Report of Ministerial Committee Investigation into SASCOC; Structure, role and mandate of Department, with Minister

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed the Minister, Members and visitors as well as the e-TV crew. She remarked that the Minister, who was present, has made efforts to intervene in other issues affecting the country. She expressed unhappiness about the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) that were not present when the meeting was officially opened. The President of the SASCOC, Mr Gideon Sam, apologised for his absence on account of an appointment with a medical doctor. She also noted an apology from the Deputy Minister for late attendance.

The Chairperson stated that she believed Members had perused all the documents submitted by the Department and its entities. Members therefore had a background to what was happening with the SASCOC. However, this was a new Parliament to be dealing with these irregularities and malpractice issues on the agenda. She noted that the Department was very broad and covered arts, culture, sport and recreation. However, there were two departments at national level, namely, The Department of Sport and Recreation and the Department of Arts and Culture. The latter was merged into the Department of Sports, Arts and Culture in June 2019. As a result, there was now one department. Issues had to be separated in order to deal with them in a specific meeting.

Briefing by the Minister on the Ministerial Inquiry joint report and action plan
Mr Nathi Mthetwa, Minister of Sports, Arts, and Culture stated that his brief will delve much into the background of SASCOC. They had met on two occasions. During 2017, there were reports that SASCOC faced irregularities and malpractice which promoted the Minister to take action. The Ministerial Committee of Inquiry was therefore appointed to investigate alleged irregularities or malpractice in the governance and management of SASCOC. It released its report on 15th September 2018. In releasing the report, Minister Tokozile Xasa invited SASCOS in a note confidentially addressed to its president, to respond to the report and to submit its response to the report by 10th October 2018.

Having perused the Executive Summary Report of the full report, the President of SASCOC consulted with the rest of the members of the board and requested the postponement of the deadline of 10th October 2018 to 19th October 2018 to allow time for the board to sit and consider its response to the report. The extended deadline was granted by the Minister. Having considered the report and its content as well as its confidential nature, the response was sent to the Minister on 15 October 2018. Again, SASCOC wrote to the International Olympic Committee (IOC), CGF, and the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) to seek their inputs on the above report and shared the responses received from these international organisations with the Minister on 5 February 2019.

In the lead up to Annual General Meeting (AGM) of 8 December 2018, SASCOC then wrote to the Minister on/or about 30 November 2018, alerting the Minister about its upcoming AGM (scheduled for 8 December 2018) in a bid to solicit when she would be looking to release her final report. Subsequently, the Minister released her report in a media briefing which was held on 7 December 2018.

The Minister said that the final briefing note of 7 December 2017 also acted as the Minister’s response to SASCOC’s comments on the final report. The final briefing contained a note on a decision taken by the Minister in principle and the actions to be taken, implemented and executed by SASCOC in relation to the final report.

Following the above pronouncement and the resolution taken on 8 December 2018 AGM, SASCOC held a special meeting on 2 February 2019 to specifically discuss the Inquiry Report. This meeting was addressed by both Minister Xaba and the President of SASCOC Mr Gideon Sam. The special general meeting of SASCOC, having deliberated on the report and the Minister’s pronouncements, resolved that the board of SASCOC ought to meet with the Minister immediately (i) to clear disagreements and find a constructive way forward, (ii) to continue to address issues of non-compliance on corporate governance, and to report to members on a monthly basis.

In the fulfilment of this resolution, the board of SASCOC then met with Minister Xaba in Cape Town on 20 February 2019, to clarify and find solutions on the areas of disagreement and agree on a constructive way forward on the implementation of the report’s recommendations. At the same meeting, the Minister introduced the appointed facilitator Mr Mthobi Tyamzashe to SASCOC. Mr Tyamzashe commenced his duties on 1 March 2019 and with the board of SASCOC on 12 March 2019. Since then, the facilitator met with SASCOC’s organisational Development Task Team on a weekly basis to map out the process of implementing the report and start the implementation process. In this regard, Mr Tyamzashe worked with SASCOC’s appointed representative Mr Qondisa Ngwenya on the implementation of the process.

The Minister took the Committee through the plan to be implemented. The plan represented the outcome of the process agreed upon between the Minister and the Facilitator, Mr Tyamzashe and the Organisational Development Task Team of SASCOC. In structuring the plan attention has been focused and segmented using the recommendations of the report. The analysis of the report showed that the material findings in the report were dealt with in the recommendations. Therefore in dealing with the recommendations the findings were dealt with concurrently. Where there were findings that were not catered for in the recommendations, they were dealt with by exception.

The Minister concluded his brief by assuring the Committee that the SASCOC would be turned around because there was determination and commitment to do so. The SACOC would soon be where it should be. Both the Department and SASCOC were tirelessly working to prioritise the sports.

The Minister thanked the Chairperson and Members.

Briefing by the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCO)

The Chairperson welcomed the SASCOC to brief the Committee.

Mr Barry Hendricks, Vice President: SASCOC, apologised for the late arrival of the SASCOC stating that if the Uber driver had not gotten lost when he was going to pick them up for the meeting, they would not have arrived late. He introduced the SASCOC delegation. He stated that there was no separate brief of the SASCOC as the Ministerial Inquiry Report was a joint report. SASCOC submitted that it was in full agreement with the Minister’s Inquiry Report.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked whether Members would like to engage with the Ministerial Inquiry Report or whether the Department should be given an opportunity to report on their contribution to the National Development Plan (NDP) 2030 and thus engage with two reports.

Mr T Mhlongo (DA) suggested that there should be an engagement with the Minister on the Ministerial Inquiry Report.

Ms V Malomane (ANC) disagreed, she stated that they should listen to all presenters so that they could engage with two reports, at the same time.
 
The Chairperson said there were two conflicting views. One view ought to be seconded.

Mr J Mamabolo (ANC) seconded Ms Malomane’s position. He proposed that SASCOC should brief the Committee and then Members could interrogate the two briefings together.

The Chairperson asked the SASCOC delegation whether they would like to brief the Committee on irregularities and malpractice to supplement the Minister’s report.

Ms Sumayya Khan, Acting Director General, responded that SASCOC was ready to respond to any questions.  

Mr Hendricks, Vice President: SASCOC first apologised for the SASCOC delegation’s lateness and then said that they were in full agreement with Ministerial Inquiry Report. It was a joint report, prepared by both the Department and SASCOC. There was no further presentation that would be made.  

Mr Mhlongo welcomed the Ministerial Inquiry Report and remarked that he was disappointed by SASCOC, who attended the meeting with no intention to brief the Committee on its situation. This was a clear indication that they were not prepared. It looked like it was not their priority to attend the meeting. It also appeared as if the delegation was on holiday trip. Through the Chairperson, he asked again whether SASCOC had prepared anything with which to brief the Committee.

The Chairperson asked SASCOC to confirm – on record – whether there were any remarks to be added to what the Minister had said. She sought clarity on whether SASCOC attended a meeting merely to answer questions put to them by Members.

Mr Hendricks reiterated that the report read out by the Minister was a joint report so therefore they did not have their own report. The tabled report was jointly developed by the Department, the Facilitator and SASCOC.

Mr Mhlongo asked the Minister to assure the Committee that all recommendations would have been implemented by November 2019. He expressed with disappointment ‘the first ETA (0:34:40) was at the end of April 2019, the month had passed and I could promise you, Members, that November would pass, too. Nothing would be done to fully implement the report’. He asked whether Mr Mthobi Tyamzashe was present and  was his role a facilitator or an administrator.  What were his duties? When would his role come to an end? The Ministerial Inquiry Report touched on several issues. It indicated that there were outstanding issues to be implemented. What caused the delay in implementation? Was it lack of cooperation or mismanagement? What actions were taken? The Committee ought to be advised on this if it was taken serious. The advice was necessary given that money was used. Was money recovered with respect to the mismanagement of funds? If yes, how much was recovered? If not, why not? With regard to the African games to be held in Morocco in 2019, has the SASCOC received any money for these games and, if yes, was the money paid out already. Could anyone explain what happened between SASCOC and SAFA? The Committee was told - in fact, the media had a report - those Women and Men’s teams went to Morocco prior to the finalisation of an agreement that they would take part in these African games.

