Makudubela & Africa Skills FET College Petition Reports; Executive Undertakings referred to the Committee

Meeting report

Consideration and adoption of the Makudubela Petition Report

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee review the Report page by page. The observations in the report would inform Members on the possible recommendations of the Committee. Members should therefore consider the various responses from the SABC and SAPS and also note the observations made by the PP therein.

Mr G Michalakis (DA; Free State) inquired whether the Committee had the jurisdiction to deal with the matters presented in the petition considering the fact that there were institutions specifically mandated to deal the complaints such as boards that deal with complaints relating to the SABC, IPID for SAPS-related complaints and the PP among others. The Committee cannot make decisions over matters if all other avenues of redress have not been exhausted. Matters relating to SAPS should be referred to IPID and matters relating to SABC should be addressed to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA). Matters that are improperly referred for adjudication by the Committee wasted a lot of time and resources. The Committee should, first of all, see whether a petition falls within its mandate and direct petitioners to the relevant institution. A petitioner can then appeal to the Committee, only if dissatisfied. This will significantly ease the public and the Committee’s frustration when dealing with petitions presented before it.

Mr D Ximbi (ANC; Western Cape) agreed and said the Committee should communicate with the Chairperson of the NCOP to clarify whether the petition would be better placed elsewhere. The recommendation can only be adopted for future petitions since the present petition had already been heard and deliberated on by the Committee. He proposed that the Committee should write a letter to the Chairperson of the NCOP seeking clarification on the way forward in relation to future petitions.

The Chairperson said the Committee had previously suggested that there be a petitions officer who should be tasked to deal with issues relating to the referral of petitions to the Committee.

Mr J Mthethwa (ANC; KwaZulu-Natal) agreed and noted that the PP has an appellate body which had not been exhausted by the petition. The Committee should be the final appellate body and cannot afford to deliberate on issues which are still being deliberated by other institutions.

Mr M Monakedi (ANC; Limpopo) said it was not the first time that the Committee was deliberating on this issue and the Committee cannot afford to deal with every issue that was being forwarded. Even without an intervention from the Chairperson of the NCOP, the secretariat of the Committee could assess the relevance of matters to the Committee’s mandate. The matter could then be referred back to Parliament, through a report, for further directions. He noted that, it would still be in order for the Committee to make a resolution in the present petition, referring the petitioner to the relevant bodies.

Mr D Stock (ANC; Northern Cape) said the Committee cannot be reduced to a kangaroo court. He agreed that the secretariat or the management of the Committee should assess whether petitions have been correctly referred and should respond to the petitioner if it was wrongly placed.

The Chairperson said the present petition had already received responses from the PP and the Committee should therefore give its position in that regard.

Mr Michalakis said some of the complaints in the petition had been adjudicated upon, as far back as, 2006. However, it was only the petitioner who was still not satisfied with the relief granted. The Committee, at this stage, should only refer the petition to the relevant institutions.

The Chairperson requested the Committee to specify the institutions to which the petition should be referred to.

Dr Mimi Gondwe, Committee Content Advisor, noted that the petitioner was a lady who had picketed outside Parliament for a number of months before the NCOP Chairperson took her submissions and made them into the petition that was referred to the Committee to deliberate upon. The petition did not indicate other institutions that could be referred to. Parliamentary petitions normally are submitted to an office where they spend a day being assessed on whether they qualify as petitions. Once it qualified as a petition, it was forwarded to the Chairperson of the NCOP who thereafter refers it to the Committee. The Committee faced the challenge where petitions did not disclose whether they had been previously referred to the OPP or otherwise. It was only when the Committee heard the petition and summoned the relevant bodies that information on the petition was made clear. The Committee should be cautious in deliberating over petitions that are being deliberated upon by other institutions so as to preserve separation of powers. The present petition could be referred to the civil secretariat for police since SAPS had expressed its willingness to finalise the petitioner’s pending complaints.

Mr Michalakis said the Select Committee on Petitions and Executive Undertakings was not the only Committee in Parliament that deals with petitions and considering the nature of the claims, it was also not feasible for the Committee to summon all the implicated departments and their officials. He proposed that the members could have a separate discussion outside a Committee meeting on what issues the Committee could deal with. Committee rules did not specifically dictate how the Committee should deal with a matter. The committee could still be dealing with the petition if, it summarily assessed the relevance of a petition, and in the event, it did not fall within its mandate, it could refer it back to the NCOP Chairperson for further directions.

Mr Monakedi said the Committee, in consultation with the NCOP Chairperson, needed to develop some form of protocol on how it deals with matters as they come into the NCOP and before they are referred to the Committee. A resolution could then be forwarded to the Chairperson as part of the Committee’s recommendation.

Mr Mthethwa proposed that before the Committee met ith the law office and the NCOP Chairperson, the Committee should identify all the petitions the Committee has concerns with.

The Chairperson said the Committee the Committee could draft a memo to the Chairperson of the NCOP requesting that he deals with the issue of classification of petitions since it was his office that currently had the mandate to classify petitions. Members should familiarise themselves with the policy guidelines on the work of the Committee.

Mr Michalakis replied that the policy guidelines did not expressly address the mandate of the Committee in as much as it addressed its functioning and operations..

The Chairperson requested that the report be adopted with the recommendation that the issues still pending at the OPP should be referred back to the OPP and similarly, the pending issues at SAPS will be referred to IPID. The Committee also reaffirmed and adopted the observations made by the OPP and recommended that the petition be considered for the OPP’s appeal process.

The report was adopted with recommendations.

Consideration and adoption of the Africa Skills FET College Petition Report

The Chairperson noted that the Committee had similarly deliberated on the Africa Skills FET College petition, received submissions from the various departments and the petitioner had expressed her dissatisfaction with the decisions reached by the previous institutions. However, he proposed that despite the similarity in both petitions, the Committee should still go through the petition page by page and make recommendations.

Mr Michalakis said this was similar to the previous petition before the Committee and he proposed that the same recommendations be made.

Mr Stock requested that the Committee summarise the petition to the new Members of the Committee who may not have had the chance to familiarise themselves with the details of the petition.

Dr Gondwe said this petition was also forwarded to the Committee for consideration by the NCOP Chairperson. It was one of the petitions derived from the Committee’s oversight visit to Eden District from 18-20 April 2016. The petitioners were registered students in a government funded collage called Africa Skills College. The petition raised several complaints against the college relating to the dismissal of the current principal of the college from his previous employment, the non-payment of stipends to students recruited from Kuruman despite promises being made, the lack of racial diversity in the management and the general fear of intimidation due to an interdict order against protests.

The Committee had received submissions from the students, the college and the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET). DHET submitted that the college was in compliance with its legal requirements, however they had expressed their concern regarding the college’s staff being all white and the allegations of racism by the employees of the college. Among other recommendations, DHET recommended that the collage should deal with the racial diversity issue in its management.

The Committee received submissions from the Skills Education Training Authority (SETA) who also noted that the college was in compliance with its legal requirements, however they did not respond on the allegations of racism. SAPS had also made submissions on the complaints brought to their attention by the management or the learners.

The Chairperson also noted that SETA had responded to the allegations relating to the non-payment and differential payments of stipends to the learners. He asked for recommendations.

Mr Michalakis said the committee was not the relevant institution and the petition was better placed with DHET. The Committee lacked the mandate and he proposed that the petition be referred to the correct body.

The Chairperson noted that all avenues of redress had not been exhausted by the petitioner and therefore it should be referred to the correct institutions for further directions.

Dr Gondwe said the Committee’s recommendation would be that the DHET reconsidered the petitions since it had not established clearly whether the students were being racially discriminated against. DHET had also submitted that it had an employment equity plan in place but was yet to evaluate whether the policy was being implemented.

Mr Michalakis said the Committee should simply refer the petition to DHET and thereby give it the prerogative to deal with the petition as it would.

The Chairperson agreed and said the recommendation should emphasise the importance of exhaustion of the available remedies before petitioning Parliament.

Mr Monakedi asked for clarity on whether the Committee was referring the petitioner or the petition to DHET.  

The Chairperson clarified that the Committee would be referring the petitioners to DHET and not the petition itself. He however, noted that there some cases filed with SAPS relating to assault.

Dr Gondwe responded and said the prosecutor had declined to prosecute most of the cases filed with SAPS due to lack of sufficient evidence.

Mr Michalakis said the Committee was in agreement with the recommendations and should propose a date for a meeting to discuss the Committee’s mandate and the way forward.

The report was adopted with recommendations.

The Chairperson advised Members that they will be consulted on the Committee’s program. The Committee’s mandate having been adopted as a separate agenda item will be deliberated on at the next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.