Statement on the Public Protector’s
alleged delays in finalising her investigation against
Minister Sicelo Shiceka
Thursday, 15 September 2011
Public Protector Adv Thuli Madonsela has noted with
disappointment comments in the media attributed to the
Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs,
Mr Sicelo Shiceka. The statements relate to the Public
Protector’s ongoing investigation into allegations that
Minister Shiceka breached the Executive Members’ Ethics
Code.
Among other things, Minister Shiceka is reported to have
said he was ready to go back to work and that the Public
Protector was dragging her feet in finalising the
investigation against him. This implies that the
purported delay by the Public Protector is holding the
Minister back from returning to work.
The Public Protector refutes these allegations and would
like to put on record circumstances that have led to the
delay in finalising this investigation, which, in terms of
the Executive Members’ Ethics Act, was supposed to have been
concluded within 30 days.
On 29 April 2011, the Public Protector notified Minister
Shiceka of the investigation against him and thus requested
him to furnish her with information and documentation which
would assist her in the investigation. On 9 May 2011,
Minister Shiceka requested an extension until 31 May 2011 to
enable him to provide the Public Protector with a
comprehensive response. The request was granted and the
Minister’s response was subsequently received on 10 June
2011.
ATTEMPTS TO INTERVIEW MINISTER SHICEKA
On 01 August 2011, the Public Protector approached the
Minister to arrange an interview with him in connection with
the information and evidence obtained during the
investigation. The said interview was scheduled for 06
August 2011.
On 03 August 2011 an unsigned letter was received in
response to the Public Protector’s request ostensibly on
behalf of Mr Shiceka, notifying her that Mr Shiceka was on
sick leave and was not in a position to meet with her until
he was declared medically fit to resume duties by a
registered medical practitioner.
This is despite information provided to the Public
Protector, at the time of the investigation, by witnesses
who gave an impression that Mr Shiceka’s health had
apparently improved for him to be interviewed. Due to the
fact that he was still on sick leave, the Public Protector
deemed it appropriate that the interview be held at his
official residence in Pretoria so as not to inconvenience
him.
Subsequently, the Public Protector approached the President
advising him of the challenges that she was facing in
concluding her report particularly the unavailability of the
Minister to attend the interview thus requesting the
President’s intervention.
On 12 August 2011, an article appeared in the Sowetan
newspaper quoting Mr Shiceka’s spokesperson as having stated
that the Minister was ready and able to go back to his
office and that the Public Protector was dragging her
feet in finalising the investigation against him. On the
same day the Public Protector approached Mr Shiceka again to
arrange an interview and his special advisor responded on
his behalf distancing the Minister from the media report and
advising the Public Protector that he has not sufficiently
recovered to be interviewed.
On 17 August 2011, the Public Protector approached the
Minister directly raising a concern about the conflicting
statements thus requesting the Minister to advise whether he
was in a position to meet with her. The Public Protector
then received the same response on 18 August 2011 that the
Minister remained on sick leave until directed by the
President and a medical practitioner to return to work. He
then requested that he be furnished with a provisional
report.
The Public Protector then advised the Minister that such a
report would include findings which could only be made on
all the information and evidence obtained during the
investigation. She further advised him that what was
outstanding was information and evidence required from him
to clarify and explain some of the information which came to
light during the course of the investigation. The Public
Protector then provided him with written questions, which
the Minister, through his advisory team responded to on 26
August 2011.
On 31 August 2011, the Public Protector wrote again to the
Minister’s advisory team requesting clarity on certain
aspects of his responses. On 01 September 2011 the team, and
on behalf of the Minister, responded that, they take
direction from the Minister in carrying out their duties
and that responses to the Public Protector were compiled
in consultation with the Minister.
Whilst drafting the provisional report, additional
information and evidence, which the Public Protector could
not ignore, came to light. This necessitated the Public
Protector to consider same and integrate in the provisional
report which will be presented to the President, complainant
and the respondent in the next coming week.
Issued by:
Kgalalelo Masibi
Senior Manager: Communications
Office of the Public Protector
Cell: 079 507 0399
E-mail:
kgalalelom@pprotect.org
|
