Public Protector Vacancy: shortlising

Meeting report

* Please note that the beginning of this meeting was missed due to technical difficulties experienced during the livestream. The opening comments of the Committee were captured by a journalist who attended the meeting. The journalist’s comments have been paraphrased and included in brackets. *

(Members debated how many names should be shortlisted. From that shortlist, nominees would be vetted. Members would then deliberate on those CVs and make a decision from there.

The Committee agreed to shortlisting eight candidates, but the EFF objected to this proposal. The EFF said it is clear that some parties have their favourites.)

Mr G Hendricks (Al Jama-ah) said that the Chairperson’s proposal did not meet the muster of professionalism. The Chairperson was asking the Members to vote, and some parties did not have a vote. This was in itself a problem. The Chairperson was asking the Members to nominate eight candidates. It was quite obvious that those would be political appointees of the different political parties. It also meant that some of the nominees would not meet some of the inherent requirements of the job, which for Al Jama-ah was important. The Committee should not waste its time interviewing the people who did not meet the inherent requirements of the job but had been nominated by parties for political reasons so that those nominees could be favoured later on. Al Jama-ah felt that the 38 shortlisted candidates needed to go through a further process. The Committee needed to get assurance from the support staff that all 38 candidates met the inherent requirements of the job. Otherwise, the process would continue to be flawed. Al Jama-ah could not support that motion.

Ms M Tlhape (ANC) agreed with the proposal before the Committee. She agreed with the proposed number of eight nominees. She discussed the document for the proposed shortlisting process. Point four said, ‘In this regard, the alternate Members will participate through or via the permanent Members’. The indication the Committee got from the Chairperson was that this was an individual-member process, not a party process. Hence, the proposal said that every Member should look at the candidates and shortlist a maximum of eight. When she shortlisted, she would be looking at the proposed guiding principles of character, experience, knowledge, and skills. She did not think that the shortlisting process was predetermined or determined by parties. It would be individual Members who would nominate. She believed that point four covered the smaller parties. Nothing stopped an alternate Member from approaching and consulting a permanent Member. The individual Members had gone through the information of shortlisted candidates.

Mr E Buthelezi (IFP) said that the Chairperson should not allow certain Members to cast aspersions that the candidates were selected by parties. That was not true. Not a single candidate on the list was nominated by the IFP. It was his first time seeing the candidates. Whoever he would propose was on the basis of the interviews and motivations.

The Chairperson said that the Committee agreed that it will shortlist a maximum of eight candidates. The Chairperson asked the Members to present their list of nominees to the Committee.

Mr G Magwanishe (ANC) said that based on the criteria that the Committee had adopted, guided by the Chairperson, he had a list of nominees. He nominated Adv Gcaleka, Adv Thipanyane, Adv Josie, and Adv Marais.

Ms Y Yako (EFF) nominated Ms Muvhango Lukhaimane.

Mr Buthelezi nominated Adv Ntsewa, Adv Mancotywa, Adv Mbangeni, Adv Mbhansa, Ms Lukhaimane, Adv Thipanyane, Adv Mekwa, and Prof Mmusinyane.

Ms J Mananiso (ANC) nominated Adv Gcaleka, Adv Ntsewa, Adv Thipanyane, Ms Ledwaba, Adv Maleka, Prof Mmusinyane, Ms Muvhango Lukhaimane, and Adv Marais.

Ms Tlhape nominated Adv Thipanyane, Adv Gcaleka, Adv Marais, Adv Josie, and Ms Lukhaimane.

Mr W Wessels (FF+) nominated Adv Josie, Ms Ledwaba, Adv Marais, Ms Lukhaimane, Adv Ntsewa, Adv Thipanyane, and Adv Zimema.

Dr M Gondwe (DA) said that later the DA would voice its objections to some of the candidates who had been nominated.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would now do the shortlisting. The Committee would first consider how many times each name had been nominated.

Mr Hendricks asked which permanent Member represented the smaller parties. He wanted to know which nominations that Member had put forward to the Committee. The voices of the smaller parties also needed to be heard. He wanted to know who the permanent Member was for Al Jama-ah because they had not been consulted.

The Chairperson noted that Mr Buthelezi and Mr Wessels both represented the smaller parties. He said that Mr Hendricks raised a reasonable objection and asked that Mr Hendricks be consulted.

Mr Buthelezi said that Mr Hendricks nominated Adv Gcaleka.

The Chairperson said that the Committee could now shortlist. The Committee considered how many times each name had been nominated. The Members had looked at the CVs against the guidelines that had been adopted by the Committee this morning. The eight candidates that were nominated the most were Ms Lukhaimane (5 nominations), Adv Thipanyane (5 nominations), Adv Marais (4 nominations), Adv Gcaleka (4 nominations), Adv Josie (3 nominations), Adv Ntsewa (3 nominations), Ms Ledwaba (2 nominations), and Prof Mmusinyane (2 nominations). He noted that a few Members had not participated in the process. The eight shortlisted candidates were the outcome of the Committee’s process. The Chairperson asked if the Committee was happy with the shortlist. He noted that if any Member still felt strongly that a name should be included on the shortlist that they would be allowed to motivate why that name should be included in the final shortlist. If the Members were happy, that would be the final shortlist.

Mr Hendricks thanked the Chairperson for giving Al Jama-ah an opportunity to have its voice heard. In deciding the Public Protector, the gender question came in. He wanted to know whether the candidates on the shortlist were 50% men and 50% women. If not, then the process would be of concern. He noted that the last two Public Protectors were females. There might be a chance for a male to be the Public Protector. The Committee needed to ensure that half of the shortlist were females and half were males.

The Chairperson said that there needs to be representation in the shortlist. He noted that there were four men and four women on the shortlist. He checked with each political party if they were happy with the shortlist. No political parties raised objections to the eight candidates shortlisted. The Committee now had a final shortlist. The Chairperson thanked all of the people who had participated in the process up to this point. He thanked the public who had nominated and commented on all the candidates. The Committee appreciated the work done by Corruption Watch. It had commented on almost all of the names. The candidates had completed a questionnaire, which assisted the process. The Chairperson thanked the Members for their work.

Consideration and adoption of minutes

The Committee considered the draft minutes of the meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee to nominate a person for appointment as Public Protector, dated 12 July 2023.

Mr R Dyantyi (ANC) moved for the adoption of the minutes.

Ms Mananiso seconded the adoption of the minutes.

The minutes were adopted by the Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.