New York fact-finding Oversight Report

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

04 March 2020
Chairperson: Ms T Mahambehlala (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Relevant documents: DIRCO management report on 2018/19 audit findings: follow up

The Committee considered its Draft Report on its New York fact finding oversight visit. The Chairperson took the Committee through the Draft Report firstly by way of its different parts and adopting each either with or without amendments. Thereafter the Draft Report was presented to the Committee in its entirety and it was adopted as amended. The amendments affected to the Draft Report were both of a grammatical as well as of a substantive nature as Members were encouraged to make changes and additions where they deemed it necessary.

The Department of International Relations, being present in the meeting, was afforded an opportunity to comment on the Draft Report and to answer clarity seeking questions of members. The Department commented that the Draft Report was a true reflection of what had transpired in New York.

The Committee was of the view that the Ambassador to the United States should be recalled and it was captured as such as an additional recommendation in the Draft Report. The Committee also included a recommendation in the Draft Report to the Speaker of the National Assembly about the President having to sign off on the Foreign Service Bill as a matter of urgency to prevent issues that had happened in New York from recurring in the future.

Meeting report

Committee Report on the New York fact finding oversight visit

The Chairperson provided the Committee with a brief synopsis of what was contained in the Draft Report and proceeded to take the Committee through the Draft Report part by part encouraging members to make inputs where they deemed it necessary.

Part 1 - Introduction

Mr T Mpanza (ANC) felt that the Draft Report had captured correctly what had been observed by members.

Mr B Nkosi (ANC) wished for it to be captured in the Draft Report that that the SA Ambassador to the US had not been present when the Committee was in New York and that he was absent without leave (Paragraph 1.2.3) 

Mr M Chetty (DA) agreed with Mr Nkosi that the Committee had had an issue with the absence of the Ambassador and the fact that no leave had been tendered to the Committee. On the foreign service policy framework he said that at the debriefing the issue of the Foreign Service Bill had been raised. It took three years to complete the Bill. Why was the Bill not been signed into law? The Bill could have addressed issues that the Committee had encountered in New York.

The Chairperson placed Part 1 before the Committee for adoption.

The Committee adopted Part 1 with amendments. The relevant amendments would be made by Committee Support Staff.

Part 3 - Meeting with the South African Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York

The Chairperson asked the Committee Support Staff why the Incident Report of the Hotel in New York was not annexed to the Draft Report.

Mr Lubabalo Sigwela, Committee Secretary, explained that the Incident Report was not attached because it was given to management for the approval of invoices.

The Chairperson asked whether management was aware that when the Lexington Hotel in New York was booked it was booked inclusive of meals. Yet when members arrived the Hotel had not supplied meals and members had to eat elsewhere. Was management aware that they had paid for meals that had not been provided? It was tantamount to fraud.

Mrs T Msane (EFF) felt that the Committee Secretary ought to concede that he had submitted the Incident Report to management without submitting it first to the Committee. She stated that what the Committee was experiencing was exactly what the Auditor General of SA (AGSA) had a problem with ie Fruitless and Wasteful Expenditure.

Mr Chetty agreed. A hotel had been procured for the Committee but it had not been what was expected. He pointed out that it could be a deliberate attempt to tarnish the image of the Committee with fruitless and wasteful expenditure being incurred. The Committee was questioning the DIRCO about fruitless and wasteful expenditure and here the Committee was doing it as well.

The Chairperson instructed Mr Sigwela to withdraw the Incident Report from management and to submit it to the Committee. Things were being paid for that had not been delivered on. The hotel did not even serve meals but management had paid for it.

The Chairperson placed Part 3 before the Committee for adoption.

The Committee adopted Part 3 with amendments. The relevant amendments would be made by Committee Support Staff.

Part 4 - Meeting with the Locally Recruited Personnel (LRP)

The Chairperson placed Part 4 before the Committee for consideration and adoption.

The Committee proposed no amendments and Part 4 was adopted unamended.

Part 5 - Discussions with the Deputy Permanent Representative and Transferred Officials

The Chairperson placed Part 5 before the Committee for consideration and adoption.

The Committee proposed no amendments and Part 5 was adopted unamended.

Part 6 - Alternative Temporary Office Accommodation

The Chairperson placed Part 6 before the Committee for consideration and adoption.

The Committee proposed no amendments and Part 6 was adopted unamended.

Part 7 - Oversight Inspection In-Loco of the Pilot Project Area

The Chairperson placed Part 7 before the Committee for consideration and adoption.

The Committee proposed no amendments and Part 7 was adopted unamended.

