ATC200715: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Public Works and Infrastructure on the 2019/20 Fourth Quarter performance of the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure, the Property Management Trading Entity, dated 14 July 2020

Public Works and Infrastructure

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Public Works and Infrastructure on the 2019/20 Fourth Quarter performance of the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure, the Property Management Trading Entity, dated 14 July 2020



The Portfolio Committee on Public Works and Infrastructure (hereinafter, the committee) having met on 11 June 2020, considered the fourth quarter performance of the Department of  Public Works and Infrastructure (hereinafter, the DPWI and the department) and the Property Management Trading Entity, (PMTE)[1]reporting to the Minister of Public Works for the 2019/20 financial year, reports as follows:



Parliament has a constitutional responsibility to oversee the quarterly programme performance information of the departments and their entities during the financial year. These reports are prescribed as part of the in-year performance monitoring mechanisms prescribed in sections 32, 39, and 40 of the Public Finance Management Act (1999). These sections of the PFMA are quite specific in stating that the in-year reporting is to ensure that under-collection of revenue due; shortfalls in the budgetary allocation; and overspending of the department’s main vote or parts thereof, is to be identified, and reported, with an explanation of any material variances and any steps taken to ensure that the project expenditure and revenue stay within the budget. These reports must be made on a monthly basis to the Minister and the National Treasury and on a quarterly and annual basis to Parliament’s committees.

In addition, the Money Bills Amendment and Related Matters Act (Act 9 of 2009) describes the process of exercising the committees’ responsibility to on a quarterly and annual basis receive reports containing the financial and non-financial performance information of the departments. It states that portfolio committees must conduct reviews of the finances of their respective departments and entities and, if required, issue recommendations on the forward use of financial, human and other resources that are required to fulfil its mandates.

The monitoring and review of quarterly performance reports are vital toolsofoversight overthe work of the departments. Committees fulfil Parliament’s oversight and accountability mandates in terms of the Constitution and under the rules established by the National Assembly. Except for the relevant sections of the Constitution and the Money Bills Amendment and Related Matters Act, as sketched above, sections 32 and 40 (4) (b) ofthe PFMA stipulatesthat departments and entities must prepare quarterly performance reports within 30 days after the end of each financial quarter of each year. The National Treasury issues Public Finance Regulations and practice notes based on relevant sections of the PFMA[2] that further guide departments and entities to drive its performance through in-year non-financial and financial performance reports that the Director-General (DG) as Accounting Officer must make to the Ministers and the National Treasury. These in-year reports[3] from the branches that are managed by the Deputy Directors-General (DDGs) of each programme or branch are made to the Director-General at Executive Committee meetings. As per the PFMA, these reports must be made from the 10th of each month to the Minister and should by the 15th of the month go to the National Treasury. Note that the Minister must ensure that the responsibilities described in these sections of the PFMA form part of the performance contract of the accounting officer of the department, namely the Director-General (DG).

The department’s in-year reports are the monitoring and control tools that are available to the DG as accounting officer to compile reports to the Minister and National Treasury. These also form the basis of the quarterly financial performance reports that must be made to parliament’s committees and annually, as per the Money Bills and Related Matters Act. Committees continue throughout the year, to use the performance information gathered from these quarterly reports (often referred to as section 32 reports) as the basis for the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Reports (BRRRs) after analysing the Annual Reports and Annual Financial Statements of each departments and entities during October of each year.



3.1. Constitutional mandate

The Constitutional mandate is provided for in Schedule 4, Part A, of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa: Functional Areas of Concurrent National and Provincial Legislative Competence.


3.2. Legislative mandate

The Government Immovable Asset Management Act (2007) primarily governs the legislative mandate of the DPWI and the PMTE as custodian of government’s immovable properties.

The DPWIalso provides strategic leadership of employment creation through the implementation of phase three of the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP). The department plays a coordinating and capacity-enhancement role with provincial and local government counterparts to ensure the implementation of the EPWP.

It must always be kept in mind that as custodian of government’s properties, the department is not directly providing services to client departments. The PMTE (through the nine regional offices of the department) implements the legislative mandate described in the GIAMA and provides accommodation and maintenance services to service delivery departments, including to Parliament, and the Presidency.

