Integration process within SANDF; History of Khoisan Self Defence Unit's requests to integrate into SANDF, with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Integration and the Case of the Khoisan Nation Self Defence Unit

Dr Wilhelm Janse van Rensberg, researcher, took the Committee through the presentation.

The military integration process took place between statutory forces and non-statutory forces. Statutory forces refer to the old South African Defence Force (SADF). These two forces are the main role players of the integration process.

According to a research product put out by the speaker of the National Assembly, there are two phases of this integration process.

Firstly, there is a phase related to the Joint Military Coordinating Council (JMCC). This ran from November 1993 to April 1994. During this phase, all forces forming part of the integration process had to submit a list of personnel to the JMCC to form part of the Certified Personnel Register (CPR). This list formed the backbone of the integration process. However, the Speaker of the National Assembly also said this CPR was a problem for the non-statutory forces because of the informal nature of the resistance movements. The JMCC allowed for a non-formal CPR to be created. This was added to the original CPR by August 1995. It was a flexible process to allow additional members to come in. By the end of this first phase, the formal CPR consisted of 135 927 names, which needed to be integrated into the new South African National Defence Force (SANDF).

The second phase constitutes the actual integration process of personnel into the military between 1994 and 1998. During this phase there are placement boards. These placement boards oversee the placement of personnel into various SANDF units. The placement boards consisted of members of the SANDF and members of the non-statutory forces. The process is also overseen by the British Military Advising Team, as a neutral observer. Where non-statutory members are found not to have the necessary qualifications, vocational training is offered to these individuals. On the one hand there is a placement process taking place, but on the other hand demobilisation is a process.

The aim of this is to shrink the size of the SANDF after integration, because the military is too big to maintain. The other aim is also to minimise security risks. This process of integration is a complicated and intricate process, but there is flexibility, and also a number of checks and balances are put in place to make sure the integration process is indeed fair and just.

On reading the available text, there is no indication a Khoisan Nation Self Defence Unit (KNSDU) existing during the integration period. This is the finding in available literature, that the Khoisan Nation Self Defence Unit did not fall within the prescripts of section 224 of the Interim Constitution. In 2015 this was put before the Committee.

In its address to Parliament, the KNSDU referred to protecting and representing the Khoisan, but the problem is there are a number of other existing groups also claiming to represent Khoisan interests regarding military units.

The general concerns with the Khoisan Nation Self Defence Unit’s CPR submitted to the Committee include concerns over the general poor quality of the list. The list is unnumbered so it is unclear how many members are represented by this Self Defence Unit. Incomplete details of members are captured in the list and there has been more than one list submitted. This brings into question the concept of being a “certified list”. The question of how the process of certification took place arises.

Another factor is, the names and details of some of the people submitted on this list are often younger people born in 1988 up to the late nineties. These people will obviously not qualify for integration because this person was either not born yet during the integration period, or was very young during this period.

It is unclear from the submission and the reading of existing literature of the integration process, who exactly the Khoisan Nation Self Defence Unit represents.

The poor quality of its CPR raises a question of validity of certification of this list, as well as the prospects of integration.

Khoisan Nation Self Defence Unit: High Court Judgement and Public Protector Report PC: Defence and Military Veterans

Mr Michael Prince, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, took the Committee through the presentation.

This presentation dealt with 2 matters:

A High Court matter from 2010

The High Court matter was the Khoisan Kingdom All People Party v the Minister of Defence. In this matter the applicant sought an order to direct the respondent to engage in negotiations with Khoisan soldiers. The negotiation was about integration into the SANDF within a thirty-day period. It further sought the Court to direct the respondents to conclude the decision to integrate or not before 31 December 2010. The respondents, being the Department of Defence, submitted in its papers, applicants did not have any right to protection because the integration process was concluded, and therefore the application should not succeed.

It also submitted the order sought, which was to meet the Minster, had no practical value because there was no legislative framework to integrate the Khoisan soldiers into the SANDF.

It said the applicants failed to submit any cause of action.

The applicants in turn said the legitimate expectation was created by the Department when it sent a letter to the applicants. The letter purported to ask for a meeting with the Department and representatives of the Khoisan community to discuss a possible integration into the SANDF.

The High Court while considering the matter, referred to various case law dealing with legitimate expectation. The Court dismissed the application.

Public Protector’s Report based on a complaint from the Khoisan Nation Self Defence Unit from 2015

This report is based on a complaint from the Khoisan Nation Self Defence Unit. The complaint is about the undue delay on the SANDF’s part to integrate members of the Khoisan Nation Self Defence Unit during the integration process which took place in April 1994.

In evaluating the complaint, the Public Protector invited the Department to reply to the complaint. The Department said the period of integration was closed. This was confirmed by the High Court in the 2010 case of the Khoisan Kingdom All People Party. There was also reliance on various legislative and constitutional provisions. Based on this response the Public Protector found the SANDFs refusal to integrate the Khoisan soldiers is lawfully justified and the complaint was dismissed.

Discussion

Dr B Holomisa (UDM) said it is a pity the representative of the Khoisan community was unable to make his presentation and join the discussions. It would be interesting to hear its perspective, especially after it lost its case in the High Court. Dr Holomisa wanted to know exactly what the representative of the Khoisan community wants Parliament to do about the situation, because the matter was already addressed and it lost the case. The next step for it would be a High Court application to appeal the decision.

Mr M Shelembe (DA) shared Mr Holomisa’s sentiments. Mr Shelembe wanted to know why the issue was conferred to the Committee when there is a clear court ruling stating the application failed. Secondly, regarding the concerns of the poor quality of the Khoisan Nation Self Defence Unit CPR, Mr Shelembe asked if the Department would consider the list if it was void of those issues. Referring to the 2010 High Court case, Mr Shelembe asked why a letter was sent by the Department to set up a meeting in the first place.

Mr D Ryder (DA) asked :

• what relief is sought from the Defence Force
• He also asked when these applications for integration were first made by the Khoisan Community
• He said he would like a sample of the list distributed to the Committee, so the Committee can see this poor quality referred to.
• He asked the Secretariat to send the Committee copies of the judgement and the report mentioned.

Mr Prince said he will provide the Committee with the requested documents.

The Chairperson said the reason why this issue is addressed and the Committee requested the list, is because the claimants purported to speak on behalf a certain group of people. The Committee needs to know who these people are. The Chairperson said this list raises questions of validity and legitimacy for the Committee as well.

On the question of what exactly it is the claimants want Parliament to do, the Chairperson said there was a request for the Committee to consider drafting legislation to recognise the Khoisan soldiers who served prior to 1994. This will basically reinstate the integration process, as there is no legal framework in place for this.

The Committee has to consider if there is a justifiable reason to do so. The Chairperson said the applications were first made in 2010.

Inkosi R Cebekhulu (IFP) asked for clarity regarding those members who were excluded from integration during the downsizing of the SANDF. Perhaps those who claimed to represent the Khoisan community simply practiced the necessary leadership.

Mr T Mmutle (ANC) asked why relief was not sought sooner. He said it was unfortunate to see a representative of the Khoisan Community could not present anything in front of the Committee.

Dr Holomisa said since this matter is referred to the Committee, the Committee should invite those affected parties to make a presentation in front of the Committee, so it can gain a broader perspective on this issue.

Mr Thabang Makwetla, the Deputy Minister of Defence, said the presentations were well covered and very helpful. Everything said must be considered. When a matter of this nature is decided by the courts, Parliament must only seek to further the issue in line with what the courts said. Touching on what relief can be sought, the Deputy Minster said, on the one hand, the Khoisan Nation Self Defence Unit is claiming to be an entity overlooked during integration, even though it is known now it was not in fact in existence. The desire to want to be included cannot be addressed through integration, but rather through normal channels of recruitment.

Secondly, if the relief sought is a certain member wanting the privilege of recognition as an ex-soldier, then indeed the provision is there. The Department of Military Veterans can process these applications, but these discussions are better held with this Department’s input.

Briefing by the Deputy Minister on issues affecting the Department of Military Veterans

The Chairperson said in the Department’s presentation, by its own admission, there is instability in strategic leadership within the Department. There is an Acting Director General for the first time since 2015.

Another challenge noted by the Chairperson are the issues with vacancies in senior management and the organisational structure of the Department.

The Committee is now at a point where it must approve the Budget. Therefore it needs to have a meeting with the Minister as soon as possible. The Committee has also been told there are policies relating to service delivery which is not in place yet.

The Deputy Minister of Defence addressed the Committee on various issues facing the Department of Military Veterans. He referred the Committee to a list of 11 questions. The Committee raised these questions with the Department at the last meeting when the Strategic and Annual Performance Plans (APP) of the Department was discussed.

The Chairperson said those questions dealt with organisational issues best handled only by the Minister. However, if the Deputy Minster feels certain about dealing with these questions, this is welcomed.

The Deputy Minister said the Ministry, and the Department’s leadership structure noted the issue of vacancies as urgent. As early as December of 2019, the matter was brought before the Acting Director General, urging the vacancies to be advertised.

The Department’s organisational structure is a crucial weakness within the Department. Within the first few months of the new Administration, management of the Department held a meeting to discuss the status quo within the Department. It also discussed the issue of the Department’s structure, which does not lend itself to the level of service delivery the Department must realise. It was agreed work must be done around this.

A project team must be created to work on the Department’s organisational structure. This is to ensure it conforms to the Department’s policy interests, especially related to service delivery. This work was not done. According to the Department’s response, it was as if this meeting was not held in the first place.

The Department functioned on the basis of an interim policy put in place by a Ministerial task team. The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans put it in place in 2009. This Ministerial task teams interim policy advised the Ministry to proceed to introduce legislation in Parliament for the providing a legal framework supporting military veterans. This did also not happen.

From the reports it is clear there has been little to no progress on these issues. Management at the Department may not be courageous enough to admit the Department may not have the capacity to address some of these big issues which must be tackled.

It is evident there is a poor enforcement of consequence management. A whole host of irregularities are contained in the Department’s reports, but action to get these matters processed, include giving those involved an opportunity to explain itself. Where it is fairly established functionaries misdirected itself, irregularities must have consequences. There is no evidence showing any progress regarding this, and the Auditor Generals review of the APP raises this matter as one of key importance.

The Chairperson thanked the Deputy Minster, but said he has not told the Committee anything about how this problem is being resolved.

Discussion

Dr Holomisa said the picture painted by the Deputy Minister is useless to say the least. There must be a meeting with the Minister. To have an independent status for budgeting purposes, massive improvements must first happen. The Minister must appear before the Committee with her management team because the current state of the Department is embarrassing.

Mr Shelembe looked at the issue of instability within the leadership positions, and noted concern because the Minister was not available for this meeting. It shows a lack of communication between the Minister and the Deputy Minister, and further adds to issues of instability. Mr Shelembe suggested the Minister appear before the Committee as a matter of haste.

Mr Ryder shared Mr Shelembe’s sentiments. The Department’s failure to work directly affects lives of people who served the country. Government has an obligation. He asked about the inaccurate picture painted to the Committee concerning the Skills Audit. Effectively it is saying Parliament was misled. He wanted to know if any disciplinary action was taken.

Mr J Maake (ANC) said he appreciates the honesty of the Deputy Minister. Mr Maake asked if the Department is still under an administration or if it is restored to its normal state where the Minister is held accountable.

Mr W Mafanya (EFF) said the Committee is back to square one. He asked what recourse the Committee has, if the Minister does not appear before the Committee.

The Chairperson said he expressed the Committee’s dissatisfaction with the Minister in an email sent to the Minister after the last Committee meeting. He awaits a reply. Only the Minister can resolve the issues identified with the Department.

It is clear the Committee is back to square one.

The Deputy Minister said the Committee’s comments and sentiments are appreciated. There has not been a delegation of responsibilities. Delegation will involve resolving structural issues. The Office of the Deputy Minister will continue to work with the Committee to see progress with these issues. The Deputy Minister agreed, for the Department to become a stand-alone entity in budgetary terms may be putting the horse before the cart.

The Deputy Minister said by the end of the financial year, issues of structure will be dealt with. The Department’s management was told to reappear before the Committee to provide clarification and tender an apology for the inaccurate information on the Skills Audit. The Department as a whole has not been delegated, but rather certain areas within the Department are delegated. Information about this delegation will be available to the Committee.

The Deputy Minister agreed - it is clear there is still a substantial amount of work to be done.

The Chairperson thanked the Deputy Minister and the Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.