Mr Mhlongo remarked further that the SASCOC had been failing the Committee and South Africans at large. Of main concern was that the Committee was not aware what the challenges that the SASCOC faced were. He said that he would like to know more about the logistics behind these games. He commented that the SASCOC was failing because the Minister was failing to guide them. With regard to the 2019 Morocco Games, what criteria applied? Were criteria approved by all sports committees?  He sought clarity on financial management and asked how much SASCOC received from the Lottery Fund and who were the beneficiaries of the shares held in Phumelela. Was the Telkom sponsoring SASCOC or supporting it?

Ms Malomane asked whether the Minister was implementing recommendations in the forensic report and asked for clarity on issues of misconduct of staff members, reported on in the newspaper. She wanted to know what the nature of misconduct was and what actions were taken. If it was financial related misconduct, did the Minister recover the money?

Mr Mamabolo welcomed the presentation. He sought clarity on sponsors of the PSL League and the 10% allocations.

Mr A Seabi (ANC) welcomed the presentation and appreciated the commitment of working together and hoped that it would work this time around. The report alluded to disputes between SASCOC and the Minister on some of the recommendations of the report. He wondered why there were disputes and whether they were resolved. This should be clarified. It was clear that SASCOC did not want to go alone with the recommendations of the report. He asked when there would be an AGM at the end of the year and what could be the compelling reason for co-opting members on the board and why they could they not wait for the AGM to retain board members in the vacant positions. The improvement of leadership of SASCOC was essential.

Mrs V van Dyk (DA) asked for clarity about the shares the SASCOC had in Phumelela and what could be a reason to take a decision to invest in Phumelela and who benefitted from these shares.

The Chairperson sought clarity on whether the SASCOC could recover the money used for litigation when some officials were suspended. The Committee advised that they should sit and talk about this and find an amicable solution. They chose to go to court. She insisted that SASCOC should report on this matter. She also clarified that teams did not go to Morocco, but they rather stayed in hotels whilst waiting to go to Morocco.

Responses:
Mr Hendricks responded and said that on the question of Phumelela shares, SASCOC would prepare a concise report on this. They were not expecting to be questioned on this. On the ETA that was scheduled in April 2019, he stated that SASCOC had to report to the Minister first. This was done through interactions. In terms of the Terms of Reference, Mr Tyamzashe was not an administrator, but a facilitator. It should be noted that SASCOC was not under administration. Based on the April deadline, Members would note that 21 findings and 32 actions were taken. Actions were divided between short and long term actions. The first action was restructuring SASCOC. Some recommendations would be able to be implemented after the November 2019 AGM simply because they could be implemented after amending the SASCOC Constitution.  There was a constitutional amendment to be followed. Beginning the month of September, recommendations of amendments to the Constitution would be circulated to Members with a view to fulfilling the Ministerial Inquiry Report’s recommendations. The month of April was not the deadline to implement recommendations, but to have engaged with the Minister. In October 2018, SASCOC met with the Minister and agreed on a way forward.

On what caused the delay in implementation, Mr Hendricks responded that SASCOC was actively working towards fulfilling its obligations as required by the Ministerial Inquiry Report. On the recovery of money, the SASCOC was frustrated by the CCMA process. The matters were being delayed. For example, the hearing was postponed to 25 September 2019. In his view, these matters should be finalised / concluded in this year. The SASCOC sought to settle the matter out of court, but it was advised that litigation had to continue because demands were very high. The recommendations on recovery of money were being implemented. First, the SASCOC had embarked on auditing its finances for the past five years as a first step toward the recovery of the money. This process had been done. The AGM would take place in accordance with the SASCOC Constitution.

On the issue of the 2019 Morocco Games, Mr Hendricks responded that the Minister was well positioned to respond to it. On the lottery fund and Telkom, SASCOC was told that they would be given R5 million because it was considered as a federation. However, SASCOC was a confederation dealing with the Olympics, the Paralympics, war games, and etcetera.  Telkom was, on the other hand, not a sponsor. On the recovery of money, the SASCOC was waiting for the CCMA decision; however, there was a police case instituted with a view to recover money from three officials. The SAPS would assist in the recovery. If the Committee was interested in seeing the employment contracts signed by staff members, SASCOC would submit them. Those staff members, who were employed to raise funds were paid by means of the commissions. On the dispute between SASCOC and the Minister, he responded that he was not aware of any dispute because they had a good relationship. The SACOC was implementing recommendations and decisions taken by the Minister. It was incorrect to state that the SASCOC did not want to go it alone in implementing the forensic report recommendations. On expenditure, SASCOC spent more than R6 million and this could be broken down if the Committee requested that it be done in this manner. On the issue of co-option of members, he responded that the Constitution did not allow for this. In the AGM, there would be elections of the First Vice President and members of the board. On the question of the 2019 Morocco games, he responded that these games were government events, and it was the prerogative of the Minister to include football. The SASCOC complied with the Minister’s instructions.

The Minister said that many issues had been covered by Mr Hendricks. He reminded the Committee and stressed that Mr Tyamzashe was appointed by the Minister. He was a facilitator and not an administrator. The SASCOC had its own leadership. He concurred with Mr Hendricks on what he said about the 2019 Morocco Games. Beyond the sports, the Minister looked at diplomatic relations between Morocco and South Africa. There had been a good relationship over a period of time. The Minister laughed it off when people - or the media - said his decision to include football in the games was interference. No bulldozing had taken place. There was an agreement on all parties: The Department, SASCOC and SAFA.

Mr Mhlongo remarked that in his analysis and opinion or from his own perception or assumption, if the President of SASCOC was present, he could have answered all the questions. The President knew about shares and the selection criteria. He said that what he could see was a SASCOC delegation which was not empowered or equipped with enough information. The delegation knew nothing.

The Chairperson said that it was not right to state that the delegation did know anything. Mr Mhlongo did not know how the President could react. This was not a way of welcoming visitors.

Mr Mhlongo stated that he said what he said on the basis of his analysis and the Chairperson was protecting the SASCOC. She should not protect them. He was therefore not apologetic because he was not disrespecting anyone in the house.  

The Chairperson stated that she was not protecting the SASCOC. She was unhappy with the way he was addressing the delegation.

Ms Malomane pleaded with Mr Mhlongo to request the timeframe on when the forensic report could be provided.

Mr Kayalethu Majeke, SASCOC Board Member stated that it was quite alarming to see that there were no good interactions. He reminded Members that the SASCOC staff members were holding accredited qualifications in sports management. He had to acknowledge that the SASCOC was facing challenges and there were divisions or disputes in the SASCOC. He was in the House when the division matter was reported to the Committee. The delegation presented itself to the Committee as if there was no such division because it was acting in the national interest. It was not an individual report. From this perspective, the Vice President’s response was the response of the delegation, as whole.  In the previous report, they highlighted grey areas on which they had to be vocal. The SASCOC delegation attended a meeting together with the Department delegation as well as the Minister as a collective team. Therefore, he appealed to Members not disrespect their visitors. Delegations were respecting the platform provided by the Committee.

Mr Mhlongo reiterated that he did not dis respect anyone, unless if he did not understand English.

The Chairperson stressed that Mr Mhlongo said that the delegation knew nothing. This comment did not sit well with the Chairperson, delegations and other members.

Mr Majeke remarked that delegations were ready to respond to questions regardless of a discomforting environment. 

Mr Mhongo said that he had a love of the country and joined this Committee in order to contribute to the sports. He had no intention to discredit the SASCOC delegation but to carry out his oversight work. He was asking questions in order to seek clarity and not to disrespect anyone. He reiterated that the selection criteria should be responded to. How was a relationship between SAFA and SASCOC? Was SAFA bound by selection criteria? On the issue of Mr Skosana, what was his status: was he co-opted or elected as a member of SASCOC? He noted that there were 14 outstanding issues. The outstanding issues were ones that were very important. When would this process of implementation of the recommendations be fully completed? What were the duties of the facilitator? He had been reading about the issues of interference from members of SASCOC in the media. It looked like there were issues that the Committee was not aware of. The question on the budget was not answered. The SAFA stated that there was no money to allow teams to go to Morocco. Did the Minister not allocate the budget? What really happened?


Mr C Sibisi (NFP) remarked that the mandate of SASCOC was to look after all federations and provincial sports councils. Of concern was the performance of SASCOC given that they were some sports that were not introduced in the rural areas yet, like volley ball, cricket and rugby. SASCOC had been focussing on football and netball. Provincial sports councils were not functioning and were just there to use money and to add problems to the SASCOC challenges of irregularities and malpractice. He was also concerned about coaches who were not accredited. It was a shame and an insult that kids were being coached by non-accredited coaches. What was SASCOC doing to rectify this?

Mr W Faber (ANC) sought clarity on the difference between the administrator and facilitator. It has been emphasised that the SASCOC was not an administrator but a facilitator. He was not sure whether the turnaround strategy was working and this should be elaborated on. The karate federation understood that they would participate a few days before and were therefore unable to seek visas and to plan for funding. How much should have been spent on the Morocco games?


Response
Mr Jerry Segwaba, Board Member: SASCOC stated that when they came to attend a meeting, there was a clear directive of what they were coming to present on. They prepared in accordance with the directive. That was why they were refraining from answering questions which they did not prepare to answer. On the selection criteria, the board adopted policies after consulting federations. African games were government properties. The Minister should pronounce on this.

Mr Majeke added that indeed the SAFA was present in the Council meeting and there was no single objection to the selection criteria. The SAFA was in good standing and the relationship between the SASCOC and SAFA was good. He further stressed that Mr Skosana was a member of the SASCOC. The Constitution stated that when a person reached the age of 70 they should vacate their position and therefore some positions became vacant.

Mr Hendricks stated that they were ready to submit the full criteria to the Committee. He reiterated that the inclusion of football in the Morocco games was a Ministerial decision. On the Phumelela shares, he noted that there were a lot of issues related to Phumelela. Accordingly, the SASCOC would provide a full report on these matters.

The Chairperson agreed that some questions from Members did not focus on the agenda thus creating discomfort.

The Minister requested everybody to remember that in two days’ time, the Springboks would be flying to Japan to play the rugby world cup and would be representing South Africa. everyone should wish them well. On the implementation of recommendations, he stated that the implementation would depend on the actions of a number of people and stakeholders involved in the implementation as per the recommendations. Stakeholders included Parliament. There were recommendations that could, for example, be implemented if legislation was amended or if the SASCOC constitution was amended. He asked: How long would Parliament take to amend legislation? This was one of questions he could not have answers to. Yet, there were some stakeholders who he could not respond to on their behalf. The whole process was depending on commitments and dedication of all individuals and stakeholders involved, to be fully implemented.

Mr Seabi agreed with the Minister. He remarked that there was a need for a roadmap for the implementation of the recommendations. The roadmap would provide them with the deadlines of the required actions. By means of a roadmap, commitments could be assessed.

Ms Malomane felt that there were challenges that were not being disclosed by the SASCOC.

Mr Mhlongo stated that there were financial issues that were not disclosed and asked why the SASCOC did not comply with certain rules. The forensic report stated that the SASCOC interfered with the SAFA and this interference was not unpacked for the Committee to understand the nature of the interference. There were gaps in the policy implementation. There were also problems arising from the selection criteria. Why did the SAFA not adhere to the selection criteria? Did SAFA pay the subscription or registration fee to play in the African games? Who paid?

Mr Hendricks responded that there was compliance with rules. He noted that the money was paid individually. On the interferences, he noted that the question of interference had been dealt with and that it was resolved that there should be no further interference.

Mr Mhlongo stated that there should be no stories. Previously it was stated that the SASCOC paid and now it was being stated that federation paid individual for individuals. He remarked finally that there should be deadline for the turnaround time.

In his closing remarks, the Minister stated that they would come with the deadline of the turnaround strategy implementation. In the future, when the Department or SASCOC came to brief the Committee alone, they would be speaking the same language. For the realisation of full implementation, there was a need to amend the SASCOC Constitution. He emphasised that the Olympics was not something that should be worked on jointly and noted that there would always be issues with the SASCOC because everyone wanted to get into the games with a view to gaining experience. Selection criteria would always be contested. The National selection criteria could not be favourable to everyone.

The Chairperson thanked the SASCOC for its participation.

Briefing by the Department on their contribution to the NDP 2030

Ms Sumayya Khan, Acting Director General, took the Committee through the presentation. She noted that the NDP called for the Department to, among other things, promote the sharing of public spaces and common experiences. It further called for the transformation of the sector, adequate resourcing of school sports, provision of sport facilities, encouraging communities to organise sport events; and also encouraging the corporate sector to invest in grassroots’ sport. The National Sport and Recreation Plan (NSRP) acknowledged that worldwide sport strategies were focussed on increasing levels of participation in sport and recreation, as well as achieving success at an international level. In giving effect to these two, the core work of the Department was consolidated into sections, namely, Active Nation and Winning Nation. The Department managed the Mass Participation and Sport Development Grant to further facilitate the delivery of sport and recreation through partnership with relevant delivery agents such as provinces. The grant of R260 million was allocated to help grow and maintain participation in sport and recreation.

Ms Khan stated that in addressing the priority of rural development, the Department supported a Rural Sport Development Programme under the guidance of the National House of Traditional Leaders. She further stated that the provinces of KwaZulu Natal and Limpopo were running the Club Development Pilot Programme and resources to do so have been made available in the Mass Participation and Sport Development Grant.

Ms Khan stated that the total budget for 2019/20 to Sport and Recreation South Africa was R1.154 billion. Of this R744 million was allocated to mass participation sport and recreation activities, implying that 64% of the budget went directly to sport development. The total allocation for transfers and subsidies stood at R855 million, representing 74% of the total budget. Of this, R620 million was transferred to the Provincial Department by way of conditional grants to support sport and recreation delivery in the provinces.

Ms Khan stated that school sport remained a core deliverable for the Department and the bulk allocation of the Departmental budget to this objective supported its strategic intention. The Department was devoted to implementing a Long-Term Participation Development model.

Ms Khan stated that the department provided support to high performance athletes to achieve success in international sports. R21.4 million over the MTEF period was allocated for this in the scientific support subprogram in the Winning Nation programme.


Discussion
The Chairperson welcomed the Deputy Minister who had just arrived.

Mr Faber asked for clarity on the School Sport Programme with regard to the budget allocated. He said that there was a proposal that teachers should be trained to teach physical sports in the afternoon. How far is this proposal? Was the proposal implemented? Was the department playing a significant role in this programme? China was applying this model and one could see the benefit of this model. The Chinese were dominating in sports at an international level. With regard to doping, he noted that South Africa lost accreditation due to athletes engaged in doping and sought clarity on whether the same impact applied to the USA.

Mr Sibisi said that some municipalities did not make use of the sport and recreation infrastructure and asked whether the Department was making a follow up on this. On the school sports, he stated that the Department was not funding cross country races and asked what the Department was doing about this.

Ms Van Dyk sought clarity on what measures were taken by the Department with regard to doping.

Mr L Ntshayisa (AIC) sought clarity on whether the National House of Traditional Leaders were involved in sport; on the progress of turnaround strategy; on the memorandum signed between the Department and the Department of Basic Education; and on the games for adults taking place in October 2019.

Mr Mamabolo welcomed the presentation. He sought clarity on criteria used to build the sports facility.


Mr B Madlingozi (EFF) welcomed the presentation and stated that the Department sounded as if it had broken a record. Its presentation was impressive. It talked about the vision all of us wanted to see – but the question was if sports programmes were applied in all districts and provinces, especially in rural areas and if there were programmes helping those who were not very talented and those who were living in poor areas. What was the Department doing with regard to the Semenya’ doping case?

The Chairperson asked how far the sports projects were, especially, those whose money was given to the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) and whether the Committee could, in the next meeting, be briefed on the international netball games which was about to take place in Western Cape.

Ms Khan welcomed the inputs from Members. The school sports were the bedrock of sports development. The physical sports course was an important subject. However, this was a responsibility of the Department of Basic Education. The Department could not impose its programme on the other departments; but there was a MOU signed on which the Department would report on how the MOU was being implemented. With regard to the Mass Participation Programme, there were many things that municipalities needed to deliver on for this to happen.

With regard to doping, Ms Khan noted that there was a huge a turnaround regarding the management of the laboratory in terms of testing for doping. Previously, there was a lack of resources which impacted on their work. The Department assisted them to be equipped enough to be able to conduct drug testing generally. The laboratory became an accredited entity and many countries were using the South African lab for drug-testing. There was a need to come up with a package fee that could be charged for countries using the lab.

On community sports facilities or amenities, there were competing priorities at municipal level and this made the sport suffer. There were challenges of running sports programmes where money was allocated to other projects. The Department identified spots where sports facilities could be built and the COGTA could transfer money to the municipalities after identification of the spots or spaces.  If a sport project was not included in a municipal integrated project plan it would be difficult to run that project. The Department was engaging with municipalities to ensure that sports infrastructures were built.

On the Semenya’s case, there were two teams consisting of medical doctors and legal experts to look into the matter and support her as she moved to the next step of the court hearing.

Mr Simphiwe Mncube, Chief Director: Winning Nation, stated that the traditional leaders were contacted especially in the areas under traditional leaders. The Provincial house of traditional leaders was responsible to identify traditional leaders who were to participate in the sports programmes. In the Western Cape there was no traditional leaders, so farming families were identified. There was a national competition in Indigenous Games that was held in Polokwane. As the Indigenous Games programme was developed and enhanced, more traditional leaders would be involved. On the Ministerial bursary, students were identified by the federation during the school competitions. The Department worked with the federation and schools. There was a need to build the capacities of schools and educators to teach physical sports.

Mr Manase Makwela, Director: Strategic Management, Monitoring and Evaluation, spoke on the issue of supporting athletics, especially the school sports championships. He said that the progress of sports in rural areas was covered in the report submitted to the Committee. In each province, there was a sport district academy, but one could not find a building on which it was written “sports district academy.” In the Nzo district, there were for example, nine sports district academies.

Ms R Adams (ANC) sought clarity on MOU and asked whether there were regular engagements between the two departments. How did the department make sure that facilities were maintained and not abandoned?

Mr Madlingozi said that the Department was reporting on sports and recreation of abled people and rarely talked about the sports for disabled or challenged people. Were they catered for?

Ms Khan responded that on the issue of the MOU, there was a structure in place which attended to the implementation of the MOU. There was a joint task team at the national level. There was another task team to oversee and monitor the implementation of the MOU and asses what challenges it could face in implementation. She assured Members that facilities were well maintained. However, it was not the responsibility of her Department to ensure that facilities were maintained. Such duties rested with municipalities.  On the sports of disabled/challenged people, she said that the Department streamlined all sports activities and people with disabilities were catered for. Money allocated to the federation covered both abled and disabled athletes. The percentage of disabled people in sports represented 15% of athletes. This figure was so high compared to the population of disabled people in the country, which stood at 8% of the South African population.  

The Chairperson stated that it was an important day as the Committee was able to engage with the Department and SASCOC. She stressed that all issues should be responded by the Department in writing.

Mr Mhlongo sought clarity on why members did not receive invitations from the Department to attend the events if they were taking place in their respective constituency.

The Chairperson remarked that it was abnormal to conduct an activity in a particular constituency without inviting a member of that constituency. The invitations should be sent to Members through the Chairperson. No names should be printed on invitations as this would assist the Chairperson to delegate members to certain events.

Meeting was adjourned.