ATC201202: Consolidated Report of the Portfolio Committee on Defence on Engagements with the Khoisan Nation Self Defence Unit and the South African Cape Corps Military Veterans Association (Saccmva), Dated 2 December 2020
CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE ON ENGAGEMENTS WITH THE KHOISAN NATION SELF DEFENCE UNIT AND THE SOUTH AFRICAN CAPE CORPS MILITARY VETERANS ASSOCIATION (SACCMVA), DATED 2DECEMBER 2020
1. INTRODUCTION 1
- Aim of the Report 1
- Process 2
- THE CASE OF THE KHOISAN NATION SELF-DEFENCE UNIT 4
4.1 Initial deliberations: 22 May 2020 5
4.2 Engagement on the KNSDU personnel list 5
4.3 Engagement with the KNSDU: 11 November 2020 6
5. ENGAGMENT WITH THE SACCMVA8
6. PCDMV OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9
6.1 PCDMV Observations 9
6.2 PCDMV Recommendations 10
The Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans (PCDMV) engaged the Khoisan Nation Self Defence Unit (KNSDU) and the South African Cape Corps Military Veterans Association (SACCMVA) on 11 November 2020. The engagement followed a request by the KNSDU for an audience with the PCDMV regarding their request to be integrated into the into the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). To this extent they approached the PCDMV to consider developing a Bill for such integration, specifically for former South African Cape Corps (SACC) members. The KNSDU was established in June 2014 and claims to represent a number of former members of theSACC that were not integrated into the SANDF during the integration period around the 1994 transition to democracy. Given the link between those who the KNSDU claim to represent and the constituency of the SACCMVA, the Committee invited the SACCMVA to present their position and challenges to the PCDMV as well.
1.1 Aim of the Report
The aim of the report is to provide an overview of the PCDMV engagements with the KNSDU. It contextualises the KNSDU request to the Committee by providing a background to the integration process. It highlights concerns raised by the KNSDU as well as by Members of the PCDMV and aims to propose a way forward in dealing with the plight of former SACC members. The second engagement with the SACCMVA was based on the overlap between the KNSDU and SACCMVA membership as well as the SACCMVA’s request for an audience with the PCDMV to raise their concerns and request its assistance to address these concerns.
The report is based the following engagements between the PCDMV and the various role-players:
- 22May 2020: Background briefing and legal aspects related to the KNSDU claims for
- 11 November 2020: PCDMV engagement with the KNSDU
- 11 November 2020: PCDMV engagement with the SACCMVA
The 1994 democratic transition require a similar paradigm shift among the armed forces of the country. There was thus a clear need for the establishment of a representative, national and accountable Defence Force. To achieve this, a process was envisaged to integrate both statutory and non-statutory forces (NSF) within South Africa. These included mainly the statutory forces such as the South African Defence Force (SADF), the Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei (TBVC) forces as well as the NSFs, namely Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) and the Azanian People’s Liberation Army (APLA).
This process therefore required two complementary processes, namely a political negotiation process as well as a negotiation process between the various military forces that needed integration. The overarching political negotiations took place under the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (Codesa). Military negotiations commenced in May 1990 with MK and SADF officials meeting in Lusaka to discuss possible integration.
Prior to the actual integration process, the Joint Military Co-ordinating Council phase played out between November 1993 and April 1994. The Transitional Executive Council (TEC) of 1993 established a number of sub-councils with various focus areas. One of these sub-councils focuses exclusively on defence. In order to oversee the integration process, the sub-council on defence established the Joint Military Co-ordinating Council (JMCC). The JMCC established a number of working groups, co-chaired by MK and the SADF. Membership of the working groups also included TBVC members. APLA members only joined the process later in 1994 and were thereafter incorporated into the working groups. All forces forming part of the integration process had to submit a list of personnel to the JMCC to form part of the Certified Personnel Register (CPR). This list formed the backbone of the integration list. The CPR was, however, more problematic for the NSFs given the less structured nature of these forces. As such, a non-formal CPR was created and incorporated into the CPR by August 1995. The formal CPR consisted of a total of 135 927 people to be integrated into the SANDF.
Two key provisions/adjustments should be noted in terms of the figures on the CPR and other integration figures. First, some analysts note that MK’s actual strength prior to integration ranged from 5 000 to 12 000 members, but its ranks swelled to 22 000 as members of the self-defence units operating within the country were subsequently included. Second, integration also made way for the addition of the KwaZulu Self Protection Force (KZSPF). The latter had to enlist as new recruits in the SANDF and had to complete basic training before being eligible for rank progression. Approximately 2 000 KZSPF members were integrated. The additions illustrate that a level of flexibility existed in to accommodate those felt left out of the process.
The integration phase followed between 1994 and 1998. The placement of NSF members in the various SANDF divisions were also completed during this phase. Individuals were brought before Placement Boards, consisting of representatives from both the SADF and NSF command structures. The process was also overseen by the British Military Advisory and Training Team (BMATT). The integration process was not without its challenges, with several complaints brought forward over the initial integration years, including allegations of racism, harassment and limited cultural change within the SANDF. The BMATT, as an external oversight body, acknowledged these challenges, but noted that overall the integration process has been fair.
The integration process was complemented by a parallel demobilisation processmandated by the Demobilisation Act (No 99 of 1996). The Act limited‘demobilisation’ to mean the “disbanding of members of the former non statutory forces who do not enter into agreements for temporary or permanent appointment with the South African Defence Force.” The process focused on the reintroduction of ex-combatantsinto society and commenced 16 months after the integration process began. The secondary aim was to reduce the overall SANDF headcount while the main aim was to minimise the risks and security concerns relating to ex-combatants not eligible for integration. By February 1997, a total of 3 770 ex-combatantswere demobilised. The demobilisation process was also not free of criticism. It was accused by some scholars of being poorly planned and that it failed to meet the needs of ex-combatants, leaving some of them without skills or education relevant to the marketplace. Insufficient financial advice also resulted in demobilised soldiers rapidly depleting their funds.
The 1996 White Paper on Defence provides further police clarity on the demobilisation process and its aims as it stated:
As a result of integration, force levels have been greatly inflated. The current size of the SANDF is neither cost-effective nor appropriate to the security situation. A process of demobilisation and rationalisation is therefore being planned, and in certain respects is already underway. Demobilisation refers to the voluntary release of members of the former non-statutory forces who are constitutionally part of the SANDF but who either do not wish to serve in the Defence Force or are unable to do so for reasons of age, ill-health or aptitude. Since these people contributed to the struggle against apartheid, it would be unjust to end their military careers without compensation, especially in the case of aged and disabled military veterans. They will consequently be assisted financially, as well as through the Special Pensions Act envisaged by the Constitution. It is a matter of great importance that this Act is now promulgated.
The integration of soldiers into the newfound SANDF was a key element of the negotiated political settlement prior to 1994. To ensure the success of the process, several systems of checks and balances were put in place to limit risks to the process:
- Negotiations. As already noted, military negotiations commenced in May 1990. This was essential in ensuring top-level buy-in and guidance of the integration process.
- Placement Boards. These boards consisted of members of both statutory and NSFs to oversee the placement of NSF members in the various division of the SANDF.
- BMATT. The BMATT acted as a neutral external observer to ensure the process is fair.
- The Integration Oversight Committee. This Integration Oversight Committee was established as a subcommittee of Parliament; Joint Standing Committee on Defence and ensured further political buy-in and parliamentary oversight of the integration process.
- THE CASE OF THE KHOISAN NATION SELF-DEFENCE UNIT
Background provided to the PCDMV on 22 May 2020, based on existing literature, does not reveal any reference tothe KNSDU during the integration period. Similarly, no reference is made to the KNSDU in terms of demobilisation, as the KNSDU did not exist at the time and SACC would not have been covered in terms of the Demobilisation Act (No 99 of 1996) that focused specifically on former non-statutory forces. This overview on integration was confirmed by Mr Kenneth Mashego, Legal Services Advisor of Department of Defence, in 2015. During a briefing to the PCDMV, he noted that “integration looked at the forces not at individuals. Questions had been raised about the KSDU as they did not fall within the prescripts of section 224 of the Interim Constitution. The KSDU was non-existent at the time and integration was terminated in 2001.” Khoisan individuals did serve in the SADF at the time. While some of them may have integrated after 1994, they did so as part of the SADF. It is thus evident, as confirmed by the North Gauteng High Court (Case 41202/2010), that former Khoisan soldiers can only be regarded as individuals. Therefore, no KNSDU existed during the time of integration.
Based on the fact that the KNSDU did not exist as an entity during the integration period, the application of the KNSDU to the PCDMV for integration raises immediate concern. However, the initial documentation provided to the Committee by the KNSDU also made reference to the SACC and former SACC members represented by KNSDU. The SACC was established in 1963 as the SA Coloured Corps and focused on support roles for the SADF. Thereafter, the unit expanded significantly and it began to develop into a fully fledged military unit beyond merely supporting roles. In 1970, the name was officially changed to the SA Cape Corps (SACC). By 1973, training expanded and volunteers were allowed to join the force. The SACC produced its first officers in 1975 and the unit transformed to a functioning infantry unit. In 1979, the SACC saw further expansion with the establishment of a Corps School, 1 SACC Battalion and the SACC Maintenance Unit. The Corps School was eventually disbanded and replaced by 2 SACC Battalion. Later, 3 SACC Battalion was established in Kimberley. On 31 March 1992, the SADF closed all SACC units and replaced it with 9 South African Infantry Battalion in Cape Town.
The inclusion of the former SACC members in the submission by the KNSDU raised several concerns around representation, including the following:
- Some members of the SACC were integrated into the SANDF and are thus unlikely to seek representation in this case.
- Some members of the SACC joined the Reserve Force and it is unclear whether these members will seek representation from the Khoisan Nation SDU.
- The SACCMVA was established in 2015. In 2018 it was officially recognised as a military veterans’ association by the Department of Military Veterans. The SACCMVA, as a registered organisation, is well suited to represent the interest of former SACC members.
- During the registration of the SACCMVA, it was noted that the Department of Military Veterans had to negotiate with various “splinter groups from the association.” It is therefore possible that other SACC-related interest groups continue to exist.
4.1 Initial deliberations: 22 May 2020
During the PCDMV meeting of 22 May 2020, the KNSDU was supposed to brief the Committee, but due to technical challenges, they could not access the virtual online platform to do so. The Committee Researcher provided the Committee with a thorough introduction and background to the integration process as well as key concerns around the KNSDU application for integration. A briefing by the Parliamentary Legal Adviser on the history of the KNSDU’s requests to integrate into the SANDF was also provided. He referred specifically to the High Court matter of Stanley George Matthee of the Khoisan Kingdom All People Party v Minister of Defence and the Public Protector’s report based on a complaint received from the KNSDU. These dealt with the request by the KNSDU to be integrated into the SANDF. The High Court held that:
- There doesn’t presently exist a legal framework in terms of which the Department could integrate the “left-out members” of the applicant, mainly due to the enactment of the Termination of Integration Intake Act (No 44 of 2001).
- The applicants did not have a legitimate expectation in law to be integrated into the SANDF. Hence the application was dismissed.
In 2015 the KNSDU further referred the complaint to the Public Protector’s Office. The Public Protector’s findings were that:
- Based on the response received from the SANDF and taking into account the legal prescripts, the refusal of the SANDF to integrate the members of the KNSDU into the SANDF was lawfully justified.
- Accordingly, the Public Protector could not make any finding or take any remedial action that would be in conflict with the prevailing legislation and jurisprudence.
Having been briefed on the history of the integration process, as well as the High Court matter and the Public Protector’s findings, the Committee Members deliberated as follows:
- Members were concerned that the KNSDU has not taken the matter on appeal given that they have lost the High Court matter;
- The Committee raised concern regarding the validity and accuracy of the KNSDU personnel listdue to the irregularities identified;
- The Committee agreed that the KNSDU personnel list, the High Court judgement as well as the Public Protector’s report should be distributed to the Committee Members.
- The Committee agreed that it could not make any further findings due to the inability of the KNSDU to make its presentation.
- It was agreed that the KNSDU will be given an opportunity to present to the Committee at Parliament, after the Covid-19 lockdown has been lifted.
In relation to the KNSDU aspects discussed on 22 May 2020 meeting, the Committee took the following two resolutions:
- The Committee agreed that the KNSDU personnel list, the High Court judgement as well as the Public Protector’s report should be distributed to Committee Members.
- The Committee agreed that it could not make any further findings due to the inability of the KNSDU to make its presentation, and agreed that the KNSDU will be given an opportunity to present to the Committee after the Covid-19 Lockdown, at Parliament.
4.2 Engagement on the KNSDU personnel list
In addition to the engagements on 22 May 2020, the Committee also made a concerted effort to effectively ascertain who the KNSDU represent and on whose behalf they are calling for integration. On 14 May 2020, the KNSDU provided the PCDMV with apersonnel list. (The KNSDU document referred to the personnel list as a“Certified Personnel Register”, but this should not be confused with the official CPR utilised for integration). The list was of poor quality and inconsistent. It was unclear exactly how many names appear on the list. Furthermore, a high number ID numbers on the list were of individuals born in the late 1980s and even 1990s, thus relating to individuals who would not have qualified for any form of integration around 1994.
Based on these inconsistencies, the Chairperson of the PCDMV requested the KNSDU to re-submit its personnel list, which it did on 21 July 2020. The request was to focus specifically on former SACC members who has a more considered claim to any form of integration. However, a number of concerns remained with the purified personnel list, including duplication of names and force numbers as well as incorrect suffixes with the Force Numbers. In addition, some individuals on the list only joined the SANDF after 1994 and would therefore not be eligible for any form of integration. A further clean-up of the personnel list was therefore requested from the Khoisan Nation SDU, which they submitted on 14 August 2020. The final submitted list saw a reduction in the number to 713 former SACC members that the KNSDU claims to represent.
Further analysis of the reduced personnel list of former SACC members submitted by the KNSDU reveal several important aspects to discussions around the claim for integration. First, the list of 713 former SACC members still included members that served or are serving in the SANDF. At least 172 individuals on the list served in or beyond 1994. Second, at least 42 members left the service in 1992 serving either from 1990 or 1991. This reflects a two-year contract coming to an end in 1992 which coincided with the disbandment of the SACC. Third, at least 38 members on the list left the service in 1993 after having started service in 1991. This again indicated a two-year contract coming to an end prior to the commencement of the integration period. It also reflects that those SACC members who had an active
2-year contract at the time when the SACC were disbanded continued service in the SADF until the end of their contracts in 1993. Fourth, these assumptions figures noted above means that the remainder of the 713 members on the KNSDU list left the employment of the SADF prior to 1992, thus negating any justified claim to integration at the time or after 1994.
Mr J Hop, Director of the KNSDU, presented the proposals on which the Association seeks the intervention of Parliament to the PCDMV. The presentation covered a foreword from the Director, Mr J Hop,an overview of who the claimants (KNSDU Members) are, the reasons given for the failure to integrate former SACC Members and what recourse the KNSDU seek from the Committee and/or SANDF. Key aspects emerging from the presentation include:
- The KNSDU was launched in 15 June 2014 as a “new indispensable unit” in the struggle to address the integration of former CK-SADF un-integrated members into the SANDF.
- Upon being disbanded in 1992, former un-integrated CK (SACC) members could unfortunately not integrate into SANDF and did not receive assistance to be reskilled or given alternative employment.
- The KNSDU lodged various attempts to be integrated into the SANDF. These include a court case in the North Gauteng High Court (Case number 412020/2010) that was dismissed in March 2010. They also lodged a complaint with the Public Protector, who agreed with the ruling of the High Court.
- The KNSDU proposes that former SACC members should be integrated into the SANDF through legislation that opens up the integration process once again. They drafted a Draft Khoisan Soldiers’ Integration Bill 2018 which seeks to recognise the KNSDU as the 8th non-statutory force and to allow for their integration.
- The KNSDU further complained about the unresponsiveness of the DMV to their applications to include their members on the National Military Veterans Database, to allow them to access benefits and services.
During subsequent deliberations between the KNSDU and the Committee, specific focus was placed on the Transitional Executive Council Act (No. 151 of 1993) that provided for certain aspects of the integration process. Section 16 (1) (a) stipulates that “each military force shall, at the same time as the submission of the relevant commitment, undertaking and renunciation contemplated in section 4(1)(b) or 4(5)(a), or as soon as possible thereafter, by notice in writing to the Negotiating Council or the Council- (i) associate itself with that commitment, undertaking and renunciation; and (ii) acknowledge the authority of the Council and the Sub council on Defence for the purpose of attaining the objects of this Act. Special focus was brought to Subsection (b), stating that “any military force which fails to comply with paragraph (a), shall not be regarded as an armed force, a defence force or a military force, as the case may be, for the purposes of this section.” Moreover, Section 16 (3) (a) prescribes that a person shall not be considered a member of an armed force as defined in section 1, unless- (a) that person was a registered member of such armed force at the commencement of this section and qualifies in terms of the requirements referred to in subsection (2)(k); and (b) that person's name and other particulars are included in a certified personnel register, which shall be submitted by such armed force to the Sub council within 21 days after the commencement of this section or, in the case of a participant referred to in section 4(5), within 21 days after the publication of the relevant proclamation referred to in section 4(5) (a), and which register shall be updated monthly.
Based on the above focus and other deliberations, Members made the following observations:
- The Committee noted that the SACC was disbanded in 1992, which was well before the commencement of the integration process.
- The Committee referred to the terms of the Transitional Executive Council Act that all armed forces which wished to be recognised as “armed forces” and to participate in the integration process needed to comply with the prescripts set out in the Act, among them being that the forces needed to subscribe/associate with the objects of the Council; subject itself to the authority of the Council; submit a registered personnel register and be active at the time of commencement of the Transitional Executive Council Act. The Committee noted that the SACC did not meet these provisions.
- The Committee further noted the concession by the KNSDU that the majority of SACC Members, especially the CK’s, served in the SADF on a voluntary basis. The Committee agreed that this further nullifies their claim for integration, as they had served the terms of their respective contracts, exited and had therefore ceased to be Members of the SADF.
- In view of above, the Committee agreed that the former SACC Members represented by KNSDU do not qualify for integration into the SANDF.
- The Committee conceded that while the CK–SACC Members do not meet the criteria for integration, they could meet the criteria to be recognised as military veterans. The Committee therefore agreed that they may be entitled to benefits in terms of the Military Veterans Act.
- The Committee expressed concern regarding the failure of the Department of Military Veterans to provide services to these Military veterans. The Committee agreed it would engage the DMV on the complaints from former SACC Members on the lack of responsiveness from the DMV.
5. ENGAEMENT WITH THE SACCMVA
During the meeting on 11 November 2020, the SACCMVA was afforded an opportunity to present their challenges to the Committee. The Chairperson of the SACCMVA, Mr A Arendse, led the delegation of the Association. The presentation of the SACC covered the status of the Association, its relationship with the DMV and South African National Military Veterans Association (SANMVA), as well as the requests by the Association to the PCDMV. The SACCMVA advised the Committee of the following matters:
- The Association has been duly recognised by the Ministry of Defence and Military Veterans as an Association representing the SACC Military Veterans, but they were disappointed that this has not been gazetted nor have they been issued with a recognition certificate by the Minister.
- They noted that they have an incomplete a Certified Personnel Register due to records of their Members being unavailable. They have made numerous request to the DOD for a PERSAL list of their members who served from 1973 to 1992. They requested the Committee to intervene in assisting them to secure this PERSAL list.
- They made specific reference to SACC members with the suffix BW to their force number, who served during the time and after the integration who have not been considered for integration.
- The SACCMVA was unhappy that the Association has been side-lined by the DMV as well as SANMVA in all structures where military veterans are expected to participate. The SACCMVA called for the institutionalisation of the formal relationship of SACCMVA with the DMV and SANMVA in terms organisational budget and resources allocation.
- Given the perceived shoddy treatment from the DMV and SANMVA, they called on the Committee to assist them with asserting their rights as a full member of the SANMVA.
- The SACCMVA further noted the failure of the DMV to provide services to SACC Members who qualify to be serviced as Military veterans. They called for equal and transparent allocation of resources to the various military veteran associations.
- They called for the review of the initial SACC Integration and Demobilisation process as it was seen to be grossly inadequate in that it resulted in thousands of former SACC soldiers not being properly integrated nor demobilised. They requested that those qualifying members who were not integrated or demobilised to be granted an opportunity to do so.
- In addition, they requested assistance for an awareness programme across the country to inform and update their members of the processes they are involved in.
Based on the key points raised by the SACCMVA, Members of the PCDMV noted that there is no legal requirement for the publishing of recognition of the SACCMVA and therefore the Minister’s letter of recognition should suffice for purposes of providing legitimacy for the Association. However, Members did raise concern around the SACCMVA allegedly being side-lined by the DMV and SANMVA. The Committee committed itself to engage with the DMV regarding the complaint of non-responsiveness to applications from former SACC Members/Veterans. Furthermore, in lieu of a legal and practical path to integration for former SACC members, the Committee encouraged these members to apply for inclusion in the Military Veterans National Database in order to be considered for benefits as all other military veterans.
- Acknowledgement of the main KNSDU request: The Committee acknowledge that the main request from the KNSDU is for a legal framework (Bill) to be drafted to ensure the integration of those represented by the KNSDU into the SANDF, notably former SACC members. This request framed discussions between the KNSDU and the PCDMV.
- Clarity on KNSDU representation: The PCDMV notes challenges around the representation claims of the KNSDU. While the initial personnel list submitted to the Committee laid claim to thousands of individuals being put forward for integration, the final revised list submitted by the KNSDU revealed that it acted on behalf of 713 former SACC members claiming integration.
- The legal basis for integration. The Committee observes the importance of the Transitional Executive Council Act (No 151 of 1993) and the specific requirements it laid out for integration of military forces. The Committee also notes the establishment of the KNSDU in June 2014 and that this establishment date excludes it, as a collective entity, from any rights provided for under the Transitional Executive Council Act (No. 151 of 1993).
- Acknowledging contractual status of SACC members. The Committee notes that the majority of the 713 individuals as per the ‘refined’ KNSDU personnel list left the employ of the SADF prior to 1992. At least 172 individuals on the list served in or beyond 1994, thus excluding them form any claims to integration. Furthermore at least 42 members left the service in 1992 serving either from 1990 or 1991. This reflects a two-year contract coming to an end in 1992 which coincided with the disbandment of the SACC. At least 38 other members on the list left the service in 1993 after having started service in 1991. This reflects adherence to the contracting periods entered into between SACC members and the SADF at the time.
- Voluntary service of SACC. The Committee further notes the concession by the KNSDU that SACC Members served the SADF on a voluntary basis, they were not permanent members of the Force. The Committee agreed that this further limits their claim for integration.
- Existing findings. The PCDMV takes note of the North Gauteng High Court (Case 41202/2010) that dismissed claims for integration of former Khoisan soldiers. The Committee also acknowledges the Public Protector’s findings that the refusal of the SANDF to integrate the members of the KNSDU into the SANDF was lawfully justified. The Committee is also cognisant of the Termination of Integration Act (No 44 of 2001) that brought to an end the integration process.
- Late-stage integration. The Committee notes that, given the SANDF’s current constraints in terms of rejuvenation, any integration of former SACC members into the SANDF would not be feasible more than 20 years after the integration process was completed.
- The need for assistance to military veterans. The PCDMV acknowledges the need for former SACC members, as part of the broader legitimate military veterans’ community, to be eligible for support from the DMV.
- Relations between the DMV and the SACCMVA. The Committee notes with concern the claims by the SACCMVA that it is being side-line by the DMV and the SANMVA.
Based on the observations noted above, the Committee makes the following recommendations:
Integration: The Committee acknowledges that the main request from the KNSDU relates to the integration of those it represent into the SANDF. The PCDMV does not find any justification for the re-opening of the integration process to accommodate former SACC Members, including those represented by KNSDU.This finding is based on the guiding legal principles at the time of integration, notably the Transitional Executive Council Act; legal findings by the North Gauteng High Court; recommendations by the Public Protector; the PCDMV’s own concerns raised around the KNSDU personnel list; contracting between SACC members and the SADF at the time; the fact that most SACC members on the KNSDU personnel list left the employ of the SANDF well before 1992; and further observations noted by Members of the Committee contained in section 6.1.
Assistance to SACC veterans: While the PCDMV does not recommend the reopening of the integration process, the Committee urges all former SACC members, including those represented by the KNSDU, to approach the DMV to be registered as veterans on the Military Veterans Database. Based on this registration, deserving military veterans will be allowed to access benefits through the Department, thus providing the necessary assistance to military veterans in need.
Cooperation to assist SACC veterans: The Committee urges closer cooperation between the KNSDU and the SACCMVA to ensure that all former SACC members receive adequate representation at the DMV. The Committee further encourages the SACCMVA, the SANMVA and the DMV to strengthen cooperation to ensure that services are provided to former SACC members.
Responsiveness from the DMV: The DMV is urged to ensure a quick turnaround time on applications from all military veterans, including former SACC members. Efforts to finalise the Military Veterans Database should be enhanced.
Gratitude to the DOD. The PCDMV wishes to extend its gratitude to the DOD for its assistance in the verification of the names submitted by the KNSDU to the PCDMV.
Report to be considered
No related documents