Mpati Commission of Inquiry Report: National Treasury & PIC briefing (meeting postponed)

Meeting report

Apologies were tendered by Mr N Nkwankwa (UDM). The Chairperson noted that neither the Minister or Deputy Minister were present. 

Mr F Shivambu (EFF) asked for clearer context for the meeting. He thought that the Committee was receiving the Mpati Report but instead that members had been given presentations from the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) and Treasury and not the report itself. He noted that some legislation was awaiting the Committee’s reception of the Report. He wanted to know why Justice Mpati was not presenting the Report. 

The Chairperson replied that the report had been handed over to the President, and thus the Commission had ceased to exist. The President had thus delegated the report to the Minister of Finance for presentation to Parliament. 

The Chairperson noted that the PIC on its own could not deal with the Report, and political leadership was needed to be involved in the presentation process.

Mr Shivambu noted that when Justice Nugent finished the SARS Report, he came to Parliament to present the Report. Some of the issues involved legislative recommendations, which could not be recommended to Parliament by the PIC. 

The Chairperson asked for legal input on this matter. 

Adv Frank Jenkins, Senior Parliamentary Legal Adviser, noted that the Commission had come to an end after reporting to the President and thus would not present to Parliament. He recalled that Parliament could, however, ask anyone to the Committee to give input. 

Mr Shivambu restated his point about Justice Nugent’s presentation after the SARS report. He repeated that legislative recommendations had been made by the Commission, and thought Justice Mpati would be best placed to give input. 

The Chairperson noted that the implementing authority for the Report was the President and the Presidency, not the Commission or Parliament. He doubted that the Mpati Commission was in a state to be called back to Parliament. He proposed that it was proper that the Minister or Deputy Minister be involved in the presentation. 

Adv Jenkins agreed with Mr Shivambu that Justice Mpati would be best placed to give input on recommendations. 

The Chairperson emphasised that there was likely no other opportunity to schedule the meeting. He registered his concern over the absence of the political leaders of the Department. 

Mr G Hill-Lewis (DA) argued that it was totally unacceptable that the Minister and Deputy Minister were not available. He proposed that the meeting should nevertheless continue given the scale of tasks relating to the PIC. 

Mr W Wessels (FF+) agreed with Mr Hill-Lewis and Mr Shivambu. He echoed that it was essential for a political head of National Treasury to be in attendance. The Committee needed answers about why there had been such a delay in implementing recommendations contained in the report. He repeated Mr Shivambu’s point about including members of the Mpati Commission in a subsequent meeting. He proposed continuing with the meeting. 

Ms P Abraham (ANC) proposed rescheduling the meeting, arguing that a briefing from the political officials at Treasury was essential. She noted that the Ministry was the custodian of the PIC Report. 

Mr Shivambu proposed on an agreement in principle that the Mpati Commissioners should present to Parliament on legislative recommendations, which was the Committee’s sole prerogative. He proposed scheduling a meeting the following week to avoid leaving the report dormant over the parliamentary recess. He agreed that the meeting should continue. 

Ms D Mabiletsa (ANC) agreed with Ms Abraham that the meeting should be rescheduled. 

Mr G Skosana (ANC) echoed Ms Mabiletsa that the meeting should be postponed, preferably to the following week in line with Mr Shivambu’s proposal. He agreed that the PIC could not fully give input on a report about itself. The absence of the Ministry would render the meeting ineffective. 

Mr Hill-Lewis disagreed with members arguing that the meeting should not proceed. In an ideal world the Committee could meet with the PIC 10 times a year, but this was not the case. The PIC officials and members were busy people, and the Committee should not waste the opportunity.

Mr I Morolong (ANC) concurred with members concerned over the absence of the Minister and Deputy Minister. He argued for rescheduling of the meeting to include all parties concerned. 

Dr D George (DA) agreed with Mr Hill-Lewis that the meeting should continue, arguing that a meeting with the PIC was a rare occurrence. He noted that, in his 12 years on the Committee, the absence of the political authority had not stopped entities from making submissions to the Committee. 

Ms Abraham proposed that members agreed in principle that the Committee would have to meet with the Ministry at some point or another. If the Committee went ahead in the current meeting, it would have gaps in its understanding. She submitted that a follow-up meeting should be held the following Tuesday. 

The Chairperson proposed that the executive should take Parliament more seriously, noting the principle of separation of powers. No arm of the state should be less important than another. He asked why it was that Ministers sent officials as proxies when they were called by Committees. He noted that the Minister committed to appearing before the Committee in June on the subject of the Mpati Report. The Committee would not benefit from the Minister’s absence. The PIC Board was an accounting authority, but the Minister was the ultimate executive authority for the implementation of the Mpati Report, as delegated by the President. 

The Chairperson argued in favour of rescheduling the meeting to include the Minister of Finance. Members of the Executive had to account to Parliament, not officials. He asked the Committee Secretariat if the Committee could sit in the evening. 

The Secretariat responded that the meeting could be held after plenaries either on Thursday or Friday.

The Chairperson restated that the PIC and its Board could not respond to issues of implementation on the Mpati Report, as the Minister was the accounting authority. He asked the Secretariat to reschedule the meeting. He noted he would draft a letter to the Minister expressing the Committee’s dissatisfaction over his absence. 

The meeting was adjourned.