Virtual oversight on vacant state owned properties

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

18 March 2021
Chairperson: Ms T Mahambehlala (ANC), Acting Chairpersons: Mr T Mpanza (ANC) & Mr B Nkosi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation, 18 March 2021
Audio: Virtual oversight on Vacant state owned properties 

In this virtual meeting, the Committee conducted a virtual oversight of various foreign missions to check on the state of the properties.

The South African Mission in Brasilia and Sao Paolo respectively presented a summary of the State owned properties in the two cities. Video footage was presented highlighting the current condition of the properties both externally and internally. The presentation outlined the status of the four properties in Brasilia, specifically the valuation, condition and vacancy thereof. The maintenance challenges were outlined and the Mission’s proposal regarding how to move forward with the properties was presented. An overview of the asset register was presented.

The Committee requested clarity regarding the length of time the property was vacant for, the reason for vacancy and potential plans to refurbish, demolish or rebuild it. It was queried why the property located in Sao Paolo had depreciated in value. Clarity was requested as to whether the Mission was renting property for residential or office use and how much that cost per annum.

The Namibian Mission presented the condition and related details of the vacant State owned properties located in Windhoek and Walvis Bay. Photographs of the respective properties were presented as well as video footage of the properties that were in the worst condition. It was highlighted that, despite the condition of many of the vacant properties, they were predominantly located in what were considered good areas.

The Committee requested clarity as to how long the properties had been in such a bad condition and what engagement had taken place with Head Office. What recommendations were made after the previous Portfolio Committee’s visit there? The situation regarding the over-crowding of the vacant properties was highlighted as particularly concerning given the tendency for crime and the impact on the Country’s image and reputation. The Committee expressed concern that nothing had been done since the previous Committee’s visit. The Committee highlighted the need to emphasise human assets not just immovable assets.

The Mission in Paris presented the specifics relating to a single vacant parking bay owned by the Country. Video footage of the location of the parking bay was shown, in an upmarket area of Paris located far from the residences and Consulate.

The Committee expressed dismay that the parking bay had not been disposed of and the resultant cost to the Country over the years of disuse. The Committee emphasised the need for the Mission to understand its responsibility in terms of the Foreign Service Act in working jointly with Head Office and the Department of Public Works.

The Mission in Mbabane, Swaziland presented information relating to six vacant properties showing footage thereof. Five of the vacant properties were located in residential areas while the sixth was located in a commercial area and offered potential to house the Chancery.

The Committee expressed horror at the state of the properties. It was highlighted that the number of vacant properties in Eswatini showed the lack of planning on the part of the Department. It was queried why the properties were being maintained if they were not being used. The Committee asked what their plans were for the properties. It was requested that the Department explore the options of renting, selling or renovating the properties. The Committee also requested to know how much was being spent on rentals, in light of the fact that there were so many vacant State owned properties that could have been used.

The Mission based in Bern, Switzerland, presented information and photographs relating to a vacant residence in Zurich that was being fairly well maintained and overseen by a caretaker. The residence was unoccupied for 20 years. The asset register was presented.

The Committee expressed concern regarding the involvement of Ms Bernice Africa, particularly given her absence from the meeting and her associated lack of accountability and responsibility shown. The Committee wanted to know who was present in her place and could respond accordingly to the questions raised. The Committee requested clarity as to why the property had initially been vacated and what the Mission’s intention was in relation to it. 

The Mission in Lilongwe, Malawi, presented information relating to two vacant properties in Blantyre. The condition, age, maintenance challenges and outlook of the properties was presented. it was highlighted that the properties were generally in good condition with the exception of one that had a problem relating to the roof. Cash oversight and the asset register were presented.

The Committee asked whether any submissions had been made to the Department and the status thereof. Clarity was requested regarding the challenges relating to the ICT system experienced in Malawi.

The Mission in Funchal, Portugal, presented on the vacant State owned property highlighting the bad condition thereof. The age and related finances were presented.

The Committee requested clarity regarding a report that was submitted to the Department in 2018 - and whether any further correspondence had taken place since. The Committee again expressed concern regarding the oversight visits by Ms Bernice Africa during 2018 and the lack of progress since then. The Committee highlighted that, given the economic situation, the unused properties at the very least should not be liabilities to the Country,as there was opportunity for them to contribute positively to the economic situation.
 

The Committee concluded that that the state of the Country’s properties overseas was not good. Members noted that they were operating in a very constrained fiscal environment; all departments were experiencing ‘unbearable’ budget cuts. They had low hanging fruits – like these properties – across the Country’s Missions abroad. Those properties could be used positively to contribute to the little that they had as a Department.

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
Acting Chairperson, Mr T Mpanza (ANC), welcomed those in attendance. He indicated that the Chairperson would join the meeting at a later stage. He noted that this was a continuation of the meeting the day before

Introduction to Oversight Presentations
Ms Nonceba Losi, Acting Director General (DG), DIRCO, made a brief introduction and handed over to the Ambassador in Brazil, Mr Vusi Mavimbela.

Brasilia, Sao Paolo, Brazil Oversight Presentation
Ambassador Vusi Mavimbela, DIRCO, gave a brief introduction to the presentation highlighting the COVID-19 situation in Brazil and the associated restrictions. He introduced the members of the Mission who were in attendance. He noted that a number of the properties could not be shown due to the restrictions and security measures.

Video footage of the properties were shown.

The presentation outlined the status of the four properties in Brasilia, specifically the valuation, condition and vacancy thereof. The maintenance challenges were outlined and the Mission’s proposal regarding how to move forward with the properties.

Consul General Tinyiko Kumalo presented a status report on the properties located in Sao Paolo.

Video footage of the apartments were shown as well as photographs of the Chancery in Sao Paolo.

Details of the respective properties and the condition thereof was presented. The Mission’s view on ownership of the apartment was presented as well as an overview of the asset register.

Discussion
Ms T Msane (EFF) stated that having heard the shocking stories relating to the pandemic and how Brazil had handled the situation in the beginning stages, she was glad that the team was alive and safe. They could only hope that team continued to keep themselves and their families safe amidst the pandemic.

With regards to the building the Committee had been shown, that was in a very dilapidated state, how long had it been vacant for? Why was it vacant? What happened, had there been a plan to refurbish or demolish and rebuild the house? With reference to the property in Sao Paolo that was said to have depreciated in value, what was the cause of the depreciation? What was the plan that the Department had regarding that building? What ICT system was the Embassy using regarding the reconciliation of their assets? What was their audit report in the past financial year with respect to the asset register? Were they leasing any buildings for residential or office use? If they were, how much were they paying per annum?

Mr X Nqola (ANC) noted the COVID-19 situation and echoed Ms Msane’s sentiments. He asked what the Department’s plan was for the dilapidated property. He noted the extensive damage and the illegal occupation. He noted that there were other consulates in the Chancery building and the banks nearby – however there were many floors in the building. What other business was conducted in the building, besides that of the other consulates?

Ms B Swarts (ANC) appreciated that the officials in Brazil had survived COVID-19. Her concern was that as long as the Department did not get its act together, when it came to the property management strategy, they would get to each and every country and find property had depreciated to the extent that no one would even be interested in renting the property.

She noted that the one building, in particular, was being vandalised and parts of the building were being removed. This was likely because there was no security. There were two buildings that were not in use and another one that was in use that they ‘sometimes maintained by cleaning it.’ By saying ‘sometimes maintained it by cleaning it,’ did not assist the Committee. It brought them back to square one, the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) did not know how many buildings they had that were being used and whether it was value to still have them. The buildings had been standing there since the 1970s, but what purpose were they to them at this stage? If they needed them, sure. There needed to be a proper strategy in place. The Department had no strategy when it came to property management – and then they were shown such videos. The Committee was shown that on each and every floor that the ‘sink was removed; the taps were removed.’ The Committee was then shown another building that was a ‘paradise,’ by comparison. There were air conditioners that were being maintained, renovations were taking place as well as overall maintenance. It was the first time the Committee was watching ‘horror, nice,’ movies – would they need to watch them for the next three years?

Mr B Nkosi (ANC) referred to the property that had been vacant since 2006, it had been vacant for 15 years. What had the Department or Head Office done regarding the proposals relating to that property? Did they respond to the Mission? If so, what was their decision? He suggested that DIRCO provide a cost benefit analysis regarding options to own, rent or dispose of them, in cases where the properties had not been occupied for a long period of time.

Mr M Chetty (DA) stated that he was partially covered by those who had spoken before him. The property development section was either ‘incompetent or ineffective or did not exist.’ Surely, the Department should have desktop technology currently where all of the issues relating to each property was documented – it should be at their fingertips. He could see what would happen, given what was shown the day before, they would be looking at the properties and either finding out that they were in a state of collapse, abandoned or vacant and rent was being paid elsewhere. It might not have been in the case of Brazil, in terms of the payment of rental elsewhere.

The Committee was well aware of what happened with the New York Project. There was clearly a shortfall somewhere, he would have expected that the DIRCO Offices should have had something comprehensive readily available to ensure that the Members of the Committee were being assisted with this. Sometimes, having dug deeper into the issue around New York Pilot Project, and the findings around the cost per square metre being 67 United States Dollars (USD) as opposed to 32 USD a square metre for rental, there seemed to be something ‘underhanded.’ This seemed to be occurring wherever Missions rented out premises. He wanted to caution himself to say they were simply ‘allegations,’ – nothing had been proven yet, but he was concerned. There were properties that were not being utilised to their full potential. In terms of the rentals that were being spent on some of the properties, as seen the day before, made one wonder why the Department decided to pilot the New York project. There was a reason, a rationale, that somewhere, somehow they were messing up. Money was being ‘used and abused.’ There should be cost savings. It was better to own the property than rent in cases where there was extended terms of tenure. He suggested that the Department needed to come and present to the Committee at a later stage as to what the property development sector of the Department was actually doing.

Ms Losi agreed that after the parliamentary recess, the Department needed to come and present its strategy. She agreed with the Committee that something needed to be done in that regard. She was told that there was an approved strategy and they were looking at what happened – why were they in this situation.

Ambassador Mavimbela responded to the question on how long the property had been vacant in Brasilia. The presentation indicated that it was vacant since 2006. There were properties that they were rented out, they had eight leases in Brasilia alone. The total amount paid toward the leases was 82 000 Brazilian Real per month, which was R21 700 per month.

In terms of the plan for the vacant property and where they were currently, there were hard choices that needed to be made. The Chancery also needed urgent renovation. Recently, Headquarters was able to allocate money to renovate the official residence. There were two properties that needed urgent renovation, he realised the state of finances in the Department and government as a whole was not good. He did not know whether it was possible to allocate that kind of money within a short space of time. From where they were, the financial constraints, it would likely not be possible. He suggested they prioritise the Chancery because it was the face of the Mission and the face of South Africa in Brazil. He suggested they consider disposing of the other property if the funds could not be made available in the short term. It was a painful thing to do – ‘it was like selling family silver’ when one did not have much silver. Of course, it was preferable to refurbish the property if the funds were available.

From what he had been briefed by his colleagues, having recently arrived there, there was a long history. This information could be provided to the Committee. There were quotations from different companies, as to the cost of renovation. All that information was at Headquarters – and that was where the decision needed to come from.

The Supply Chain Manager in Brazil provided a history of the vacant property. The property was vacant since 2006. There was an incident where there was battery in the house, the occupants of the house moved out as a result. It was a stand-alone house. There were security personnel who were responsible for safeguarding the property. According to the records, the security company was removed, subsequent to the occupants moving, due to financial constraints. The removal of the security company and the fact that the property was vacant attracted criminals and homeless people who slept inside the house. According to the records, there was effort over the years to renovate the property, inviting various companies to do so.

The decision in terms of a way forward – as to whether they would renovate or dispose had not been decided. The year before they had invited companies to present, they did a briefing session but the companies that came indicated that the terms of reference that were issued to them were not necessarily talking to the current condition of the house as the house was getting damaged. They had written to Head Office to amend the terms of reference, so that it spoke to the current condition of the property. This would allow them to get companies that would be able to do a proper job. They were waiting for a decision to be given to the Mission.

Windhoek, Walvis Bay, Namibia Oversight Presentation
Ambassador WMP Whitehead, Ambassador to Namibia, introduced the various members stationed at the Namibian Mission. The presentation was then given about the 20 State owned properties in Namibia. 16 Of the properties were located in Windhoek and four of the properties were located in Walvis Bay. Ten of the properties in Windhoek and three of the properties in Walvis Bay were vacant. The presentation focused on the vacant properties and the condition thereof. 

Video footage was shown relating to the vacant properties that were in the worst condition.

Discussion
Acting Chairperson Mpanza asked that the Chairperson not convene the meetings in the evenings, as the Members would not sleep, they would have nightmares. The situation was very bad; it was beyond embarrassing. He wanted to ensure Ambassador Whitehead that they would not allow that state of affairs to prevail while they were members of the Committee.

Mr Nqola requested that the Acting DG brief the Committee on the Department’s plans to attend to the situation. There were a number of vacant properties and there were staff that were renting. The Committee were shown some of the properties that were deemed to be the worst. There was another property shown, apparently by mistake which the Ambassador skipped when looking for a specific video. In his own view, that kind of property was conducive for living in. They may not have seen all the properties that were vacant but there were those that did not seem to be too bad for human use – why were they not used?

The report stated that the properties were in a poor state of repair and required renovation. How long had the properties been in that state? Had there been an engagement with the Mission and the Head Office about renovating those particular properties? What was the resolution and plan?

The Ambassador had referred to a visit by a Portfolio Committee, what year did that take place? If the Ambassador was in possession of what that particular Committee had found and the recommendations thereof – he requested that they be shared with the Committee.

The issue around illegal occupation – he assumed there was no security? The Ambassador had highlighted potential for some of the properties to be used as a Bed and Breakfast (B&B), but this had not happened. How long had they been in that situation?

Mr D Bergman (DA) stated that he was one of the fortunate/unfortunate people that went on the oversight visit that took place three or four years before. He had remarked at the time that the ‘dirtiest thing in Windhoek and Namibia was actually the South African Mission properties.’ That seemed to still be true. Unfortunately, it was not the new Administration, it was the legacy of the old Administration. Before that Committee had gone on the oversight visit a few years before, they had not even known how many properties there were – they thought there were only 14 and then they arrived and were told there were 20. It did not look as if much had changed over the three years. It was the Department of Public Works and the Department of International Relations that had gone on the previous oversight visit. What they had seen was pretty much the same as what was shown on the videos during the presentation. A lot of the rooms of the Ambassador’s house had had graffiti all over the walls and floors of the bedrooms before he had moved in. That meant that there was an ambassador that lived in that house, that when they left that house, someone sprayed graffiti on the carpets, walls and ceilings across a number of the bedrooms.

They needed to be very careful with how they dealt with the country’s properties. Once they started making a ‘business’ out of the property – such as renting them out or offering a B&B service there would be tax issues and liabilities. Then all of a sudden it would not be regarded as a Mission. It would be important to refer to Legal Services, if they were to support the Ambassador on the proposal.

Some of the properties were meant to be sold or disposed of. In reference to the property they had just seen, the Ambassador saved the Committee an eye-sore by not being able to find the video of the internal part of the house. There was a pool on the outside of the property that did not have water inside and was broken – that was not seen in the video either. On the inside, he had been to many informal settlements and shack farms in urban areas where people exploited individuals by renting a room out to ten or 20 people, This was exactly what was taking place in the Mission. The rooms were being sub-rented to the extent that they did not know whether they were ‘prostitutes or drug dealers’ there. There were about 20 people in those houses. This was the Country’s name and the Ambassador had not had support from South Africa in this regard.

When they were able to next get on a plane after the pandemic – it would be important to go there – as the videos did not do it justice to how bad the situation was.

Ms Msane stated that she had hoped that Mr Bergman would speak as she had looked at the legacy report that was left behind by the previous Committee, like he had stated there did not seem to be any change. The previous time the buck was pushed to the Department of Public Works, however the Department of Public Works was part of government as was DIRCO. South African government had ‘failed to run property.’ What was the value of the properties that were left vacant? How much was the Country paying in terms of rates and taxes?

What was the Committee doing there today, when that process was done previously - what was going to change? They needed to take drastic measures – they were losing millions apart from the country’s identity and their reputation in Namibia. DIRCO was allocated millions, they were previously allocated R192 million. In the past that programme was allocated millions. Nothing had changed from the previous term to the current term. Where was the money going? Where was the Department utilising the money that got allocated to that programme for such things? It was left on purpose – the properties had been left on purpose. They needed to be frank – the Department was failing South Africa in all the Missions the Committee had seen.

A Mission could not operate without a laptop, a scanner and tablet, things which she was ‘sure the Acting DG or the Acting CFO had spares of in their offices somewhere.’ They had spares lying around somewhere in the DIRCO headquarters, but a whole embassy had to run without a laptop and a scanner.

What was a lift – when they had property left to dilapidate. They needed to get their priorities straight. If there was someone benefiting from the properties and it was not benefitting the Country – then sell them. They were not being utilized for the purpose they were bought for. The properties had been like this for years. What was the point in having ten properties if they effectively belonged to the streets – because they were not managed properly. They could not even manage to cut grass. She hoped as a Committee they would take solid decisions after this oversight to redirect funds – because clearly the Department did not know where to use that money or they were using the money to do ‘their own things.’ It was not helping the Country. She wanted to know the total value of the properties that were left vacant. How much were they paying on rates and taxes per year?

Acting Chairperson Mpanza stated that the Committee had pushed very hard for the Bill to be passed as an act - the Foreign Services Bill. There had been no proper implementation of the Act, even the suspended DG kept on promising that he would submit that to the Committee – he thought they as a Committee really needed to push for the implementation of that Act. The Committee also needed to push for the establishment of the Project Management Unit within the Department and get a strategy on how to deal with State owned properties.

He highlighted that as much as they were dealing with State property – there was a human element. South African personnel who were deployed to those Missions were exploited, they were living under squalor conditions because of those properties, the tools of trade they needed were not provided nor the conducive environment that they needed to operate in. They needed to factor in those issues so as not to be seen as only concerned about ‘assets.’ The most important asset was human assets and they were not looked after. The Committee had a responsibility to make sure that they addressed those issues. This was exploitation and ill-treatment of the highest order of their own human assets - they could not allow it to carry on. The main culprit of the atrocities was the Department itself.

Mr Bergman agreed with Acting Chairperson Mpanza regarding the human rights issues. There were no greater human rights activists than those around their table. Ms Msane thought that they had opposing views – when they had similar views.

He had not seen South African people stuck in those houses. It was a similar situation to that of Hillbrow where there were 20 sub-let tenants within one room. That was what one would see. It was not humane. He agreed that they needed to take a humane approach – but if one saw what was happening there…The Country would be blamed – there could be lawsuits.

Ambassador Whitehead emphasised the need for humane treatment. He highlighted the inefficiency of the processes around the properties – specifically the administrative processes. He also highlighted issues around the maintenance of the lift and lengthy process of going out to tender – how the prices changed during the tender period.

Mr Nkosi took over as the Acting Chairperson.

Paris, France Oversight Presentation
Ambassador Tebogo Seokolo introduced his colleagues who were attending the meeting remotely due to the 6pm curfew instituted in Paris.

He then presented the presentation which focused on the Country’s immovable assets in Paris. Specific attention was given to the only vacant property, being a single parking bay in an apartment building, acquired in December 1982. The property was evaluated in 2012 at 42 000 Euros and they were currently paying 422,48 Euros per year toward it, as well as a further 209 Euros for rates and taxes.

Video footage of the location of the single parking bay in the basement of an apartment building was shown.

Discussion
Mr Nqola asked how much the single parking bay had cost to purchase. How far was it from the Mission?

Ms Msane stated that what they were seeing there was an example of an inheritance from the racist Apartheid National Party, which was not changed when the current government took over power. The parking bay was bought in 1982 and an analysis was never done by that Department to see whether it was feasible and working – whether they needed it. They got ‘unqualified’ reports from the Auditor General (AG) year in, year out. She had done a quick conversion to Rands, R10 000 was being spent per annum on that. It was embarrassing and it needed to change. They could not operate like that. They could not be keeping structures that were a legacy of the Apartheid racist regime that they did not utilise nor need – but they were still pumping money into.

Mr Chetty stated that it was R13 000 per annum – fruitless and wasteful expenditure. He was concerned. Surely by now all of those expenses contributed toward the Auditor General’s report reflecting poorly on the Department. Why was it that the Committee needed to raise it as a concern? The Department should have identified this long before then.

What was the point of telling the Committee, that in 2012 the parking was valued at 42 000 Euros? If it was marketable and could have been sold off – the Foreign Services Bill, that was just past through Parliament, would offer them the opportunity to do things like that. They had a redundant asset that they could not utilize. None of the officials could use it because it was too far from their place of work or residency. If they looked at an average of R13 000 per annum – over the last ten years they had squandered an accumulative amount of R130 000. No one seemed to care about spending that money – as it was not their individual money.

Surely when the evaluation was done – there was a purpose for doing so. Had they intended to dispose of it? What was the intention? These small amounts added up. Imagine how many more vaccines the Country could have purchased, if they collectively considered the fruitless and wasteful expenditure that the Department incurred due to negligence. What was the Department’s intention with the parking bay?

Ms Losi stated that it made sense that the asset would need to be disposed of at its current value – that would be an engagement they would have with the Mission.

Ambassador Seokolo stated that with respect to the value, they had tried to get the report regarding what was paid for the parking bay – but he was afraid they were unable to get it. It was located about 15 to 20 minutes away from the Embassy. The parking bay was located in an upmarket area and therefore most of the residences were not located in that area, thus they did not use the bay. When the evaluation team of 2012 left, the understanding was that they would discuss the matter with the Department of Public Works in terms of the disposal thereof. It was beyond their scope as a Mission.

Mr Mpanza heard the response from the Ambassador about it being ‘outside their scope.’ Was he not aware that there was now a Foreign Service Act which dealt with the issue around the responsibilities of DIRCO?

Ms Msane also wanted to verify whether the Ambassador was aware of the Act. It would be difficult to work with the Department if they were not told of the history. The Acting DG needed to go and find out why they were where they were today. If there was an evaluation done in 2012 and the asset had still not been disposed of. The money had been wasted and the ‘asset’ was still in their hands. They did not want to start a new process when things had been ‘left to be destroyed,’ for so many years.

Mr Chetty stated that he deliberately made reference to the Foreign Services Bill in his previous comment, even before the Ambassador responded. He had asked about the process of disposal. This was a problem they had previously – passing the buck across to the Department of Public Works. When the Committee came in they made sure to pass the Foreign Services Bill because they knew they wanted to put a stop to the question of whose responsibility it was. Even if it was the Department of Public Works that was dragging its feet, surely the officials they had there – must have had some sense of responsibility and accountability. The problem was that there was a lack of accountability by senior officials in South Africa. That was one of the reasons why, when they reshuffled people around, after suspensions, with no consequence management action taken against them –they found themselves in the mess they were in, especially this Department.

If in 2012, according to the Ambassador, the Team that left provided an exit report, that report must have made mention of the car park. Then it went to the Department of Public Works. Surely, as responsible people, the Ambassador and his Department were well aware that every year there was a payment that was made for the car park. Do the senior officials before them just ‘willy-nilly,’ ensure the payment goes through, not bothering about the fact that it was fruitless and wasteful irregular expenditure? He hoped that the CFO was listening, because ultimately it would become her responsibility when the Committee did a wrap up of the oversight visit. No one in the embassy had decided to take up concern around this issue since 2012. The reason nothing was done was because it was not those individuals money – it was not coming out of their individual pockets. It was coming out of the South African citizen’s pockets. If these costs were attached to individual’s salaries – then they would see how quickly the issue would be taken up and the parking bay disposed of.

He stated that the Ambassador had known he was coming before the Committee – if it was him he would have tried to get a current evaluation not an evaluation from 2012. The value might have depreciated. No one had come banging on the Embassy’s doors asking to buy it – there was no demand for it.

Ambassador Seokolo stated that he was aware of the Foreign Service Act especially as it related to foreign owned properties, owned by government. He would work with Head Office in terms of how to deal with that unused property going forward.

Ms Losi stated that as she had previously said they would engage with the Mission and ensure that the property was disposed of.

Mbabane, Eswatini, Swaziland Oversight Presentation
AdvocateThokozile Simpamla, introduced the members of the Mission.

Mbabane’s Corporate Manager presented the presentation which focused on two State owned properties and the condition thereof. Six vacant properties were presented, five of which were located in residential areas and one in a commercial area, which was suggested as potentially suitable for the Chancery. Their asset register was then briefly outlined.

Video footage and photographs of the properties were shown.

Discussion
Ms Swarts stated that she thought they were seeing more and more ‘horrors.’ When they saw such things, were they going to be told that it would be solved by the Acting DG together with the Acting CFO? The amount of vacant land they had in Eswatini just showed the lack of planning from the Department. They were being told the garden was being maintained, in between they were shown horrors. There were fairly new generators but the foundation was moving from the ground. She was a bit confused – it was witchcraft because they had foundations that were moving from the ground. Did the Department see the magnitude of what was happening at the Missions? The Committee members were beginning to sound like broken records, since the day before they were repeating the same things. This Department would never see the importance of the Foreign Service Bill. The officials that were sitting in the Department that claimed they had a ‘property unit’ – which really did not exist in reality.

What they had seen there was a real mess. If the Chairperson had not initiated the virtual oversight, she wondered when DIRCO would have even seen this. Especially as over the years there were ambassadors who had written to DIRCO or complained about the situation. The situation made her feel as if they were ‘banging their heads against a wall but they were not going to stop.’ The Acting DG must listen very carefully; these things would not be solved by magic. They would need to give the Committee a proper property management strategy from qualified people. It was disappointing – the situation was getting worse. She did not see any maintenance of the land. Maintaining meant the ‘grass was neatly cut.’ One could not have the electric pipes and water pipes assembled together all of over the grass. What was the purpose of purchasing all of that land if the land was not being used and there was no plan? Why were they ‘maintaining’ the land if there was no purpose?

Ms Msane agreed with Ms Swarts. Since the Committee came into Office, the minutes reflected how the Committee had requested over and over again to be presented with an asset register. A property management register that stated how many properties there were, payment on leases etc. It did not seem as if the Department was prepared to give them that information. It could only mean one thing – someone was benefitting from rentals from the State’s funds and the current situation suited them very well.

The properties and vacant land was bought by the Apartheid regime. When they took over government no one knew what was to be done with that land. The status quo remained – nothing had been changed meaning they were looking after assets of the Apartheid regime which did not benefit the current/future regime. This was their neighbouring Country, if they had a project development plan related to the urban property – where was it – how much would it cost? How long would it take? They needed those two houses – she wanted to know from the Acting DG how much they were paying for rentals as opposed to using their own properties. Had a cost assessment been done in terms of renovating the houses? They were left vacant since 2012, a period of nine years. Should they attempt to renovate and rebuild? She recommended a deadline be proposed. They needed a property management team made up of qualified people ‘not in catering, not in security,’ that had the relevant skills. If they had to go back through previous minutes, they would find that a due date was given in that regard. She suggested the Committee set a due date that the Department could present the property management team to them.

Ms Losi stated that they would do everything in their power to resolve the issues. Yes, the Committee was correct that the Department did not know the magnitude of all of what was happening. She still believed that they should be able to resolve the issues. There was nothing that could not be resolved.

Mbabane’s Corporate Manager stated that the rent for the Chancery was 1 590 000 per annum and it would have an escalation of five percent from the following year. The rentals for the transferred officials per month was 11 000 for the first secretaries, the Councillors paid 13 000. The High Commissioner paid 25 000 per month. [NOT SPECIFIED WHETHER SWAZI LILANGENI OR SOUTH AFRICAN RANDS]

Adv Thokozile Simpamla stated that that was what they paid. They could fix the house, it was  a house that they would not want to get rid of. It just required refurbishment. If money was made available they could develop a plan to revitalise the house so that it was habitable. There was a report by surveyors that was sent to…

The Corporate Manager was whispering prompts to the Advocate.

Acting Chairperson Nkosi interrupted to ask that the Corporate Manager prompt the Advocate by writing rather than whispering – they could hear what she was saying.

Advocate Simpamla stated they had gotten estimates of the cost of renovating the house – but they had not received this back from Ms Bernice Africa to whom they had sent the request. If they could allocate funds for that, that would be excellent. She would like to see that by the end of her four year term, having gotten there at the beginning of January 2021. 

In terms of the Chancery there was about one hectare of land that could be identified to house a chancery. There was another plot that was vacant which was about another hectare – three or four houses for officials could be built on that property so that they maximised on the built property as opposed to leasing.

Acting Chairperson Nkosi directed his suggestion to the Acting DG.  The Committee needed a report on the option of renting versus abandoning the properties versus the cost of building. It needed a report that explored all of the options in relation to the properties in Swaziland.

Ms Msane stated that the crisis was that even the Mission’s themselves did not know how much was spent on rentals. She did not appreciate being told to calculate the rentals based on the monthly figures provided. It was not good enough. They needed to know a total. She was not an accountant, she was not going to ‘sit and count.’ It would never suffice.

Acting Chairperson Nkosi suggested that in framing their request for a report – specific information needed to be provided about the properties, their location, costs, type of tenure etc and a projection over four years. He asked Ms Msane if that helped.

Ms Msane stated that what made it worse was that the meeting was prepared for. If the Members went home and prepared for it, the Department could have done the same. Why could the Department not have prepared a history, the Members had gone and looked at the reports of previous terms. Had they even bothered to look at the surveyors report? If one took over a position, one looked at what had previously been done so that one could move forward from there.

Mr Mpanza stated that he was also frustrated but suggested that the best thing to do was request information in the form of a report.

Ms Swarts stated that at least the Mission had mentioned the name of the official that had not been helpful, Ms Bernice Africa. To sit and watch an Ambassador being whispered to – where everything she said was being told to her by the person sitting next to her, it was clear the Ambassador did not know what was going on,

Zurich, Switzerland Oversight Presentation
Ambassador  DS Mthembi-Mahanyele introduced the members of the Mission who were based in Bern.

The presentation focused on ‘Zumikon,’ a State owned residential property in Zurich purchased in 1970 which had been unoccupied for 20 years. The Mission took ownership of the property in 1996. The property was maintained by a caretaker and was in fairly good condition. The presentation provided an overview of the property, which included external and internal photographs of the condition thereof. The asset register was presented.

Discussion
Ms Msane stated that the name Ms Bernice Africa kept popping up. Was she present in the meeting? She would be in a better position to provide answers to the Committee. It looked like she was the one who visited those Missions, ‘with a certain mission,’ and the Committee would want to know what was ‘that mission.’ Why was the property vacated for 20 years? Was it no longer serving a purpose – what condition was it in when it was vacated?

Ms Swarts agreed with Ms Msane. She also wanted to know whether Ms Bernice Africa was present – as the Head of the Property Unit, it would have been good for her to be in the meeting. The comprehensive reports required information from her. She had laughed when the Ambassador had said that Ms Bernice Africa had visited the Mission and Head Office should have all the information – she doubted that they would get any information there. Anywhere where they did not benefit from rental – they would get no information. They got back to Head Office and swept everything under the rug.

Ms Losi stated that Ms Bernice Africa was not present, she had been at the first meeting. She was on ‘special’ sick-leave since 17 March 2021. According to the Doctors Certificate provided, she would be coming back on 6 April 2021.

Mr Mpanza asked, in the absence of Ms Africa, who was the next in line. One of the problems with some of the sections in the Department, was the issue of having a one-person show. When the person was not around then they could not get answers and had to wait until they got back. No one was indispensable in any organisation. Ms Africa would go back to the Doctor and he would ‘book her off for another month.’ It would mean that the work of the Committee would stop because she was not around. What system was in place in case of someone not being present who was heading up a unit?

Ambassador Mthembi-Mahanyele stated that it would be difficult to respond adequately to the question of why the property was vacated because it was a historical reason. She apologised for that. In terms of their consular efforts, they shared them between Geneva and Bern.

Acting Chairperson Nkosi asked that a written narrative be provided in terms of what was not provided on the slides. This could be forward to the Department and then to the Committee.

Ms  Losi stated that Ms Bernice Africa reported to the Acting CFO, who was present.

Ms Hlengiwe Bhengu, Acting CFO, DIRCO, stated that her understanding was that the property in Zurich was for the Consular General who was a director from the Department of Finances. When the Consulate was opened in Bern they closed the one in Zurich, and therefore that property became vacant.

Acting Chairperson Nkosi suggested that all the information be included in the report that would be sent to the Committee.

Ms Msane directed a comment to the Acting DG [Language 5:07:08 Audio]. They were being informed now that a certain individual in the Department, in the form of Bernice Africa, received reports and nothing got done. She visited Missions, and nothing got done. It was not the first, or second time this had happened. The same name came up when they were in New York. All of a sudden there was ‘hide and seek’ happening. When they received the report after the oversight, they would want to know the participation of Ms Bernice Africa in building up the report, in consolidating the report and the history that would have gone into that report. This started in 1982.

Ms Swarts stated that the Acting DG needed to be aware of how Bernice Africa landed in DIRCO. For her to even have the property unit… She was part of the team that helped to assist DIRCO to acquire the building where DIRCO was located currently. That was how she got into DIRCO. She was surprised that Bernice Africa was reporting to the Acting CFO. When the Committee had done its oversight, the Acting CFO could not answer the Committee about things that were specific to her role in that SCM unit. The disaster just became worse if Bernice Africa was now reporting to the Acting CFO. The Acting CFO was aware of what she was talking about – they had discussed previously how suitable skilled people needed to be found to head up that unit. She was running away from presenting herself – in claiming a sick leave. They were not doctors but this was mischievousness at its highest level. She then asked the CFO who was next in charge after Bernice Africa in the property unit.

Ms Bhengu stated that Ms Bernice Africa had two directors that reported to her, one was responsible for state owned properties and facilities management and the other was responsible for leased properties.

Ms Swarts asked who was responsible when Ms Bernice Africa was absent – why were those directors not present in the meeting?

Ms Bhengu replied that both directors were in the meeting and Ms Pat Roji had been appointed to act in the place of Ms Africa from that day forward in her absence.

Ms Pat Roji [spelling unconfirmed], Acting Chief Director, DIRCO, responded to the question regarding the vacant property in Zurich, reiterating what was previously said regarding the Consulate moving to Bern. She stated that it was one of the properties that was earmarked for disposal.

Ms Msane stated that Mbabane had supplied a report to Ms Africa from the surveyors – what happened to that report? Ms Africa visited Switzerland in 2018, where was that report?

Ms Roji responded that she did know of the report – she was presently undergoing load-shedding and could not provide the details of the report presently. She was responsible for leasing specifically, so she did not automatically know the details of that report. They would make the report available to the Committee the following day.

Acting Chairperson Nkosi asked the Acting DG to take note of the undertakings so that she could present answers to the Chairperson and Committee over the coming week.

Blantyre and Lilongwe, Malawi Oversight Presentation
Mr AC Sigcau, High Commissioner to the Republic of Malawi, introduced the members of his team based in Lilongwe.

The presentation focused on two properties located in Blantyre, highlighting the condition of the properties, the age, maintenance challenges and the Mission’s view/outlook relating to ownership. Cash oversight relating to the properties was also presented. 

Videos of the respective properties were shown.

It was stated that the properties were generally not in a bad condition, with the exception of one property where there was a problem relating to the roof. Some of the properties required some painting but nothing more than that.


The asset register was then presented, providing an overview of the 1506 assets and challenges relating to NetTrace the ICT programme used, specifically in the context of the poor broadband in Malawi.

Discussion
Acting Chairperson Nkosi asked whether they had made submissions to the Department on disposal options. If the properties were rented out – to whom was that money paid, to the Embassy or to DIRCO?

Ms Msane noted that the Ambassador had said there was a challenge in moving from a rental to state owned Chancery. What was the challenge? She had not understood clearly what the problem was with the ICT system? She stated that they would have liked to see some of the properties – particular the ones that needed renovations, so that they understood the extent of the problems. 

Ambassador Sigcau responded that the money was not paid to the Mission; it was paid to National Treasury through the Embassy. In terms of the ICT system -the problem was that they had a big issue with the network in Malawi which really slowed things down. Head Office had not allowed for things to be done manually so this was a big problem– they were on 3G, where South Africa was waiting on 5G.

In terms of the videos of the house in Lilongwe, they did have the videos but they were on a flash disc, they could share them with the Committee after the presentation. They had submitted recommendations in 2016 relating to disposal and the previous year for Blantyre.

Ms Losi stated that she had seen a trend with respect to the missions that had presented. At least the High Commissioner of Malawi was one of the few who had made recent submissions to Head Office. Generally the Mission identified assets that ought to be disposed of and then there was a Committee that sat, after that sitting, approval was given from Head Office. This was something she would follow up with the High Commissioner, as to who exactly they had dealt with at Head Office. They would then give a response.

Ms Swarts stated that she was more and more amazed by the responses from the Department – the Acting DG said it was the responsibility of the missions to dispose of property but the High Commissioner said that they had submitted to Head Office so that they could get approval. The fact that the Acting DG needed to check who it was that received it – was even more alarming. The Department should have the property management unit division, which currently was within the finance division, where the Head was Bernice Africa –they should know who was receiving those things.

Funchal, Portugal Oversight Presentation
Ambassador Ms MJ Gaoretelelwe to Portugal allowed her team to introduce themselves. The property in Portugal was presented, the condition, age and related finances thereof.

Photographs of the property were shown highlighting the structural damage to the property.

Discussion
Mr Chetty noted the presentation said that a report was sent to Headquarters in 2018 and that the Mission was still waiting for a response from Headquarters. From 2018 up until 2021, had there been no correspondence? In 2018, the Chief Director of Property came to the Embassy, who was that?

Mr Nqola stated that he echoed the question raised by Mr Chetty. The Acting DG needed to take note that the issues of property disposal were not being taken care of within the Department. He believed that the Chief Director who had visited the Embassy in 2018, was Ms Bernice Africa. The Committee could safely conclude that the state of the Country’s properties overseas was not good. The situation relating to the Chief Director was not good – having ‘clandestine’ meetings with service providers. The responsibilities of her own Office were not taken care of. It had been years; the Missions had been looking to dispose of the properties. They had the most ‘incompetent’ director of property management in the history of democratic South Africa. They were operating in a very constrained fiscal environment; all departments were experiencing ‘unbearable’ budget cuts. They had low hanging fruits – like these properties – across the Country’s Missions abroad. Those properties could be used positively to contribute to the little that they had as a Department. But due to the Chief Director of Property Management, being busy with tender documents, they would never see that. 

Ms Msane asked what was happening in 2018 – ‘was it an excursion around the world?’ Two countries were toured by Ms Bernice Africa.

Ambassador Gaoretelelwe stated that she did not think she had an adequate response to those questions, suffice to say that the Chief Director visited in 2018, and a site visit of the facility was undertaken. The Mission wrote a submission in 2017. Their recommendations were the same, that the property needed to be assessed by a professional so as to decide whether to renovate it and sell it, as a better commodity, or to rent it or sell it as it was. They paid basic garden services because they were avoiding heavy penalties from the Municipality. They were well aware of the economic situation in the Country.

Ms Roji stated that as far as she could remember the Chief Director applied for the Mission visit – she was on a Mission visit to assess the state of the properties abroad.

Acting Chairperson Mr Nkosi stated they were well aware that she went. The Committee wanted to know what was the purpose? Where was the report?  Was it acted on? Were the renovations budgets for etc?

Ms Roji stated that those were things they would need to look for when they were in the Office. She was not in a position to respond off the top of her head, as to whether there was a report or whether those matters were dealt with.

Ms Msane stated that the first time Ms Roji had responded regarding Switzerland – she had said there was a report. Now they were getting told, ‘when they got to the office etc.’ She requested that the Committee not be misled by the Department.

Acting Chairperson Nkosi stated that this was a bad report in whatever way one wanted to look at it. It did not provide hope. The Acting DG should demand recourse of the property unit and develop an action plan. When the Acting DG came back she needed to have concrete proposals. 

The Chairperson thanked all the Missions that had presented. Germany was supposed to have presented but they were having transport issues. They would leave no stone unturned, regarding what was happening in the Department. They would make a follow-up regarding the commitments made by the Acting DG from the meeting. She hoped that by the time the Committee met with the Department again, some of the issues would be resolved. There was a common denominator across all the missions, the properties of the Country had collapsed abroad. She was not sure what the property management unit was doing in the Department. Regarding Ms Bernice Africa, the 6 April 2021 would come. She was always on leave when there was oversight, it was not new. This was not the last oversight, the Committee would continue with its work and visit all the missions. At least they were able to ascertain what the Auditor General had said regarding the Department paying money toward unoccupied buildings all over the world and the fruitless and wasteful expenditure.

The meeting was adjourned.
 

Present

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: