; and
• Schools for children with physical disabilities.

In addition to the on-site research visits, an in-depth research based on a multi-method approach will ensure the capturing of qualitative and quantitative data from decision-makers, HODs, educators and learners (Grades 7 and 11 respectively), parents (represented on the School Governing Body) and service providers offering Physical Education or physical activities in the Life Orientation or Life Skills Curriculum.

(d) Every school receives a Norms and Standards budget allocation, which covers a variety of needs, including school sport equipment/amenities.

Reply:

1. The meeting between the Minister and the NEEDU management took place in July 2016. There was no meeting with the Minister in August 2016. The meeting was to brief the Minister on the work of the Unit in the first five-year cycle of systemic evaluations (2012-2016), and, second, to present the plan for the Unit in the second five-year cycle (2017-2021).

After the briefing, the Minister asked the NEEDU to conduct deeper investigations on the areas that continue to cause concern in the system. The Minister’s request or ‘directive,’ is in line with section 6 (1) (h) in the NEEDU Bill and section 7(1) in the Regulations for the Establishment of the OSCBE, another NEEDU founding document.

2. The Minister raised concerns on how findings made by NEEDU find their way into the Department quickly enough for remediation to take place.

3. In the July meeting between the Minister and the NEEDU management, the Minister encouraged a “close” working relationship between the Ministry and NEEDU. This relationship is envisaged in all NEEDU founding documents. To safeguard the independence of the OSCBE, the Business Case and Business Plan for the Establishment of the OSCBE provides as follows:

“Two factors must be present in the structure of OSCBE: independence from the Department of Basic Education (DBE) and the requirements to report to the Minister of Basic Education on the activities and outcomes of its work. These two factors are not in contention with each other, as the need for independence is related more to location, internal processes and a perceived separateness from the DBE whereas the need to report to the Minister is quite clear in terms of hierarchical accountability.”

4. The NEEDU Bill was shelved following advice by the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) to establish NEEDU, not as a statutory body, but as an independent government component called the Office of Standards and Compliance.

Reply:

The work from all government entities including those reporting to the Ministry of Communications, requires engagement with various stakeholders in the public and private sector. This is in line with the nature of work undertaken.

MR NN MUNZHELELE

DIRECTOR GENERAL [ACTING]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS

DATE:

MS AF MUTHAMBI (MP)

MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS

DATE

Reply:

1. (a)-(e) Amendments to the National Road Traffic regulation 250 were published in November prohibiting the transportation of children and other persons in goods compartment of motor vehicle for reward.

 (i) The amendments stipulates that: No person shall on a public road convey school children in the goods compartment of a motor vehicle for reward

 (ii) No person shall convey any other person in the goods compartment of a motor vehicle for reward provided that the provision of this sub-regulation shall not apply in respect of a vehicle which complies with the provisions of the National Land Transportation Act.

(aa) provincial and

(bb) local authorities will have to implement the new amendments with effect from 11 May 2017

2. No arrests have yet been made as the regulations have not come into effect.

Reply:

(a) The Department of Basic Education has not spent on advertising on (i) ANN7, (ii) SABC Television and Radio Channels, National and Commercial Radio Stations, Community Television and Radio Stations during the 2015-2016 financial year or since 1 April 2016.

(b) SACE has not spent on advertising on ANN7, SABC Television and Radio Channels, National and Commercial Radio Stations, Community Television and Radio Stations during the 2015-2016 financial year or since 1 April 2016.

Umalusi has not spent on advertising on ANN7, SABC Television and Radio Channels, Community Television and Radio Stations during the 2015-2016 financial year or since 1 April 2016.

However, Umalusi has spent R212, 106.35 on National and Commercial Radio stations during the 2015-2016 financial year.

Reply:

a) The service provider that was appointed to analyse data for the 2014 National Education Evaluation Development Unit is the Underhill Corporate Solutions.

b) R198 117.80 was paid to the service provide.

c) Three companies submitted proposals in response to the Terms of Reference that were advertised.

d) The delay was in supply chain management processes which took too long to appoint the service provider. This had a negative impact on the time frames for the service provider to conclude work.

Reply:

(a)There are 24 reported cases of allegations from the Public Service Commission relating to the Provincial Education Departments (PEDs), and one (1) for the entity, South African Council for Educators (SACE). The Department is following up with the relevant PEDS and SACE for feedback on their investigation process.

Reply:

(a) What (i) are the names and

(ii) is the total number of schools that provide sanitary towels for learners,

After the President declared in his State of the Nation Address (SONA) in 2011 that the Government should make available sanitary dignity packs to deserving young girls and women, three provinces, namely: Limpopo, Mpumalanga and Gauteng, formed partnerships with Protector and Gamble to distribute sanitary towels to girl learners in selected schools. Currently, there is no available data on the names and number of schools to respond to question (a)(i) and (a)(ii) above. The information has been requested from the three provinces whose schools have implemented the programme.

(b) what is the total number of learners that have been provided with the specified towels in the specified schools

Currently, there is no available data on the number of learners that have been provided with the specified towels in the implementing schools to respond to question (b) above. The information has been requested from the three provinces whose schools have implemented the programme.

(c) how many times in a given school calendar were the towels provided?

Currently, there is no available data on the number of times in a given school calendar that the towels were given to learners in response to question (c) above. The information has been requested from the three provinces whose schools have implemented the programme.

Reply:

Please note that neither the Department of Environmental Affairs nor I can provide evidence that can assist in the trial of the person referred to in the question. However, the South African Police Service’s Directorate: Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) arrested the said person and associates on 18 December 2014 and the investigation was successfully finalised. The syndicate members were consequently brought before the Hluhluwe magistrates court after their arrest. Although bail was formally opposed by the prosecutor, the magistrate ruled in favour of the accused and they were subsequently released on R10 000,00 bail each. The matter is currently on the court roll at the Ngwelezane Regional Court. The matter has been postponed on numerous occasions due to change of legal representation on the part of the accused. We are advised that a final court date will be determined within the next month and that the investigation and prosecution team have gathered sufficient evidence and have been ready to proceed with the trial since the arrest of the syndicate members.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(a) As a result of NPA declining to prosecute these matters, there were no convictions.

