ATC210706: Report of the Select Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Water, Sanitation and Human Settlements on notice of Intervention issued in terms of Section 139(1)(B) of the Constitution (1996), in Umkhanyakude District Municipality, dated 6 July 2021
Report of the Select Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Water, Sanitation and Human Settlements on notice of Intervention issued in terms of Section 139(1)(B) of the Constitution (1996), in Umkhanyakude District Municipality, dated 6 July 2021
1. Background and Overview
1.1 The Select Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Water, Sanitation and Human Settlements, having considered the request by the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), to consider and report on the intervention notice invoked in Umkhanyakude District Municipality in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution, reports as follows:
1.2 In terms of NCOP Rule 101, the Office of the Chairperson of the NCOP referred the notice of intervention by KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, to the Select Committee for consideration and reporting. On the 6th of July 2021, the Select Committee had virtual meeting with the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs and the internal and external stakeholders of Umkhanyakude District Municipality.
1.3 The main objective of the virtual meeting was to interact with the Department and the stakeholders, in order solicit opinions on the constitutional, procedural and substantive matters related to the invoking of intervention in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution.
2. Briefing by the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs on the Invocation of Intervention in terms of Section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution in Umkhanyakude District Municipality
2.1 The KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs briefed the Select Committee on the invocation of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution in the District Municipality. The presentation focused on the background, substantive matters, support provided in terms of section 154 of the Constitution, resolution of the Provincial Executive Council (PEC), procedural matters and key factors impacting the intervention.
3.1 The MEC indicated that in October 2015, the PEC did take a resolution to intervene at Umkhanyakude District Municipality, in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution. The decision was informed by the assessment that for a number of years, the Municipality had been limping from one problem to another. The problems had been indicated by persistent governance, financial and service delivery challenges that the Municipality had been unable to resolve, despite provincial and national government support.
3.2 The Municipality subsequently made good progress in all key performance areas that informed the decision of the PEC to invoke the intervention in October 2015. As a result, the PEC terminated the intervention instituted in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution at Umkhanyakude District Municipality, on 15 November 2017.
3.3 However, due to chronic internal divisions amongst other reasons, the Municipality has slipped back to dysfunctionality, in spite of measures by CoGTA to support it in terms of section 154 of the Constitution. The current state of dysfunctionality calls for the re-invoking of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution, in order to restore some aspect of institutional stability, sound financial management, and effective service delivery.
3.4 The Municipality has become dysfunctional, despite support provided by the Provincial Department, Provincial Treasury and other government agencies. The Department of CoGTA provided various section 154 support measures to the Municipality, like the municipal support plan and municipal improvement plan. Over and above these measures, the MEC for CoGTA directed Municipal Finance on 09 July 2020 to urgently engage UMkhanyakude District Municipality on challenges overwhelming the Municipality regarding UIFW issues as well as the non-tabling of the investigation reports to Council.
3.5 The above was informed by the Auditor-General’s report that the Municipality is one of the top 3 contributors in the Province regarding UIFW, irregular expenditure in particular. This is indicative of its inability to implement section 32(2)(b) of the MFMA, read with the revised MFMA Circular 68, including relevant Treasury circulars and CoGTA Framework and implementing consequence management in terms of section 32(2)(b) of the MFMA.
3.6 Despite guidance, advice and support in terms of section 154 of the Constitution by the Department, the Municipality remained dysfunctional and regressed in financial management, oversight and governance. There was frequent and persistent breakdown of Council meetings, due to internal divisions within Council.
3.7 This was triggered by the suspension of the CFO by the Accounting Officer on 13 February 2020, and again on 11 March 2020, due to alleged maladministration, fraud and corruption. This also triggered allegations and counter-allegations of maladministration, fraud and corruption by the Mayor against the Accounting Officer, following the appointment of 3 security service providers in November 2019. The tension escalated further, and on 28 May 2020 the Council could not pass the IDP and budget due to internal divisions within the majority party.
4. Substantive Matters of the Intervention
4.1 Having provided a background, the MEC dealt with the substantive matters relating to the invocation of section 139(1)(b) in the Municipality. The substantive matters presented centred around governance and institutional matters, service delivery, financial viability and management.
5. Governance and Institutional Matters
5.1 The Municipality experienced challenges of frequent and persistent breakdown of Council meetings, due to internal divisions within the Council. This was triggered by the suspension of the CFO by the Accounting Officer on 13 February 2020, and again on 11 March 2020, due to alleged maladministration, fraud and corruption. This also triggered allegations and counter-allegations of maladministration, fraud and corruption by the Mayor against the Accounting Officer following the appointment of 3 security service providers in November 2019. The tension further escalated on 28 May 2020 when the Council could not pass the IDP and budget, due to internal divisions within the majority party. These sets of allegations and counter-allegations have led to the approval by the MEC of a section 106 investigation, on 15 June 2020, in an effort to get to the bottom of these serious allegations.
5.2 Furthermore, there are 4 forensic reports that have not been formally presented and acted upon accordingly in Council. These reports were done by Kellmar Consulting (13 August 2013), Jonologix (22 November 2016), Dludlu Attorneys (June 2019) and Nxumalo and Partners (04 June 2019). The forensic reports relate to UIFW expenditure since 2012, resulting in the cumulative total of R2,786 billion worth of UIFW expenditure and current R268 723 million which has been flagged by the Auditor-General as one of the top 3 municipalities in KwaZulu-Natal.
5.3 The allegations range from SCM irregularities, fleet management and abuse of Council resources for private gain. At a special MPAC meetings held on 21 July 2020 and 11 August 2020, all 4 forensic reports were seized by the Department of CoGTA, with a view towards analysis, disaggregation, deliberation, consequence management and disposal. At a Special MPAC meeting scheduled for 02 September 2020, the meeting could not proceed due to a lack of a quorum, but it was rescheduled for 07 September 2020. The rescheduled virtual MPAC took place as planned, to discuss the analysis, disaggregation and possible disposal of the UIFW. Due to the absence of Internal Audit during the deliberations, another MPAC meeting was to be reconvened to conclude these many outstanding matters.
5.4 The environment of internal instability, led to the recall of the Speaker by the majority party on 14 August 2020. It must be noted that the recalled Speaker who was due to resign formally, convened a Special Council meeting on 01 September 2020, to discuss the possible election of the new Speaker, as well as the final sanction against the suspended CFO. However, the scheduled meeting did not quorate, leading to yet another breakdown of a Council meeting, which implies that the Council is in limbo and dysfunctional. While there was evidence of sporadic sittings of EXCO and Portfolio Committees, it was extremely concerning that the last Council meeting was held on 13 July 2020 and the prospect of convening future Council meetings, given the heightened political temperature, was remote.
6. Financial Viability and Management
6.1 The Municipality experienced challenges in cash flow position, and resultant persistent failure to meet financial commitments. The cash flow situation in the Municipality deteriorated over the last two financial years. Although management had developed a cash flow plan, there is no commitment and urgency to take decisions that are critical to the sustainability of the institution. The 2019/20 financial information, as per the first draft of the AFS, shows a cash coverage of 0, 02 months, far below the National Treasury norm of 1-3 months. The Municipality does not have sufficient cash to meet is current or short-term obligations such as payments to creditors.
6.2 According to correspondence dated 01 September 2020 from Provincial Treasury, the Municipality’s 2020/21 approved budget was found to be unfunded in terms of section 18 of the MFMA, read with MFMA Circular 55. Incomplete information reflected on the MSCOA cash flow data strings pulled from the Municipality’s own financial systems showing a negative amount of R418 million as cash/ cash equivalent at year end.
6.3 Huge unfavorable working capital requirements, which implies that the Municipality’s projected creditor’s balance is much higher than the projected debtors balance, with a relative low collection rate of 65% as per the audited 2018/19 AFS.
6.4 Understated unspent conditional transfers which needs to be cash backed on the amounts reflected in the 2018/19 audited AFS. The Municipality was given up to 30 September 2020, to resubmit an adjustment budget in this regard.
6.5 In terms of the internal control environment, several indicators showed that the internal control environment in the Municipality remains weak. The management persistently fail to implement policies and procedures of the Municipality, leading to the ballooning of UIWF, expenditure currently sitting at R2, 786 billion. This points to a complete disregard of SCM policy framework and procedures. No regular reporting in terms of section 32 of the MFMA has been taking place, on deviations and UIFW expenditure.
6.6 As per the first draft AFS for 2019/20, the Municipality’s poor revenue collection recorded persisted at 41.64% against the norm/benchmark of 95% (Circular No 71 National Treasury, 17 January 2014). This collection rate of 41.64% is substantially down from the previous year of 65%, reflecting a downward trend in this regard.
6.7 According to the Status of Record Review (SORR) by the Office of the Auditor-General dated 24 March 2020, the Municipality consistently failed to respond to the audit action plan to track the progress being made in addressing the issues raised by the Auditor-General in the 2018/19 management letter and audit report. At the assessment conducted by the Provincial CoGTA on 11 August 2020, only about 23% of audit issues have been resolved with a portfolio of evidence.
6.8 As at 30 September 2020, creditors were not paid within 30 days, creditors days’ period is 122 days as per first draft AFS (Circular No 71 National Treasury, 17 January 2014). This was due to cash flow challenges caused by low collections of debt and poor financial management by the Municipality, to ensure financial sustainability. Creditor’s payment period of the Municipality is 122 days, far outside the norm of 30 days, and the total trade creditors as per the draft AFS for 2019/20 is around R172.824 million. The Municipality continues to ward off various creditors who are threatening to go to court, to force the Municipality to pay outstanding monies.
6.9 As at 30 September 2020, the current ratio which measures the Municipality’s ability to pay back its short term liabilities, was 1.04:1 against the norm of 1.5–2:1 (Circular No 71 National Treasury, 17 January 2014). This implies that the current ratio is slightly below the recommended norm by National Treasury.
7. Services Delivery
7.1 The Municipality’s compliance with reporting on infrastructure programmes is described as erratic. Particularly non-financial reports have not been forthcoming. Project management and supervision is poor. Although use is made of consultants, they too have to be supervised to ensure adequate monitoring and control over implementation of projects against project schedules.
7.2 The expenditure on repairs and maintenance as of 30 September 2020 was 0.86% of PPE (Property, Plant and Equipment), as extracted from the unaudited AFS for that financial year. This figure is substantially lower than the recommended norm of 8% (Circular No 71 National Treasury, 17 January 2014). This explains the current operations and maintenance challenges behind the spate of community protests over the past financial year.
7.3 The Municipality does not have a planned and preventative maintenance programme in place, and no funds to finance such a programme. Records of assets, their condition, locality and maintenance requirements are extremely limited, and at one stage had to be re-constructed as far as possible, from memory and consultant’s records. Consequently, this has a negative impact on confidence levels in the value placed on PPE.
7.4 About 40% or 60,483 households do not have a reliable source of water supply, due to poor operations and maintenance, water resource and infrastructural challenges. Poor water provision which has resulted in sporadic protest actions throughout the District. These community protests take a violent character in the area, resulting in the closure of N2, damage caused to provincial roads and burning of municipal buildings.
8. Support Measures Provided Prior Section 139 Intervention
8.1 The MEC advised and directed Municipal Finance on 09 July 2020, to urgently engage the Municipality on challenges overwhelming it regarding UIFW issues, as well as the non-tabling of the investigation reports to Council. The above was informed by the Auditor-General report that the Municipality is one of the top 3 contributors in the Province regarding UIFW, irregular expenditure in particular. This is indicative of its inability to implement section 32(2 (b) of the MFMA, read with the revised MFMA Circular 68, including relevant Treasury circulars and CoGTA Framework, and implementing consequence management in terms of section 32(2) (b) of the MFMA.
8.2 It is common cause that UIFW expenditure is incurred as a result of a failure to comply with legislation, regulations, SCM Policy and blatant disregard for controls, as well as Internal Audit and AGSA recommendations. In some cases, if not most, inadequate controls are put in place to ensure that Municipalities do not incur or pay exorbitant prices for goods and services thereby ensuring value for money, which results in fruitless & wasteful expenditure.
8.3 However, the UIFW expenditure in the Municipality has accumulated over the years due to non-tabling of the investigation reports that were commissioned as part of consequence management. The non-tabling of investigation reports is related to the ongoing acrimonious relationship between the Mayor and Accounting Officer. The purpose of the engagement was therefore to interrogate the Municipality about the non-tabling of the investigation reports, in order to deal with UIFW expenditure.
8.6 At the Local Government Branch Manco held on 26 October 2020, it became patently clear that it would take extraordinary measures for the Council meeting to sit. In this regard, a virtual session was scheduled between COGTA, led by the DDG and the Municipality, led by the Mayor with the Municipal Manager. During the subsequent engagement, the Mayor expressed grave reservations about COGTA’s approach and partiality on this matter. As a result, this initiative was aborted when it became patently clear that there was no political will to hold the Council meeting in view of the “motion of no confidence in the Mayor”, in spite of other critical compliance items on the agenda.
8.7 At the scheduled Council meeting on 27 October 2020, the meeting was cancelled due to a staged non-quorating by Councillors from the majority party. Members of the Youth League from the majority party demonstrated outside, in an effort to collapse the Council meeting. Given the heightened political stalemate, it was clear that extra-ordinary measures should be considered to hold a Council meeting in the Municipallity. Provincial Treasury indicated that National Treasury would not release equitable share funding in November 2020. Given that the Municipality is more than 90% grant reliant, the December salaries were not going to be paid and service delivery would grind to a halt, with dire consequences for communities within the Municipality.
8.8 As such, the dire state of affairs in the Municipality called for extraordinary measures to assist the Municipality, including advising both the Premier in his capacity as MEC Champion as well as the HOD Champion on the chronic governance and financial management and service delivery challenges in the Municipality. In particular, the impasse on the recall of the Speaker and subsequent failure to hold a Council sitting which translates to abdication of accountability, called for immediate solution.
9. Resolution of the Provincial Executive Council
9.1 On the basis of the serious challenges prevailing at the Municipality, the PEC resolved to intervene in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution, at the Municipality on 27 February 2021, by assuming the functions specified in terms of sections 51, 54A and 56 of the Municipal Systems Act as well as those related to financial management. The Executive Council also authorized the MEC for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs to appoint a suitably qualified person to implement the following terms of reference:
- To be a compulsory signatory on the Municipality’s primary bank account, and any other bank accounts that the Municipality may operate;
- Establishment and acting as Chairperson of the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to monitor and manage the cash flow of the Municipality, approve or disapprove purchase requisitions and to ensure that the Municipality’s cash position is not overdrawn;
- Ensure that the IFC meets regularly and reports fortnightly to the Executive Committee of Council on the cash flow position, payments approved and disapproved and commitments made (via approved purchase orders);
- Implement governance systems and procedures including oversight over the administration, ratification of decisions taken by the Municipal Council, the Executive Committee, Committees, Municipal Manager and Section 56 managers in terms of delegated or original authority;
- Ensuring the implementation of findings arising from any investigations into fraud or maladministration or corruption;
- Ensuring the finalization of UIFW expenditure reports and any consequence management, emanating from the outcome of the reports tabled with Council;
- Institute disciplinary processes contemplated in the Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers, 2010, and other disciplinary functions in respect of staff below senior managers contemplated in section 67 of the Municipal Systems Act; and
- Assume powers specified in section 29 and section 36 of the Municipal Structures Act.
10. Procedural Matters Related to Section 139
10.1 Section 139(2) of the Constitution requires that the Executive Council informs the Minister, the NCOP and the Legislature within 14 days after the intervention began. The Minister and the NCOP were informed of the resolution of the PEC as prescribed.
10.2 The Minister approved the intervention on 1 March 2021 which was more than the 28 days, while this oversight engagement forms part of the process by which the NCOP arrives at a decision. The decision of the NCOP must be made on or before the 27th of July 2021 (i.e. 180 days).
10.3 The MEC engaged the uMkhanyakude Municipal Council on 16 February 2021 virtually, to advise the Municipal Council of the decision of the PEC to intervene at the Municipality.
10.4 The MEC appointed the Ministerial Representative who prepared a detailed Recovery Plan. The Recovery Plan focuses on the three critical areas namely: Governance including Institutional Matters, Financial Recovery and Service Delivery matters. Progress made in the implementation of the Recovery Plan is contained in the Ministerial Representative’s Report.
10.5 CoGTA coordinates monthly Steering Committee meetings to monitor the implementation of the resolution of PEC and to coordinate support to the Municipality. Members of the Steering Committee include representatives from National Department of CoGTA, Provincial Treasury, SALGA amongst other representatives.
11. Key Factors Impacting the Implementation of the Intervention
11.1 On the Council meeting held on 11 March 2021, a motion of no confidence in the Mayor was tabled to Council. Before the item was presented to Council, the Ministerial Representative cautioned that this matter was not in line with the provisions of the legislation with regard to the removal of the Mayor. He cautioned that Council cannot remove the Mayor without strict adherence to the letter of the legislation. He explained the conditions in terms of section 48 of the Municipal Structures Act, under which the Mayor may be removed. These are (i) if he resigns as a member of the Executive Committee (ii) if he is removed.
11.2 After the motion was sustained, nominations for the vacant post were called by the Speaker. Councillor Mabika proposed the name of Councillorr T. Moodley as the new Mayor. His motion was supported and Councillor T. Moodley accepted the nomination.
11.3 Subsequent thereto, the Ministerial Representative notified the Municipal Manager on the non-ratification of the item on vote of no-confidence in the Mayor in a correspondence dated 14 March 2021. The net effect of the non-ratification is the spectre of two Mayors in Municipality. This scenario was toxic and untenable, as evidenced by both Mayors demanding to chair separate EXCO’s at the same time.
11.4 In an effort to get to the bottom of this matter, the Office of the HOD: COGTA, requested further engagement with Council on 24 March 2021. However, this engagement collapsed after the IFP component demanded proof that the intervention has been approved by the Minister, and the meeting descended into chaos and had to be called off.
11.5 As a result, a follow up virtual engagement was held with the Ministerial Representative and Municipal Manager to make their formal inputs for the record on their recollections of what transpired on 11 March 2021 during the removal of the Mayor. During this session, it transpired that the Municipality has sought a legal opinion to break the current impasse regarding two Mayors. The legal opinion essentially indicated that the removal of the former Mayor and the election of the new Mayor appears to be valid.
11.6 Subsequent thereto, the Ministerial Representative reconsidered the matter and approved the resolution of the Council to remove the Mayor, and the former Mayor accepted the decision of the Ministerial Representative.
11.7 There has been simmering tension between the Ministerial Representative and the Municipal Manager due to poor communication between them. Things came to the head when the Municipal Manager complained to the MEC for CoGTA on 04 May 2021 about the irregular opening of a separate bank account without his concurrence as Accounting Officer, allegedly in breach of the MFMA.
11.8 This matter became blown out of proportion when it was leaked to the media, particularly on SAFM. This prompted the HOD for COGTA to summon key stakeholders within COGTA, including the Ministerial Representative, in a teleconference on 07 May 2021 with a view to managing this serious matter that had manifested itself in the public domain. Following the teleconference, a decision was taken for the Chief Director: Municipal Finance to mediate the tension between the Ministerial Representative and the Municipal Manager.
11.9 The Municipal Council has been experiencing persistent challenges regarding Council meetings and the quorum for the meetings for a considerable stretch of time. The trend is either the Council meeting would not master the requisite quorum for a valid Council meeting, or a significant number of Councillors would stage a “walk-out” in protest against one thing or other. On the morning of 27 May 2021, the commotion started during the item of Leave of Absence when other Councillors proposed some penalty for the absent of Councillors without leave of absence; whilst other Councillors wanted the Council to approve applications for Leave of Absence. The Speaker ordered the meeting to proceed to the adoption of the agenda, then the orderliness of the meeting began to crumble; where after the IFP Whip asked for a short caucus which was allowed by the Speaker. On return from the caucus, the IFP Whip announced that the IFP component of the Council is withdrawing from the meeting, because they are not happy with the way the meeting is being conducted. They all left the Council Chamber. Subsequently, the Council lost the quorum.
12. Opinions of the Internal and External Stakeholders on Section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution in the District Municipality
12.1 The representative of Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) tabled an opinion that supported the invocation of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution in the District Municipality. The representative raised concerns about the non-attendance of five Council meetings by five ANC members, and the failure of the MEC for CoGTA to respond to the compliant letter on the matter. The representative further raised concerns about political instability, lack of consequence management, Council failure to consider and adopt forensic investigation report, failure of the Speaker to put on Council agenda motions of no-confidence, maladministration and the political agenda of the Administrator.
12.2 The representative of the African National Congress (ANC) tabled an opinion that supported the invocation of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution in the District Municipality. The representative raised concerns about the non-attendance of the five Councillors to Council meetings without apologies, failure of the Municipal Manager to submit reports, irregular payments of service providers and non-compliance of supply chain management processes, as a result of administrative actions.
12.3 The representative of the African Independent Congress (AIC), tabled an opinion that supported the invocation of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution in the District Municipality. The representative raised concerns with regard to lack of consequence management, failure to adopt the budget, non–tabling forensic investigation reports selective approach of tabling motions of no confidence and non-attendance of Council meetings by Councillors, both IFP and ANC.
12.4 The representative of the South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) tabled an opinion that supported the intervention in the District Municipality. The representative raised concerns about the non-functionality of the local labour forum, unfunded budget, political interference in the administration, corruption since 2014 and motions to remove their current political leadership, within the District Municipality.
13. Select Committee Observations and Opinion
13.1 In terms of the constitutional and procedural requirements, the Select Committee has noted that the Minister for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs and the Chairperson of the NCOP were notified of the intervention on 27 February 2021, and that the Minister approved the intervention on 1 March 2021, which was more than the 28 days’ window period.
13.2 The Select Committee has further noted that the substantive matters relating to the invocation of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution revolve around the Municipal’s failures and challenges related to governance and transformation; financial viability and management as well as service delivery.
13.3 The Select Committee has noted with concerns the failure of the Municipality to implement the findings and recommendations of the 4 commissioned forensic investigations, from 2012 to 2019.
13.4 The Select Committee has also noted that the MEC has commissioned an investigation in terms of section 106 of the Municipal Systems Act. The investigation has been finalized and approved by the MEC. However, the forensic report has not been tabled to Council, due to the Council instability and collapse of Council meetings.
13.5 The Select Committee has noted with concerns political instability, non –compliance of code of conduct by councilors, lack of consequence management, lack of service delivery, non–sitting of meetings, non-tabling of forensic investigation reports.
13.6 The Select Committee has noted that all the political parties, including organized labour, supported the invocation of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution in the District Municipality. The Select Committee is of the opinion that the invocation of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution in the District Municipality, is justifiable on substantive matters as contained in the notice of intervention tabled to the NCOP, and referred in terms of Rule 101.
14.1 Having solicited the opinions of the KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, political parties and organized labour of the District Municipality, the Select Committee recommends as follows:
14.1.1 The NCOP approves the intervention in Umkhanyakude District Municipality in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution.
14.1.2 The appointed Administrator should, in line with the terms of reference, fast-track the implementation of the findings arising from any investigations into fraud, maladministration and corruption.
14.1.3 The KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs should table the report of the commissioned investigation in terms of section 106 of the Local Government: Municipal System Act to the NCOP.
14.1.4 The Ministerial Representative from the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, should work together with the offices of the Speaker and the Mayor to prioritize the passing of the municipal Integrated Development Plan and budget, in the interest of the provision of services to the community.
14.1.5 The KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs should table quarterly progress reports on the implementation of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution, including the implementation of the findings and recommendations of the previous commissioned investigations reports to the NCOP.
14.1.6 The Select Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, together with the relevant Portfolio Committee in the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Legislature, should monitor progress in respect of the implementation of the recommendations of the Select Committee and the resolution of the NCOP.
Report to be considered.
No related documents