The department determines construction and professional built environment policy, and regulates the construction industry and built environment through the Construction Industry Development Board Act, 2000 (Act No. 38 of 2000) and the six Professional Council Acts that regulate the six Built Environment Professions (BEPs), and through the Council for the Built Environment Act (Act No. 43 of 2000).

The department is the policy leader of the public works and infrastructure sector in the country. It makes guiding regulation ensures standardised, and sets uniform compliancestandards for the implementation of all its legislated responsibilities. This includes the selection processes of EPWP beneficiaries, the data collection, verification and reporting of employment opportunities in all departments, municipalities and non-governmental organisations. It further provides professional built environment, construction, project management, and facilities management services to client departments.

The Portfolio Committee on Public Works and Infrastructure has increasingly stressed that the DPWI has to play a stronger role in the transformation of the professional built environment, and construction sector.

The committee stressed in several reports[4]that the DPWI as lead department had todevelop legislation and regulatory tools with which to ensure broad-based participation from all stakeholders in transformation programmes. The committee urged the Minister, departmentand entities to ensure a structured candidacy programme for built environment graduates to advance to professional registration. This programme had to include incentives that facilitated private professional built environment companies to put in place mentorship programmes, stipend payments for professional registration examination, and financial assistance with the registration process itself. These steps would assist and enable especially young black graduates to enter the professional built environment sector to compete on an equal basis with established companies.

Similar empowerment programmes is required for lower levels of building contractors who struggle to advance on the contractor register and do not compete on an equal footing with well-established construction companies. In its Budget Vote Report for Vote 13, the committee repeated the call for a much stronger legislative and regulatory regime to be developed and tabled to parliament so that the Minister as policy leader can play this role much more robustly.

This policymaking, coordinating and standard-setting responsibility of the DPWI and its entities is a crucial social infrastructure task that facilitates and assists other service delivery departments to use their allocated budgetary resources effectively so that all government buildings and facilities are places of safety and security where people are welcome.


3.3. Policy mandates

  • DPW White Paper: Public Works, Towards the 21st Century, 1997;
  • DPW White Paper: Creating an Enabling Environment for Reconstruction, Growth and Development in the Construction Industry, 1999;
  • Construction Sector Transformation Charter, 2006;
  • Property Sector Transformation Charter, 2007;
  • DPW Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment Strategy, 2006;
  • Property Management Strategy on BBBEE, Job Creation and Poverty Alleviation, 2007;
  • Green Building Framework, 2011.


On 11 June 2020, the committee considered the 2019/20fourth quarter performance of the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure and the entities. The performance information was analysed and compared to the planning information contained in the Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plan and Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF).

Thisrest of the report now provides an overview of the presentation made to the committee. It focuses on the rate of expenditure, achievements and output in respect of the performance indicators and targets set for the fourth quarter of the 2019/2020 financial year. The report concludes with the committee’s observations and concerns.



The department received a voted allocation of R7.81 billion for 2019/20 with which to accomplish its priorities. This represented an increase of 4.4% in nominal terms, and a decline of 0.81% in real terms (calculating the impact of inflation) from the 2018/19 adjusted appropriation of R7.48 billion. The department’s budget represented approximately 0.1% of the national appropriation by vote, excluding direct charges. During the adjustments process, the department’s allocation increased to R7.91 billion.


4.1. Quarter 4 Expenditure per programme


By the fourth quarter, R7.75 billion (or 98.0%) of the total adjusted allocation of R7.91 billion was spent, when compared to the R7.44 billion (or 99.5%) spent during the same period in the previous year.


Four of the five main programmes managed to reach the 90% and higher of the expenditure benchmark for the fourth quarter. Two of the five main programmes came close to reaching the maximum expenditure rate of 100%. The only programme to have spent less than 90% at the end of the 2019/20 financial year was Programme 5.


The following four programmes expenditure was 90.0% and above.


  • Programme 4 spent R4.52 billion, which constitutes 99.7% of the R4.54 billion adjusted allocation.
  • Programme 3 spent R2.62 billion (or 97.9%), of the R2.68 billion adjusted allocation. Programme 2 spent R52.4 million (or 92.9%) of the adjusted R56.4 million
  • Programme 1 spent R460.1 million (or 90.0%) of the adjusted allocation of R511.0 million.


Programme 5 spent the least at R85.1 million (or 71.0%) of the R119.9 million adjusted allocation for 2019/20.


4.2. Department Expenditure Performance for 2019/20 Compared to 2018/19

The statistics provided indicated that the expenditure performance of the department for 2019/20 declined slightly, when compared to that of 2018/19. The department’s total expenditure rate equalled R7.75 billion (or 98.0%) for 2019/20. This showed a decline of 1.5% from the 99.5% reported expenditure performance for the fourth quarter of 2018/19.


The expenditure performance for the five main programmes for 2018/19 all reported expenditure rates of 90% and above. While this is true of only four of the main programmes for the 2019/20 financial (as discussed above).

  • Programme 5 reported an over expenditure of 123.1% for 2018/19, compared to the under expenditure of 71.0% for 2019/20. This constituted a decline of 29% for 2019/20.
  • Programmes 3 and 4 each reporting expenditure rates of over 99% for 2018/19:
  • Expenditure on Programme 3 decreased by 1.3%, (to 97.9%) in 2019/20, from the 99.2% reported in 2018/19.
  • Due to most of the transfers taking place from this programme, the reported expenditure on Programme 4 remained constant at 99.7% for 2019/20 and 2018/19. The critical point was made that the key function of property and construction policy research, remained poorly performed with the department consistently blaming low capacity as the reason.
  • Programme 2’s performance increased slightly by 2.3% (to 92.7%) in 2019/20, from the 90.6% reported in 2018/19.
  • The performance in Programme 1 declined by 2.7%, (to 90.0%) in 2019/20, from the 92.7% reported in 2018/19.


4.3. Under and over-expenditure

The department reported under- and/or over-expenditure for the fourth quarter as follows:


  • R50.9 million (or 10.0%) underspent under Programme 1 of the projected R511.0 million, due to delays in filling vacant positions; as well as lower than projected value of actual invoices received for communication, operating leases, audit fees and travel and subsistence.
  • R4 million (or 7.1%) underspent under Programme 2 of the projected R56.4 million due to underspending on Compensation of Employees, which was a result of the non-filling of vacant positions.
  • R56.3 million (or 2.1%) underspent under Programme 3 of the projected R2.68 billion with slow spending in the Compensation of Employees, Goods and Services, and under Transfers and Subsidies. The low spending under Goods and Services (Agency and support/outsourced services) were due to delays in the appointment of service providers who were expected to provide technical support for the implementation of the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) projects.
  • R14.4 million (or 0.3%) underspent under Programme 4, of the projected R4.54 billion, due to the lower than expected spending under Compensation of Employees’ budget due to vacant posts.
  • R34.8 million (or 29.0%) underspent of the projected R119.9 million under Programme 5, with lower spending specifically on contractors. The department explained this as being due to a smaller number of state functions having taken place than what was budgeted for, and lower than projected expenditure on the Presidential Inauguration.


4.4. Expenditure by economic classification

4.4.1. Current Payments

A total of R1 billion was allocated to Current Payments for 2019/20, which is an increase of R19.3 million from the R990.5 million adjusted allocation in 2018/19. Of this amount, R557.8 million was allocated to Compensation of Employees, which was an increase of R59.9 million from the R518.3 million allocated in 2018/19.

At the end of the fourth quarter of 2019/20, R503.5 million (90.3%) was spent on Compensation of Employees, which represented an increase of R7.1 million from the R496.4 million spent in 2018/19. However, the Department under-spent the projected spending of R557.8 million for fourth quarter  by R54.3 million (or 9.7%).

Goods and Services received an allocation of R452.0 million for 2019/20, which was a decrease of R19.8 million from the R471.8 million allocated in 2018/19. A total of R351.1 million was spent at the end of the fourth quarter of 2019/20, which was a decrease of R113.9 million from the R465.0 million spent during the same period in 2018/19. This resulted in under expenditure of R100.9 million (22.3%) of the projected spending of R452.0 million during the fourth quarter.

Interest and Rent on Land received R100 000 allocation in the fourth quarter of 2019/20, a decline from the R1.7 million from the R1.8 million received during the same period in 2018/19. This showed a 100% increase from the R0 expenditure reported in the third Quarter of 2019/20.


4.4.2. Transfers and Subsidies

An amount of R6,87 billion was transferred during the fourth quarter of 2019/20,14 when compared to the R6.47 billion by the fourth quarter of 2018/19.15 This is an increase of R403.4 million or 6.2% in transfer payments year-on-year. For the year under review the projected transfer amount of R6.87 billion, was exceeded by R200 000 by the fourth quarter of 2019/20.


Of the allocations for transfers and subsidies, a total of R2.35 billion, (from the R2.24 billion in 2018/19) was allocated to the EPWP, Non-profit Sector, and Integrated Grant for Provinces and Municipalities. This was a nominal increase of 5.0% and (a decrease of 0.2% in real terms). Of this amount, R1.6billion was assigned to Conditional Grants to Provinces and Municipalities and allocated as follows:

  • The EPWP Integrated Grant for Municipalities was allocated R730.0 million, an increase of R37.1 million from the R692.9 million in 2018/19. At the end of the 4th quarter of 2019/20, R730.0 million (or 100%) of the allocation was transferred.
  • The EPWP Integrated Grant for Provinces received an allocation of R437.4 million for 2019/20, which is an increase of R21.4 million from the R416.0 million allocated in 2018/19. At the end of the 4th quarter of 2019/20, R437.4 million (or 100%) of the allocation was transferred.
  • The Social Sector EPWP Integrated Grant for Provinces received an allocation of R430.8 million for 2019/20, which was an increase of R22.9 million from the R407.9 million allocated in 2018/19. A total of R430.8 million (or 100%) was transferred by the end of the 4th quarter of 2019/20.


Departmental Agencies and Accounts (non-business entities) receivedR4.38 billion, which was an increase R22.0 million from the R4.16 billion received in 2018/19, of which:

  • R600 000 was allocated to the Construction Education and Training Authority (CETA), (an increase of R100 000 from R500 000 the previous year), which constitutes an increase of 14.1% in real terms. The amount was transferred during second quarter.
  • R10.6 million was allocated to Parliamentary Villages Management Board, which represented an increase of R200 000 from the R10.4 million allocation for 2018/19. The allocation was transferred in its entirety, by the end of the first quarter of 2019/20.
  • R76.2 million was allocated to the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) for 2019/20, (a nominal increase of R2.9 million from R73.3 million), but a decline of 1.2% in real terms from the previous year. Of this amount, the second portion of the allocation, that is, R38.1 million (or 50%) was transferred to the entity for operations at the end of third quarter.
  • R4.32 billion was allocated to the Property Management Trading Entity (PMTE) for 2019/20, which was an increase of R306.2 million (a decrease of 0.1% in real terms) from the R4.01 billion allocation of 2018/19. The total of R4.32 billion (or 100%) was spent in quarter 4 of 2019/20.
  • R52.8 million was allocated to the Council for the Built Environment (CBE) for 2019/20, (an increase of R2.7 million from R50.1 million) and 0.2% in real terms. The second portion of the allocation, that is, R26.4 million (or 50%) was transferred in quarter 3 towards the operations of the entity.


The Department also made transfers to:


  • Agrément South Africa was allocated R31.1 million, (an increase of R1.1 million) from the R30.0 million allocation of 2018/19. The second half of R15.5 million (or 50%) was transferred in quarter 3.
  • Foreign Governments and International Organisations21 received an allocation of R26.6 million, an increase of R3.9 million (11.4% in real terms) from the R22.7 million allocated in 2018/19. The amount was adjusted to R24.6 million, and had not been transferred by the end of the 4th quarter.
  • The Adjusted Estimates of National Expenditure (AENE) reported on declared unspent funds under the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and increased funding for the PMTE for infrastructure projects of small harbours as follows:
    • R24.6 million was spent in 2019/20 under the Foreign Governments and International Organisations of an allocation of R26.6 million. A total of R1.94 million was declared as unspent funds, due to lower than expected spending on the transfer to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which is usually negatively impacted by the fluctuations in the foreign currency exchange rate.
    • A total of R5.0 million was allocated to Public Corporations towards the operations of the Independent Development Trust (IDT) in 2019/20, (a decline of R23.4 million or 83.3% in real terms) from the R28.4 million allocation of 2018/19. The total was expended at the end of the first quarter.


  • The IDT is a Schedule 2 entity and should be self-sustaining. Therefore, it should not receive an allocation from the Department, as is the case for Schedule 3 entities. This allocation from the Department, should be viewed as assisting in the continued operational functioning of the entity, in the context of the IDT having developed into a responsive development agency with a well-established footprint in provinces and regionsacross the country. The IDT’s total budget for 2019/20 was R386.6 million.


  • A total of R750.4 millionwas allocated to the Non-Profit Institutions, which was an increase of R30.3 million from the R720.1 million allocated in 2018/19. The allocation was disaggregated into the following two Non-State Sector allocations:
  • The Non-State Sector: Work Opportunities was allocated R719.0 million for 2019/20, which was an increase of R28.6 million from the R690.4 million allocated in 2018/19. None of the allocation was transferred by the end of the 4th quarter of 2019/20, notwithstanding, the projected expenditure of R719.0 million for fourth quarter.


  • The Non-State Sector: Non-Wage Costswas allocated R31.4 million in 2019/20, which is an increase of R1.7 million from the R29.7 million allocated in 2018/19. The allocation was not spent by the end of the 3rd quarter of 2019/20. Although the department reported a projected expenditure of R31.4 million at the end of the third quarter, it reported zero expenditure in Quarter 4.


During a presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Public Works and Infrastructure, the IDT indicated that the Non-State Sector did not manage to begin implementation due to delays in the signing of Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Department. The IDT is responsible for exercising due diligence after the IDT and the Non-Profit Organisations (NPOs), signed agreements; this includes verifying the registration of all participating NPOs,and Identity Documents of beneficiaries. AT the time of reporting to the committee, in November 2019, the IDT indicated that this time-consuming aspect delayed the process.


At a follow-up meeting with the IDT, on 27 May 2020, the entity reported that it appointed 340 contractors, with 339 Non-Profit Organisations (NPOs) recruited for the 2019/20 financial year.


4.4.3. Payments for Capital Assets


Payment for Capital Assetsreceived an allocation of R23.2 million for 2019/20, compared to R23.5 million for 2018/19, a decrease of R300 000. A total of R17.5 million was spent in the 4th quarter of 2019/20, compared to R9.5 million in the 4th quarter of 2018/19. Despite the increased expenditure year-on-year, the department under-spent the projected R23.2 million for the 2019/20 4th quarter by R5.8 million.





  • With the inclusion of the infrastructure component under the newly formed Department of Public Works and Infrastructure, the former Department of Public Works had to take into consideration the impact this wouldhave. The department’s organisational structure and budget might be impacted once the final stages of agreements were concluded on the transfer of the infrastructure function from National Treasury and the Department of Economic Development.
  • The department continued to experience challenges with the fluctuation in the exchange rate when making payments to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission: Maintenance of Soldiers’ Graves. This sometimes resulted in over and/or under expenditure under this sub-programme.
  • A virement of R3.0 millionwas shifted from Programme 4: Property and Construction Industry Policy (Goods and Services: Contractors), to Programme 1: Administration (Goods and Services) to provide for costs associated with higher than projected Legal Services.
  • The department realigned its main and sub-programmes and highlighted the role of the PMTE, to ensure that it provided accommodation, and managed the real estate of National Government. With the transformed arrangement (where the PMTE is a separate, ring-fenced government component within the department acting as an implementer in the property and construction business), the department’s role would be that of a regulator.
  • With the establishment of the PMTE, all accommodation-related costs were devolved to client departments. In this regard, it has been issuing invoices and collecting user charges from clients on a quarterly basis, based on amounts devolved to them. However, the department reported on that the receipt of invoices was slow and therefore affected the payment of invoices in a timely manner.
  • The department further reduced its expenditure on consultants and outsourced services as it was in the process of ensuring that the staff within the department execute the necessary functions. The department reported slow spending under Compensation of Employees and Goods and Services. This was mainly due to the non-filling of vacancies or payment for Goods and Services due to non-receipt of invoices under Programmes 1, 2, 3, and 4. The non-filling of vacant positions, particularly those identified as technical and specialist posts, remains crucial to the optimal functioning of the PMTE and the Department.



The performance report showed that there was a lack of control in the reporting and accounting systems of the DPWI and the PMTE. The DPWI explained that it was due to its ICT reporting systems that was in the process of being renewed.

The slow progress of establishing a credible, legally and financially compliant Immovable Asset Register that the PMTE could utilise to unlock the value of the state’s immovable assets was noted as a huge concern by the committee, as numerous discussions had previously been held with the department in that regard.

It was reported that the client departments were increasingly taking over the infrastructure, property construction maintenance functions and budgetary allocations of the DPWI. This showed that the departments had no faith in the DPWI because it was failing in its mandate.

The committee was not pleased with the coordination of skills development in the EPWP projects across the national, provincial, and municipal levels of government, as it was not resulting in sufficient skills transfer for EPWP beneficiaries.

The committee felt that the high rate of under-expenditure required urgent attention. According to the DPWI, the reasons for the reported under-expenditure were that:

  • Contractors were slow on completing projects due to cash-flow problems. The DPWI/PMTE needed to provide technical support in the form of mentors so that they could manage their cash-flow properly.
  • The DPWI had to find ways to ensure improved performance of consultants; it was working with legal services to penalise them if they did not achieve targets on time.
  • The under-reporting of EPWP by provinces, non-profit organisations, and municipalities had to be addressed in the  Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with contractors by penalising slow or non-reporting;
  • The contractor incubation programme was at an advanced stage but the Covid-19 lockdown caused delays.
  • The low turnaround time of the Infrastructure Task Team could be dealt with by the institutionalisation of a standard-setting protocol implemented by the Regional Managers of each of the eleven Regional Offices and the DPWI Head Office that is regularly monitored and reported on.

Regarding policy, the committee heard that one of the reasons for the slow delivery of a stronger legislative framework for public works was that there were capacity weaknesses in the Property and ConstructionIndustry Policyand Researchprogramme.

The DG reported that he was working with the National Treasury (NT) to ensure that there was cooperation across all departments to address the under-recovery of management fees for construction and maintenance, as well as rentals. This was a combination of enforcing the DPWI mandate and getting client departments to commit to advance payment of fees to DPWI.

The DG further announced that he made a request to NT to move all infrastructure budgets back to DPWI. This would assist with the recovery of all debt owed to the DPWI and the PMTE. The DG’s request included that all departmental budgets for infrastructure departments had to be ring-fenced to stop the use of these funds for other purposes, while they left the DPWI and PMTE in debt. R5 billion remained outstanding from user departments (an improvement from R7billion).

In response to the committee’s concern about irregular expenditure, the DPWI reported that the irregular expenditure was due to a combination of its outdated information and communication technology (ICT) reporting systems, and capacity weaknesses in the internal control that hampered internal monthly and quarterly reporting.

The Minister announced that:

  • All senior management was taken for training with the Office of the AG so that they understood that under the new legislation (of the AG), punitive steps may be taken if underspending happened in their individual programmes;
  • She emphasised that consequence management was being implemented.
  • After an audit was done of all vacancies, a decision was taken to lift the moratorium and all funded posts would be filled soon.
  • An update report would be made to the committee on SIU cases and the on-going fight to deal with malpractices and corruption.
  • The Acting posts of the DDG positions for the Property and ConstructionIndustryPolicyandResearch programme, and the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) were being advertised and that it would be filled soon.

The REIS programme in the PMTE reported that it was in advance stages of developing government precincts in both urban and rural areas, and that they would welcome the opportunity to report to the committee on these projects. The REIS further referred to the challenges in developing these precincts involved aligning the department’s legal framework with the Spatial and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA) and municipal Integrated Development Plans (IDPs).



[1]The performance of the public works and infrastructure entities were not the specific focus during the quarterly performance review. Note that while there is not a focus on each of the entities on their own, the budgetary allocations reported on and the analyses of the transfers from Programme 4 deals with an aspect of the financial transfers of entities from one quarter to the next. The Committee gives full effect to this aspect of its legal oversight mandate during the annual financial performance review in October each year.

[2]Except for section 32 and 40 (b), the other relevant sections of the PFMA are sections 39(2)(b)(i) to (iii), 40(4)(a) and (c).

[3] Ibid.

[4] These reports include the Budget Vote report, the performance reports for quarters 1, 2 and 3, and Budgetary Review and Recommendation reports for the 2019/20 financial year.


No related documents