Public Protector South Africa statement read during a media briefing held in Pretoria on Wednesday, March 30, 2022.

 

Programme Director, Mr. Oupa Segalwe

Deputy Public Protector, Adv. Kholeka Gcaleka;

Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Thandi Sibanyoni;

Acting Chief Operations Officer, Ms. Lethabo Mamabolo;

Chief of Staff, Mr. Luther Lebelo;

Executive Managers present;

Members of staff;

Members of the media;

Ladies and gentlemen;

 

Good afternoon.

 

Today marks the eve of the end of the 2021/22 financial year, a moment during which we look back at the last 12 months with a sense of fulfilment, knowing that we did our best to improve the lives of grassroots communities out there.

 

We have just begun preparing the 2021/22 Annual Report, which will carry the finer details of our efforts for the period under review. However, I wish to sample a little of the impactful work we carried out in the public health sector when we launched and completed multiple investigations into 16 public hospitals in five provinces – six in Gauteng, four each in KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape, and one each in Limpopo and Mpumalanga.

 

It’s heartening to note that public health authorities in the provinces in question welcomed our findings and remedial actions with open arms. Fully implemented, those reports have the potential to really impact the lives of grassroots communities who depend on the public health sector for their well-being in a profound way.

 

We also put out a report that laid bare the systemic service delivery problems that gave rise to the violent rebellion we witnessed in Alexandra three years ago, coming up with remedial action that the responsible organs of state, chiefly the City of Johannesburg, have embraced and are implementing to turn the tide against the indifference that the people of that township have endured over the years.

 

In addition, we have just concluded an eye-opening Stakeholder Roadshow during which we observed first-hand the appalling conditions that have sadly become a normal way of life for many South Africans, underscoring the reality that the fruits of our 28-year freedom and democracy have yet to reach many in the margins of our society. 

 

In some of the worst cases, we saw how residents of the N2 Gateway Flats in Langa, Cape Town find themselves having to reside in government-provided housing units with an acutely defective sanitation system, which literally results in dwellers living with human excrement on their doorstep.

 

We observed similar scenes at Greenpoint in Kimberley, where people’s homes are surrounded by pools sewage, with a heavy stink wafting in the air all around the neighbourhood. Elsewhere in the city, a large, man-made lake of sewage runs deep and wide, threatening to submerge the busy R31 road which connects the Northern Cape capital with Barkly West.

 

Above all, the roadshow presented an opportunity for us to bring to the attention of the nation the wanton disregard of our remedial action by some organs of state across the board, threatening to render this important independent constitutional institution a good-for-nothing body in the eyes of those who need its services the most.

 

We also got to shine a spotlight on how traditional authorities tend to be rendered redundant in municipal councils, in areas that observe customary law, when they should be playing an active role in bringing about development in their arears of jurisdiction.

 

We hope that all of the provincial executives and legislatures will make good on their undertakings to act on these concerns so that the system functions just as it was designed to. A report on the roadshow is being prepared to document our observations and the undertakings made. It will go a long way in helping us to monitor progress and see to it that authorities make good on their commitments. 

 

Today, as we wrap up the financial year, we release nine investigation reports, covering a range of themes including undue delays to process applications for public services, irregular appointment of staff, irregularities in public procurement processes, financial mismanagement and executive ethics.

 

One is a closing report, which we issue in cases where allegations are unsubstantiated or cannot be corroborated while a few others are advisory reports, which we issue to offer advice on how to remedy issues we observed in the course of investigations.  Let us start with the closing report.

 

CLOSING REPORT

Shivambu v Gordhan (Report No. 107 of 2021/22)

We investigated allegations of a breach of the Executive Ethics Code by the Minister of Public Enterprises, Mr Pravin Gordhan, in that he tried to influence the appointment of his friend, Judge Dhaya Pillay to a position of responsibility in the judiciary during a meeting with the former Chief Justice, Mr Mogoeng Mogoeng in Cape Town. The investigation followed Economic Freedom Fighters Deputy President and Chief Whip Mr Nyiko Floyd Shivambu’s complaint, lodged in terms of section 4(1) of the Executive Members’ Ethics Act, in April 2021.

We have had to close this investigation because Mr Shivambu’s allegations could not be corroborated. The investigation revealed that when Mr Gordhan and Mr Mogoeng met at the Twelve Apostles Hotel and Spa, Victory Street, Camps Bay, Cape Town on 6 April 2016, the spokesperson for the Judicial Services Commission had already announced the interview results and it was already public knowledge that Judge Pillay had not made it. It would therefore be factually or legally impossible for Mr Gordhan to have influenced the outcome of an interview that had already been concluded. Accordingly, Mr Gordhan’s conduct could not be regarded as having been in breach of paragraphs 2.1(c) and (d) and 2.3(b) of the Executive Ethics Code.

ADVISORY REPORTS

Kganare v Department of Correctional Services (Report No. 112 of 2021/22)

We investigated allegations that the Department of Correctional Services failed to pursue disciplinary action against officials implicated in the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture in respect of tenders awarded to African Global Operations, previously known as Bosasa. Mr P Kganare, the late General-Secretary of the Congress of the People (COPE), lodged the complaint in March 2019.

In his complaints, Mr Kganare alleged, among other things, that the former Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, Adv. Michael Masutha, issued a statement that he would be suspending officials implicated in evidence before the Commission. However, the only official that has since been suspended is Dr Khotso De Wee.

He added that no such suspensions or disciplinary hearings have been instituted against Ms Grace Molatedi, the former Free State Regional Commissioner of Correctional Services who was implicated by Mr Angelo Agrizzi, during his testimony at the Commission.

Mr Kganare also alleged that, during the former Minister’s stay in Port Elizabeth, at the home of the late Mr Gavin Watson, the then Chief Executive Officer of Bosasa, the Bosasa catering tender was discussed and arrangements were finalised regarding the extension of the contract.

In addition, he alleged that the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) investigated the catering contract between Bosasa and the department and that the former Minister failed to take cognisance of that investigation, resulting in the department continuing its contract with Bosasa.

Having analysed the complaint, we decided to investigate whether former Minister, Adv. Masutha failed to pursue disciplinary action against the departmental officials implicated in the Commission, and if so whether such conduct amounts to improper conduct and maladministration.

Our investigation revealed the matter did, in fact, receive the former Minister’s attention and that of the Department even though some of the matters may still be pending. This is evident from the letters dated 13 and 14 February 2019 that the department issued to the implicated officials including Ms Molatedi prior to the complaint being lodged with us.

The decision to suspend or take disciplinary action against officials is subject to the provisions Section 185(a) and (b) of the Labour Relations Act, which stipulate that every employee has a right not to be unfairly dismissed and subjected to unfair labour practice.

The Commission handed over its report on the inquiry into Bosasa, which was made public to the Presidency on 1 March 2022.

Taking into account that the department did pursue oral evidence of Mr Agrizzi and that written evidence from the Commission was not availed to it at the time, it is recommended, in terms of section 6(4)(c)(ii) of the Public Protector Act that the Minister of Justice and Correctional considers and informs us within sixty days from the date of the report on the recommendations to deal properly with the subject-matter of investigation.

This should include taking urgent steps to intervene and ensure that the National Commissioner of the department acquires all relevant evidence, and statements from the Commission, on the transactions involving officials of the department, that are identified as unlawful, irregular or improper in the final reports of the Commission.

Further, and on receipt of the information from the Commission, ensure that the National Commissioner of the department analyses the evidence in order to identify all officials of the department implicated by the evidence, and if required, take the necessary action in terms of section 38 of the PFMA, including criminal charges or the institution of disciplinary action as may be appropriate.

Ntuli v Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (Report No. 111 of 2021/22)

We investigated allegations of maladministration and improper conduct relating to the failure by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI) to inform the complainant, Mr. Melusi Ntuli, about his placement on the Grassroots Innovation Pilot Programme (GIP).

The investigation was also about allegations of the irregular termination of a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) entered into between the CSIR’s Technology Localisation Implementation Unit (CSIR-TLIU) and Melu’s Driving Solutions (Pty) Ltd (MDS), a company to which Mr Ntuli was a director. The investigation stemmed from a complaint Mr Ntuli lodged in January 2020.

Having analysed the complaint, we decided to investigate whether the CSIR-TLIU and/or the DSI failed to inform Mr Ntuli about his placement on the GIP Programme aimed at assisting people with innovative ideas to market their ideas, and if so, whether the conduct constituted maladministration and improper conduct.

Having regard to the investigation conducted in the matter, the evidence and information obtained therewith, it may be concluded that the DSI introduced the GIP Programme hosted by the CSIR-TLIU aimed at assisting people with innovative ideas to market their ideas. In the circumstances the CSIR and/or the DSI did not violate Mr Ntuli’s right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair as guaranteed in the Constitution and in PAJA.

Regarding the second issue, and having regard to the investigation conducted in the matter, the evidence and information obtained therewith, it may be safely concluded that the cancellation and/or repudiation of the MoA between the Parties was the result of Mr Ntuli’s exercise of his rights to exit the agreement afforded in terms of the MoA. In the circumstances, we could not find any evidence to support Mr Ntuli’s allegation that the CSIR-TLIU irregularly terminated the MoA based on a fictitious “letter of termination” dated 21 July 2017.

Having made these conclusions, we recommend to the Director-General of the DSI, in line with section 6(4) (c) (ii) of the Public Protector Act, to ensure that entities reporting to the DSI and administering support programmes funded and/or administered on behalf of the DSI provide the successful beneficiaries with MoAs and/or Contracts providing detailed information regarding the programme(s) in which they are enrolled.

In terms of section 6(4) (c) (ii) of the Public Protector Act, the Public Protector may, if he or she deems it advisable, refer any matter which has a bearing on an investigation, to the appropriate public body or authority affected by it or to make an appropriate recommendation regarding the redress of the prejudice resulting therefrom or make any other appropriate recommendation he or she deems expedient to the affected public body or authority.

 

We also recommend to the CISR Chief Executive Officer (CEO), in line with section 6(4)(c)(ii) of the Public Protector Act, to ensure that Mr Ntuli is provided with a letter providing a clear statement and explanation, as well as the reasons for his placement in the GIP Programme by the CSIR in accordance with the Constitution, read with PAJA. In addition, we recommend to the CEO to provide feedback on how the recommendation will be implemented.

REPORTS WITH FINDINGS

 

Mokoena v Free State Department of Police, Roads and Transport (Report No. 106 of 2021/22)

We investigated allegations of undue delay by the Free State Department of Police, Roads and Transport to adjudicate on the application for a Private Motor Vehicle Testing Station in Botshabelo, resulting in prejudice to Mr MJ Mokoena. This followed a complaint Mr Mokoena lodged in September 2018. He alleged that:

1. In January 2018, he applied for a licence to operate a Private Vehicle Testing Station in Botshabelo and that by September 2018, he had not received a written response from the Department in respect of his application;

 

2. He previously made enquiries regarding his application to Ms L Marumo, Provincial Inspector of the Department, who in turn referred him to Mr N G Ramotsoto, Chief Director: Traffic Management. The latter office further referred him to Mr S S Mtakati the Head of Department (HOD), who in turn referred him to the Office of the MEC, Mr SM Mashinini. The Office of the MEC eventually referred him back to Ms L Marumo for further assistance;

 

3. Upon making enquiries to Ms L Marumo about his application, he was informed that the department had received other applications in respect of the Botshabelo Private Vehicle Testing Station; and

 

4. There was an undue delay by the department to process his application, hence he approached the Public Protector for assistance.

 

Having studied Mr Mokoena’s complaint, we investigated whether the department unduly delayed to adjudicate on his application to operate a Private Vehicle Testing Station in Botshabelo resulting in prejudice to him, and if so, whether such conduct was improper and amounts to maladministration.

We found that the department unduly delayed to consider and adjudicate Mr Mokoena’s application to operate the private station in Botshabelo, resulting in prejudice to him.

This conduct was in contravention of the Constitution which provides that everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.

The conduct of the department was in contravention of section 195 of the Constitution which requires of the public administration to promote and maintain a high standard of professional ethics and that it must be accountable.

The conduct of the department was also in contravention of the National Road Traffic Act read with the National Road Traffic Regulations as no prescribed fee had been determined by the MEC.

The conduct of the department constitutes improper conduct as envisaged in the Constitution and maladministration and undue delay as contemplated in the Public Protector Act.

It should be noted that subsequent to the issuing of a notice issued to the department in terms of section 7(9) of the Public Protector Act, the department complied with the proposed remedial action as follows:

1. That MEC responded to Mr Mokoena pertaining to the outcome of his application in a letter addressed to him, dated 3 February 2022;

 

2. That the Department sent a letter of apology to Mr Mokoena, dated 2 February 2022; and

 

3. That the department has indicated that on 2 February 2022, Mr N Selai, Chief Director: Corporate Services was instructed to conduct an investigation against officials involved in causing the delay of the processing of Mr Mokoena's application since 22 October 2020 and report to the HOD by 21 February 2022.

To further remedy the maladministration and improper conduct established during the investigation, we directed the Acting HOD to:

1. Ensure that Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) regarding the adjudication of applications for Vehicle Testing Stations (VTS) are developed with appropriate time lines and implemented within 120 working days from the date of the report to enable it to conform to the requirements of the Constitution, the National Road Traffic Act and the National Road Traffic Regulations;

 

2. Improve the Service Charter of the department to incorporate applications for Vehicle Testing Stations;

 

3. Ensure that all the officials of the department dealing with applications for Vehicle Testing Stations receive appropriate training on the SOP within 180 working days of the date of the report; and

 

4. Report to the MEC on the implementation of the remedial action referred to above from the date of the report and provide us with a copy thereof.

 

Adams v Stellenbosch Local Municipality (Report No. 109 of 2021/22)

We investigated allegations of improper conduct and maladministration by the Stellenbosch Local Municipality in the Western Cape relating to the irregular appointment of Adv. A. de Beer as Director: Strategic and Corporate Services and Mr K. Carolus as Chief Financial Officer (CFO). This followed a complaint lodged in May 2019 by Mr F. Adams. He alleged that:

1. In October 2016, the Municipal Council approved the appointment of Adv. De Beer as Director: Strategic and Corporate Services;

 

2. The municipality’s Selection Panel recommended a five-year contract;

 

3. On 2 November 2016, Adv. De Beer wrote a letter to the then Acting Municipal Manager, Mr R. Bosman, requesting the waiver of the upper limits of the remuneration of this post and also for a 10-year contract;

 

4. Mr Bosman confirmed that he entered into a telephonic agreement with Adv. De Beer. Mr Bosman was the Chairperson of the Selection Panel, which by consensus agreed on a five-year contract. Mr Bosman left the municipality at the end of November 2016.  Adv. De Beer made it clear in the letter dated 2 November 2016 that she would only accept the Council’s offer after the Minister had made a decision on her request in respect of her remuneration. Adv. De Beer was later appointed on a 10-year contract;

 

5. No one, including Mr Bosman, had any authority to change the recommendation of the Selection Panel to Council;

 

6. Further that Mr Carolus was officially appointed as CFO for a 10-year term by a Council Resolution dated 27 March 2019;

 

7. However, on 24 April 2019 a special item was placed on the Agenda of the Council meeting, and the latter subsequently approved Mr Carolus’ appointment on a permanent basis; and that

 

8. Mr Carolus’ appointment on a permanent basis was improper and unfair towards other possible candidates.

 

Flowing from a thorough analysis of the complaint, we investigated whether the municipality irregularly appointed Adv. De Beer as Director: Strategic and Corporate Services and Mr Carolus as CFO, and if so, whether these appointments were improper and constitute maladministration.

 

We found that, indeed, the municipality irregularly appointed Adv. De Beer as Director: Strategic and Corporate Services and Mr Carolus as CFO.

 

The period of 30 days within which the council resolved the successful candidate for the position of Director: Strategic and Corporate Services had to accept the offer or enter into a final contract, failing which the post had to be re-advertised, had long expired by the time that the Council rescinded that decision. As the post had to be re-advertised, the Municipal Manager had no authority to enter into a written contract of employment with Adv. De Beer on 29 April 2017.

 

Adv. De Beer’s appointment was therefore irregular as it was at variance with the provisions of section 56 of the Municipal Systems Act as amended.

 

In addition, the resolution of the council to change the conditions of service for the position of CFO from a 10-year contract to a permanent position after an offer had been made to Mr Carolus, was improper. It prejudiced other prospective candidates that would have applied had they known that the period of tenure was flexible and could be changed even to a permanent appointment.

 

Mr Carolus’ appointment was therefore procedurally unfair and at variance with the provisions of the Constitution as the council should have re-advertised the position of CFO as a permanent appointment. Accordingly, the appointment was irregular.

 

The municipality’s conduct therefore constitutes maladministration as envisaged in the Public Protector Act and improper conduct as envisaged in the Constitution.

 

To remedy this maladministration and improper conduct, the Municipal Manager must:

 

1. Report the irregular appointments to the Western Cape Provincial Treasury for a determination on whether or not the remuneration paid to Adv. De Beer and Mr Carolus constitutes irregular expenditure as contemplated by the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act, 2003 within 60 working days from the date of the report, and to take action accordingly;

 

2. Ensure that the Internal Audit Unit, on an annual basis, continues to review the adequacy and effectiveness of the municipality’s system of internal control, risk management and compliance to laws, regulations and Municipal policies and procedures; and

 

3. Ensure that the Audit Committee of the Municipality, in all its quarterly meetings, consider the internal audit and Auditor-General South Africa reports to ensure that the recommendations are implemented.

 

The Speaker and Municipal Manager must:

 

1. Ensure compliance in terms of section 165 and 166 of the MFMA, conduct a skills audit with regard to all Councillors and officials of the municipality involved in the recruitment and selection of staff to ensure that they are properly and appropriately trained to ensure compliance with the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the Municipal Systems Act, the Regulations and the Recruitment and Selection Policy of the Municipality. This must happen within 120 working days from the date of the report; and

 

2. Ensure that the Council obtains legal advice from the Office of the State Law Advisor instead of private legal counsel in all cases where it considers changing the conditions of service or the tenure of any employee appointed by it or to be appointed by it.

 

Lastly, the Speaker must submit a report to the MEC on the implementation of the remedial action referred to above within 120 working days from the date of the report and provide the Public Protector with a copy thereof.

 

Mphela v Department of Water and Sanitation (Report No. 110 of 2021/22)

We investigated allegations of maladministration and failure by the National Department of Water and Sanitation to register a servitude on Pylkop farm 26 JQ regarding a water project that was constructed at the said farm. This followed a complaint lodged by Mr Thabiso Mphela, acting on behalf of the Mphela family in November 2018.

In his complaint, Mr Mphela alleged that the Mphela family are the owners the farm in question, which is situated within the municipal area of the Moses Kotane Local Municipality in the North West. The farm is commonly known as Ga-Phadi village.

He added that during 2017, he discovered that the department had established a water project known as the Baphalane Water Project on the farm. According to him, the department did not consult the Mphela family before commencing with the project. Further, the department did not register a servitude on the property in respect of the project resulting in the family not being compensated for the usage of their land.

Mr Mphela further indicated that he wanted the department to register a servitude in respect of the property and to compensate the family for the usage of their land.

Having studied the complaint thoroughly, we decided to investigate whether the department’s failure and/or undue delay to register a servitude on the farm was in violation of the relevant laws and prescripts regulating the provision of water and its infrastructure; and if so, whether such conduct constituted maladministration and improper conduct.’

We further decided to look into whether the department’s failure and/or undue delay to compensate the Mphela family for the usage of their land was in violation of the relevant laws and prescripts regulating the installation of water infrastructure on private land; and if so, whether such conduct was improper and constituted maladministration.

The issue regarding whether the department was obliged to compensate Mr Mphela was dealt with in a separate Closing Report, Report No 41 of 2021/22, which we issued in October 2021. The report at hand therefore only focuses on the issue whether or not the department failed to register a servitude.

We found that the department failed and/or delayed to register a servitude on the farm. The department has always intended to register a servitude on the farm but failed to do so.

Section 38(1) (d) of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) places an obligation on an Accounting Officer to protect public resources. It is not in dispute that the department established the project.  Public funds were used to construct the water project and the only way to safeguard the project was by registering a servitude.

The failure to register a servitude exposed the state to financial risks in that the land owner may, e.g. build on top of the pipe line, thus making the pipeline inaccessible to the state. Accordingly, the department has violated the provisions of Section 38(1) (d) of the PFMA.

The department’s conduct in failing to register a servitude, constitute improper conduct as envisaged in the Constitution and maladministration as envisaged in the Public Protector Act.

It should be noted that subsequent to a notice issued to the department in terms of section 7(9) of the Public Protector Act, the department proposed the following with regard to the remedial action: “The remedial action requires the department to avail sufficient funds to the municipality for the purpose of registering the servitude at Pylkop 26 JQ farm in respect of the water project.  The department is engaging National Treasury on Municipality transfer payment approval.” (sic).

To remedy the department’s maladministration and improper conduct, we urge the Director-General to ensure that a servitude is registered in respect of the water project on the farm in compliance with Section 127(3) of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 within 180 working days from the date this report.

The Director-General must further submit to the Public Protector proof of the transfer of the project and the conditions under which it was transferred to the Municipality in compliance with section 38(1) of the PFMA within 60 working days from the date of this report.

The Moses Kotane Local Municipality on the other hand must, within 90 working days after receipt of the funds from the department, ensure that a servitude is registered at the farm in respect of the water project.

Anonymous v National Health Laboratory Service (Report No. 108 of 2021/22)

We investigated allegations of financial mismanagement, procurement and recruitment irregularities as well as failure by the National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS) Board to take appropriate action on allegations of corruption and improper conduct levelled against the NHLS. An anonymous complaint received in June 2017 prompted the investigation. Having analysed the complaint, we decided to identify the following 14 issues for investigation:

1. Whether the NHLS incurred fruitless and wasteful expenditure for reinstating Mr Ndlangisa who was found guilty of sexual harassment, and if so, whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct and maladministration;

 

2. Whether the institution appointed Mr Ndlangisa and other personnel in the HR Department to their positions without them possessing the necessary qualifications for the job, if so, whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct and maladministration;

 

3. Whether the board ignored a conflict of interest involving the amounts of R3.4million and R2.1million by Dr Tucker, a board member and CEO of SEAD, a company conducting business with the institution, and if so, whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct and maladministration;

 

4. Whether during 2016, the board allowed Dr Mhlongo to serve as a board member after her nomination was withdrawn by the Province that she was representing and replaced by Dr Gerhard Goosen, resulting in two board members representing the same Province and attending the same board meetings, thereby resulting in the institution incurring irregular expenditure in respect of the board fees claimed by the member concerned, and if so, whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct and maladministration;

 

5. Whether institution failed to take action against the Company Secretary, Adv. Mphelo for working irregular hours contrary to its policy and for taking unauthorised leave of absence from work for a period of ten days during 2016, and if so, whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct and maladministration;

 

6. Whether the board failed to take action against Adv. Mphelo for misrepresenting his skills and qualifications on his CV at the time of his appointment to the position of Company Secretary, and if so, whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct and maladministration;

 

7. Whether during 2016, the institution implemented the job grading results of Company Secretary from E1 to E5 (just over R1million to more than R1.7million), contrary to the report of the job grading expert, and if so, whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct and maladministration;

 

8. Whether the institution disregarded part of the report of the expert regarding the recommendations that the CEO job grading be changed from F1 to F3, and that of the CFO from E3 to F1, and that the board had failed to act on the alleged discrepancies, and if so, whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct and maladministration;

 

9. Whether, on 14 February 2017, the board allowed the Company Secretary to destroy documents of the institution without proper authorisation and contrary to the institution’s policies, and if so, whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct and maladministration;

 

10. Whether the board improperly failed to take action against its former CEO, Mr Pillay and the then CFO, Mr Erriah for the irregular appointment of two suppliers, Innovent and HST, and further failed to take action against the companies concerned, thereby resulting in irregular expenditure of over R11 million, and if so, whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct and maladministration;

 

11. Whether the board failed to take action on the misrepresentation of retired Professor Schoub, that he was a representative of the CHE, which led to his improper appointment to the board contrary to the requirement of the NHLS Act, despite the CHE having its own representative, Professor Lawrence, on the board, and if so, whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct and maladministration;

 

12. Whether the institution improperly appointed a forensic firm, Grant Thornton without following proper SCM processes, thereby incurring irregular expenditure, and if so, whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct and maladministration;

 

13. Whether the board improperly lifted the suspension of the Senior Manager, Mr Qweta for contravention of the institution’s Supply Chain Management (SCM) Policy, contrary to its Disciplinary Code and Procedure, and if so, whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct and maladministration; and

 

14. Whether the board allowed the payment of salaries of Mr Motsepe, who was charged by the then suspended CEO, Ms Mogale and the then CFO, Mr Zulu for committing SCM irregularities, by assisting a supplier of the institution, Blue Future Internet and Surveillance to defraud three companies through fraudulent cession agreements involving various amounts of money, thereby resulting in criminal cases being opened against the employee concerned, and if so, whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct and maladministration.

 

We found that issues number one, two, 11 and 14 were not substantiated. Although we found that there was merit to the allegations contained in issues six and 13, we did not make findings of maladministration and improper conduct. Further, issue six is referred to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation in terms of section 6(4) (c) (i) of the Public Protector Act read with section 34 (1) of the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act.

 

We found that the rest of the allegations are substantiated. For instance, the board did ignore and fail to prevent and manage a conflict of interest by Dr Tucker involving the amounts of R3.4million and R2.1million.  

We also found that the board improperly allowed Dr Mhlongo to serve as a Board Member after her nomination was withdrawn by the province that she was representing and replaced by Dr Goosen, resulting in two board members representing the same province and attending the same board meetings, thereby resulting in the institution incurring irregular expenditure in respect of the board fees claimed by the members concerned.

We further found that the institution failed to take action against Company Secretary, Adv. Mphelo, for working irregular hours contrary to the institution’s policy and for taking unauthorised leave of absence from work for a period of ten days during 2016.

Moreover, we found that, during 2016, the institution improperly implemented the job grading results of Company Secretary from E1 to E5 contrary to the report of the job grading expert, who was commissioned to do the analysis and make recommendations.

In addition, we found that the institution improperly disregarded part of the report of the expert regarding the recommendations that the CEO job grading be changed from F1 to F3, and that of the CFO from E3 to F1, and that the board failed to act on the alleged discrepancies.

We also found that, on 14 February 2017, the board allowed the Company Secretary to destroy documents of the institution without proper authorisation and contrary to the institution’s policies.

Also substantiated was the allegation that the board improperly failed to take action against former CEO, Mr Pillay and the then CFO, Mr Erriah for the irregular appointment of two suppliers, Innovent and HST (sic), and further improperly failed to take action against the companies concerned, thereby resulting in irregular expenditure of over R11 million.

Lastly, our investigation confirmed that, indeed, the institution improperly appointed a forensic firm, Grant Thornton, without following proper SCM processes, thereby incurring irregular expenditure.

To remedy this maladministration and improper conduct, we take the following remedial action:

The Minister of Health to:

 

1. Take cognisance of the findings regarding the unethical conduct and maladministration by the board relating to the irregularities mentioned in this report.

 

2. Ensure that the board considers the report and, where appropriate, act in terms of the PFMA regarding the maladministration outlined in the report and reprimand or consider appropriate sanction or directive under the circumstances.

 

3. Ensure that the board considers the acts of improper conduct referred to in the report, and takes appropriate disciplinary action against the officials of the institution in respect of their conduct referred to therein.

 

4. Ensure that the board, in exercising its oversight responsibilities over the institution’s affairs, effectively and sufficiently observe and apply the principles enunciated in Part 5 of the King IV Code on Corporate Governance.

 

5. Include in his oversight activities relating to the institution as a public entity, the monitoring of implementation of remedial action taken in pursuit of the findings in terms of powers conferred under section 182(1)(c) of the Constitution.

 

The Chairperson of the board to ensure that:

 

1. The board takes cognisance of the findings of maladministration and improper conduct referred to in this report.

 

2. The board, in exercising its oversight responsibilities over the institution’s affairs, effectively and sufficiently observe and apply the principles enunciated in Part 5 of the King IV Code on Corporate Governance.

 

3. The board evaluates the effectiveness of the institution’s internal controls on the application of its SCM Policy and Remuneration Policy with a view to take corrective action to prevent a recurrence of the improprieties referred to in this report.

 

4. The board members attend a training course or workshop in Public Procurement, with particular emphasis to fiduciary duties and general responsibilities of Accounting Authorities outlined in the PFMA, as well as a refresher course or workshop on the board’s Terms of Reference and guiding principles in the King IV Code on Corporate Governance.

 

5. The board adopts a monitoring system in line with the guiding principles outlined in Part IV of the King IV Code that ensures that proper procurement processes and HR processes are followed in appointing service providers and individuals to ensure that it complies with the NHLS General Rules (NHLSGR) Rule F.1 of Part VII of the NHLSGR and clauses 7.3 and 7.7 of the board’s Terms of Reference ensuring equity, fairness and efficiency in the management of the institution’s affairs.

 

6. The board ensures that the institution’s CEO, SCM Officials and Managers involved in the institution’s procurement processes attend a training course or refresher workshop in Public Procurement or refresher course in public procurement with particular emphasis on sections 57 and 83 of the PFMA as well as section 217 of the Constitution.

 

7. The board take note of its responsibilities in line with the guiding principles enunciated in Part 5 of the King IV Code and ensures that the institution’s Management and Officials in the HR Department attend a course on protected disclosure to ensure the proper identification of the requirements for a protected disclosure case and the proper handling thereof.

 

8. The board ensures that the institution’s personnel responsible for labour relations attend a refresher course on labour relations processes relating to, discipline, in particular the code of good practice on suspensions and dismissals as well as principles of ethical conduct and accountability underpinning public administration.

 

9. The board ensures the inclusion of a provision/strategy in its Terms of Reference to the Remuneration and Human Resource Committee (RHRC), to encompass a prerequisite for compulsory submission of pertinent recommendations for any job grading and/or salary scales through the institution’s Legal Services Unit and the CEO for vetting and further advice, prior to its submission to the board for approval.

 

10. Board members must arrange training with the National Treasury on Treasury Regulations 16A9.1 and sections 50, 51, 54, 63, 83 and 84 of the PFMA to enhance their oversight capacity over the institution’s affairs and to ensure the taking of decisive action against officials who breach the institution’s policies to avoid a recurrence of the improprieties referred to in this report.

 

11. The board studies and fully considers the report and, where appropriate, act as contemplated in terms of section 84 of the PFMA.

 

12. The board reports to the National Treasury and the Auditor-General, particulars and details of the alleged financial misconduct and the steps taken in connection with such financial misconduct, as contemplated in section 85 of the PFMA.

 

13. The board includes in the Code of Conduct, a duty for the board to promptly inform the Minister of the change in the position of board members and the requirement to obtain the Minister’s approval and clarity on the status of any board member and his/her eligibility to take part in the affairs of the board, to avoid a recurrence of the impropriety regarding the improper attendance of board meetings by the members not properly accredited.

 

14. The institution amends and includes a provision in its Code of Conduct that a member of the board who discloses to the board any direct or indirect personal or private business interest which that member may have in any matter before the board, must withdraw from the proceedings of the board when that matter is considered, including from the signing of the contract, unless the accounting authority decides that the member’s direct or indirect interest in the matter is trivial or irrelevant, as envisaged in section 50(3)(a) and (b) of the PFMA.

 

15. The institution accordingly reviews the existing policy or the policy provisions on managing conflict of interest to ensure there is no ambiguity regarding expectations from employees and board members regarding the application of the policy on conflict of interest.

 

16. The board refers the issue relating to Mr Ndlangisa’s position for consideration by HR and the CEO with a view to correct it to indicate in no uncertain terms in the Oracle system, whether he is a Manager or Senior Manager: HR Employee Relations by placing him at the position concerned.

 

17. The board reconsiders the issue of Company Secretary’s position regarding the placing of job grade for the relevant position from E1 to E5 and refers it to its Legal Services Unit and the CEO for advice on its appropriateness.

 

18. The board ensures that the NHLS establishes guidelines in line with Rule 11 of Chapter 2 of the NHLSGR, Rule A.2(c) of Part V of the NHLSGR, where appropriate, pertaining to special circumstances for deviation from implementing recommendations for the implementation of the job grading and remuneration of the committee that conducted reviews, evaluation and validation of the relevant job grading in replacing same with the recommendations of the RHRC or any of the Board Committees.

 

19. The board ensures that the institution creates guidelines to deal with the ambiguity relating to the proper disposal of NHLS Board documents.

 

20. The board, in line with the relevant principles enunciated in Part 5 of the King IV Code on Corporate Governance, establishes ground rules and timelines within which allegations of fraud, corruption and recommendations of forensic investigation reports, ARC and Legal Services Unit should be dealt with to ensure diligent and timeous compliance with clauses 7.3 and 7.7 of the board’s Terms of Reference in exercising leadership and sound judgment based on fairness, accountability, responsibility and transparency.

 

The CEO of the NHLS to:

 

1. Ensure that institution’s management team takes cognisance of the findings of maladministration and improper conduct referred to in this report, and put the relevant measures in place with a view to take corrective action to prevent a recurrence of the improprieties referred to in this report.

 

2. Ensure that prior to signing a formal contract or service level agreement with a contractor, that such contracts or agreements are legally sound to avoid potential litigation and to minimise possible fraud and corruption. This must include legal vetting by at least the Legal Services Unit and prior approval by the board. Such contracts or agreements must be constantly managed in order to ensure that both the institution and the contractors meet their respective obligations.

 

3. The institution should adopt a monitoring system that ensures that proper procurement in appointing service providers by the SCM and recruitment processes in appointing individuals by the HR Department are followed with a view to take corrective action to prevent a recurrence of the improprieties referred to in this report.

 

4. Review the existing policy or the policy provisions on managing conflict of interest to ensure that there is no confusion regarding expectations from employees and Board Members regarding its application.

 

5. Together with the Board, evaluate the effectiveness of the institution’ internal controls and monitoring system and introduce strict measures for compliance with lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair labour practices to avoid future recurrence of the transgression referred to in this report.

 

The Offices of the Chief Procurement Officer of the National Treasury and the Auditor-General must take cognisance of the findings of the improprieties and remedial action mentioned in this report, for purposes of their future monitoring in the areas identified as inadequate or lacking within the institution’s corporate governance.

 

Lastly, the Head of the DPCI must take cognisance of the allegations outlined at paragraphs 5.6 and 6.1.6 of the report relating to the misrepresentation of skills and qualifications in the CV of Adv. Mphelo at the time of his appointment to the position of institution’s Company Secretary.

 

Kgatle v State Information Technology Agency (Report No. 113 of 2021/22)

 

We investigated allegations of maladministration in the appointment of service providers and employees by the State Information Technology Agency (SITA). The investigation followed a complaint by Mr Ratsie Ismael Kgatle in 2018. He requested an investigation into:

 

1. The contracts irregularly awarded to Forensic Data Analysts (Pty) Ltd; Core Focus (Pty) Ltd; Accenture (Pty) Ltd; Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd; Parahelic CC and Jika Africa Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd;

 

2. The contracts irregularly awarded to the firm of attorneys of Bowmans; Hewu Attorneys and Cyanre Digital Forensic Lab;

 

3. The irregular appointment of Mr Sithembele Senti as an Executive in the Chief Executive Officer’s office; and Mr Kenneth Wienand as a Consultant in the office of the Chief Financial Officer; and

 

4. Essentially, Mr Kgatle contended that SITA’s conduct regarding the foregoing allegations was unlawful, improper and constitutes maladministration.

 

Based on an analysis of the complaint, we identified the following issues for investigation:

 

1. Whether the appointments of Forensic Data Analysts (Pty) Ltd, Core Focus (Pty) Ltd, Accenture (Pty) Ltd, Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd, Parahelic CC, Jika Africa Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd, Bowmans Attorneys, Hewu Attorneys and Cyanre Digital Forensic Lab  were not consistent with applicable supply-chain management prescripts and whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct or maladministration; and

 

 

 

 

2. Whether the recruitment of Mr Sithembele Senti as an Executive in the Chief Executive Officer’s office and Mr Kenneth Wienand in the office of the Chief Financial Officer was not consistent with applicable prescripts regulating the recruitment and selection of employees of SITA and whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct or maladministration.

 

We found that SITA did not follow applicable supply chain management prescripts in the appointment of Forensic Data Analysts (Pty) Ltd (FDA). The evidence indicates that SITA deviated from inviting competitive bids to appoint FDA. The deviation is however deemed to be irregular as it did not comply with applicable supply chain management prescripts and processes regulating the conduct of SITA.

 

We also found that that SITA did not follow applicable supply chain management prescripts in the appointment of Core Focus. SITA appointed Core Focus even though it did not meet the minimum mandatory requirements as per the bid documents for the tender and proceeded to extend/vary the contract awarded to Core Focus during June 2017 without following the prescribed supply chain management prescripts.

 

We further found that SITA did not follow applicable supply chain management prescripts in the appointment of Accenture. SITA procured the services of Accenture and proceeded to extend/vary the contract without following the prescribed supply chain management prescripts. SITA conceded in its response to the Public Protector during the investigation that it incurred irregular expenditure as a result of the contract awarded to Accenture.

 

In addition, we found that SITA did not follow applicable supply chain management prescripts in the appointment of Fidelity. SITA did not dispute in its response to the allegations that the appointment of Fidelity was not in line with procurement processes and is considered to be irregular. SITA also conceded that it incurred irregular expenditure and fruitless and wasteful expenditure as a result of the contract award to Fidelity. SITA stated that it dealt with the irregularity by reporting same in its 2017/2018 financial statements.

 

Moreover, SITA did not follow applicable supply chain management prescripts in the appointment of Parahelic. SITA deviated from inviting competitive bids and utilised a single source procurement strategy to appoint Parahelic. The reasons provided by SITA for the appointment did not however fall within the exceptional circumstances envisioned for single source procurement as is required by SITA’s supply chain management prescripts and processes. SITA proceeded to extend/vary the contract awarded to Parahelic without following the prescribed supply chain management prescripts of SITA.

 

There was insufficient information to draw a conclusion on the allegation that SITA did not follow applicable supply chain management prescripts in the appointment of Jika Africa Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd (Jika). Accordingly, no conclusion can therefore be drawn on the allegation that SITA incurred irregular expenditure by exceeding the approved budget for the contract, without obtaining prior approval from National Treasury.

 

We found that SITA did not follow applicable supply chain management prescripts in the appointment of Bowmans. SITA conceded in its response to the allegation that the appointment of Bowmans was not in line with procurement process. By its own admission, SITA stated that the process followed to appoint Bowmans was irregular.

 

There was insufficient information to draw a conclusion on the allegation that SITA did not follow applicable supply chain management prescripts in the appointment of Hewu for the provision of legal service.

 

We also found that SITA did not follow applicable supply chain management prescripts in the appointment of Cyanre. The evidence indicates that SITA deviated from inviting competitive bids to appoint Cyanre. The deviation is deemed to be irregular as it did not comply with applicable supply chain management prescripts and processes regulating the conduct of SITA and is deemed to be irregular.

 

We further found that the recruitment of Mr Senti as an Executive in the Chief Executive Officer’s office by SITA was not in accordance with applicable prescripts regulating the recruitment and selection of employees of SITA. The process followed by SITA in the recruitment of Mr Senti to the position of Executive in the Chief Executive Officer’s office was not in compliance with the prescripts regulating the recruitment and selection of employees of SITA and was irregular.

 

Lastly, we found that that the recruitment of Mr Wienand in the Chief Financial Officer’s office by SITA was not in accordance with applicable prescripts regulating the recruitment and selection of employees of SITA. Similar to the appointment of Mr Senti, the process followed by SITA in the recruitment of Mr Wienand in the Chief Financial Officer’s office was not in compliance with the prescripts regulating the recruitment and selection of employees of SITA and is deemed to be irregular.

 

To remedy this maladministration and improper conduct, the Accounting Authority of SITA to:

 

1. Ensures that SITA’s SCM Management frequently monitors compliance controls in line with section 57(a) – (c) of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999, to ensure that deviations from inviting competitive bids in terms of Treasury Regulation 16A6.4 are used strictly to procure goods and services of critical importance and only when it is impractical to invite competitive bids;

 

2. Ensures strict compliance by employees with the prescripts and policies regulating the SCM environment; the recruitment, selection and appointment of employees and record and document management at SITA in line with section 57(a) – (e) of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999, on a quarterly basis;

 

3. Ensures regular training, mentoring and/or coaching of employees on policies and procedures relevant and applicable within their area of responsibility in line with applicable policies regulating the training of employees;

 

4. In terms of paragraphs 1.2.3 and 1.12.3 of Annexure C: Code of Ethics of the 2017 SCM Policy, and in consultation with SITA’s legal advisor(s), consider investigating and where appropriate, taking corrective action against any other individuals implicated in any further wrongdoing in the SCM and HCM environment identified in this report within one hundred and twenty (120) working days where this did not occur;

 

5. In terms of paragraph 1.12.1 of Annexure C: Code of Ethics of the 2017 SCM Policy and in consultation with SITA’s legal advisor(s), consider SITA’s duty to report any irregular expenditure, (including any expenditure which may have arisen as a result of the irregularities identified in this report), to the Auditor General and National Treasury within one hundred and twenty (120) working days where this did not occur; and

 

6. In terms of paragraph 1.12.2 of Annexure C: Code of Ethics of the 2017 SCM Policy and in consultation with SITA’s legal advisor(s), consider SITA’s duty to record any irregular expenditure (including any expenditure which may have arisen as a result of the irregularities identified in this report) in SITA’s irregular expenditure register within one hundred and twenty (120) working days where this did not occur.

 

The Auditor General of South Africa to take note of the findings relating to the improper conduct and/or maladministration by SITA reported herein and, within its own discretion, consider the findings and remedial action in this report and consider taking any action deemed appropriate under the circumstances in terms of any applicable legislation.

 

Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies to take cognisance of the findings of maladministration and improper conduct by SITA and include in her oversight role over SITA, the monitoring of implementation of remedial action taken in pursuit of the findings in terms of the powers conferred under section 182(2)(c) of the Constitution.

 

The Speaker of the National Assembly to ensure that the report is tabled before the Communications Portfolio Committee for deliberation regarding:

 

1. Investigations conducted into allegations of financial misconduct committed by members of the Accounting Authority in terms of Treasury Regulation 33.1.3;

 

2. Instances of irregular and fruitless and wasteful expenditure have been investigated to determine if disciplinary steps need to be taken against liable officials; and

 

3. Disciplinary steps were taken against any officials who made or permitted irregular expenditure based on outcome of investigation in terms of the PFMA section 51(1)(e)(iii).

 

The Directorate of Priority Crime Investigation to consider this report and establish if any acts of impropriety identified herein amount to acts of a criminal conduct in terms of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004 and if so, pursue criminal investigations against the perpetrators.

 

Anonymous v State Information Technology Agency (Report No. 114 of 2021/22)

 

We investigated allegations of irregular procurement processes and unauthorised deviations and expansions, within the State Information Security Agency (SITA) by Dr Setumo Mohapi, the former Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The investigation stemmed from a complaint lodged anonymously in August 2018. The complainant alleged that:

 

1. A company called CIPAL was appointed by means of a deviation from the normal procurement process without the required approval by the National Treasury;

 

2. The appointment of CIPAL is said to be suspicious due to the relationship of the former CEO and Mr Thami Msimango, the Managing Director of CIPAL;

 

3. Mr Msimango is a friend of the former CEO, and that the former CEO failed to disclose this relationship;

 

4. The expansion of the scope of work was approved by the former CEO despite the Treasury not supporting such expansions; and

 

5. The former board of SITA failed to hold the former CEO accountable for the irregular expansion of work that was not approved by the Treasury, relating to 16 contracts.

 

The contracts were allegedly entered into with the following suppliers: Internet Solutions, eThekwini Municipality, Halmsa IT (x 2), Neotel, Telkom (x 2), Liquid Telecommunications, Labware, CHM Vuwani Computer Solutions, Infrasol, Enterprise Room, Mediro Belay Managed Services, CEO of A2D24 and Meniko Records Management Services.

 

Having scrutinised the complaint, we decided to investigate the following two issues:

 

1. Whether the former CEO’s relationship with Mr Msimago, the Managing Director of CIPAL influenced the appointment of CIPAL through a deviation process without the approval of the National Treasury including the expansion of the scope of work to CIPAL despite the National Treasury not supporting such expansions, and if so, whether such conduct was improper and amounted to maladministration; and

 

2. Whether the SITA Board failed to hold the former CEO accountable for the irregular expenditure incurred relating to the various contracts, and if so, whether such conduct was improper and amounted to maladministration.

 

While we could not establish any evidence to support the allegation contained in the first issue, it was not so with the second issue. In this regard, we found that the board failed to hold the former CEO accountable for the irregular expansion of contract that was not approved by National Treasury, relating to the various contracts.

Irregular expenditure is defined in section 1 of the PFMA, 1999 “as expenditure, other than unauthorised expenditure incurred in contravention of or that is not in accordance with a requirement of any applicable legislation”.

 

The former CEO and the board both had an accountability and oversight responsibility to ensure compliance to the provisions of the PFMA, 1999; the National Treasury Regulations and the SCM Policy. Despite the Auditor-General’s comments relating to amongst other expenditure management and contract management within SITA, effective steps were not taken by the former CEO and the board to prevent such from recurring.  

 

Even though SITA became aware of the continuing irregular expenditure, both the former CEO and the board failed to take decisive action to prevent same from recurring in terms of the Board’s responsibility as envisaged in the PFMA. This is evident in that the irregular expenditure is still occurring to date, in some of the contracts such as the Access Data Link contract.

 

The board also failed to hold the former CEO accountable for irregular expenditure incurred during his tenure in terms of its responsibility as required by the PFMA.

 

In these circumstances, the failure by the board to hold the former CEO accountable for the irregular expansion of contract equated to improper conduct as envisaged in the Constitution and maladministration as envisaged in the Public Protector Act.

 

To remedy this maladministration and improper conduct, the Accounting Authority of SITA must:

 

1. Take cognisance of the findings of maladministration, improper conduct and irregular expenditure by Dr Setumo Mohapi, the former CEO envisaged in section 51(b) (ii) of the PFMA and ensure that such action is not repeated and appropriate corrective action is taken to prevent the recurrence of the improprieties identified and referred to in the report;

 

2. To ensure that SITA’s SCM and Compliance unit, on a regular basis,  monitor compliance to applicable laws, regulations, prescripts, policies and procedures and strengthens the adequacy and effectiveness of control measures to ensure proper planning as envisaged by section 51 (1) (a) (i) (iii), 51 (1) (b)(ii), 51 (1) (e) of the PFMA, and that deviations from inviting competitive bids, as contemplated by National Treasury Regulation 16A6.4, are used strictly to procure goods and services of critical importance and only when it is impractical to invite competitive bids; and

 

3. To consider, in terms of paragraph 1.12.1 of Annexure C: Code of Ethics of the 2017 SCM Policy and in consultation with SITA’s legal advisor(s), consider SITA’s duty to report any irregular expenditure, (including any identified in this report), to the Auditor General and National Treasury, where same has not occurred yet.

 

The Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies must take cognisance of the findings of maladministration and improper conduct by SITA; and include in her oversight role over SITA, the monitoring of implementation of remedial action taken in pursuit of the findings in terms of the powers conferred under section 182(2)(c) of the Constitution, 1996.

 

The Speaker must ensure that the report is tabled before the Communications Portfolio Committee for deliberation regarding:

 

1. Investigations conducted into allegations of financial misconduct committed by members of the Accounting Authority in terms of Treasury Regulation 33.1.3;

 

2. Instances of irregular and fruitless and wasteful expenditure have been investigated to determine if disciplinary steps need to be taken against liable officials; and

 

3. Disciplinary steps were taken against any officials who made or permitted irregular expenditure based on outcome of investigation in terms of PFMA section 51(1)(e)(iii).

           

The Directorate of Priority Crime Investigation must consider this report and establish if any acts of impropriety identified herein amount to acts of a criminal conduct in terms of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004 and if so, pursue criminal investigations against the perpetrators.

 

The Auditor General of South Africa take note of the findings relating to the improper conduct and/or maladministration pertaining to financial mismanagement by the National Treasury and SITA reported herein.

 

The AGSA must, within its own discretion, consider the findings and intended remedial action in this report and consider taking any action deemed appropriate under the circumstances in terms of any applicable legislation, including auditing the projects milestones in conjunction to the payments made by National Treasury.

 

Lastly, the Accounting Authority must submit to the Public Protector within 30 days from the date of receipt of this report on implementation of the remedial action referred to above.

 

We look forward to the full implementation of remedial action in all the above reports. We call on all the reports to receive these reports with an open mind. Our door remains open to engage on these so as to ensure that not only is the remedial action implementable but that it is also implemented.

As we prepare to step in the 2022/23 financial year, the Public Protector Vision 2023 remains the engine that powers all of our activities. As you will recall the vision is anchored of eight pillars namely: broadening access to services; engaging linguistic communities in their mother tongue; spreading our footprint; leveraging stakeholder relations and entering into agreements that would give effect to cooperation in this regard; projecting the image of a safe haven for the marginalised; empowering people with information and knowledge about their rights; cajoling organs of state to establish effective in-house complaint-resolution mechanisms; and inspiring people to be their own liberators.

Over the next year, we will accelerate the implementation of the vision, shifting to higher gear with a view to ensuring that its goals are realised by the year 2023. The details are spelt out in the Annual Performance Plan for 2022/23, which we have just tabled in Parliament and will be presented to Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services soon. We look forward to the support of all our stakeholders in this regard.

Thank you.