Council on Military Veterans Report; Oversight report to landline borders; with Deputy Minister

This premium content has been made freely available

Defence and Military Veterans

10 February 2021
Chairperson: Mr V Xaba (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

In a virtual meeting, the Committee held a discussion with former members of the Advisory Council on Military Veterans whose term of office had expired the previous October. The former members complained of a lack of policy on issues affecting liberation war veterans. They said their recommendations were ignored and there were gaps in the legislation affecting military veterans. They also raised the issue of different benefits for liberation war veterans and veterans of the former statutory forces of the county.

Committee Members raised concerns that a new Advisory Council had not yet been appointed. They were also concerned about a lack of clear policy and that the composition of the Council could lead to a conflict of interest, given the preponderance of liberation war veterans on the Council.

The Deputy Minister of Defence and Military Veterans assured the Committee that the issues raised by the former Council members were being addressed. He said a new Council would be in place within days. 

The Committee considered and adopted a report on oversight visits by a delegation from the two Parliamentary Defence Committees to 1 Military Hospital, the main Army Ordnance Sub-depot, Air Force Base Waterkloof and various points along South Africa’s borders where soldiers were deployed.

The Committee said delays in refurbishing 1 Military Hospital were unacceptable. It expected an update on the progress to address the challenges at the hospital on a quarterly basis. One of the main challenges of the hospital was that it must outsource certain services for various reasons, leading to exorbitant amounts being spent on these services. The Committee recommended that this issue should be addressed by completing the construction and repair projects in order to attract and retain much needed medical specialists.

The Committee expressed its concern about the ageing fleet of aircraft of the various squadrons at AFB Waterkloof and the condition of the infrastructure and equipment at the base. It would engage the relevant stakeholders to assist the South African Air Force to address these challenges.

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed Members to the virtual meeting and read out the agenda for the day. He briefly touched on the visits that were conducted by the Committee the previous year at different border posts and military bases around the country.

Briefing by the Advisory Council on Military Veterans on its Report for the Term (December 2015 to June 2020)

The Chairperson asked the Deputy Minister of Defence and Military Veterans to address the issue that the term of office of the Advisory Council on Military Veterans had expired the previous year and a new one had not yet been appointed. He asked about the process of appointing a new council.

The Deputy Minister, Mr Thabang Makwetla, said that he was not sure what to say regarding the new Advisory Council, because the meeting had not been convened by the Defence Ministry. It was a discussion that had been requested by the Committee. He said the Department of Defence was working on resolving some of the matters that had been raised by military veterans. Some of the shortcomings could be attributed to gaps in legislation which led to a lack of decisive action.

The Chairperson said that the Council had a mandate to report on its findings and its report must be made public annually. He said he was concerned about the composition of the Council which was mostly made up of military veterans. This could lead to a conflict of interest. The Council was tasked with advising the Minister and the Director-General. It was not a good arrangement. The Council was advising the executive and at the same time giving advice to the administrative branch. What, for example, would happen if the administration did not heed advice?

The Chairperson asked Members to give their input on the matter.

Discussion

Mr M Shelembe (DA) said he did not understand the composition of the Advisory Council. The Council was appointed in 2015 and their term of office had ended the previous October. He was concerned that there was now no council. Was there a timeframe for the election of a new Council? In most instances there was a 90-day period for handover.

Mr Shelembe said he was concerned about the Council’s travel costs. They had requested that they be entitled to Business Class air travel, yet the country was dealing with Covid-19 and stringent measures had to be taken. He asked about the remuneration of council members. How were their allowances paid and what were they based on? He raised concerns about the composition of the Council, and asked if these issues could be clarified.

Ms A Beukes (ANC) said that the report by the Council should be used as a guideline by the committee to address loopholes. There was a need to look at the challenges faced by the council.

The Chairperson said former members of the Council could inform the committee about the time that they spent in the Council. He asked them to address the committee.

Responses

Mr Andile Apleni, a member of the previous Council, said that they were of the view that they were going to make a presentation to the committee on their findings. He told the Committee the report was formulated to give the committee an understanding of what was going on and was not a grievance report. There were issues which had not been resolved. It was important to understand the background of some of the grievances that were being raised. For instance, there was a need for legislation to make a distinction between liberation war veterans and veterans of the former statutory forces of South Africa and TBVC homelands in the allocation of benefits.

Mr Apleni said the Advisory Council developed the terms of reference to regulate its conduct and deliverables. This was submitted to the Minister, who made a few comments. The Council made the changes and sent the document back to the Minister but up to now the document had not been signed.

The Advisory Council decided on a structural way of dealing with matters that arose and there were three committees to deal with these issues. The Military Veterans Act provided the procedure for appointing Council members. The Minister called for nominations.  The procedure did not allow them to represent their own constituencies, because they were selected after their application for the posts.

Mr Obbey Mabena, a former Council member, said the Council had wished for a sitting with the committee for a long time. He said the Act was straightforward on the issues of veterans and the confusion was in the military department. He said that the Act addressed the issues of two categories of military veterans in South Africa and it was clear. Veterans of former statutory forces were enjoying all the benefits from the State, but the case was different for liberation war veterans, For example, he himself did not receive any financial benefit for the 16 years that he was fighting for the country and upon his return to the country, it was the same case.

Mr Mabena was of the view that the Advisory Council should be reporting back to the committee, but it was unfortunate that the resources that they were given did not yield desired results. He said that the Minister showed no interest in solving the problems that were being faced by the military veterans. The election of the Advisory Council was just a formality, because the Minister did not consult with the Council, the recommendations that they gave to the Minister were not taken into consideration and they had not had more than five meetings with the Minister during the five years of their term. .

The Council was there to advise the Minister and the Director-General.

Mr Mabena said there were people who were not yet included in the database of veterans because of the strenuous process involved. He raised his concern about how Directors-General have acted on the issue of education support. In 2017, an Acting Director-General approached the Council with a policy on how to deal with the issue of education of the dependants of veterans. The problem with the policy was that it had been signed already. The Council demanded a meeting with the Minister and the policy was withdrawn which resulted in a new policy being drawn up.However, nothing had happened because of the different approaches by the Directors-General.

Mr Mabena ended by saying that the Council was created to serve a purpose, but it had not achieved that because people in the Defence Department had their own agendas. This had impacted the work of the Council. Ideas presented by the Council were never acknowledged. The Council had approached the Military Veterans Appeals Board in many instances, but the Department ignored the decisions, and this has resulted in many liberation war veterans owing school fees. Mr Mabena said that he did not understand the role of the Deputy Minister. The Director General was in cahoots with the Minister and this made it difficult for the Council to raise concerns. Most of the issues were supposed to have been addressed a long time ago and an audit should be done at the Department in order for the committee to know exactly what was going on. If there was no forensic audit, a lot of criminality would go unnoticed.

Dr Snuki Zikalala, a former Council member, thanked the Committee for inviting them to the meeting. The Defence Department was a difficult one to manage and the Council had found that there were no policies to deal with housing, education, and health. The Council set up these policies because the Department was only working on regulations. It was painful to see state war veterans were in now. Criticism was appreciated by the Council, but the core of the matter was to make sure that the veterans are taken care of. Dr Zikalala pleaded with the committee to hold the department accountable.

The Chairperson reminded members that the matters being raised were not new and former council members should not be long in explaining because the matters were well documented.

Mr Kabelo Bokala, a former Council member, said that there was no conflict of interest in how the Advisory Council on Veterans was appointed, because the process was fair. The fact that the members had their rights to protect was not a problem, because once they were appointed, they did not represent themselves but the entire community of veterans. Mr Bokala explained that the Council had done research on the former South African Defence Force (SADF). It was a statutory structure which was structured in a different way from the liberation war veterans’ structures. The criteria on who should be elected to serve on the Council were clearly stated in the Act.

Ms Dudu Phama, former Council member, said it was true that the Act of 2011 had some defects and there was work to be done by the Council. The council was only appointed in 2015 and time had elapsed. The separation of benefits between the statutory forces and the liberation war veterans should be emphasised. Decent housing is a necessity for the liberation war veterans, and they wanted ownership of the houses. The system being used at the Title Deeds Office was not in favour of the veterans.

Ms Vuyiswa Lieta, a former Council member, supported the concerns raised by previous speakers. She said that liberation war veterans were dying in poverty and were not receiving any benefits. They were not able to have access to health facilities together with their spouses.

The Chairperson thanked the former Council members for raising their concerns during the meeting and asked the Deputy Minister to respond to some of the matters.

The Deputy Minister acknowledged that there were a lot of issues to be dealt with. It would be important for the committee to have a clear sense of what is going on now together with what was to be understood as the role of the department.

He said that the Act implied that after a call for nominations was put out, there must be a period of at least three months to allow submissions to be accepted, and that had not been happening. There was no direction being followed. Deputy Minister Makwetla told the Committee that nominations had been done, and the new Advisory Council should have been in place now, but the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions had caused some delays. The new council was supposed to have been in office on 1 October, 2020. The long list of nominations was with the Minister and submissions had been made on the final list. It was only a matter of days before the council was named.

On the matter of Business Class travel for the Council members, it had been raised before, and the National Treasury had recommended that it should be cut.

Some of the matters being raised by the former Council members fell within the work of the previous oversight committee and they had been dealt with by the Ministry. Issues could not be dealt with retrospectively because it caused more problems. He gave an example of a policy meeting in 2017 on education. To discuss those decisions now would not assist because the decisions could not be reversed. The measures taken back then were appropriate, but looking at the current circumstances, things might be different now.

Provinces were being consulted on how to deal with education, health and housing issues that affected military veterans.

The Deputy Minister said that the defects in the legislation were being dealt with by the Department. They were doing their best to solve the challenges. The committee should prepare for this discussion so that presentations could be made.

In relation to the way that the Advisory Council functioned, the Deputy Minister said that its operations should ordinarily have been articulated in the Act, but because of the absence of guidance on how it must function, it was decided that the Council should work on its terms of reference. It was not the ideal situation, but it did happen in many instances. The presence of the Council was a great initiative because they were involved in the processes and their expertise was of great value.

The Deputy Minister raised concerns about members of the Council being drawn from one pool, war veterans. He said that was a problem. The Council could be made up of people with different backgrounds and expertise to deal with the different issues.

Mr Derrick Mgwebi, acting Director-General, Department of Military Veterans, responded to the question of remuneration. Members of the council were paid only for attending meetings. 

The Chairperson noted that the issue of amending the legislation was urgent. The regulations did not solve some of the issues and this had led to the terms of reference being developed.

On the composition of the Council, he maintained that there was a potential conflict of interest, because the members were affected directly by issues they dealt with. Some policies needed to be reviewed and in instances where there were no policies, the department should consider implementing policies. The database should be updated, but people should not be left out of the database without reasons.

The Chairperson noted that the committee was aware of issues concerning benefits paid to some people. The matter would be dealt with.

He thanked the former Council members for attending the meeting and assured them that their grievances would be taken into consideration.

Report of the PC on Defence and Military Veterans on its visit to the landline borders

Mr Peter Daniels, Committee Content Advisor, presented a draft report on oversight visits conducted by the Parliamentary Defence Committees. It said the primary aim was for them to familiarise themselves with the conditions at three military bases, and especially circumstances under which  soldiers were deployed along South Africa’s land borders as part of Operation Corona. The latter was necessitated by various challenges on the borders that had been reported in the media, but especially by the SANDF, during briefings to the Defence Committees.

On Friday, 27 November 2020, the Delegation visited 1 Military Hospital, after which it conducted a site visit at the SA Army Main Ordnance Sub-depot. On Saturday, 28 November 2020, it was briefed by the leadership of Air Force Base Waterkloof on the various aspects requested by the Defence Committees. After initial delays, the Delegation was flown to the Musina Airstrip to conduct a site visit to the border between South Africa and Zimbabwe around the Beit Bridge area. The Delegation was subsequently flown to Malalane air strip where it received a briefing at a facility at the Lebombo Border post near Komatipoort. On 29 November 2020, the Delegation was taken to the Lebombo Border Post at the Mozambican border where South African soldiers were deployed. Subsequently, the Delegation was flown to Kosi Bay airstrip and taken by an SA Air Force Oryx helicopter to the border posts where soldiers were deployed, and later flown to Richards Bay Airport to depart for AFB Waterkloof.

On the oversight visit to 1 Military Hospital on 27 November 2020, Brig Gen Mokakiatla Skosana, General Officer Commanding, provided an update on the following: the Repair and Maintenance Programme (RAMP); activities of the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI); outsourcing; and challenges and achievements. It was indicated that some of the questions around the RAMP could not be fully responded to at the level of the unit, as it resorted under the Logistics Division.

The Unit was primarily mandated to provide a specialist health service to develop and maintain military health capabilities of the SANDF. The mandate is executed with the expressed purpose of providing Combat-ready military health forces and providing an Executive Military Health Support Service to the President of the Republic of South Africa. The secondary mandate of 1 Military Hospital was  to provide health support to other approved clientele. It was utilised as a level 4 hospital for the United Nations and Southern African Development Community VIP’s.

Achievements included the completion and commission of the seventh floor as an isolation facility with ICU, high-care and renal unit capabilities, as well as the subcontracting of the Development Bank of South Africa (DBSA ) for the Total Facility Management of the hospital.

It was recommended that the refurbishment of 1 Military Hospital should be completed with immediate effect. Among the challenges were deficiencies in command line management. It was therefore recommended that people placed in managerial positions at all levels in the organisation should possess a management qualification, skills knowledge, and experience.

The delegation commended the newly built ICU/Covid-19 isolation ward, which was fitted with medical equipment which met international medical standards.

The Delegation enquired about the retention strategy for artisans trained by the Defence Works Formation (DWF), and whether this was effective. It was indicated that the training of professionals was  being conducted in partnership with the DBSA and that so far this had reaped the necessary benefits. Outside of this project, the normal Department of Defence (DOD) Human Resources stipulations applied.

The oversight visit to the SA Army Main Ordnance Sub-depot Wallmansthal (MOSDW), which used to be called 4 Vehicle Reserve Park (4VRP), was conducted after the site visit to 1 Military Hospital. The Delegation was welcomed by Brig Gen Stroebel and the presentation was done by Lt Col M.W. Antonio, the Officer Commanding. The Co-chairperson, Mr Nchabeleng, explained the purpose of the oversight visit and indicated that if, due to time constraints, all the questions were not answered, they should be responded to in writing. He requested that they proceed with the presentation.

The delegation was concerned about the limited scope of the presentation, given that it expected a broader update report on the Project Thusano vehicle repair programme. It was indicated that the assumption was that the General Officer Commanding (GOC) would brief the Defence Committees on Operation Thusano, and the selected site was only for the delegation to see the actual activities.

Given that reference was only made to t12 SANDF members, the delegation enquired about the time period and the total number of SANDF members. It was indicated that the numbers were only for the unit and that more members were involved in Operation Thusano around the country.

The area surrounding the unit was subject to land claims and questions around it solicited the response that this had been finalised, but that there were certain security challenges given the proximity of the community members.

Brig Gen J Butler, acting GOC, AFB Waterkloof, along with his top structure, briefed the delegation on the following issues, as requested by the Delegation:

The mandate was to support light, medium and VVIP transport operations as required by stakeholders in support of governmental, domestic and foreign policies by ensuring combat readiness of AFB Waterkloof for both force preparation and force employment. An organogram of the base with its various units was presented and this included the four operational squadrons, the two reserve squadrons and the four support units. The flying squadrons included 21 Squadron which was responsible for the air transport of VVIP dignitaries, including the Presidency and the Ministries; 28 Squadron was composed of six C130 Hercules aircraft for medium lift transport and external deployments.

It was emphasised that AFB Waterkloof was a concessionary port of entry and a strategic military facility. It was not not a National Key Point (NKP). It coordinated its activities with the Department of International Relations and Cooperation; the Department of Home Affairs; Customs; the Department of Health (Port Health); the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; the South African Police Service (Border Police); and the Independent Communications Authority of SA.

Challenges with the runway included the Airfield Lighting; cabling that was not available locally; natural hazards such as lightning strikes, fire and sinkholes; and water drainage on the airfield. Emergency Services included a Category 7 fire vehicle and an ambulance service with personnel that was on 24/7 standby. Base Support Services had encountered vandalism of their fuel decanting facility at Lyttelton. The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) infrastructure had been stolen which led to the unavailability of rail delivery. Obsolete main equipment for the base included fuel points, trucks, specialised roadworks and maintenance and machinery. The hangars were also very old and required ongoing maintenance and repair. Security related issues included the non-availability of CCTV camera systems; poor access control systems; a lack of canine capability; and a lack of security vehicles.

The delegation enquired about gender representation, given the few females present during the engagement, and encouraged the SAAF to ensure that they improved on this important dimension. The delegation expressed the view that it wanted to see an improvement in this regard in a year’s time.

On the visit to the Beit Bridge area on 28 November 2020, the delegation was met by representatives of the Joint Operations Division at the Musina airfield. The presentation was done by Lt Col Tigele at the Musina Operational Base. After the presentation the Delegation was driven in modified Toyota Land cruisers, which they called “mobility packs” along the Beit Bridge border with Zimbabwe, after which the Delegation boarded the Casa aircraft at the Musina airstrip, enroute to the Malalane airstrip near Komatipoort.

The Delegation was orientated with the assistance of maps that outlined the various land borderline areas in the country and specifically where the companies of 9 SA Infantry Battalion were deployed along the Zimbabwean border. The various distances from Polokwane to the border areas were also pointed out, as well as the distances that every company was covering. The strength of each of the four companies and the battalion headquarters were also shown, as well as the ports of entry in the area of operation.

Delegates were told that there is a good understanding between the forces on the borderline and some farmers, to the extent that some offer accommodation to soldiers. However, farms that extended to the border fence were a concern as SANDF members had to request keys to drive through the gates on the patrol road. The local community was positive towards the SANDF and most assisted by reporting crime. Some were related to undocumented persons which resulted in them harbouring them. The relationship with members of the informal settlements along the border was good, especially at Marooi and Maswiri farms.

On the visit to the Komatipoort Border area on 28 and 29 November 2020 Col MS Gopane, the Officer Commanding Joint Tactical Headquarters, Mpumalanga, and Brig Gen N. Bavuma, Director, Joint Operational Headquarters, as well as other leadership elements, received the Delegation at the airstrip in Malelane and escorted them to a facility near the border post to present their briefing on Mpumalanga border issues.

The delegation was shown pictures of various initiatives which included the repair of a school fence, painting of ablution facilities and the building of a preschool in the Lillydale location. Other activities included the handing over of presents to children over the Christmas period, as well as the donation of food at a Care Centre in which they were assisted by the local Spar.

There was an inadequate number of personnel to cover the Area of Responsibility in relation to the distance that needed to be covered, as well as the illegal crossing points. The latter were also used by children to attend school in the RSA. Some of the main challenges were the poor condition of the border fence, the inadequate number of vehicles, which were also aged, and the lengthy procurement processes for operationally required items such as tyres.

Questions were asked about how children from across the border could attend school in the RSA, against the background that children needed to be enrolled by their parents. It was explained that this was an ongoing situation that had been allowed. Registers were kept at the crossing points to ensure orderly crossing and this was based on a bilateral agreement between the two countries. The example of Pela in the Northern Cape, where children attended school in Namibia, was also used to illustrate that these crossings were not necessarily illegal and were based on relevant agreements between countries.

The committee visited the Kosi Bay area on 29 November 2020. The delegation was met at the Kosi airstrip by, amongst others, Maj General S.L. Sangweni, GOC Joint Operational Headquarters,  Col M. Albertyn, OC Joint Tactical Headquarters Kwazulu-Natal, and Col M.W. J. van Wyk. OC 10 Anti-Air Regiment. The Delegation was taken to the Umhlabuyalingana Municipal Offices where the presentation was conducted by Col Albertyn after a few introductory remarks by Maj Gen Sangweni.

Delegates were told that the forces rotated every six months. The Battalion Headquarters were in Pongola. One company was deployed along the RSA/Eswatini border, where activities included the combating the smuggling of vehicles, goods and contraband, and the arrest of undocumented persons. The second company was deployed along the RSA/Mozambican border where activities included combating illegal crossing, smuggling, game poaching, and vehicle crossings. The third company was deployed along the RSA/Lesotho border where activities included dealing with undocumented persons, stock theft, and the smuggling of dagga and weapons. he Battalion strength was 540 with 140 being females.

Members enquired about the kind of fence that had been erected along the border that was not covered by the Kruger National Park (KNP). It was indicated that it was a normal agricultural fence and that the ideal would be to have a fence like that used by the KNP.

Recommendations by the Defence Committee on 1 Military Hospital were that the continued challenges around the RAMP project and related projects were unacceptable, and the delegation expected an update on the progress to address the challenges at the hospital on a quarterly basis. One of the main challenges of the hospital was that it must outsource certain services for various reasons, leading to exorbitant amounts being spent on these services. The Committee recommended that this issue should be addressed by completing the construction and repair projects in order to attract and retain much needed medical specialists.

The non-finalisation of the RAMP project between 2006 and 2015 was of major concern and required thorough investigation. The Committee would request the Auditor-General to do a full forensic investigation of all expenditure, progress, and consequence management in the on 1 Military Hospital refurbishment between 2006 and 2015.

The Committee expressed its concern about the ageing fleet of aircraft of the various squadrons at AFB Waterkloof, the condition of the infrastructure and equipment at the base and endeavoured to engage the relevant stakeholders to assist the SAAF to address these challenges.

A meeting should be scheduled with the KZN Provincial Government to engage with them on the management of the KZN borders. Consideration should also be given to invite the Tracker company and other insurance companies to a discussion about their efforts to address the smuggling of vehicles across the borders and how the involvement of such companies could be facilitated.

The lack of sufficient and adequate air support was raised, especially when urgent deployment to a hot spot or emergency was required and especially where the terrain did not allow quick movement on land. The delegation undertook to engage the DOD to investigate whether more such support could be facilitated.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Daniels for the detailed report. The report was adopted.

After adoption of the minutes of Committee previous meetings, the meeting was adjourned.

 

 

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: