DHA Policy on consequential amendments to PPFA; Status of ABIS & BCMS (with Ministry present)

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
The Chairperson welcomed the Committee members to the meeting.

The Chairperson indicated that the meeting would begin with the consideration and adoption of previous minutes. Departmental and other officials would join the meeting at 09:00am

Consideration of Minutes
The Chairperson moved on the adoption of the minutes of meetings dated: 18 October 2022; 21 October 2022; 25 October 2022; 1 November 2022; 8 November 2022; 15 November 2022; 22 November 2022; 30 November 2022; 2 December 2022; and 1 February 2023.

The minutes were approved with no change.

Mr A Roos (DA) indicated that there was a typo in the minutes dated 15 November 2022.

These minutes were adopted with this amendment.

The Chairperson thanked the Members for adopting the minutes, which were a true reflection of the proceedings. He hoped that all the outstanding minutes would be resolved by the end of May.

Opening Remarks (continued)
The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretary when the documents regarding the consequential amendments had been received.

Mr Eddie Mathonsi, Committee Secretary, responded that he had received the documents at approximately 10:00pm the previous evening and had sent it to the Committee Members at around 11pm.

The Chairperson requested that the Committee Secretary facilitate Manco (the Management Committee) so that they deal with issues and bring them to the Committee. He noted that in the last three or four Committee meetings there had been issues where the Department should have interacted with Committee in a particular manner but were experiencing challenges. These need to be dealt with.

The meeting reconvened at 09:00am.

The Chairperson welcomed the Minister, Deputy Minister, Department officials, state legal advisors, stakeholders, and Committee members to the meeting.

The Chairperson explained the agenda for the meeting. The Committee was to be briefed by the Minister on the policy on consequential amendments to the Electoral Amendment Bill and would be briefed by the DHA on the status of ABIS and BMCS. He requested for item seven to take place before item four because there had been an issue with the fourth item.

The Chairperson indicated that previously a decision was made that the Committee should receive documents like the policy on consequential amendments to the Electoral Amendment Bill at least two days before it was meant to be presented. This would allow members adequate time to critically review the documents. He noted that the Committee Secretary received the documents at 10:00pm the previous day. This contradicted the agreement made with the Minister to submit documents in a timely manner. He requested an explanation on why documents were not submitted on time.

The Chairperson said that the Budget Votes had started and that Committee members served in various Committees. He noted that scheduling might need to be looked at to ensure that as many members as possible could attend Portfolio Committee meetings.

The Chairperson stated that decisions taken in the previous meeting would be able to be considered or implemented by the Portfolio Committee and the Ministry.

The Chairperson indicated that the Committee Secretary could proceed with any apologies that had been made.

Apologies
Apologies were shared on behalf of Ms L Van der Merwe (IFP) and Ms L Tito (EFF) who were unable to attend the meeting.

The Committee Secretary shared further apologies. It was indicated that Ms M Molekwa (ANC) had to leave early. Ms T Legwase (ANC) would be late.

An apology was shared on behalf of the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) Chairperson, Mr M Moepya who would not be able to attend.

Mr Njabulo Nzuza, Deputy Minister of DHA, shared an apology on behalf of the Minister who had network issues. The Minister would join the meeting as soon as he was able to. He explained that this should not be an issue because the Minister was presenting the consequential amendments briefing later in the meeting. He introduced the delegation that was present.

BMCS & ABIS Presentation
Mr Thulani Mavuso, Deputy Director-General: Institutional Planning and Support, DHA, presented a status update on the Biometric Movement Control System (BMCS) and the Automated Biometric Identification System (ABIS). The presentation would consist of a status update on the roll-out of BMCS and a progress report on ABIS.

BMCS
The BMCS was to be rolled out at all Ports of Entry in South Africa, replacing the enhanced Movement Control System (eMCS). BMCS made greater use of biometric data to capture all people who entered or exited the country which would improve national security.

The Department explained that the development of the project had been completed in 2021 and a pilot had been done at four airports (OR Tambo, King Shaka, CapeTown, and Lanseria). In 2022/23 the system was rolled out to an additional 34 ports of entry and 30% of immigration counters and was running parallel to eMCS. 100% Deployment was envisaged by the end of March 2024.

The Department highlighted a variety of challenges that could affect the roll-out and functioning of BMCS and shared the intervention measures it would put in place to address the challenges.

ABIS
The Department indicated that the ABIS project had initially been a contract with EOH Mthembo (Pty) Ltd, but after EOH ended all engagement with the public sector the process had been handed over to IDEMIA in April 2021. Project execution under IDEMIA (sub-contractor) commenced on 1 May 2021 for completion of Phase 1, with an estimated completion period of seven months. IDEMIA would utilise the hardware and software that had been procured by EOH.

The Department provided a detailed timeline shared by IDEMIA for Phase 1 of the ABIS project. This timeline highlighted the initial start-up and completion dates. Additionally, explanations were provided regarding the extensions that had been granted to IDEMIA.

The Department indicated that it had levied penalties on the delays caused by IDEMIA and that payments were being withheld. IDEMIA was disputing the penalties that were levied against them and the matter was being dealt with according to the contract.

The Department indicated that Phase 2 was set to begin on 1 April 2023, but IDEMIA had failed to complete Phase 1. The new estimated completion dates were highlighted. The Department was working on a way forward and considering alternatives to IDEMIA.

(See Presentation)

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked the Department for the presentation. Committee members were encouraged to engage with the presentation. He explained that this was a follow-up to the update that had been delivered in the previous Committee meeting. The Committee had been concerned about the work of the Department around this area.

The Chairperson said that in reviewing the report, he had found no positive outputs that would demonstrate innovation in the services the public should receive in this particular area. He said the Department would have to respond to this concern.

The Chairperson referred to the reasons given by IDEMIA for the extensions. The Department would have to provide an explanation of the weaknesses associated with IDEMIA. He noted the transition away from EOH and that an explanation had been provided for appointing IDEMIA. He asked for clarity on IDEMIA’s weaknesses that had been identified by the Department. He asked if the Department had to meet with IDEMIA during the weekend to test their capacity to move forward, and what measures the Department would take if the capacity was not tested.

The Chairperson said that the Committee and Department had been dealing with the issue of network infrastructure since 2019. The current Deputy-Director General and the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) had delivered a presentation and were sent back by the Committee because there had been insufficient demonstrations of the work and plan that would be undertaken by the Department. This matter directly affected the public. He reiterated that more details on the matter were necessary.

The Chairperson invited other Committee members to make comments or ask questions.

Ms M Molekwa (ANC) reiterated that this matter had been ongoing for a long time and that the system should have been up and running already. Progress was continuously delayed because of various disputes. She sought assurance from the Department that the matter would be resolved. She requested an estimate of when the project would be completed.

Mr K Pillay (ANC) was concerned because the Committee was meant to receive an update on any progress that had been made, but what had been presented depicted many challenges regarding the completion of the project. SITA was identified as the biggest challenge to the completion of the project. Why was the Department waiting until September to consider alternatives to SITA? He recommended acting fast on the matter. The issue was not only affecting this particular project but that it was affecting all DHA offices. A solution was necessary as soon as possible.

Mr Pillay asked if the system would be linked across all ports of entry. He made an example that if an individual tried to enter at one port of entry, would the red flag reflect if the individual tried to enter at another port?

Mr Pillay said that there had already been at least four extensions for the project. He asked what the duration of the contract was. Did the Department intend to continue using IDEMIA? He said that they had tried the system and it had not worked, resulting in the Department reverting back to using the Home Affairs National Identification System (HANIS). Going back to the previous system, showed a failed system or project. He asked for clarity on if there was a need to continue with the project.

Ms A Khanyile (DA) suggested that the matter be brought to the Portfolio Committee every quarter so that the Committee could monitor it more closely. She noted the majority of the Department’s failures were due to system failure. In each office where oversight was conducted, it was said that many hours were being lost because the system was almost always offline. Presenting to the Portfolio Committee every quarter would allow the Committee to see if any progress had been made.

Ms Khanyile asked for an explanation on why the Department kept giving IDEMIA extensions. The presentation highlighted that recently IDEMIA received an extension of more than a year. She highlighted Mr Pillay’s statement where he had referred to four extensions. Why was the Department granting IDEMIA extensions?

Ms Khanyile said that according to the presentation, the Department was on standby to directly contact service providers to get the service directly from the service providers. If the Department took this route, how long would the process take? Would the Department have to do a tender process or would they just be able to activate it? When did the Department intend to activate this action?

Ms Khanyile asked which service provider was responsible for the roll-out of the BMCS. Were they being monitored regarding deadlines and progress?

Mr Y Tetyana (EFF) said he had been expecting to hear a confirmation date when BMCS and ABIS were going live. Not receiving a confirmation date meant that the Department was faced with major issues than had been expected. It was a worrisome situation.  The challenges made it seem like the project would not go live.

Mr Tetyana asked for clarity on the transition from EOH to IDEMIA. How did the Department decide on IDEMIA? The presentation said that EOH had decided to withdraw from all public sector contracts.

Mr Tetyana said that there were different categories of ports. Some ports were in rural areas and were more likely to experience network issues than ports in more urban areas. The presentation indicated that alternatives were being considered for rural areas to keep them in the same ‘status.’ He requested more clarity on this. In some areas load-shedding affected the network. He asked what would be about this.

Mr Tetyana said that SITAs incapabilities were well known. SITA was meant to be the provider of various services to many Departments. Waiting until September was an issue. The Department should act immediately. He did not think that SITA would be able to resolve any of the issues by September because the issues had been ongoing, and they had not been able to resolve them yet. In many projects where SITA had to provide a service, there had been significant challenges. These challenges impacted the operation of the departments. If there were alternatives to SITA, why was the Department waiting until September to change to an alternative?

Mr Tetyana said that the presentation stated that IDEMIA had been submitting claims and that there had been disputes regarding those payments. Did IDEMIA think that the government was a ‘cash-collecting space’. He asked for clarity regarding the contractual agreement. If there was no clarity on the contractual agreements between the entities, people would claim things that did not exist. IDEMIA should not be allowed to alter the agreement in the middle of the contract. There should be a stricter understanding of the contract that had been entered into by IDEMIA and the Department. What would happen if IDEMIA did the same thing that EOH had done and pulled out after a lot of resources had been invested in a project? What would happen to the people waiting for the system to go live?

Mr Roos said that ABIS was launched in 2015 with an initial 12-month deadline. He asked if this information was correct. If the information was correct, it had been eight years since the project was launched. What was the original cost and timeframe for the project? What has the cost been to date, including the cost of continuing to run the obsolete HANIS system?

Mr Roos asked when the DHA had learnt about load-shedding. Various forms of load-shedding had happened since 2007 and yet there was no backup system for the ports of entry. It was likely that when the power went out, systems would likely go offline. How was it possible that there had been no planning in all this time to ensure that there was an uninterrupted power supply at the borders? What was the timeframe for getting adequate power backups at all the border posts?

Mr Roos said that Albert Einstein had defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. IDEMIA was a biometric sub-contractor to EOH.  EOH had gone over-budget and over-time. The DHA then allowed the contract to be ceded to the same people that were not performing. It would not be a surprise if the same situation that arose with EOH happened again. He was extremely concerned about the matter. Through various presentations, it was clear that the DHA wanted to get out from beneath SITA and go it alone. He asked if the DHA had the expertise to procure and project manage enterprise-level Information and Communication Technology (ICT) projects. Consistently these projects, in various forms and departments, had failed. There was a consistent lack of performance in projects like these and an inability to identify project risks and intervene timeously. In the presentation, he had heard “we [the DHA] had discovered that after a while that … was happening.” What kind of expertise did the DHA have? The DHA said they wanted to get out from under SITA, but what expertise did the Department have to think that they could do better than SITA? It seemed like the DHA blamed SITA for some issues that were the fault of the Department.

Mr Roos asked if personal data stored in the DHA systems and offices were safe. Was the data safe from hackers? Was the biometric data safe? Members of the public had often complained about and reported that physical documents had been lost by Home Affairs and that applications disappeared. Applications disappeared and were untraceable. He asked if a threat assessment had been conducted by the Department in terms of cyber security. The DHA wanted to be a security department, but it seemed like the Department was not getting the necessary expertise. He had not seen any indication of a threat assessment. He said there was no consistent plan with biometric systems and National Population Register (NPR) systems, which would show that the DHA was taking control of the situation. He noted that the DHA still had obsolete systems in permitting which allowed for corruption and fraud to happen. What was the DHA doing to position itself against cyber security attacks and threats to personal data?

Adv B Bongo (ANC) agreed that the matter should be dealt with outside of SITA. He noted that since the beginning of the term, it could be seen that SITA had been delaying many projects. He asked how much had already been spent on the project. At the beginning of the term, there had been celebrations for the project because the Committee had believed that the sub-contractors were doing their job. He was extremely disappointed with the report.
Adv Bongo referred to the contract. What did the contract say regarding postponements? Was it possible for IDEMIA to postpone four times, and yet nothing had been done? He said that the DHA was relying on some progress to be made during the meeting on the weekend. What would happen if no progress was made? The presentation said that payments were being withheld from IDEMIA. He asked if withholding payment would further stall the project. If IDEMIA was not getting any money, it would be difficult for them to perform certain tasks.

Adv Bongo was interested to hear what the next steps were. It was clear that IDEMIA would not be able to complete the project. IDEMIA had initially claimed that phase 1 would be completed in seven months. Now there was a phase 1(a) and 1(b). It was unacceptable that the process was being staggered and delayed. The project could not continue in this way. Because Phase 1 had not been completed, Phase 2 could not begin. Phase 2 was dependent on the work of Phase 1. The creation of Phases 1(a) and 1(b) was an attempt to confuse the Department and Committee in terms of the progress of the project. If it had been his decision, he would have cancelled the project and started again with people who understood the work that needed to be done. He believed that IDEMIA did not understand what needed to be done. IDEMIA had been given the luxury of extensions. He reiterated his request for clarification on the contract regarding extensions. He suggested that action be taken to rectify the issue. Without receiving any more funds, IDEMIA would have no reason to continue the project and would likely abandon the project in the same way the EOH had. He agreed that the Committee needed frequent progress reports on the matter. He said that the meeting this weekend would not result in the system going live any time soon. What consequences would occur for IDEMIA?

Ms M Modise (ANC) was disappointed with the lack of progress on the project. She was concerned about the growing costs the DHA was incurring because of the delays. What were the cost implications of the project since it was not being completed or yielding any results? She explained that it was important for the Committee to have the numbers so that it could understand the cost and implications of the delays. This would assist the Committee to monitor the project and to reach a decision on what would happen with the contract. She said that the project being delayed had serious implications for service delivery and the public would suffer because of this. Earlier in the year, the Committee had received reports from the DHA regarding network issues and it made it seem like there were no serious issues. She said that the situation on the ground contradicted what had previously been presented. She emphasised that something had to be done on this matter. She noted the Department’s request for time to do testing in the next week and requested that the DHA provide feedback on this as soon as possible. This would assist the Committee to monitor and determine if there had been any progress.

The Chairperson thanked the Committee members for their comments and questions. He referred to the Director-General and Deputy Director-General to provide a response and indicated that the Minister and Deputy Minister could provide a final comment on the matter.

Mr Mavuso responded to the question regarding the weaknesses identified by the Department. By June 2022, when the DHA had realised that the project would not go live at the time, it told IDEMIA that no more extensions could be granted. The Department worked with IDEMIA to do a gap analysis and formulate an approach. The Department had realised that some aspects, on IDEMIAs side, had been unclear. This resulted in the creation of Phase 1(a) to go live on 21 November with the interface and live capture and verification with banks.

Mr Mavuso responded to the network issues that were brought up in terms of the BMCS and SITA. He indicated that the Department would definitely go with an alternative option if SITAs efforts to upgrade the network at the point of entry were unsuccessful. A team was currently doing assessments to clarify the challenges particular ports were facing. He was hopeful that this would be completed within the next week.

Mr Mavuso said that it was correct that the matter had been seriously delayed for some time. The Department was seeking a legal opinion on the matter. The Department was engaging with lawyers regarding the matter and would report back to the Committee.

Mr Mavuso said it was likely that the Department would prioritise the issue, rather than wait until September to activate alternative service providers to update the ports of entry.

Mr Mavuso explained that the BMCS system would be linked across various offices. It was one database, where all travel information would be available to the various offices and ports of entry.

Mr Mavuso responded to the concerns regarding the extensions. He said that four extensions that had been highlighted were the Department agreeing whenever IDEMIA signalled completion was close and that they needed a little more time to finish it successfully. The Department did not want to limit the time that was given to the project and create the perception that the project was being abandoned. Extensions were granted so that there was adequate time to finalise matters.

Mr Mavuso said the BMCS was being developed with the South African Revenue Service (SARS). The development of BMCS had been completed and the Department was now concerned about the roll-out of the system. ABIS had gone live on the 21st, but only one component. The Department had to confirm whether the issues that IDEMIA was meant to be clearing had been cleared. He hoped to confirm this during the meeting this weekend. A decision would then be made on whether to change ABIS to the primary system.

Mr Mavuso provided a brief history of the transition from EOH to IDEMIA. When EOH tendered for the project, they worked with a technology partner – IDEMIA. EOH was utilising IDEMIAs core solution, which would be implemented by IDEMIA. When EOH exited public sector contracts, they had recommended the Department concede the project to IDEMIA because the Department had already procured the hardware and software through IDEMIA and EOH. If the Department had abandoned the project and started again, the DHA would have needed to write off all the money that had been spent on the project in terms of hardware and software until that point which totalled approximately R100 Million. The Department ceded the contract to IDEMIA so that they could complete the project they had started with the EOH. He emphasised that IDEMIA had been involved with the project since day one.

Mr Mavuso responded to the load-shedding concerns in terms of the ports of entry, especially in rural areas. He explained that the BMCS had an offline mode. Officials would be able to operate the system in offline mode and the information would be saved to the database once power and network had been restored.

Mr Mavuso responded to the issue of penalty claims. The Department was in discussion to resolve the penalty claims.

Mr Mavuso indicated that the project did not begin in 2015. The conceptualisation of the project began in 2015, but the actual kick-off of the ABIS project was in December 2017. A completion date was set for 12 months from the start of the project. The first phase was meant to be completed by December 2018.

Mr Mavuso responded to the concerns regarding load-shedding. He explained that the ports of entry where there were customs offices did not face power issues. This was because the BMCS was being developed in conjunction with SARS. He explained that the DHA piggy-backed off the power that SARS used to support their systems. The power issues existed at ports where there were no customs offices, and where there was a reliance on the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure to provide back-up support infrastructure. He indicated that there was a port in the Kruger National Park, called Giriyondo, where there was no back-up power. The port relied on electricity. He indicated that other ports of entry faced the same situation of relying on electricity and limited back-up power. The back-up power in these ports was not adequate to keep BMCS online 24/7 in case the power went out for an extended period of time. The Department was engaging with the Border Management Authority (BMA) regarding back-up power for these ports.

Mr Mavuso responded to the concerns about the protection of personal information. He emphasised that the information stored in DHA databases was protected. The Department ran regular vulnerability testing on the system. He noted that it was inadvisable to deeply discuss the security measures in place on a public platform. He emphasised that the data was safe.

Mr Mavuso indicated that the Director-General would respond to the question of how much was spent on the project and the next steps that would be taken.

Mr Mavuso said that the contract allowed for a grace period of one month to complete phase one. He reiterated that the DHA was consulting with legal advisors on the matter. It was decided that the Department should allow for the first phase to be completed and then re-evaluate the matter before making further decisions.

Mr Tommy Makhode, Director-General, DHA, added to the response on ports of entry. The Department and BMA had previously convened with the Committee. He indicated that the bulk of the contracts regarding facilities management were under the purview of the BMA. The BMA Commissioner would be able to more effectively respond to how issues were being dealt with.

Mr Makhode indicated that to date R14 179 014 had been paid. This was out of a contract value of approximately R65 389 000. He noted that the total contract value was R77 405 000 when it had been signed with EOH.

Mr Makhode explained that he could not indicate what payments were being withheld with regard to IDEMIA on this platform. He said that the payments were largely those from where the Department had derived no value. The Department would not pay in money where no work was being done.

Mr Makhode responded to the question of what would happen next. He appealed to the Committee to allow the weekend’s meeting to proceed. Thereafter, the Department would brief the Committee again on whatever decisions were made and any progress that had been made, and what the next steps would be.

Mr Makhode said that there were six work streams, one of which included cyber security. In this regard, the Department was looking at threats and investigations. This was ongoing work. He stated that the Department took the issue very seriously. The Department needed to consider practical measures to counter the activities of cyber insecurity. The Department did have mechanisms in place to protect personal information and records.

The Chairperson thanked the Director-General and Deputy Director-General for the response they had provided. He indicated that the Deputy Minister could respond.

Deputy Minister Response
Deputy Minister Nzuza stated that the Department’s intention with this project was to save the project with the understanding that ABIS was the cornerstone of the future of the Department’s ICT infrastructure and took precedence within the Department. He indicated that the Department’s approach was largely informed by the intention to save the project so that the Department could get the future ICT infrastructure in order. He explained that extensions were granted with the same intention of saving the project.

Deputy Minister Nzuza said that the Department’s approach had not been to pay for services where no value was derived. The Department was imposing penalties where necessary. He emphasised that it was important to derive value so that there was no expenditure for things where no value was derived.

Deputy Minister Nzuza stated that HANIS was not obsolete. The Department’s intention was to improve the online system, which is why ABIS had been conceptualised. HANIS was functioning properly. The Department was happy to rely on HANIS. The Department had not been set back in terms of the online system because HANIS was operating.

Deputy Minister Nzuza reiterated that he could not share details regarding the cyber security mechanisms. He emphasised that the Department had not had any serious issues in this regard. The Department had maintained good standards of cyber security.

Deputy Minister Nzuza said that the Department would take time over the weekend to discuss the potential way forward. After the meeting, the Department would re-brief the Committee on the outcomes of the meeting. The Department intended to ensure that services were delivered and if they were not, the Department would take action in accordance with the legislation.

The Chairperson thanked the Deputy Minister and asked the Minister if he had anything to add.

Minister Response
Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, Minister, acknowledged that the situation was unacceptable. He expressed his frustration and despondency about the situation. He said the Department was stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Dr Motsoaledi said that when EOH pulled out of all government contracts, it included the contract with the DHA. There had been a debate that was brought to the Committee on why the Department had chosen IDEMIA. The Department was attempting to be pragmatic because of the position the Department was in. If the Department started the process from the beginning again, in terms of the law the Department was required to go back to SITA. This was because the law insisted that departments go through SITA regarding any ICT projects. The Department had just finished the ‘mess’ with the EOH, which had been procured by SITA. He stated that there had been several problems with SITA and noted that the DHA had brought the forensic report to the Committee. The DHA decided that it would not be suitable to restart the project again. The decision to use IDEMIA was a matter of ‘dealing with the devil they knew.’ IDEMIA was already working on the project. The DHA took a leap of faith to proceed with IDEMIA, but unfortunately, things had unfolded in a way the Department had not expected. The Department was despondent on the matter because they had chosen IDEMIA as an alternative to restarting the project with SITA. The Department was confronted with the decision of restarting the project after all these years. He was hopeful that the Department could come to a decision on this during the weekend’s meeting.

Dr Motsoaledi reiterated that HANIS was not an obsolete system. HANIS was a good system and had not yet disappointed. The decision to move away from it was not because it had become obsolete, the Department was trying to advance the ICT infrastructure. He said that ICT matters did not always progress in the way that experts explained. He noted that there were constant obstacles in ICT procurement. HANIS continued to be a reliable and effective service. ABIS was a way for the DHA to get ahead of corruption in the Department. In terms of biometrics, HANIS only had access to fingerprints and photos. The Department was trying to add more biometrics, including iris recognition, facial recognition, etc. He reiterated his hopefulness that the meeting on the weekend would indicate a way forward.

Dr Motsoaledi responded to the issue of payment disputes. He indicated that they were no payment disputes in terms of the contract. He explained that IDEMIA was not accepting the penalties. The Department withheld payments as part of the penalties. Why should the Department pay IDEMIA for a service that was not provided and would likely struggle to get the money back if it did? If certain matters were unresolved by IDEMIA, the DHA withheld payment. This is why they had stated that there had been disputes. No company wanted to be penalised. He explained that one of the biggest criticisms of the state was the issue of contract management. This referred to how contracts were managed with contractors and service providers. In many cases, service providers were allowed to get away with murder with no penalties. The DHA decided that would use penalties against non-performing service providers. The Department had considered the possibility that withholding payment would mean that the service provider could not deliver. The Department believed that the only way to push a company to work hard was to hit them where it hurt the most – finances. He indicated that for these companies’ their business was money. By withholding the money, their businesses would suffer. The DHA was also applying penalties because they recognised that when companies served the state, they behaved differently than they did when interacting with the private sector. He said that companies working with the private sector paid more attention to private sector cases. Whereas when working with the public sector, companies were aware that there were fewer consequences and did not take the work as seriously.

Dr Motsoaledi responded to the concerns regarding load-shedding at the borders. He reminded Committee members that when they had gone to BeitBridge and Lebombo, members had been angry about toilets that had not been cleaned. The Department responded by clarifying who the hosts were at the ports of entry. The host was responsible for the facilities at the different ports, including ensuring that there was electricity and water, and that the facilities were clean and maintained. The host at the airports was the Airports Company South Africa (ACSA), who was doing a good job of ensuring the facilities were in a good state. At the seaports, the host was Transnet Port Terminals, who were also doing a good job. He indicated that the problem was with the land ports of entry. The Department had experienced various issues with land ports, including service providers not being appointed to perform certain tasks. He explained that from 1 April the BMA was a stand-alone entity – a Schedule 3(A) entity – under the Public Finance Management Act. This meant the BMA would be its own host responsible for the maintenance of infrastructure, contracts, etc. Currently, the money was still with the DPWI and had not yet been re-allocated to the BMA, the money would be transferred in October during the appropriation period by the Minister of Finance. The Department was still trying to navigate the issue.

Dr responded to the issue concerning SITA. He explained that SITA had been established by an Act of Parliament and was a law. The DHA had tried to dodge it many times because of the issues that were seen when attempting to procure ICT infrastructures. The DHA had tried to take shortcuts and do the process by itself but ran into problems with the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General acknowledged and understood the Department’s concerns regarding SITA but stated that it was the law and that the law was applied when the Department was audited. The Auditor-General recognised the struggles with SITA but still expected the Department to follow the law or it would be flagged as irregular expenditure. He indicated that it was difficult to navigate this space. The DHA was clear that it wanted to be relieved from SITA. The Treasury responded that everyone in the Justice, Crime Prevention, and Security (JCPS) Cluster wanted to end their engagement with SITA. The Departments in the cluster were adamant that their ICT systems were messed up and not progressing. He noted Mr Roos’ statement that the Department blamed SITA for issues that were caused by the Department itself. If this was the case, the other departments would not be complaining about the same thing. Treasury indicated that the DHA should wait until the treasury had dealt with the issue of SITA. The Treasury did not want it to be done piecemeal and have an issue where the DHA was granted relief from SITA and then other departments became unhappy because their issues were not addressed. He said that this was an Act of Parliament, which might require an amendment. He was not sure if Treasury had the authority, without an amendment, to free departments from dependence on SITA.

Dr Motsoaledi said the Department would try its best to address the matter. He accepted the criticisms that had been shared by Committee members and noted that the Department was equally frustrated and concerned about the matter. He said that he would have been proud to go live with ABIS and have it minimise corruption and fraud in the Department. He expressed his disappointment with IDEMIA, which the DHA had deemed to be an international company with experience, and the significant failures and issues that were being experienced.

The Chairperson thanked the Minister and Deputy Minister for the responses that had been provided. He thanked the Committee members for raising various concerns and questions.

The Chairperson reiterated the shared concern about the contract. The Committee would call the Department back on 23 May, to report to the Committee on the assessment and action plan that would come from the meeting during the weekend. He noted that the Director-General had indicated that the Department was meeting with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to get a report on the network systems of the Department. He stated that collectively, the Committee and Department had to get the DHA out of this situation so that the public could benefit from the services. On 23 May, the DHA should present a detailed action plan including the costs incurred. He emphasised that the Committee and Department could not wait until September to address the issue because action was urgently required. He asked if there were any issues regarding the scheduling of the meeting.

The Committee Secretary indicated that a meeting was scheduled for the 23rd May, but there was a debate concerning one of the departments in the JCPS cluster.

The Chairperson stated that this item would be scheduled for 23rd May. He asked if this date would be suitable for the Minister.

Dr Motsoaledi was concerned that the 23rd May would be too far away. He noted that the meeting with the CSIR would occur later that day and was not certain about the progress they would be able to share. He would not challenge the date, but he was concerned that it was only two weeks away.

The Chairperson said it was enough time because the Committee urgently needed an assessment on the matter. The meeting with CSIR and the testing over the weekend would be complete by the end of the week and there should be sufficient time. He noted that this would allow the Committee and Department to work toward the suggested quarterly report on this matter.

Dr Motsoaledi accepted this date.

The Chairperson indicated that the Minister could begin the presentation regarding the consequential amendments. He repeated the Committee’s frustration about not receiving the reports in a timely manner and that it hindered the ability of members to thoroughly interact with the reports and presentation. He indicated that the Minister could do the presentation, after which the Committee would decide how to proceed.

Consequential Amendment Presentation
DHA Approach to PPFA Consequential Amendments
Dr Motsoaledi provided a presentation on the Department’s approach to the Political Party Funding Act (PPFA) consequential amendments.

Dr Motsoaledi provided a detailed look at the overarching principles of the matter. This included: a commitment to transparency in party funding; a belief that all parties and independent candidates should have fair access to public funding; maintain a living link between public representatives and the public; international support had to be declared and monitored; South Africans and global supporters should be encouraged to donate to the Multi-Party Democracy Fund (MPDF); fixing the legislative environment regarding party funding should help make funding easy, fair, transparent and democratic; and amounts should not be prescribed in Legislation.

Dr Motsoaledi explained the limits for reporting domestic and international donations. This included guideline amounts of what should be reported.

Dr Motsoaledi indicated that the MPDF was an important mechanism for donations. He detailed some aspects regarding the use of MPDF.

Dr Motsoaledi highlighted changing the formula for the allocation of funds to parties and independents. This was an effort to ensure that all parties or independents received their fair share.

Dr Motsoaledi outlined the way forward in terms of this matter. He said that it was important to address this matter in Parliament and remain responsive to public participation. The Committee needed to craft amendments that were guided by the objective of securing democracy. He noted that a clear legal pathway should be highlighted in the Act.

(See Presentation)

Amendment of the Title, Long Title and Preamble of Act 6 of 2018
Dr Motsoaledi indicated that this document detailed several technical amendments.

Dr Motsoaledi indicated that words that were to be removed were placed in square brackets. Things that were added had been underlined. The addition of new sections had also been indicated.

(See Presentation)

Discussion
The Chairperson allowed the members to share their comments on the presentations delivered by the Minister.

Mr Roos said it was difficult to comment on the presentations. The documents had been sent to the Committee at approximately 11:00pm the previous night. The Committee needed to be able to engage with the document before interacting with the Minister. The Committee had received a presentation on 7 February, where the parliamentary legal advisors advised the Committee that an Executive Bill process would take too long and that a Committee Bill was needed. He noted that the presentation delivered by the Minister provided proposals on one of the consequential amendments, but that there were others including the Electronic Communications Act, the Financial Management of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act, constitutional amendments, and other amendments which had not been mentioned by the Minister. He explained that it was necessary for Committee members to be allowed time to process the documents and proposals before engaging on them.

Mr Roos asked if the Minister was in the process of establishing an electoral reform consultation panel. Had this four-month process begun? He requested an update on this matter. He recommended that a decision had to be made soon on whether the Committee and Department were going to opt for a Committee Bill or an Executive Bill.

Mr Pillay expressed his appreciation for the first presentation concerning the principles.

Mr Pillay agreed that the presentation was received very late the previous night. This did not allow time for the Committee to thoroughly engage with the contents of the documents and have the necessary consultations. It would be premature to provide any commentary at this time. He agreed with the suggestion that the Committee be given time to fully review the documents to allow the Committee to develop their concerns, questions, and feedback.

Mr Tetyana agreed with the request for time to engage with the documents. He noted that this would be more beneficial to the process and would benefit members of the public.

Ms Modise agreed with the suggestion of extra time and then engage with the Minister at a later stage.

Adv Bongo thanked the Minister for the presentation and noted that even though it had been late, a response had been provided. He agreed with the request for an extension to review the presentation and be able to fully engage with the matter.

Dr Motsoaledi responded to Mr Roos’ question regarding the establishment of the consultation panel. He indicated that the process had been started and that the Committee could expect a report on this matter soon. The process entailed the Minister publicly advertising particular positions that had been described in the Act.

Dr Motsoaledi agreed that the documents had been shared late. This was because the DHA had been working with the same senior counsel who helped draft the Act that had been passed. The Department did not want to change counsel and preferred to continue using the legal counsel that they had been using for the past two years. He indicated that the counsel had been overseas and that it had been difficult to communicate efficiently. The documents had only been completed the previous evening. He accepted the Committee members’ request to have more time to review and engage with the documents.

Dr Motsoaledi responded to concerns about other amendments. He indicated that some other other amendments would not be passed by the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs and belonged to other committees. In terms of the constitutional amendments, the Minister presumed that Mr Roos had been referring to Section 236 of the Constitution. He said that throughout the whole debate from the beginning of this Act, the DHA and Ministry had said that they could not do what the Constitutional Court had said without amending the Constitution. People who believed amending the Constitution was a mischievous thing had reacted badly to the Minister’s statement. He clarified that he had been referring to Section 236. Many experts said that it should not be done because it said that the government had to enact a law to ensure that political parties were funded. Many experts argued that this did not expect independence, while other experts argued that it needs to be made clearer so that there could be no argument. He noted that this issue was still being debated. He indicated that amending the Constitution would take more time. He invited members to consult with their parties on the matters.

Closing Remarks
The Chairperson thanked the Minister for his response. He noted that the time for members to engage with the documents would be granted and that they would be able to share their comments at another stage. He confirmed that some of the amendments would be dealt with by other committees. He indicated that the schedule would need to be considered in order to get a date that was suitable to most people and allowed for a focus on the consequential amendments. The IEC would be interacted with at the next Committee meeting.

The Committee Secretary indicated that he would check the Parliamentary programme to find a suitable date and time for the meeting. He noted that the meeting could potentially occur on Friday, 19 May.

The Chairperson thanked the Committee Secretary and stated that it would allow time for members to engage with the documents and prepare responses.

The Chairperson indicated that the following day, a meeting would be held with Parliamentary Legal Services on the issue of the consequential amendment and the matter of the Eastern Cape lending issues.

The Chairperson asked if there were any other matters that needed to be addresses.

Mr Glen Mashinini, IEC Commissioner, noted the presentation that had been shared by the Minister. He said that the Commission would consider the Minister’s proposals. There were administrative amendments that the Commission had been looking into to enhance the efficiency of the application of the legislation. The Commission would liaise with the Chairperson about the opportunity to present the administrative amendments. He indicated that the elections would be taking place next year and the Committee needed to keep in mind that matters should be dealt with in a timely manner to ensure that the Constitutional responsibility could be discharged.

The Chairperson thanked the officials, Ministry, and Committee members for their contributions to the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.