(b) Engagement with the National Director of Public Prosecution in this regard is underway.

Reply:

1. (a) (i) The total budget as per the Grant Allocation was as follows

FINANCIAL YEARS	MUNICIPAL GRANT	PROVINCIAL GRANT	MUNICIPAL DISASTER RECOVERY GRANT
2013/14	R346 500 000	R188 000 000	R11 300 000
2014/15	R363 600 000	R197 000 000	R8 600 000
2015/16	R374 000 000	R204 000 000	R124 000 000

(ii) Yes, no amounts were directly made available by the department since April 2016

(b) (i) Amount requested by each province in the specified financial years and (ii) paid outs.

Note: The amount stated in these tables reflects funding transferred from the Disaster Grants to affected sectors and municipalities. The post disaster recovery funds for sectors are facilitated by the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, directly transferred from National Treasury within the Contingency Reserve to relevant sectors.

PROVINCE	Type of disaster	2013/14
		Requested	Paid out
Easter Cape	Floods	R1 348 397 495	R111 350 000
Free State		0	0
Gauteng		0	0
KwaZulu-Natal	Floods	R309 265 636	R34 162 030
Limpopo	Floods	R737 035 841	R87 925 200
Mpumalanga		0	0
Northern Cape	Drought	R360 000 000	R50 000 000
North West	Drought	R3 000 804 000	R43 630 000
Western Cape	Floods	R266 589 672	R55 617 000

PROVINCE	Type of disaster	2014/15
		Requested	Paid out
Eastern Cape	Floods	R579 180 687	R 8 610 800
Free State	Fires	R50 000 000	R15 791 000
Gauteng	Floods	R701 200 770	R14 878 446
KwaZulu-Natal	Drought, Floods and Fires	R181 563 069	R89 083 000
Limpopo	Floods	R213 450 000	R14 884 000
Mpumalanga	Floods	R535 600 000	R97 170 000
Northern Cape		0	0
North West	Earth Quake	R163 500 131	R148 508 00
Western Cape	Floods	R1 074 746 408	R82 796 000

NB: It is important to note that national and provincial sector departments, including municipalities agreed to reprioritise internal funding that is anticipated and estimated savings within their equitable shares and conditional grants to address the drought situation to ensure non-duplication of financial resources. The Disaster Grants were to be utilised once provinces have fully spent the reprioritised funding. Again, the funding allocated for floods are the funds that were allocated in 2014/15, within the Medium Term Expenditure Framework to repair the damages as a result of the 2013 floods disasters.

PROVINCE		2015/16
		Requested	Paid out
Easter Cape	Drought	R385 732 991	No disaster grants paid out until April 2016, only reprioritised funding as indicated above.
Free State	Drought	R102 442 000	No disaster grants paid out until April 2016, only reprioritised funding as indicated above.
Gauteng	Floods for 2013	R35 588 184	R 35 588 184
KwaZulu-Natal	Floods for 2013/14	R87 096 000
	Drought	R487 884 098	No disaster grants paid out until April 2016, only reprioritised funding as indicated above.
Limpopo	Floods for 2013/14	R20 836 000
	Drought	R51 000 000	No disaster grants paid out until April 2016, only reprioritised funding as indicated above.
Mpumalanga	Floods for 2013/14	R30 000 000
	Drought	R162 500 000	No disaster grants paid out until April 2016, only reprioritised funding as indicated above.
Northern Cape	Drought	R163 281 173 (per month)	No disaster grants paid out until April 2016, only reprioritised funding as indicated above.
North West	Drought	R3 461 545 284	No disaster grants paid out until April 2016, only reprioritised funding as indicated above.
Western Cape	Floods 2013/14	R86 919 000
	Drought	R105 000 000	No disaster grants paid out until April 2016, only reprioritised funding as indicated above.

2. No outstanding amounts are to be paid out to the provinces.

Reply:

Nature conservation is a concurrent competence between national and provincial government and any investigation into illegal trade in endangered species allegedly taking place at the Faraday Muthi Market, in Selby, Johannesburg will have to be done by the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) which is the conservation authority responsible for law enforcement in the Gauteng Province.

However, due to increasing reports of the illegal activities occurring at various muthi markets, a national project has been included in the 2016/17 workplan of the Technical Committee of Minister and Members of Executive Council (MINTECH) Working Group IV, the national coordinating forum on environmental compliance and enforcement that is aimed at raising the awareness of traditional healers on the duties and obligations applicable to their activities in terms of the national biodiversity legislation.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

The following table reflects the response in this regard.

(a) INTERNAL OR (b) EXTERNAL	DEPARTMENT	COMMENT DATE	(aa) NAME	(bb) SUBJECT MATTER	(cc) DATE OF CONCLUSION
(a) Internal Forensic Investigation	SANAC	Instituted in July 2011	Allegation against an employee	The investigation was in response to the serious allegations of fraud levelled against the employee.	March 2012
(a) Internal Forensic Investigation	Medicine Control Council Unit	Instituted in March 2014	Allegation against an employee	The investigation was in response to the serious allegations of dishonesty levelled against the employee.	June 2015
(a) Internal Forensic Investigation	Human Resources Directorate	Instituted in 2010	Fruitless and wasteful expenditure	The investigation was in response to the serious allegations of fruitless and wasteful expenditure levelled against an employee	June 2013
(a) Internal Forensic Investigation	Johannesburg Forensic Chemistry Laboratory	Instituted in June 2014	Allegations of assault against 2 employees	The investigation was in response to the serious allegations of assault levelled against the 2 employees.	July 2014
(b) External Investigation	None
(b) External forensic investigation	Council for Medical Schemes (CMS)	Instituted in April 2014	Allegation against the Registrar	The investigation was in response to the serious allegations levelled against the Registrar of CMS by the former provisional curator of Medshield	April 2015
(a)None	South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC)	None	None	None	None
(a)None	Office of Health Standards Compliance (OHSC)	None	None	None	None
(b)External forensic investigation	National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS)	19 July 2013	SA Cosmetics	Alleged Fraudulent Transactions	09-Sep-13
(b)External forensic investigation		11 April 2014	NHLS Billing	Forensic Investigation into KZN NHLS billing system	24-May-16

END.

Reply:

1. (a)(i) and (b) In respect of civil matters and internal disciplinary proceedings pertaining to Mr Anwa Dramat, Mr Shadrack Sibiya, Mr Robert McBride, the Office of the State Attorney was not involved in these matters, excluding for the matter of Mr Johan Booysen. The details are explained below:

Johan Wessels Booysen / NDPP and Others: Case No. 8247/2015 – Durban High Court. In this matter an amount of R9 623.94 was expended on counsel and correspondent attorney fees.

(ii) All the criminal cases mentioned above were handled by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) prosecutors, and there were no specific costs related to criminal litigation in all these cases

2. (a)(i)(ii) and (b) According to the records at the State Attorney, there are no matters specifying that the State Attorney was an attorney of record, with a cost order being granted in these matters.

Reply:

According to information currently at our disposal IPID is investigating four (4) matters against Gen BM Ntlemeza from 1 January 2012 up to date.

A case of defeating the Ends of Justice and corruption was opened against Gen. Ntlemeza by Lt Ramahlaha. A case was opened at Silverton police station with the following CAS 500/05/2016 and the matter is with SPP for decision.

A case of perjury against Gen. Ntlemeza was opened by Gen. JW Booysen. A case was opened at Sandton police station with the following CAS 943/10/2016 and the matter is still under investigation by IPID.

A case of Fraud, Uttering and Corruption against Gen. Ntlemeza was opened by Lt Ramahlaha. A case was opened at Polokwane with the following CAS 478/09/2015 and the matter was declined by DPP.

A case of Fraud, Crimen Injuria and Defamation of character against Gen. Ntlemeza was opened by Gen. JW Booysen. A case was opened at Durban Central police station with the following Cas 617/09/2015 and the matter is still under investigation.

 

Reply:

(a) Yes, the recommendations by the Public Protector were implemented.

(b) The complainant was re-enlisted in the South African Police Service on 1 June 2016. The services of an independent assessor have been secured to make a determination on compensation which was set down for 22 November 2016. A written apology on behalf of the South African Police Service was also provided to the complainant. The office of the Public Protector was informed of progress in this regard.

Reply:

The DAC has been faced with requests to assist in situations where some of artists passed on. These requests normally come from bereaved families. However, it should be noted that, in the absence of formal policy in this regard, it became important to:

a)  Appreciate the historical fact that many South African artists experienced the worst isolation and marginalisation of their works during apartheid. Despite these challenges artists continued to share South African talent and culture with the world.

b) Most of these artists are currently in the late 60s and beyond. Therefore they can no longer do work as they reached their peak during very difficult moments of the country. A lot of the works remain legendary and continues to shape the arts and cultural landscape of the country.

In relation to the above, the DAC has responded to requests related to the passing on of various legends. The financial assistance is subject to the availability of funds. Amongst them are the following:

1.The late Mr Ben Nomoyi who was in the film industry  in the early 1970s. He was able to produce works that ensured entry into the Guinness book of records. An achievement that was never recognised for many years.

2. The late Pat Matshikiza who was a jazz artist was also assisted.

3. The late Mr David Masondo, one of the pioneers of Mbaqanga music which is unique to our country and resonated to broader society.

4. The late Mduduzi 'Mandoza' Tshabalala, one of the Kwaito stars that emerged on the eve of the democratic dispensation. His music connected with society at large and deepened the social cohesion at the much need time when the country was going through a very difficult transition. Therefore he remains symbols of social cohesion.

5. Ms Pinise Saul who died recently in London her family as well was assisted with the preparation of the funeral.

The artists were assisted to the tune of R95 000 individually. It’s only 'Mandoza’ who is the youngest amongst them but the DAC strongly considered the role of his music to unite the country.

Accordingly, the focus has been on the legends of our country and who are elderly. A process is underway to determine a comprehensive criterion because sustainability of such help is in doubt. The Ministry has setup a structure of legends, which focuses on preserving the works of these legends for generations to come. It is believed that this endeavour will find innovative ways of ensuring that some of these welfare concerns may be mitigated. Currently, many of our legends are involved in various programmes, especially the master classes to share their skills with the youth.

Reply:

a) Project Centric, a subsidiary of Project-Link Holdings and a project management specialist company, was appointed on 13 June 2014 to conduct a Project Management Assessment and Design assignment for ATNS.

b) The normal ATNS Procurement Policies as per the PFMA and PPFA Guidelines were used in the appointment of the service provider. A request for quotation was issued on 8 April 2014 and closed on 16 April 2014 to eleven (11) service providers. The bids were evaluated against the criteria of administrative compliance, functional evaluation, price and BEE.

c) Project Centric was recommended as the successful company for appointment to the relevant line Executive at ATNS, at a total cost of R355, 737.00 including VAT. A budget of R450, 000.00 had been allocated for this exercise.

d) The service provider was broadly mandated to conduct a feasibility study for the deployment of a strong matrix Project Management Office (PMO). The specific brief to the successful service provider was to conduct an independent assessment of the current PMO (at the time) and design of a strong matrix PMO assisting with the following:

(i) and (ii)

• • Conducting project management processes readiness assessment;
  • Conducting a feasibility study and a business case for a strong matrix PMO;
  • Developing a detailed design of a strong matrix PMO and a business case;
  • Developing a change management plan and strategy;
  • Developing a communications strategy and plan; and
  • Developing a training plan.

(ii) The project commenced in August, 2014 and was completed at the end of November, 2014. Throughout the project life cycle regular feedback sessions were held with all project stakeholders to ensure a consultative process for the design of the PMO. Project status reports were distributed to all stakeholders including the EXCO. On 6 February 2015 the final Report, PMO Assessment and Design Project, as well as a request to obtain approval to implement recommendations as per the Report were tabled at the EXCO.

 

Reply:

Quote

There has been no follow up resolution to that of the Human Rights Council on the said issue. South Africa has never voted against any resolution at the Human Rights Council or United Nations General Assembly on the thematic issue of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI). 

 

Unquote

Reply:

a) The N12 West route from Naturena in Johannesburg to the Northwest Province border at Fochville has been identified as the most fatal major route in Gauteng. The intersections in the Zuurberkom area have been identified as the most hazardous locations (HAZLOCs) on the N12. The factors that contribute to the dangers at these intersections include the following:

• Excessive speed on the N12, especially since the recent rehabilitation of the road. Traffic speed monitoring has indicated that almost 40% of vehicles are travelling above the speed limit of 80km/h in this area;
• High volumes of long trucks and other slow moving traffic crossing the N12, especially in the areas adjacent to the silos;
• The area adjacent to the N12 in the Zuurberkom area that is developing, resulting in high volumes of pedestrians and cyclists crossing the N12’
• Reckless and inconsiderate drivers behaviours;
• High accident rates and fatalities in the Zuurberkom area, especially after the completion of the road rehabilitation (the number of fatalities had more than doubled from 2015 to 2016)

The installation of 4way stops at these intersections has been identified as the most appropriate measure to address these problem at these stage. In the longer term the installation of traffic signals at these intersections will be considered.

b) (i) Yes, traffic studies, investigations and inspections were undertaken by the Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport and the Gauteng Department of Community Safety in consultation with the local law enforcement agencies as part of the West Rand Rims (road accident management system)

(ii) Yes, the situation is being monitored closely and regular inspections are being carried out.

c) The study confirmed the need for the 4-way stop and indicated the need for further measures such as overhead lighting, rumble strips and continuous traffic law enforcement in this area

d) No separate record of the costs for the instillation were kept as they were installed as part of the routine maintenance activities.

Reply:

(a) Total number of section 33(3) matters opened by IPID

Year	Reported cases
2012/13	127
2013/14	65
2014/15	60
2015/16	41
Total	293

Refer to annexure A for more details

(b) Total number that resulted guilty in convictions per year

Year	Departmental	Criminal
2012/13	3	0
2013/14	7	0
2014/15	11	0
2015/16	11	0
Total	32	0

Refer to annexure B for more details

(c) Total number of sanctions per year

Year	Verbal warning	Written Warning
2012/13	1	2
2013/14	2	5
2014/15	0	11
2015/16	3	8
Total	6	26

Refer to annexure B for more details

Annexure A: Intake

2012-2013
Province	Station	Case Number	Short Description	Circumstances	CAS No
Free State	Hoopstad	2012040213	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	05/03/2012
Mpumalanga	Kanyamazane	2012040333	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Free State	Botshabelo	2012050448	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Free State	Selosesha	2012060159	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	68/06/2012
Kwazulu Natal	Ekuvukeni	2012060191	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Kwazulu Natal	Inanda	2012060194	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Kwazulu Natal	Msinga	2012060196	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Kwazulu Natal	Mbazwana	2012060197	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Kwazulu Natal	Melmoth	2012060200	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Kwazulu Natal	Emanguzi	2012060201	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Kwazulu Natal	Pongola	2012060206	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Free State	Parkroad	2012060307	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	546/06/2012
Free State	Bultfontein	2012060310	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	37/06/2012
Gauteng	Soshanguve	2012060318	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	OB: 880/06/2012
Free State	Villiers	2012060322	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Villiers 31/06/2012
Free State	Bethlehem	2012060323	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Bethlehem 195/06/2012
Free State	Phuthadithjaba	2012060324	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Phutha's 148/06/2012
Free State	Luckhoff	2012060325	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	25/06/2012
Free State	Phuthadithjaba	2012060326	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Phutha's 149/06/2012
Free State	Harrismith	2012060328	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Harrismith 150/06/2012
Kwazulu Natal	Chatsworth	2012060334	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Chatsworth CAS: 396/06/2012
Free State	Kagisanong	2012060335	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	KAGISANONG CAS 176/06/2012
Free State	Welkom	2012060342	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	296/06/2012
Free State	Batho	2012060359	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Batho CAS 100/06/2012
Free State	Tseki	2012060454	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Tseki 131/06/2012
Free State	Tseki	2012060457	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Tseki 132/06/2012
Free State	Tseki	2012060459	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Tseki 133/06/2012
Free State	Soutpan	2012060472	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Soutpan CAS 15/06/2012
Mpumalanga	Masoyi	2012060482	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Free State	Vrede	2012060495	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Vrede 73/06/2012
Free State	Memel	2012060502	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Memel 39/06/2012
Eastern Cape	Whittlesea	2012060596	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	328/06/2012
Free State	Boithuso	2012060649	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	270/06/2012
Free State	Kroonstad	2012060650	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	206/06/2012
Western Cape	Mbekwani	2012070068	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Western Cape	ElsiesRiver	2012070077	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	616/06/2012
Western Cape	Mfuleni	2012070101	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Free State	Kopanong	2012070171	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	44/07/2012
Free State	Bronville	2012070172	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	14/07/2012
Free State	Zastron	2012070175	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	48/07/2012
Free State	Kopanong	2012070176	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	45/07/2012
Free State	Edenburg	2012070177	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	11/07/2012
Free State	Kopanong	2012070178	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	40/07/2012
Free State	Bloemspruit	2012070179	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	99/07/2012
Eastern Cape	Storms River	2012070211	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	08/07/2012
Eastern Cape	Alexandria	2012070222	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	28/07/2012
Eastern Cape	Alexandria	2012070223	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	27/07/2012
Eastern Cape	Fort Beaufort	2012070225	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	41/07/2012
Limpopo	Nebo	2012070230	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	166/06/2012
Limpopo	Tubatse	2012070235	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	232/06/2012
Eastern Cape	Ngqeleni	2012070314	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	80/07/2012
Free State	Tseki	2012070397	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Tseki 51/07/2012
Free State	Tseki	2012070401	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Tseki 52/07/2012
Western Cape	Nyanga	2012070441	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	458/07/2012
Free State	Tweespruit	2012070450	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	17/06/2012
Western Cape	Paarl	2012070462	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Mbekweni CAS 141/07/2012
Western Cape	CapeTown	2012070547	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	1691/04/2012
Free State	Clocolan	2012070643	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	82/07/2012
Limpopo	Levubu	2012070667	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Gauteng	Katlehong	2012080101	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	425/07/2012
Free State	Namahadi	2012080194	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Namahadi 28/08/2012
Gauteng	Silverton	2012080260	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	179/08/2012
Free State	Heidedal	2012080293	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	95/08/2012
Mpumalanga	Kwaggafontein	2012080312	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	68/08/20012
Gauteng	Lenasia	2012080347	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	237/08/2012
Western Cape	George	2012080389	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	871/07/2012
Free State	Bethlehem	2012080435	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	14/08/2012
Western Cape	BeaufortWest	2012080550	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	341/08/2012
Mpumalanga	Acornhoek	2012080621	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Mpumalanga	Siyabuswa	2012080829	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	451/08/2012
Western Cape	Brackenfell	2012090154	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Northern Cape	Jan Kempdorp	2012090164	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	261/08/2012
Northern Cape	Jan Kempdorp	2012090229	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	262/019/2012
Limpopo	Mahwelereng	2012090244	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	94/09/2012
Mpumalanga	Belfast	2012090359	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Limpopo	Lebowakgomo	2012090553	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	282/09/2012
Northern Cape	Olifantshoek	2012090572	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	57/09/2012
Northern Cape	Olifantshoek	2012090576	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	46/09/2012
Northern Cape	Olifantshoek	2012090577	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	59/09/2012
Northern Cape	Olifantshoek	2012090578	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	60/09/2012
Northern Cape	Olifantshoek	2012090579	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	55/09/2012
Mpumalanga	Barberton	2012090581	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	239/09/2012
Northern Cape	Olifantshoek	2012090587	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	53/09/2012
Northern Cape	Olifantshoek	2012090588	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	61/09/2012
Northern Cape	Olifantshoek	2012090589	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	62/09/2012
Northern Cape	Olifantshoek	2012090629	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	56/09/2012
Northern Cape	Olifantshoek	2012090633	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	54/09/2012
Northern Cape	Olifantshoek	2012090635	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	58/09/2012
Northern Cape	Rietfontein	2012090638	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	67/09/2012
Northern Cape	Witdraai	2012090644	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	45/09/2012
Kwazulu Natal	Maphumulo	2012100014	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Maphumulo CAS 130/09/2012
Kwazulu Natal	Tongaat	2012100042	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Tongaat CAS157/09/2012
Western Cape	Wynberg	2012100237	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Wynberg CAS 92/10/2012
Western Cape	Saldanha	2012100241	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Saldanha CAS 50/10/2012
Mpumalanga	Piet Ritief	2012100356	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Gauteng	Mamelodi West	2012100503	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	345/10/2012
Western Cape	Swellendam	2012100517	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Western Cape	Steenberg	2012100519	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Western Cape	Touwsrivier	2012100556	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Touwsrivier CAS 114/102/2012
Western Cape	Worcester	2012100558	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Worcester 343/10/2012
Western Cape	Kirstenhof	2012100562	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Kirstenhof 242/10/2012
Western Cape	PlettenbergBay	2012100610	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Western Cape	Mfuleni	2012100719	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	514/10/2012
Western Cape	Mfuleni	2012100722	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	517/10/2012
Western Cape	MitchellsPlain	2012100724	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	1586/10/2012
Limpopo	Mankweng	2012110012	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	282/10/2012
Mpumalanga	Kwamhlanga	2012110155	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	96/11/2012
Mpumalanga	Vosman	2012110180	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	109/11/2012
Western Cape	Riversdal	2012110196	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Gauteng	Muldersdrif	2012110527	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	137/11/2012
Gauteng	Midrand	2012110690	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	916/11/2012
Kwazulu Natal	Msinga	2012110693	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	101/11/2012
Kwazulu Natal	Ezibayeni	2012110713	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Ezibayeni Cas 34/11/2012
Gauteng	Sunnyside	2012110738	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Sunnyside Cas 947/11/2012
Free State	Bayswater	2012120034	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	13/12/2012
Eastern Cape	Middelburg	2012120049	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	329/11/2012
Eastern Cape	Dimbaza	2012120222	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	63/11/2012
Western Cape	Wynberg	2012120256	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	301/10/2012
Western Cape	Goodwood	2012120257	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	335/10/2012
Western Cape	Strand	2012120357	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	335/12/2012
Limpopo	Levubu	2013020015	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	158/01/2013
Kwazulu Natal	Mooi River	2013020272	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	31/02/2013
Eastern Cape	Ngangelizwe	2013020302	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Western Cape	Kwanokuthula	2013030495	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act
Kwazulu Natal	Plessislaer	2013030635	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Plessislaer
Eastern Cape	Flagsaff	2013010093	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	Flagstaff CAS 04/01/2012
Eastern Cape	Tsolo	2013010629	Sec 33(3) Charges	Non-compliance with IPID Act	93/01/2013

2013-2014
Province	PoliceStation	CaseNumber	IncidentCodeShortDesc	IncidentSubCodeShortDesc	CaseNumber
Gauteng	Moroka	2013040087	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	27/04/2013
Gauteng	Kempton Park	2013040326	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	414/042013
Gauteng	Protea Glen	2013040332	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	Protea Glen Cas 257/04/2013
Kwazulu Natal	Empangeni	2013050053	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	488/04/2013
North West	Brits	2013050089	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	53/05/2013
Gauteng	Kagiso	2013050120	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	128/05/2013
Northern Cape	Kimberley	2013050177	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	404/04/2013
Western Cape	Piketberg	2013050307	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	140/05/2013
Northern Cape	De Aar	2013050313	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	66/12/2012
Northern Cape	De Aar	2013050326	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Northern Cape	De Aar	2013050337	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Northern Cape	DeAar	2013050339	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Eastern Cape	Balfour	2013060157	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	4/06/2013
Western Cape	Somerset-Wes	2013060198	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	Strand CAS 224/06/2013
Eastern Cape	Port Alfred	2013060453	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Mpumalanga	Standerton	2013070143	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Mpumalanga	Graskop	2013070187	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Mpumalanga	NULL	2013070251	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Mpumalanga	Barberton	2013070252	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Kwazulu Natal	Kwamakutha	2013070277	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	kwa-makthua
Free State	Ladybrand	2013070306	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	163/07/2013
Mpumalanga	Bethal	2013070373	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Eastern Cape	Humewood	2013070384	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	639/05/2013
Mpumalanga	Schoemansdal	2013080034	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Gauteng	Kagiso	2013080064	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	96/08/2013
Gauteng	Bramley	2013080198	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	79/08/2013
Kwazulu Natal	Pietermaritzburg	2013080557	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	Plessislaer 703/08/2013
Gauteng	Sunnyside	2013090002	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sunnyside Cas 1072/08/2013
Mpumalanga	Leslie	2013090163	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	18/01/2013
Northern Cape	Bathlaros	2013090257	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	26/09/2013
Gauteng	Diepsloot	2013090266	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	182/09/2013
Gauteng	Moroka	2013090304	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	37108/2013
Gauteng	Katlehong	2013090328	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Mpumalanga	Ermelo	2013090614	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	491/09/2013
Mpumalanga	Siyabuswa	2013100098	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Mpumalanga	Masoyi	2013100100	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Gauteng	Akasia	2013100155	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	Akasia Cas /10/2013
Free State	Harrismith	2013100173	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Mpumalanga	Kriel	2013100175	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Gauteng	Mamelodi	2013100241	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	Mamelodi Cas /10/2013
Eastern Cape	Mlungisi	2013100274	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	Mlungisi Cas 66/10/2013
Mpumalanga	Vosman	2013100344	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Mpumalanga	Kwamhlanga	2013100450	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Free State	Parkweg	2013100462	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	1383/10/2013
Gauteng	Loate	2013100467	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	482/10/2013
Kwazulu Natal	Margate	2013100544	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	705/03/2007
Mpumalanga	Nelspruit	2013100549	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Mpumalanga	Ermelo	2013110021	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Mpumalanga	Lydenburg	2013110024	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Mpumalanga	Acornhoek	2013110281	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Eastern Cape	EastLondon	2013110503	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Kwazulu Natal	Highflats	2013120143	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	Highflats cas 29/12/2013
Gauteng	Olivenhoutbosch	2013120145	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Northern Cape	Springbok	2013120448	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	150/12/2013
Mpumalanga	Tonga	2014010406	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	Tonga
Mpumalanga	Secunda	2014010427	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	Secunda
Mpumalanga	Skukuza	2014010585	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Mpumalanga	Bethal	2014010586	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Gauteng	MamelodiEast	2014020229	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	Mamelodi East Cas 000/02/2014
Mpumalanga	Ermelo	2014020256	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Mpumalanga	Ermelo	2014020261	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Mpumalanga	Carolina	2014020309	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Mpumalanga	Kriel	2014020521	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
Limpopo	Polokwane	2014020559	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges	772/02/2014
Mpumalanga	Ogies	2014030396	Sec 33(3) Charges	Sec 33(3) Charges
2014-2015
Province	PoliceStation	CaseControlNumber	CaseNumber	Section	IncidentCode
Mpumalanga	Witbank	2014040119		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	Dimbaza	2014040167		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Gauteng	Actonville	2014040229	07 /03/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Kwazulu Natal	Verulam	2014040256	192 /04/2013	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	Vulindlela	2014040309	44 /04/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	Ntabethemba	2014040313	18 /10/2013	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Gauteng	Elsburg	2014040416	188 /04/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Zastron	2014040453	218 /04/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Kwazulu Natal	Estcourt	2014050076	16 /05/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Kwazulu Natal	Bhekithemba	2014050168		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Mangaung	2014060092	87 /06/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Heidedal	2014060093	22 /06/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Hazyview	2014060110		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Gauteng	Roodepoort	2014060121	164 /06/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Northern Cape	Upington	2014060194	114 /06/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Northern Cape	Rosedale	2014060197	48 /06/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Northern Cape	Rosedale	2014060200	68 /06/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Northern Cape	Rosedale	2014060203	69 /06/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Northern Cape	Rosedale	2014060205	71 /06/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Northern Cape	Rosedale	2014060215	72 /06/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Gauteng	Mondeor	2014060228	103 /06/ 201	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Tonga	2014060326		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	Swartkops	2014070148	168 /06/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Masoyi	2014070237		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Ermelo	2014070240		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Ermelo	2014070244		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Nelspruit	2014080150		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Nelspruit	2014080151		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	Tsomo	2014080549		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	Zwelitsha	2014090291		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	Mthatha	2014090311	185 /9 /014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Northern Cape	Keimoes	2014090440	129 /9 /2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Hartebeeskop	2014090449		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Tonga	2014090450		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	Dalasile	2014100256		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Vrede	2014100464	0092/10/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	Nqamakwe	2014100484		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Western Cape	Kraaifontein	2014100582	1946/10/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Namahadi	2014110676	0117/11/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Maokeng	2014120041	293 /11/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	Queenstown	2014120277	35 /12/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Bushbuckridge	2014120300		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	KingWilliamsTown	2014120387		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Limpopo	JaneFurse	2014120396	0148/11/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Limpopo	Burgersfort	2014120402	130 /12/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Limpopo	Burgersfort	2014120419	131 /12/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	Bell	2015010155	13 /01/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	Grahamstown	2015010275	113 /01/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	Ngqamakwe	2015010324	95 /01/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	Nqamakwe	2015010341	94 /01/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Limpopo	JaneFurse	2015010497	109 /01/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Hazyview	2015020076		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Dullstroom	2015020164		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	Mdantsane	2015020389	197 /02/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Parkweg	2015030078	117 /03/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Tweeling	2015030084	0014/03/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Ficksburg	2015030296	172 /03/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Balfour	2015030329		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Embalenhle	2015030342		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Kagisanong	2015030496	0439/03/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
2015-2016
Province	PoliceStation	CaseControlNumber	CAS Number	Class	IncidentCode
Free State	HobHouse	2015040009	0032/03/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Kagisanong	2015040119	530 /03/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Western Cape	Kwanokhuthula	2015040133	0777/12/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Embalenhle	2015040162		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Wepener	2015050121	17 /05/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Verkeerdevlei	2015050180	12 /5 /015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Edenville	2015050228	31 /05/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Parkweg	2015050318	1065/05/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Kwazulu Natal	Hibberdene	2015060029	0296/05/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Western Cape	Athlone	2015060076		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Western Cape	TableView	2015060098		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Ermelo	2015060215		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Arlington	2015060375	0017/06/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Kwazulu Natal	Hluhluwe	2015070042	0006/07/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Acornhoek	2015070248		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Gauteng	Temba	2015080028	1074/07/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Northern Cape	Kagisho	2015080277	94 /08/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Gauteng	Ekurhuleni Metro Police	2015080509	707 /08/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Gauteng	Douglasdale	2015080510	881 /08/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Makwane	2015090073	0006/09/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Limpopo	Dennilton	2015090111	0183/10/2014	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Lindley	2015090458	0045/09/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Bethlehem	2015090471	409 /9 /015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Kwazulu Natal	Eshowe	2015090613	395 /09/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Kwazulu Natal	Lamontville	2015100199	15 /10/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	Elliot	2015100218		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Northern Cape	Rietfontein	2015110339	42 /11/ 201	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Northern Cape	Rietfontein	2015110340	43 /11/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Northern Cape	Rietfontein	2015110359	44 /11/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Sakhile	2015120043		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Siyabuswa	2015120049		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Mpumalanga	Sakhile	2015120052		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Limpopo	Tzaneen	2015120390	0367/12/2015	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Eastern Cape	KingWilliamsTown	2016010065	06 /01/2016	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Limpopo	Maake	2016010254	0126/01/2016	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Gauteng	Alexandra	2016010272	360 /01/2016	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Bothaville	2016010299	0130/01/2016	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Free State	Viljoenskroon	2016020119	0008/02/2016	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
North West	Mogwase	2016020444		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
North West	Bethanie	2016020445		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29
Kwazulu Natal	CatoManor	2016020448		33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29	33.3 – Failure to comply with section 29

Annexure B: Convictions

Details of disciplinary convictions 2012/13
No.	CCN	Station	Nature of complaint	Sentence / Sanction
1	2012060254 NC	Norvalspont	Contravening of Section 29 of the IPID Act	Written warning
2	2012090154 WC	Brackenfell	Contravening of Section 29 of the IPID Act	Verbal warning
3	2012100241 WC	Saldanha	Contravening of Section 29 of the IPID Act	Written warning

Details of disciplinary convictions 2013/14
No.	CCN	Station	Nature of complaint	Sentence / Sanction
1	2012070450 FS	Tweespruit	Non-compliance with Section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
2	2012060159 FS	Selosesha	Non-compliance with Section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
3	2012060310 FS	Bultfontein	Non-compliance with Section 29 of IPID Act	Verbal warning
4	2012090581 MP	Barberton	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
5	2012060505 MP	Nelspruit	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
6	2012040333 MP	Kanyamazane	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
7	2013020013 EC	Willowmore	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Verbal warnings

Details of disciplinary convictions 2014/15
No.	CCN	Station	Nature of complaint	Sentence / Sanction
1	2012060482 MP	Masoyi	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
2	2013070252 MP	Barberton	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
3	2013100098 MP	Siyabuswa	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
4	2013090614 MP	Ermelo	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
5	2013070373 MP	Bethal	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
6	2014010586 MP	Bethal	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
7	2014040119 MP	Witbank	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
8	2014080151 MP	Mamethlake	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
9	2013070306 FS	Ladybrand	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
10	2012090553 LP	Lebowakgomo	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written Warning
11	2013080034 MP	Schoemansdal	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning

Details of disciplinary convictions 2015/16
No.	CCN	Station	Nature of complaint	Sentence / Sanction
1	2012070177 FS	Edenburg	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Verbal warning
2	2015040009 FS	Hobhouse	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Verbal warning
3	2015050180 FS	Verkeerdevlei	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
4	2015050228 FS	Edenville	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
5	2015060076 WC	Athlone	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Verbal warning
6	2015080277 NC	Kagisho	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written Warning
7	2015010497 LP	Jane Furse	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
8	2015090111 LP	Dennilton	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
9	2014020256 MP	Ermelo	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written Warning
10	2015020076 MP	Hazyview	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning
11	2014080150 MP	Barberton	Non-compliance with section 29 of IPID Act	Written warning

Reply:

(a) No internal forensic reports

(b) External forensic reports – 2

(i) Pertaining to the Department of Science and Technology (aa) Forensic investigation into the Nkowankowa Demonstration Centre. (bb) Forensic investigation into various allegations regarding irregularities pertaining to the Nkowankowa Demonstration Centre, which was a Department of Science and Technology led community project. The period under investigation was from 01 December 2013 to 31August2015. (cc) The forensic investigation was concluded on 22 June 2016

Find here: http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/RNW2309entity.pdf

 

 

 

 

Reply:

(a) The National Department of Transport has not conducted feasibility studies on Vuwani Airport in Limpopo.

(b) The Limpopo Department of Transport has conducted a pre-feasibility study for the Vuwani/P.R. Mphephu Airport during 2010. The study was part of the Limpopo Airlift Strategy, with the purpose of providing direction and guidance for the development of aviation in the province. Five generic strategies were identified in determining the status of each of the airports considered at the time, as follows:

1. Grounded: Nothing should be done as there is no, or very little potential, now or in the future, for aviation development.

2. Delayed: The development of aviation will only take place in the long term and is awaiting other matters to be put in place.

3. Boarding: There is some market potential, which should be left to the market to action and develop.

4. Take-off: There is good market potential which would be picked up by the market with minimum intervention.

5. Catapulted Take-off: There is market potential, but the development of aviation will only take place with significant intervention from government.

The Vuwani/P.R Mphephu Airport fell within the third category. The Limpopo Department of Transport decided to wait a few years so that further analysis could be done on the Vuwani/P.R Mphephu Airport as well as the other public airports within the province. Such analysis will consider developments that are taking place at, amongst others, Lephalale, Musina and its SEZ status, and the Tubatse area.

The Limpopo Department of Transport is currently collaborating with the Department of Public Enterprises in determining if some of these airports can be re-commissioned and the extent of improvements that are required to enable re-commissioning.  The Limpopo Aviation Technical Stream has been established and various meetings have already been held. The Province is currently developing the Terms of References for the viability assessment, which should be conducted no later than the 2017/2018 financial year. This will provide an indication if P.R. Mphephu Airport will be viable and the costs associated with its re-commissioning, should the indication be positive. Other options will be explored depending on the outcome of the viability study.

(b) (i) N/A

     (ii) The airport is an asset of the Limpopo Department of Public Works, Roads and Infrastructure, although the buildings are utilised by the Limpopo Department of Transport. The Limpopo Department of Transport has not allocated any maintenance budget pending the outcome of the viability study.

Reply:

The accurate figures will soon be forwarded to you in due course as they are still in the process of verification.

Reply:

Yes, the Single Transport Economic Regulator project will be part of the 2017/18 and onwards of the Department’s Strategic and Annual Performance Plans. The Department plans to present a Bill (draft legislation framework) to Cabinet to solicit gazetting approval for 60 days public consultation by end of financial year of 2016/17. Thereafter, inputs from the public will be consolidated and a revised Bill will be taken back to Cabinet for approval during 2017/18 financial year. The next step will be to table the Bill in Parliament by end of 2017/18 financial year. Upon promulgation of the Bill to a legislation, the Transport Economic Regulator establishment will commence.

Reply:

The response below was provided by the municipality:

(1) (a),(b) & (c) No criminal, civil or disciplinary charges have been laid against any person and/or organisation involved in the Siyenza Group toilets tender project in the Amathole District Municipality. The investigations by the Public Protector and the National Treasury are currently underway. The outcome of the investigations will determine if there are grounds for such actions.

(i) Not applicable

(ii) Not applicable

(2) No amounts have been recovered from the specified company and/or any of the specified persons and/or organisations involved in the Siyenza Group toilets tender project. The outcome of the investigations will determine if there are grounds for such actions.

(i) Not applicable

(ii) Not applicable

(3) (a) & (b) There is no rectification programme currently being undertaken by Municipal Infrastructure Support Agent (MISA). However, MISA in partnership with the Department of Water and Sanitation will be supporting the implementation of the programme by Amatola Water Board. The Amatola Water Board has been appointed by the Department of Water and Sanitation as an implementing agent for the completion of the project. Further, the Amatola Water Board has developed and costed the implementation plan for the completion of the project. The proposed commencement date of the project is January 2017.

Reply:

(1)(a) The following information is captured by the Immigration Officer for persons entering the Republic:

- Flight / vessel / transport number

- Biographic details including surname, first names, date of birth, etc.

- Occupation

- Purpose of visit

- Visa details (whenever applicable)

(1)(b) The following information is captured by the Immigration Officer for persons leaving the Republic:

- Flight / vessel / transport number

- Biographic details including surname, first names, date of birth, etc.

- Visa details (if confirmation is required on departure)

(2) 2 777 931

Reply:

(1) As you might have heard Honourable Member, I have asked the Health Ombudsperson to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. However, as immediate steps to avoid further deaths, I sent teams out visit the NGOs where deaths have occurred, and even others that were new, to assess the safety of the patients that are still alive, in order to take appropriate steps to ensure their safety.

(2) I am currently awaiting the outcome of the investigation by the Health Ombudsperson in order to determine what further interventions are required and should be taken regarding this matter.

END.

Reply:

(1)(a) The Ermelo Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently receiving 12-16 Ml/day and is designed to handle 10 Ml/day. Overall, the infrastructure of the plant is in a bad condition and this has compromised the sewage treatment process to the extent that substandard effluent is being discharged.

(b) The Green Drop System, which the Department utilizes to monitor compliance levels of wastewater treatment works in the country, shows that the level of compliance for the plant from 01 January 2016 to September 2016 is zero for micro, physical and chemical parameters specific for wastewater effluent.

(2) The effluent from the plant does not comply with the general standard. The Department had meetings with the municipality, inspections were conducted and correspondence was also sent to the municipality. Due to the lack of response from the municipality, a task team (comprising DWS, the Departments of Human Settlements, Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Economic Development, Environment and Tourism as well as the District and Local Municipalities) was then established to address the concerns related to the plant. See Tables 1 and 2 below:

Table 1: Correspondence with the Municipality prior to establishment of the task team

DWS Action	Issues raised	Type of communication	Municipality response
Issued communication due to poor water quality discharging into the stream	sewage pollution water use authorisation application	Letter dated 23 November 2009	None
Site inspection conducted on 14 July 2010	sewage pollution	Section 19 letter dated 19 July 2010	None
Site inspection conducted on 11 Nov 2011	sewage pollution at Pet Dam	Meeting held with the municipality immediately after the inspection	The problem was resolved same day
Site inspection conducted on 14 June 2012	sewage spillages and poor effluent quality reporting of pollution incidents incomplete discharge charges forms water use authorisation application Poor attendance of stakeholder forum meetings	Meeting with municipality on 06 August 2012	Raised their challenges

Table 2: Correspondences with the Municipality after establishment of the task team

DWS Action	Issues raised	Type of communication	Municipality response
Issued communication based on the meeting held on 06 August 2012	sewage pollution establishment of the Task Team	Letter dated 14 August 2012	None
Follow up	reminder to respond	Letter dated 11 October 2012	Submitted insufficient action plan on 14 November 2012
Task Team	Actions from minutes	Meeting on 26 September 2012 at Govan Mbeki Municipality	No feedback, the Municipality sent another person without information
Task Team	Actions from minutes	Meeting on 14 November 2012 at Lekwa Municipality	Attended
Task Team	Actions from minutes	Meeting on 06 February 2013 at Dr Pixley ka Seme Municipality	Did not attend
Issued a communication	Non-attendance of Task Team meeting	Letter dated 22 February 2013	None
Task Team	Actions from minutes	Meeting on 12 June 2013 at Gert Sibande District Municipality	Did not attend
Issued a communication	Action plan	Letter dated 22 August 2013	None
Assessment of WWTW on 29 October 2013 and 13 March 2014	Non-compliance letter	Letter dated 24 March 2014	None

The Department allocated R 44 275 029 million to refurbish the Ermelo Waste Water Treatment Plant in Mpumalanga. The project commenced in November 2015 and is scheduled for completion in January 2017.

---00O00---

Reply:

(1) The Implementation Plan for National Transport Master Plan 2050 is not complete. It is the target

for the 2016/17 financial year and anticipated to be completed by March 2017.

(2) The National Transport Master Plan 2050 has been submitted to Cabinet and got approval on the 19 October 2016.

(3) The legislation will not be completed in 2016/17 financial year as approval by Cabinet was only in October 2016.