Part 8 - Observing SA in the United Nations Security Council

The Chairperson placed Part 8 before the Committee for consideration and adoption.

The Committee proposed no amendments and Part 8 was adopted unamended.

Part 9 - Committee Delegation Debriefing Session on the Overall Fact Finding Visit

The Chairperson placed Part 9 before the Committee for consideration and adoption.

The Committee proposed no amendments and Part 9 was adopted unamended.

Part 10 - Findings

Mrs Msane on Point 10.4 suggested the insertion of “or verbal apology”.

The Chairperson suggested an alternative and said that “official apology” was a better option.

The Committee agreed to “official apology”.

The Chairperson asked Committee Support Staff to rewrite Point 10.6.

She stated that in Point 10.7 the hotel had not catered for meals and also asked that it be rewritten.

Mrs Msane agreed with the Chairperson that point 10.7 should be rewritten.

The Chairperson pointed out that on the oversight visit the Committee had not had support staff to assist with issues that had come up.

Mrs Msane stated that the Committee had found that LRP staff had not been vetted and that only a police report was relied on.  This should be included in the Draft Report as a finding of the Committee.

Mr Chetty also brought up the issue of the Diplomatic Bag.

The Chairperson placed Part 10 before the Committee for adoption.

The Committee adopted Part 10 with amendments. The relevant amendments would be made by Committee Support Staff.

Part 11 - Conclusions

Mr Nkosi asked that it be captured in the Conclusions that the Ambassador was absent “without an apology”

The Committee agreed to the amendment.

The Chairperson placed Part 11 before the Committee for adoption.

The Committee adopted Part 11 with amendments. The relevant amendments would be made by Committee Support Staff

Part 12 - Recommendations:

To the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation

The Chairperson in Point 12.1 asked that the word “non-availability” be replaced with “absence”.

The Committee agreed to the amendment.

Mr Chetty suggested an additional recommendation relating to the New York Pilot Project. At the time of sign off of the New York Pilot Project the now Ambassador of SA to the US was then the Director General of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation. He asked whether the Committee should not recommend that the Ambassador be recalled given the reputational damage to SA. The Ambassador had been the Director General at the time of the New York Pilot Project and the Committee had to put up with his shenanigans of being absent during the Committee’s visit. He noted that through the Foreign Service Bill Parliament had more control over the appointment of ambassadors compared to the current situation of the President of SA making the appointment.

Mr C Mulder (FF Plus) asked what the wording of Mr Chetty’s additional recommendation would be.

The Chairperson opened the floor to suggestions and referred the matter to Committee Support Staff.

Ms Dineo Mosala Committee Content Adviser, stated that when the Draft Report was cleaned up a formulation would be made around the recommendation.

Mr Chetty attempted to come up with a formulation for the recommendation, “In view of the Auditor General’s findings where there was a contravention of National Treasury Regulation 16A6.3(a) and the implications of the Ambassador in his role both as Director General of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation during the initiation of the New York Pilot Project and currently as the Ambassador to the US, that the President recall the Ambassador similar to the Bruce Koloane matter.”

Ms Mosala pointed out that separation of powers needed to be taken into consideration. The gist of the Mr Chertty’s formulation was that the Minister could reconsider recalling the Ambassador. At the time of the initiation of the New York Pilot Project he had been the Director General of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation. He, during the relocation project, was also the Ambassador to the US which could be a conflict of interest.

The Chairperson felt that the Ambassador had to be recalled.

Mr Mulder responding to what Ms Mosala had said and stated that the President was the one who appointed the Ambassador. So perhaps the Committee could request the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation to engage with the President over the matter.

Mr Nkosi did not feel it proper that the suggested recommendation make mention of Mr Bruce Koloane.

The Chairperson felt Mr Nkosi’s point to be valid.

Mr Chetty responded that Mr Bruce Koloane had embarrassed SA. The Ambassador could be recalled as Mr Koloane was. 

Mr Mpanza agreed that Mr Koloane’s name should not be mentioned in the recommendation. The matter should be dealt with on its own merit.

Mr Nkosi said that no names should be mentioned. It could be stated that a precedent had been set.

Mr Chetty agreed to Mr Koloane’s name not being mentioned.

The Chairperson said that the image of SA had to be protected. The suggested recommendation would be reconstructed without mentioning Mr Bruce Koloane’s name.

To the National Assembly

Mrs Msane asked that something be added to the recommendations on the signing off of the Foreign Service Bill by the President. All the shenanigans that the Committee had experienced on the oversight could be prevented.

Mr Mpanza asked whether it was advisable to have two processes. The Committee had in a previous meeting asked the Minister to fast-track the President’s signing of the Bill.

The Chairperson asked how long the Foreign Service Bill had been with the President.

Mr M Hlengwa (IFP) felt it better to liaise with the Speaker on the Foreign Service Bill. There were possibly twelve or fourteen bills that the President had to sign. The Speaker had corresponded with the President to deal with the bills. The issue should perhaps be directed to the Speaker.

Mrs Msane appreciated the inputs from members but felt that the issue should be covered under the recommendations. The Committee could additionally write to the Speaker as well.

The Chairperson agreed with Mrs Msane that a recommendation to the Speaker would be formulated regarding the Foreign Service Bill’s signing by the President. She noted that the President needed to urgently sign the Foreign Service Bill in order to assist the Committee in functioning.

The Chairperson placed the entire Draft Report before the Committee for adoption. She stated that when the necessary amendments to the Draft Report had been made it should be sent back to members.

The Committee adopted the Draft Report with amendments.

The Chairperson allowed Mr Kgabo Mahoai , Director General of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, to comment on the Draft Report and to answer questions.

Mr Mahoai responded that it was correct that the Incident Report was used to facilitate payments. It was what was required. The Incident Report may already be part of an audit. He assured the Committee that things would be monitored. He explained that when one made payment all documents were required. He stressed that there was no deliberate fruitless and wasteful expenditure. He did inform the Committee that DIRCO had gone to court to have the Project Preparation Agreement set aside. DIRCO hoped to get refunded. The court date was set somewhere in March 2020. He undertook to share some of the issues with the Committee at a later stage. He stated that there were many misrepresentations. He pointed out The irregularity was picked up at an early stage by the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer. When he had taken office the process had already commenced. The New York issue was making DIRCO fail in every way. He was hopeful that once the court processes had commenced then internal processes could take place. He stated that the Ambassador issue was under a process. DIRCO noted the recommendations of the Committee. He undertook to provide the Committee with a report when the time was appropriate. He added that the service provider wished to sue DIRCO for breach of contract. The Draft Report of the Committee was spot on. He suggested that the Committee do more mission oversight visits so that the performance of DIRCO could improve.

Mr Mpanza hoped that the Committee could do more oversight visits. Perhaps Mr Mahoai could assist the Committee in this regard.

Mr Nkosi asked whether the mission in New York had been ready for the Committee’s visit.

Mr Mahoai said that the mission had been ready for the Committee’s visit.

Ms B Swarts (ANC) asked whether the Ambassador knew that the Committee was coming to New York. Even if the Ambassador was on leave he should have respected the Committee’s visit. If contracts were signed close to the expiration of the previous Director General’s term she asked whether it was six months before the expiration. She continued that if the Ambassador’s issue was under process, what part of the issue was under process? Was it that he had not received the Committee, that he had in fact made time to receive Ms Universe or was it that he was on leave and that Mr Mahoai as Director General was not even aware that he was on leave?

Mr Mahoai confirmed that the Ambassador was aware of the Committee’s visit to New York. He responded that on the process the Ambassador was asked to make a representation on his conduct. The Ambassador had explained himself. DIRCO did do follow ups on whether the Ambassador’s conduct was correct. He was not aware whether the Ambassador had received Ms Universe. He hoped that it was not at the same time as the Committee’s visit to New York. 

The Chairperson responded that on the day the Committee left New York the Ambassador had received Ms Universe. She said that perhaps members were not as pretty and young as Ms Universe was. The issue was about the level of respect from the Ambassador towards the Committee. Committee members were after all the Ambassador’s principals. The entire Department was accountable to the Committee. The Committee had to be respected. Many of the issues that the Committee had discovered were due to weaknesses at head office in Pretoria. Information Communication Technology (ICT) issues emanated from 2010. She asked for the names of the property managers of the buildings that were supposed to be the offices of the mission. It was just for information purposes. The Committee had other information at its disposal as well. She noted that there were issues of conflict of interest. The Committee had the names of certain officials but would not as yet release them. 

Mr D Moela (ANC) stated that the Committee was aware that the Ambassador was appointed by the President but the Ambassador still had to report to DIRCO.

Mr Mahoai responded that the Ambassador reported to the Chief Directorate Desk and then to the Deputy Director General of the Branch. The Ambassador had applied for leave in August 2019. The period of leave ran from 6 December 2019 to 7 January 2020.

The Chairperson concluded that the Draft Report would be sent to the Speaker and it would be tabled in the National Assembly.

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: