DIRCO on implementation of Committee New York Oversight Report recommendations; with Minister

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

25 February 2021
Chairperson: Ms T Mahambehlala (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation, 25 February 2021

Committee Report on conducting a fact-finding oversight visit on status of pilot project for acquisition of office accommodation for South African Permanent Mission to United Nations and Consulate-General, in New York, dated 4 March 2020

The Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation convened on a virtual platform to be addressed by the Minster of International Relations and Cooperation. The agenda was to discuss the Department of International Relations and Cooeprtion’s (DIRCO’s) progress in implementing the Committee’s New York oversight report recommendations.

Minister Pandor stated that the Department’s Director-General was placed on precautionary suspension with pay. She denied that the media reports stating that the precautionary suspension was related to the recommendations made by the Committee in the New York oversight report. She could not confirm if the precautionary suspension was due to the irregularities in the acquisition of a property in New York of R118 million. She was unable to go into any detail as the matter is still unfolding and she did not want to infringe on the privacy of the Director-General. She insisted that she that she followed processes assiduously as per the Public Service Act. She has consulted the Department of Public Service and Administration. She is paying attention to the timeframes stipulated in the appropriate regulations.

The Minister called for the Department spokesperson to appear before the Committee regarding his alleged statement to the media linking the DG suspension to the Committee's report. The spokesperson stated that he confirmed to the media that the DG was indeed put on precautionary suspension, but he did not link it to the Committee's oversight report or the New York R118 million irregularities.

The Committee Chairperson stated that the spokesperson was not being honest in this regard.

The Minister said that according to her knowledge, Ambassador Jerry Matjila was unable to see the Committee upon its New York oversight visit as he was on leave, which was granted in advance to his departure. The Minister stated that due to the work pressures and future work commitments in the United Nations (UN) Security Council, which had a complicated and demanding schedule at the time, influenced the Ambassador’s leave dates. Furthermore, the peak holiday period meant the airline required that the Ambassador and his family to forfeit their tickets and purchase new tickets at double the cost of the initial tickets. There were no economy class tickets for the new proposed dates and thus, he had little choice but to return to South Africa as per previous permission granted by the Department. Since the Ambassador received prior approval to leave his station, he could not be expected to suffer personal financial loss due to the changes in the Committees oversight dates. Thus, the Department would not bring forth consequence management against Ambassador Matjila as recommended by the Committee.

The Committee condemned the Minister's conduct to which she responded that the Committee should report her conduct to the Speaker of the House so that an investigation may be launched into the matter. This will allow her to defend herself and for resolve to be found on such a serious matter. The Committee was displeased with this response further stating that the Minister was arrogant.

One Member stated that the current Minister must take the responsibility of what has happened, as DIRCO is her Department. However, the Committee must be fair and acknowledge that the Former DIRCO Ministers, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane and Lindiwe Sisulu, have more to explain. The matters have been sidelined for a number of years.

Members also asked for the reason for the suspension of the current Director-General. What processes does the Minister have in place that will ensure the process of the DGs charges will not take long? Apart from the appointment of the Acting DG, how does the Minister plan to meet the targets of the Department?

It was decided that the Committee will have a closed session with the Minister so that she may take the Committee through the details of the matters raised in the meeting, which she cannot speak on due to it being a public meeting. The letter that the Minister wrote to the President, requesting the precautionary suspension of the DG, should be brought before the Committee in the closed meeting. The Committee will request this from the President and the Department of Public Service and Administration. This will allow the Committee to move forward and perform its oversight role

Meeting report

Opening Remarks by the Chairperson
The Chairperson opened the virtual meeting, welcoming the Members, Committee support staff, the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation as well as the Department delegation.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee is concerned regarding the New York project. The Committee does not aim to be involved in the Minister’s decisions. However, for this particular case, the Committee was caught off guard by the media’s enquiries on the Committee’s recommendations regarding the project. It is said that the implementation of the report has resulted in the precautionary suspension of the Director-General (DG). This was stated by the Minister’s spokesperson in an interview.

The Committee thus seeks to uphold the integrity of Parliament as none of its recommendations have been implemented to date, yet it is reported that the Minister’s cause of action has been to do with the Committee’s oversight report. It should have been reported to the Committee that its recommendations have been varied. The Minister should have alerted to the Committee of new evidence that suggests the implication of the current DG or that the Committee’s recommendations were to be set aside. The actions taken are considered as total disregard for the Committee’s hard work that was put into the oversight visit to New York. The oversight visits used taxpayers' money only for the recommendations to be thrown out of the window. The Committee cannot be undermined.

Further, nothing has been done to hold the former Ambassador accountable for not availing himself during the Committee’s oversight visit in New York. The Committee recommended that the President be approached to recall the former Ambassador, but instead, his tour of duty was extended. The Minister did not instruct the Ambassador and former DG to at least explain their role in the procurement process relating to the New York project. The Ambassador returned only to be on retirement and now the current DG is put on precautionary suspension. This sequence of events brings about many questions: why did the former DG not account for his part? Why has the Minister not taken action against the parties mentioned in the report? The Minister’s response to the report to the Speaker was both short and dismissive. This is unacceptable.

Irregular expenditure from the New York project must be seen as none compliance with procurement processes. This is why the Auditor-General (AG) instructed the Department to record the payment of R118 million on the register of irregular expenditure. The Committee was briefed on this in October 2019 and shortly after that, the CFO stated that he did not agree with the AG findings. The Committee notes that there is serious misinterpretation on the irregular expenditure of the Department from the definition in the Public Financial Management Act (PFMA).

The Committee seeks for its recommendations to be implemented in its entirety. Implicated officials should be subjected to disciplinary action. The Minister is at liberty to share new evidence that points at other officials that may have contributed to the unlawful award of the tender of the New York project, if any.

She then handed over to the Minister for her opening remarks.

Minister’s Remarks
Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Dr Naledi Pandor, stated that the Chairperson’s opening remarks have made serious allegations against the Minister and her conduct towards the Committee and Parliament. The Minister asked the Chairperson to submit the Committee’s concerns to Parliament so that a proper investigation may ensue. The statement is serious, and she regrets that this is the view of the Portfolio Committee.

The Minister stated that she prepared a report that responds to each recommendation made by the Committee. The Committee’s report dated November 2020 had a number of recommendations for the consideration of DIRCO. The report adopted by Parliament must be taken seriously. However, she does not understand it as a directive, as contained in stator or in legislation. Nonetheless, DIRCO takes the recommendations seriously and respects the Committee’s hard work.

Regarding the recommendation related to the permanent representative, Ambassador Jerry Matjila that was absent from New York when the Portfolio Committee carried out its oversight. The recommendation was to implement consequence management against the Ambassador should it be found that he has neglected his duties. The matter was taken up with the Ambassador immediately after the concern of the Portfolio Committee was bought the Departments attention. The Ambassador had a number of complicated circumstances that made it difficult for him to host the Portfolio Committee. The dates for the oversight visit had been postponed twice before; each time arrangements had to be amended. For purposes of planning, the Ambassador received prior approval for vacation leave, which was properly applied for. He had permission thereby to leave his country of accreditation. On the basis of that permission, the Ambassador purchased personal economy class airline tickets for himself and his family to return to South Africa.

Work pressures and future work commitments in the United Nations (UN) Security Council, which had a complicated and demanding schedule at the time, influenced the Ambassador’s leave dates. The peak holiday period meant the airline required that the Ambassador and his family to forfeit their tickets and purchase new tickets at double the cost of the initial tickets. There were no economy class tickets for the new proposed dates and he thus had little choice but to return to South Africa, as per previous permission granted by the Department. Since the Ambassador received prior approval to leave his station, he could not be expected to suffer personal financial loss due to the changes in the Committee’s oversight dates. The need for consequence management, considering these reasons, is not anticipated. The Department does take responsibility for the Ambassador not notifying the Committee that he would not be available during the oversight visit.

The second recommendation states that the Department should facilitate that the Ambassador appeared before the Committee. She indicated that he would be available to appear before the Committee at a mutually convenient date and time to explain the above-mentioned circumstances, should the Committee still deem it necessary.

The third recommendation was on the AG finding in the report for 2018/2019 irregularities regarding the acquisition of accommodation in New York and the implications of the permanent representative as accounting officer during the initiation of the pilot project and the current head of mission to the UN in New York. This recommendation stated that the Minister should consider requesting the President to recall the permanent representative to protect the integrity of South Africa and for the efforts towards economic diplomacy. The Ambassador was serving the last year of his term as permanent representative, which coincided, in 2020, with South Africa’s tenure as an elected member of the Security Council. The Department felt the need for continuity in the responsibility of managing the work of a complicated and difficult responsibility that is the Security Council. This was part of the Department’s consideration when dealing with the Committee’s recommendations.

The Ambassador has completed his term as permanent representative and is back in South Africa. The investigations into the circumstances around the irregular expenditure are ongoing. Internal processes responding to the outcome of the AG report are also underway.

Recommendation four stated that the Department should investigate internal control deficiencies that lead to the lack of oversight by the Department, to ensure compliance with laws and regulations on the procurement processes for the New York pilot project. The Department has reviewed the supply chain management processes and has put in place controls to ensure that there should be no recurrence of the challenges previously experienced. Management remains ceased with the matter of improving all oversight measures within the Department. It seeks to ensure that there is compliance with relevant laws and regulations. The Department is not fully where it would like to be but is working hard to improve. The Ministry gets regular reports regarding the action plan and is working with the audit committee; ‘skills and capacity’ is being pursued as well.

Recommendation five stated that the Department should explain why it has created the impression that it was purchasing a site (land) in New York when in actual fact it had been found that it was purchasing an existing building. The Department indicated that it had made interchangeable references of purchases of a site or a property. This may have been understood as vacant land. However, the intention of the Department was to purchase an existing building that it anticipated would be demolished and the construction of new office accommodation would then commence. The Department indicates that there was no intention at all to mislead the Committee in any way.

Recommendation six stated that the Department should furnish the Committee with names of all officials that were involved in each stage of the procurement of the New York project. The Department should also provide an explanation on the investigation it conducted and if it has determined any officials liable for irregular expenditure in the project. The Minister listed all the names of members of the bid evaluation committee, and the Department adjudication committee and stated that two members have since passed away.

Following the AG management report for 2017/2018 on the New York project, a service provider conducted a further investigation. Open Water Investigations was appointed to confirm the irregularity and identify the officials that could have contributed to the irregularities in the Auditor-General South Africa (AGSA) report so that they could be held accountable. Implementation is under consideration by the Department to afford the implicated officials an opportunity to make representations as to why they should not be subjected to disciplinary action.

The Minister stated that at no point did she indicate that the precautionary suspension of the DG was a result of the recommendations made in the Portfolio Committee report. She stated that she has not made any public statement indicating this, which she also stated in a letter previously written to the Committee. She is uncertain why the spokesperson would report this to the media if she had not said so herself. She is astounded and the spokesperson will have to account.

Recommendation seven indicates that the Department should investigate a report on the causes of the five-year delay in securing a new and suitable location of the two missions in New York. In 2015, the Department put out a tender to procure property; the procurement process was found to be irregular and it was thus halted in 2018. The Department has approached the high court to set aside the awarding of the tender and the judgement is still being awaited. The case was heard in October 2020; the sitting judge indicated that the ruling would be provided by the end of the calendar year 2020. However, no judgement has been handed down. The court ended on December 16, 2020; the Chief State Law Advisor approached the court to find when the judgement is anticipated but no definitive date has been provided.

Since the current chancery contract expired in 2014; the Consult-General and the permanent mission have been paying rent on a month-to-month basis, as the Portfolio Committee is aware. This is pending the acquisition of a new building. Attempts to search for temporary accommodation for the chancery commenced again in 2019 and negotiations on finding a suitable temporary accommodation are at an advance stage. Once all the legalities related to the accommodation identified have been cleared the rental of a chancery will be implemented and finalised. In September 2020, head office granted the mission for the approval to identify suitable premises for the chancery. Three buildings were considered. The chancery previously occupied by the United Kingdom at 845 3rd Avenue was preferred. Negotiations commenced with the UK in September 2020 for South Africa to sublease two vacant floors in the building. Issues that needed to be finalised and legalities included:
The right of contract termination should the prime landlord or sub-landlord default on their obligations
The waiver of immunities and access to the landlords to the two floors in question, without the permission of the tenant, are being negotiated.

Recommendation eight stated that the Department should fast track the procurement process for the relocation of the two missions to a more suitable location. This is covered above. The recently earmarked and preferred building is much cheaper at US$37 per square foot compared to what is currently being paid, which is US$62 per square foot. On 20 and 29 January 2021, representative of the UK and South Africa met to resolve the impasse on the draft sublease agreement. An agreement was reached on the owners' obligations and the waiver of immunity. The owner of the current property, NYU Langone Health, has been notified about the intention for the Consult-General and the Permanent Mission to relocate. The owner agreed. The Department has been informed that within the next two weeks the sublease agreement should be ready for signature, subject to the approval of the draft agreement. It is expected that the relocation will be completed within the next 30-60 days, subject to all logistical aspects of the relocation.

Recommendation nine stated that the Department should consider the need to have attaches on civic work and trade in New York and that the Department should consult with the Department of Home Affairs as well as the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition on the matter. The Department has done so and is awaiting follow-up from the departments mentioned. All departments, including DIRCO, are looking for international assignments, given the significant constraints mentioned in the budget speech by Minister of Finance, Mr Tito Mboweni. However, the Department is awaiting responses from the relevant departments.

Recommendation ten was for the Department to develop proper procedures to evaluate office accommodation in consultation with the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI). The Department is in ongoing deliberation and internal consultations with the DPWI.

Recommendation eleven stated that the Department should provide regular updates on the work the Department is doing on the UN Security Council and in the African Union (AU). The Department has provided regular updates on the work of the UN Security Council and the AU and will continue to do so, as and when requested by the Portfolio Committee. The reports will include the final assessment of South Africa's term as an elected member of the Security Council for the period 2019-2020 and the term as Chair of the AU for the year 2020.

Recommendation twelve stated that the Department should consider having a transferred official responsible for administration located within Manhattan or close to the office premises to attend in a timeous manner to emergency that may need the offices intervention. The Department stated that this is an accommodation matter that the mission would have to address with the corporate services manager to move closer to the mission. This could have financial implications and impact the personal and family circumstances of the official concerned. Thus, the change proposed needs to be weighed against the priorities of the mission and the personal circumstances of the official referred to. The Department has alerted the mission to the need to create appropriate mechanisms to respond expeditiously to any emergency matter.

Recommendation thirteen stated that the Department should consider an upgrade for Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and activity between headquarters and the New York mission. The upgrade will be considered during the wireless area network (WAN) upgrades of DIRCO sites. ICT connectivity for missions and headquarters will be approved as part of the Departmental ICT infrastructure modernization project, which is currently underway.

The Minister stated that she humbly requests that the statement against her regarding her poor conduct be reported to Parliament so that she may be properly investigated and be given the opportunity to defend herself.

The Chairperson stated that the Minister could not prescribe what the Committee should and should not do. The Committee moves in unison. She stated that the Minister should spare herself from self-importance so that the Committee can do its work without hindrance. The Minister’s utterances are arrogant.

Spokesperson’s Remarks
Mr Lunga Ngqengelele, Media Liaison Officer, asked if he could be provided with information where he confirmed that the suspension of the DG was directly linked to the New York report. On this provision, he would be happy to explain to the Committee. He stated that the point he wanted to make to the journalists was to confirm that the DG was put on precautionary suspension. The first paper to run with the New York story was Media24. However, he does not recall any instance where he directly linked the suspension to the Portfolio Committee report.

The Chairperson asked Mr Ngqengelele what response he made to the media.

Mr Ngqengelele stated that he only confirmed that the DG was suspended as per the letter that was circulated to the DIRCO staff and the directive that he received. However, he did not link the suspension to the Portfolio Committee report.

Discussion
Mr W Faber (DA) stated that the current Minister must take the responsibility of what has happened, as DIRCO is her Department. However, the Committee must be fair and acknowledge that the Former DIRCO Ministers, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane and Lindiwe Sisulu, have more to explain. The matters have been sidelined for a number of years. Previous Ministers should still be held accountable. The previous Ministers have new, cosy positions as Ministers of other departments and seemingly escape accountability and this should not be the case. Looking at the people that were on duty at the time needs to be pursued and much will be uncovered from there.

Ms T Msane (EFF) stated that the EFF anticipated a ‘he-said-she-said’ situation regarding the statements made to the media by the spokesperson about the suspension of the DG. Why is the current DG suspended? What processes does the Minister have in place that will ensure the process of the DGs charges will not take long? The current CFO was suspended in 2018 and the processes took long, and he then returned liked nothing happened. The response sent by the Minister to the Committee states that the DG is charged under the Senior Management Service chapter seven. This indicates that the DG has possibly been suspected of other misconducts. Could the Committee be kept up to date regarding this? Apart from the appointment of the Acting DG, how does the Minister plan to meet the targets of the Department? Ms Msane foresees excuses being made by the acting DG – saying that the Department is trying to find their feet and things not getting done.

The Minister responded to the Speaker of the House with names of officials that were involved in the irregularity of the New York contract. What has happened to these officials? Mr Caiphus Ramashau, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), DIRCO, has not been suspended and is still working. Ms Bernice Africa, Chief Director: Property and Facilities Management, DIRCO, has also been mentioned in the Committee’s oversight report, amongst others. What has happened to these officials now that time that has lapsed?

The Committee anticipated that issues would arise when meeting Mr Matjila. The matter of leave and flights that were booked was not conveyed to the Committee from head office. The oversight report stated that the DG could not account for Mr Matjila’s whereabouts. The Committee should have been informed that the Department felt there needed to be continuity in the responsibility of the UN Security Council. This information was only given to the Committee after Mr Matjila completed his term.

While Mr Matjila was DG of DIRCO in 2013, there were allegations that he had irregularities of fraud and corruption regarding the funding of the African Renaissance and International Cooperation Fund (ARF) amounting to about R500 million. The previous Minister did nothing about this. Could the Minister please share what the outcomes of the allegations circulating around Mr Matjila were? Now that Mr Matjila is in retirement, does this mean he will not be held accountable? Will the people involved in floating supply chain management process be held accountable?

Mr D Moela (ANC) stated that the Chairperson’s remarks regarding the Minister’s misconduct are representative of the Committee’s views. He added that consequence management must be applied in the New York matter with no favour shown to individuals. When the Committee presented the New York report, the Minister committed to updating the Committee on any developments made in relation to issues mentioned in the report. The Committee expected the Minister to brief the Committee before making any decisions. It seems that the Committee was being undermined.

Upon the oversight visit to New York, nobody was able to account for the Ambassador’s whereabouts, so the logistics and leave contradicts the initial meeting. There are multiple people that need to be taken to task. Furthermore, a Portfolio Committee meeting has been postponed due to the Executive being unable to attend. In an event like this, could the Minister delegate one of the Deputy Ministers to attend on her behalf?

Mr B Nkosi (ANC) stated that the members of the public and the media are under the impression that the DG’s suspension is linked to the Committee’s New York report. The Minister expecting the spokesperson to speak for himself is not helpful. The matter should have just been clarified.

He asked if Mr Matjila is retired and no longer an employee of the Department. If he is still an employee of the Department then the process of him appearing before the Committee will be easier. Why did it take the Department so long to realise that Mr Matjila was one of the main actors in the procurement process for the New York project and thus should account for his actions to the Department and the Committee?

He commended the Minister for conducting internal investigations within the Department. What are the terms of reference for the investigations? Who is doing the investigations? When does the Department anticipate the investigations will be complete? Are the people implicated in the New York project irregularities placed on precautionary suspension?

The internal audit committee met with the Portfolio Committee in December 2020 to discuss the performance of the Department. The view of the internal audit committee is that senior management do not attend risk management committee meetings even when invited. This matter needed intervention. Has this changed since the meeting?

Mr M Chetty (DA) stated that he believes the suspension of the DG is related to the New York pilot project report. It could not have happened out of the blue. It is unacceptable that the Committee was informed of the suspension via the media. The Minister’s initial response sent to the Committee was vague compared to the current response. The Committee has an issue with the Ambassador absconding, not with the Ambassador being ‘absent’. The officials and the second in charge in New York were at a loss for the Ambassadors whereabouts. The Committee called the DG who was also unaware that the Ambassador was on leave. The delay for the Committee oversight was due to the Department. Thus, the Members of the Committee sacrificed their recess period. It seems there is an animal farm mentality where some are more equal than others. The Committee sacrifices its recess period, but such is excused for the Ambassador.

The Minister has stated that the Committee is welcome to call the Ambassador before the Committee at a mutually suitable time. Has any Member of the Committee been notified of this prior to the current meeting? The Portfolio Committee attended a council sitting while in New York and the Ambassador was not present. Therefore, stating that he cannot be suspended due to his role in the Security Council does not suffice, as he was absent from a sitting. It was a deliberate act for the Ambassador not to be present when the Committee was performing its oversight in New York.

It is far cheaper to buy vacant land opposed to purchasing a dilapidated building, with the intention of demolishing it and then constructing a new building. The latter incurs an increase in fruitful and wasteful expenditure.

The suspension of the DG has made international news. The Committee is yet to hear about consequence management brought forth against the Ambassador, CFO or Ms Africa, who are all linked when this item is brought up. Does the Minister think the DG at the time when the project was initiated be held accountable if they are still in the Department? There should be an investigation on members of the Department that were involved in the New York project and these members should be suspended for the duration of the investigation so that the investigation is not compromised.

When the Portfolio Committee first visited DIRCO, the CFO tried to sabotage the work of the Portfolio Committee by arranging for staff members that were due to appear before the Committee to leave work when asked about the New York project and the charges against him. These staff members were due to appear before the Committee. The CFO has faced no consequence management since. The CFO can thus use his influence to get rid of incriminating material that can point to the wrong doings of certain individuals. The charges that were brought against the CFO were later dropped. The Committee hoped that this would not be the case of the DG.

In September 2020, the Minister alluded to there being three buildings. The preferred building is subleasing from the UK, for two floors being chosen. It is concerning that the Committee viewed 605 3rd avenue, 733 3rd avenue and 855 2nd avenue but not the preferred building. Why was the Committee not informed about the rental of 845 3rd Avenue earlier? Why was it not brought to the attention of the Committee during its oversight so that it could provide oversight on the particular building? The Committee viewed a building that housed three other embassies and was about US$30 per square metre. The preferred building, which the Minister mentioned, went for US$37 per square metre and was compared to the US$62 per square metre currently being paid, and this made it look cheap. However, a full picture should be presented because US$30 is then even cheaper than what is being presented as cheap.

There is a relocation allowance for officials that would solve the issue of the official responsible for administration being transferred closer to the mission for emergencies. On two occasions during the Committee’s oversight in New York, the Members of the Committee waited for administration staff to travel into the city centre to deal with issues the Committee faced regarding accommodation and meals. If the official stayed closer to town, they would be able to perform their duties more effectively.

The DG should be reinstated as he has an interest in ensuring that the New York matter be resolved and that those involved do not cover up their wrongdoings. The people that should be suspended are the DG at the time, the CFO and Ms Africa.

Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) stated that when the Committee started its term it was informed by the outgoing Committee that there is a culture of disrespect that exists within DIRCO. It is surprising that the Ambassador’s colleagues did not know he was on leave. The Ambassador taking leave, when the Committee was due to perform its oversight visit in New York and requested to see him, is also surprising. The Ambassador should have arranged for a colleague to represent him. The hotel at which the Committee was to stay in during its oversight was approved by Parliament with all factors considered. On what basis are individuals allowed to change the decisions made by Parliament? Was there a deposit paid to the hotel Parliament approved? If so, has the money been retrieved?

DIRCO is not forthright in saying it used buying of land versus buying a building interchangeably. It is much more expensive to demolish an existing building, clearing the land and constructing a new building.  The Department should have made this categorically clear. The AG also thought it was land and not an existing building. According to the records, an amount of R118 million has been paid for the land. Can the Department give the Committee any assurance that the money has not gone down the drain? Or is the amount going to pay for the rental of the preferred building?

The current DG has no allegations against him and it is thus shocking that he has been suspended. There are people in the Department who have had allegations against them for years, yet are still in office. Is the current DG being used as a scapegoat for those who are guilty? Who are the investigators that are doing the internal investigations? May the names of investigators be provided to the Committee? The Ambassador must still appear before the Committee, as this matter cannot be swept under the rug.

Mr X Nqola (ANC) stated that the Committee expected the Minister to handle the opening remarks of the Chairperson better. The Minister’s response came across as arrogant. It was also not appropriate to state that the spokesperson should speak for himself. In an article published by EWN News, the spokesperson is quoted in saying that the DG of DIRCO has been put on precautionary suspension due to the investigations, being performed in the Department, on people involved in the New York project. Why is it taking this long for consequence management to be taken? Ms Africa has been named in allegations for a long time; the CFO has won previous disciplinary committee cases on procedural issues and not on substantive issues but this does not necessarily mean that he is acquitted of wrong. The supply-chain unit is under the stewardship of the CFO. What is the action for the CFO recommending a person who was not a part of the competitive process?

The narrative around Mr Matjila’s role in the New York project is that he was the DG and then went to New York to fill the role of permanent representative. It is said that he set this in motion with the intention of dually benefiting from what he has done in the Department.

Minister’s Response
The Minister assured the Committee that the Department does, in fact, take its report seriously and is acting on its report. The Department has been slow but in the next few weeks the Committee will see that work is being done. The Department agrees that it is important to appear before the Committee and provide updates on the consequence management processes. The consequence management matters rest on specific legislation and all officials have rights that must be upheld.

The Minister stated that she could not go into detail with respect to the DG and other officials mentioned in the report provided to the Committee. However, she commits to appearing before the Committee regarding this matter when she can legally do so.

She has provided a response to the Committee regarding the former DG, which she received from the Department. The Department was not able to find grounds on the details of the contract appointees. The appointees were not official. It is within Committee rules that the Committee may invite the former DG to appear before it.

She stated that she could not go into detail regarding the DG’s precautionary suspension. However, she assured the Committee that she followed processes assiduously as per the Public Service Act. She has consulted the Department of Public Service and Administration. She agreed that processes should not go on forever, especially considering that it will affect more than one official in the Department. She is paying attention to the timeframes stipulated in the appropriate regulations.

The Acting DG and other senior officials meet with the Minister on a regular basis regarding targets of the Department. The Minister expressed her support for the Ambassador and various DDGs in reaching targets that were presented before the Committee. 

The Minister stated that the initial response to the Committee’s report was found to be insufficient and she apologised for this and sent an amended response to the Committee Chairperson prior to the meeting. The Chairperson stated that she was in no means arrogant in addressing the Committee’s remarks regarding her behaviour. She stated that she was concerned as remarks stating that the Minister disrupted Parliament and has shown no integrity in her conduct. She humbly indicated that she does not in any way disrespect the Chairperson and has stated this publicly as well.

She said that she has always tried to delegate Deputy Ministers to meetings when she is unavailable to attend. Unfortunately, the Ministry had great difficulty in the last Portfolio Committee meeting and thus could not attend the meeting.

Leaves of ambassadors are processed through the Ambassador’s programmes. She stated that she thinks the DDG would approve the leave of the Ambassador. However, she has not studied the forms and cannot give a definitive answer.

She stated that the Department should have perhaps published a statement regarding the suspension, but she did not do so as to avoid delving into the matter as it is currently unfolding. She has avoided making the processes related to the DG, and other officials, public in order to not have an incorrect narrative spread or place the Department or Ministry in a place where it can be taken up by law by the affected official.

The ‘Former Ambassador and permanent representative’ is back in South Africa. He is not employed at headquarters or the Department. The Minister has requested that she be notified when senior officials do not attend meetings, as they should, so that she may take action. She believes it is important that senior officials attend meetings on risk inadequacies that confront the Department. It has been requested by the Committee that when action is taken against a senior official such as the DG, the Department should notify the Committee. The Minister said she would be guided on this.

On the cheaper rental in New York, the Minister indicated that she was unaware of the procurement process that was pursued. The accounting officer, and not the Minister, dealt with the rentals that the Committee viewed during oversight. The Committee was not informed about the intention to lease another building and she is unsure if reporting by the Department on such a matter is part of the process.

The Minister states that she is aware of who the DG was at the start of the debacle; she is also aware that the matter has gone well beyond the period mentioned.

She said that she is unaware of who changed the hotel booking for the Committee’s oversight visit and if a deposit was paid and returned. She is only able to report to the Committee what was reported to her, and thus she cannot say whether it would be cheaper to purchase vacant land or to purchase an existing building and demolishing it.

The R188 million was approved and paid out. There is nothing to show for it; hence the judgement from the court case is being awaited. The Department has no intention of making the DG a scapegoat. The Members will be able to see the proof of this once the whole process has been concluded. The Minister does not know and is not attempting to protect person(s) that are guilty of wrongdoing in the Department.

She stated that her allowance of the Spokesperson to appear before the Committee was initiated through a letter she sent to the Chairperson, stating that in no instance has she ever related the suspension of the DG to the report of the Committee. She stated that she avoided media interviews, as she would like the process of the action to be managed in a professional and legal manner.

She is unaware of an investigation into Mr Matjila. The Department has competent managers that will work closely with the Minister to ensure that it does not fail in its duties. It takes the report of the Committee as well as its work seriously.

Follow-up Discussion
The Chairperson stated that the claim that Mr Matjila was on leave in South Africa, then the Department should have these records. Could boarding passes be provided to the Committee? The Committee is certain that Mr Matjila was not in South Africa at the time of the Committee’s oversight visit to New York. The person responsible for authorising his leave did not know where he was or aware of his leave of absence. This will ensure that the Committee may get to the bottom of the matter which borders the undermining of the Committee.

Is the current DG on precautionary leave because of the R118 million irregular expenditure on the New York project? It is a straightforward question that needs clarity. If the matter of the R118 million is in court and sub judice, is it not parallelism that the Minister decides to put certain individuals on precautionary suspension? The PFMA defines expenditure and other aspects mentioned in the meeting, other than unauthorisation, which is incurred in contravention of the PFMA in accordance with other applications of the legislation. The New York project case is irregular expenditure due to noncompliance. Even if the Department had bought vacant land and not the existing building, it would still be considered irregular. There were discrepancies that were sited on the part of the project, which were identified as irregular before the matter was approved by the former DG. The Department continued to approve and appoint the bidder even though the AG and Treasury that there were irregularities stipulated it.  

The tax clearance certificate that was submitted with the bid was not in the name of the company that was awarded the contract. The latest annual financial certificate submitted by the winning bidder was not audited as required by the responsive criteria of the tender documents. The company, which was awarded the contract, is not the same company that submitted bidding documents. The company that won the tender failed to disclose that it is in joint venture with another bidder.

The evaluation criteria on functionality by DIRCO on the bidding document only provided for weight and not values. However, values were used during the evaluation process. The square metres for the residential accommodation as per the terms of reference do not agree to the square metres approved by the accounting officer, Jerry Matjila. The initial contract was for 20 square metres. However, the former DG signed a document for 40 square metres. The AG and chief procurement officer at Treasury also identified this irregularity. All these irregularities are attributed to the same individuals. How does the current DGs suspension fall into this? This matter has become an international scandal.

Mr Nqola stated that the spokesperson came to the Committee bold, stating it must produce information that shows that he did indeed make the statement to the media that the DG was put on precautionary suspension in relation to the New York project. This has since been given. Can the spokesperson claim or deny this?

Mr Chetty stated that the Minister should be called for an in-Committee meeting that is not open to the public. The Minister has said she is unaware of many things and what she reports is from reports she has received from the Department. She is unaware of simple things like the Ambassador’s leave process yet there was a Security Council meeting. The Minister is very busy, that is why the Committee goes out to dig up the dirt and do oversight. This is why the Committee asks these questions.

Mr T Mpanza (ANC) supported Mr Chetty's proposition for an in-committee meeting. He stated that the management of issues that are sensitive such as the precautionary suspension of the DG was not managed correctly or strategically. The Committee needs to think about how it will manage situations like this in future so that it will not become a media frenzy as it has now.

Mr Nkosi asked that if there is an investigation in the Department regarding the New York matter. What are the terms of reference? Is it done internally or externally? What is the duration of the investigation? Are the persons implicated placed on precautionary suspension or not?

Mr Faber stated that Ambassador Mninwa Mahlangu was the Ambassador since 2015. Nobody has directed questions to him or the previous Ministers who the political heads at that time were. These people need to be held accountable.

Ms B Swarts (ANC) stated that if the investigation is being done externally, money is being wasted as the facts are already on the table. If it is not due to New York that the DG is put on precautionary suspension, then the Committee must be told. She does not support internal investigations done by DIRCO due to what has occurred in the past. Timeframes need to be given on the investigation as well as the period of suspension of the DG.

Minister’s Response
The Minister stated that she would refer the request for the Ambassador’s boarding passes to the Department. She stated that she is not sure if the Department will be able to produce this, but it would be referred to the Department, nonetheless.

She said she is unable to go into the details of the precautionary suspension of the DG as the matter is in court. She has followed the required prescripts. The DG is on precautionary suspension with pay.

She is not aware of the procurement for leasing a building in New York. Hence, she does not know of buildings that were cheaper and the number of buildings considered. She does not get involved in such processes as Minister.

She noted Mr Mpanza’s view that she did not handle the process correctly. She followed the prescripts of the Public Service Act, which indicated that she would be responsible for disciplinary matters with respect to the heads of departments. In terms of other officials, the accounting officer is responsible of disciplinary matters. She endeavours to follow the legal prescripts and regulations. Where it is possible to inform the Committee, she would. It is important that she not infringe the process that is underway. Once she has the details pertaining to the actions, she will request a meeting with the Chairperson to address the Committee.

Ms Swarts stated that the DG’s precautionary suspension has no weight to it, as the Minister is unable to respond. As she takes it that there were no reasons detailed in the letter as to why the DG was put on precautionary suspension.

Mr Mpanza stated that the issue he raised of management was not about how the Minister dealt with the suspension but rather about communication with the media before the Committee has been informed. This needs to be managed in future.

Closing Remarks by the Chairperson
The Chairperson stated that it is evident that the spokesperson lied before the Committee and no further responses are required from him, as he will likely say that the media misquoted him. ‘Seeing is believing’, and one can read what he said in the media.

The Committee will have a closed session with the Minister so that she may take the Committee through the details of the matters raised in the meeting, which she cannot speak on due to it being a public meeting. The letter that the Minister wrote to the President, requesting the precautionary suspension of the DG, should be brought before the Committee in the closed meeting. The Committee will request this from the President and the Department of Public Service and Administration. This will allow the Committee to move forward and perform its oversight role.

The Committee desires fairness and non-discriminatory processes be taken in whatever disciplinary processes that are done. It seeks to ensure that the recommendations given in the New York report are not being abused.

The Committee needs to discuss further regarding Mr Matjila appearing before the Committee and this can go into more depth in the closed Committee meeting. There should also be further discussion on whether the former Minister should appear before the Committee as well and if this is allowed as per Committee rules.

The Chairperson thanked the Members, the Minister, Department delegates as well as the Committee support staff for attending the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Audio

No related

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: