Digital Vibes matter: clarification of procedure; KZN & Gauteng visit; Committee minutes

This premium content has been made freely available

Health

04 August 2021
Chairperson: Dr S Dhlomo (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

In this virtual meeting, the Committee considered minutes from meetings held in May, June and July 2021. A number of amendments were made. It was highlighted that some of the Committee Members’ calls to have the Minister step-down and have members of the National Department of Health, involved in the Digital Vibes contract, removed were not included in the Minutes. It was noted that in that same meeting, the Economic Freedom Fighters had asked for the Director General to excuse himself from Office - this was not recorded in the Minutes. It was emphasised that the Minutes should note that the Economic Freedom Fighters, Freedom Front Plus and Democratic Alliance had not agreed that the matter was sub judice and had asked for further discussions.

It was highlighted that the minutes of the hearings on the National Health Insurance Bill did not include the Committee Members’ questions and discussions. Clarity was sought on this. It was emphasised that the matter of surgical mesh, as discussed in a previous meeting, was not sufficiently covered in the Minutes. Further to this, questions about Sinovac and updates about Ketlaphela, as discussed in the same meeting, were not mentioned in the minutes.

The Committee briefly discussed the need to conduct oversight visits in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal Natal to assess the impact of the recent disruptions on health facilities and the vaccination roll-out.

The Digital Vibes matter was discussed and the Chairperson provided feedback about his meeting with the House Chair and the Committee’s responsibilities. The Speaker would request the Special Investigating Unit Report from the Presidency, and once received, it would be communicated to the Committee. Clarity was requested about Rule 167(a) of the National Assembly Rules that a committee may "summon any person to appear before it to give evidence on oath or affirmation, or to produce documents" on the need for Mr Zweli Mkhize to appear before the Committee. It was suggested that a legal opinion could be provided on the matter to assure Members of the process.
 

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
The Chairperson communicated the Committee’s condolences on the passing of Mthokozisi Nxumalo, the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) Youth Brigade National Chairperson and Deputy Chief Whip.

Mr P van Staden (FF+) asked if the Committee could continue the discussion on the Digital Vibes matter and Dr Zweli Mkhize, as discussed on 4 June 2021, which was of public importance. Certain decisions were made in that Committee meeting about Rule 167(a) of the National Assembly Rules and the Chairperson had indicated that he would get advice on the matter. He requested that this discussion be put on today's agenda so the Committee could continue where it left off on 4 June 2021. 

The Chairperson replied that he had indicated that day that he would be meeting with the House Chair on the matter. He would provide a response on that matter later in the meeting as an additional agenda item.

Consideration of Minutes
The minutes of 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 19, 20, 26 May; 1, 2, 15, 22, 23, 29, 30 June (two meetings); 13, 14, 20, first meeting of 21 July 2021 were adopted by the Committee without comment or amendments.

The following minutes raised comments from Members:

Minutes of 18 May 2021: National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill: public hearings
The South African Nursing Council (SANC), Pharmacy Council, Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) and Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) made submissions.

The Chairperson noted that the full discussion was available in audio format on request. The Minutes showed the institutions and entities that presented.

Ms N Chirwa (EFF) asked why the deliberations were not captured in the minutes of the NHI hearings. She noted the disclaimer that the recordings were available on request. The Minutes should reflect, to some extent, the discussions that took place. The discussions had not been included in the NHI public hearing meeting minutes. She asked why that was when such discussions were included in other meeting minutes.

The Committee Secretary stated that the NHI public hearings dealt with legislation. Many of the stakeholders who presented asked for the recordings to confirm the questions asked by Committee Members. The questions were not summarised.

The Chairperson stated that he had also asked for clarity on this when reading through the minutes, and the Secretary had provided that clarity.

Ms Chirwa stated that the deliberations could be included in the minutes despite the disclaimer. She reiterated her question, why were the deliberations and engagements of the Committee not included? Why was what Committee Members had to say about each submission not included in the minutes? It was included in other meetings. Minutes should document what took place in the meeting. The fact that the deliberations were not included in the Minutes of the Portfolio Committee Meeting – begged the question why? Was the Committee not meant to engage with the presenters?

The Committee Secretary replied that because it was legislation, there were sometimes challenges made by the stakeholders challenging the minuted content, ‘it was better to have the exact content of what was discussed by the Members in the recording and not summarise it in the minutes. Many of the stakeholders wanted to know who said what and how it was said.

The Chairperson stated that the parliamentary staff did not summarise legislative comments. It would be available as a digital record.

The Committee adopted the Minutes of 18 May 2021.

Minutes of 4 June 2021: Minister of Health on investigation into Digital Vibes contract
Ms Chirwa noted that she did not see the call of Committee Members, asking for Minister Mkhize to step-down as the Minister of Health, captured in the Minutes. The Economic Freedom Fighter (EFF) also called for the members of the National Department of Health, who were involved in the Digital Vibes contract to be removed or resign from office. This was not captured. The EFF had asked for the Director General to excuse himself from office as ‘he was unable to do his job and was affecting the Committee’s ability to do its job’ – that was not captured in the minutes.

The Chairperson stated that those issues were raised in the meeting but did not get overwhelming support.

Ms Chirwa stated that minutes simply captured what took place during the meeting. In the Minutes, as presented, it was stated that the Committee could not reach consensus about the sub judice issue, despite a number of Members in the meeting on that day stating that it was not an issue of sub judice. The Minister and National Department of Health officials should have been able to respond to the questions asked by the Committee. The African National Congress (ANC) Members had an issue about sub judice, not the ‘entire’ Portfolio Committee. However, that had been reflected in the minutes. Were the points made by the EFF not going to be captured in the meeting minutes because other Member did not agree or support what was said?

Mr van Staden referred to point three of the Minutes, which outlined the deliberations of the Committee. It should be included that Members of the EFF, Freedom Front Plus and Democratic Alliance did not agree with the Members of the majority party, that the matter was ‘sub judice.’ The opposition parties stated that it was not sub judice and requested further discussion. It should be recorded as such in the Minutes.

Mr T Munyai (ANC) stated that the reflections of the EFF must be recorded, as stated by Ms Chirwa, for the completeness of the minutes.

Mr van Staden stated that this matter would be with the Committee for a long time, and it needed to be captured correctly in meeting minutes. If the minutes were not captured correctly, there would be problems in future.

The Chairperson referred to paragraph two which stated that the Department awaited the findings of the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) Report to adjudicate. Ms Chirwa’s points would be included in the Minutes even though the issue was clarified. The Minutes would be amended and then adopted at a later time. The Minutes would be circulated to the Committee.

Dr K Jacobs (ANC) stated that these Minutes should not be adopted in the meeting. The correct wording would need to be captured – thus it could not be amended and adopted in the meeting. He had raised points in the 4 June meeting on Section 3 of the Constitution, which was also not included in the Minutes. He asked that this be included.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee not rush to adopt Minutes.

Ms Chirwa stated that she did not understand why this process was becoming longer than necessary. Part of adopting minutes was to clarify omissions and corrections. She had not been speaking on behalf of everyone. She had been speaking on behalf of herself and the EFF. The points raised by the EFF, in that particular meeting, were not reflected in the Minutes, and they should be reflected in the Minutes, because the EFF also sat on that Committee. Historically, Members were able to add points and move on, ‘suddenly it was becoming a problem.’ She ‘did not understand why this was.’

The Chairperson stated that the Committee should satisfy itself. The meeting on the 4 June 2021 was quite ‘heated’. He suggested the Committee should not adopt the Minutes during this meeting. The parts that were outstanding needed to be included.

Mr van Staden suggested that the Minutes be corrected by the Secretary and sent back to the Committee by that evening or the following morning, so that at the next meeting the Committee could adopt those Minutes.
 
The Chairperson suggested that the 4 June 2021 Minutes be finalised by the following evening and circulated to the Committee.

Minutes of 17 June 2021: Vaccine procurement & roll-out update; Digital Vibes Contract Investigation
Mr van Staden brought to the attention of the Committee that these Minutes had not been circulated.

The Committee agreed that the Minutes be communicated to the Committee, along with the amended Minutes of 4 June 2021, the following evening.

Minutes of 21 July 2021: Vaccine pipeline & Ivermectin: SAHPRA briefing; Vaccine roll-out update by Acting Health Minister
Ms Chirwa stated that the point raised about surgical mesh was not captured sufficiently in the Minutes. The case of Phindile Mncube was not mentioned in the Minutes, in the discussions with SAHPRA or the Department. This was done intentionally. The EFF had asked SAHPRA what they had done with the complaints received from Phindile Mncube about surgical mesh. To which SAHPRA responded and ‘lied’ and said they did not receive complaints. The engagement on this was about Phindile Mncube. Secondly, the adverse effects of surgical mesh for women were not captured in the Minutes. The EFF asked the Department why they had not engaged with SAHPRA about surgical mesh, given the number of litigation cases, the response of other countries and the case of Phindile Mncube. The surgical mesh query should be captured fully.

Updates were requested from the Department about the reasons Sinovac had not been purchased after approval from SAHPRA. This was not captured in the Minutes. She had also asked for an update about Ketlaphela as well as the lack of involvement of that company in the vaccination production process.

The Chairperson stated that the surgical mesh issue was mentioned in the minutes – specific details and names did not need to be included in the Minutes.

Ms Chirwa replied that she had specifically made reference to Phindile Mncube in that meeting. SAHPRA had ‘lied.’ The surgical mesh issue was a ‘crisis’ – just look at what other countries were doing about surgical mesh. SAHPRA had ‘lied’ about not communicating about the case of Phindile Mncube. She did not know of a rule that said that ‘names could not be mentioned in minutes.’

Dr Jacobs suggested that the 21 July 2021 Minutes not be adopted at this meeting. The issues raised by Ms Chirwa should be included, given that Ms Chirwa was concerned and passionate about this. He was concerned about Ms Chirwa’s statement that SAHPRA ‘lied’ - was it correct to put it that way. The CEO and Chairperson had said that they did not have knowledge of that, it was something that SAHPRA would to the Committee…

Ms Chirwa interrupted to raise a point of order. She asked not to be ‘abused’ in the meeting. She said she had raised the issue with the Department that SAHPRA had ‘lied.’ She remembered them…

The Chairperson interrupted and asked if she could wait until…

Ms Chirwa interrupted and stated that it was on record that SAHPRA ‘had not received a complaint about an issue of surgical mesh.’ It was on record.

Dr Jacobs asked if the Chairperson could hear what Ms Chirwa’s point of order was…

The Chairperson asked what problem Ms Chirwa had not to listen to another Member until he was finished and then come back.

Ms Chirwa stated that her issue was that she did not want to be patronised….

Dr Jacobs interrupted to state that being ‘patronised’ was not a point of order.

Dr Jacobs and Ms Chirwa were speaking at the same time.

Ms Chirwa stated that Dr Jacobs was talking over her but the Chairperson did not call him to order.

The Chairperson stated that Dr Jacobs was still on the floor…

Ms Chirwa interrupted and asked why Dr Jacobs was not getting called out…

The Chairperson interrupted and stated that Ms Chirwa had interjected while Dr Jacobs was still speaking…

Ms Chirwa stated that she had called a point of order. Dr Jacobs had not called a point of order.

The Chairperson asked what Ms Chirwa’s point of order was.

Ms Chirwa asked why the Chairperson had not asked Dr Jacobs why he could not listen to other Members. She said she had not made a ‘mistake’ about what she had previously said. Dr Jacobs should refer back to the Minutes of the 21st July 2021. Dr Jacobs should listen to the recording, as she had done, before deliberating and wanting to make statements about things he was not even ‘consciously aware of.’ The SAHPRA CEO said that they ‘had not received any complaints from the public about surgical mesh as SAHPRA.’ That was a lie. There were email traces of this particular issue. She was asking for her questions in the 21 July 2021 meeting to be reflected in the Minutes. Why was that a bone of contention. She was not asking for the fact that SAHPRA lied to be recorded. She was asking for her questions to be captured. Those three points had been omitted from the Minutes! Why should it be a point of contestation?

The Secretary stated that, as she had raised in previous meetings, she would not be able to cover all the questions asked by Members. She summarised questions. Some Members asked the same questions that worded differently. Those questions were then clustered. The recording was there. Some Members asked 15 questions, she could not cover all Members asking so many questions, hence, she summarised.

Mr Munyai suggested that every important point must be reported – regardless of how many. Non-important things should not be included. To say ‘that one could not include all the points because there were too many’ was not sufficient. If there were duplications of similar questions – those did not need to be included. Irrelevant points did not need to be included.

Ms Chirwa stated that the issue of surgical mesh had not been captured correctly in the meeting of the 21st July 2021…

The Chairperson interrupted to state that they were in agreement.

Ms Chirwa asked to be heard out. Was she allowed to speak in the meeting? She stated that the Chairperson was already pre-empting what she was going to ask.

The Chairperson suggested that Members should communicate with the Secretary in advance of the meeting about changes to the Minutes so as to resolve any concerns before the meeting. Members could still raise issues in the meetings but it would help resolve things. He asked that the corrections be made to 21 July 2021 Minutes.

Minutes of 27 July 2021: Bill National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill: public hearings
Mr Munyai stated that the Minutes were ‘fantastic,’ really reflecting the discussions, presentations and follow-ups. The Minutes deserved to be adopted and he moved for the adoption.

Mr M Sokatsha (ANC) seconded.

The Minutes of 27 July 2021 were adopted.

Minutes of 28 July 2021: National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill: public hearings
Mr Munyai stated that the Minutes were written ‘very professionally,’ and reflected the ‘honest’ deliberations of the session. He moved to adopt the Minutes.

The Chairperson referred to paragraph eight, ‘one of the Members indicated that the SIU had finalised the report on Digital Vibes and requested that the Committee should make time to get a briefing from SIU. She further requested that the Chairperson and the Secretary should identify a suitable date. The Chairperson informed the Committee that he would discuss the issue with the House Chair after the meeting.’ That would fall under matters arising. That was what Mr Munyai had referred to as being ‘professionally captured.’

Dr Jacobs agreed.

The Minutes of 28 July 2021 were adopted.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee would try and improve on the timeframes of getting Minutes to Members. The outstanding minutes would be considered in the next meeting.

Request for oversight visit to Gauteng and KwaZulu Natal (KZN)
The Chairperson stated that, following the unfortunate incidents that took place in the two provinces, certain social services were affected. He suggested that the Committee should find time before Parliament resumed to do oversight visits. There would likely be a debate on the matter of the riots and incidents in the country. If any of the Members were to make presentations, it would be relevant if they had information on the two provinces. Firstly, were any health services affected? There was some indication that some of the vaccination sites were impacted and halted, particularly in KZN. This was mainly because it was difficult to get transport, even for the staff members. It needed to be established whether those activities had resumed. There was a request that the Committee consider visiting those provinces to reflect on the extent of the disruptions. He asked for Members to consider those two visits as well as discussions with the Gauteng and KZN Health Members of the Executive Council (MECs) and Head of Departments (HoDs).

Discussion
Mr Munyai thought that it would be good to have oversight visits. He knew that there were hospitals that had been affected or destroyed due to the unprecedented challenges in the country. He would support the oversight visits. He was sure other committees would have done the same such as the Portfolio Committee on Social Development. He noted that on the 10th and 11th July 2021 he had a longstanding family engagement and requested that he be excused if the programme was scheduled for those days.

Dr S Thembekwayo (EFF) stated that, like other committees and departments, the Committee needed to know the effects of this matter on the Department. She suggested that the Secretary put a schedule together that the Members could respond to via WhatsApp and indicate their availability, rather than taking time during the meeting to decide.

Mr van Staden agreed with her suggestion. The Committee needed to visit the facilities in Gauteng and KZN that were impacted operationally. Before the Committee did that, reports should be obtained from the MECs in those two provinces on the situation.

The Chairperson noted the in-principle agreement from the Committee. The logistics could be resolved as suggested. There may be a challenge to get reports before and after. The reason the Committee should visit was to get reports in-person. He did not want it to become a pre-condition i.e. the Committee would only go if a report was received before the oversight visit. 

Digital Vibes Matter
The Chairperson stated that he had a meeting with the House Chairperson, Mr Frolick, to check how to deal with the matter. Mr Frolick advised that SIU was commissioned by the President. The President indicated that he had received the report and was processing it – this would require time. From Parliament’s side, it would be the Speaker that would ask for the report from the Presidency. Once the report came to the Speaker, the Portfolio Committee on Health would be the appropriate Committee to receive the report. The request would be made via the Speaker of the National Assembly.

Discussion
Mr van Staden thanked the Chairperson for the feedback. The other feedback he had requested was about the meeting held on 17 June 2021, of which the minutes were not yet received. He had stated in that meeting that the Committee needed to take the necessary steps of Rule 167(a). The Chairperson was asked to seek clarity on behalf of the Committee, so as to have the Minister appear before the Committee. This should have been done. Had the Chairperson received advice from Parliament about enforcing Rule 167(a)?

The Chairperson replied that he had provided feedback on that matter to the Committee. He was unsure if he had been unclear. That matter would not be possible, it would be unprecedented to ask a Minister who was ‘on leave’ to come in and address the Committee, when there was an Acting Minister.

Mr van Staden stated that there was some confusion. The enforcing of Rule 167(a) was to get Minister Mkhize to appear before the Committee, not the Acting Minister, to provide more information and clarity about the Digital Vibes contract. On 4 June 2021, the Minister had stated that, based on legal advice, he would not appear before the Committee as the matter was sub judice. Members had stated that the matter was not sub judice. In the 17 June 2021 meeting, he had stated that the Committee needed to enforce Rule 167(a) of Parliament to get the Minister to appear. The Chairperson had stated that he would get legal advice about enforcing Rule 167(a).

The Chairperson stated that he had answered that question. The advice he got was that while there was an Acting Minister, one did not bring any other Minister to meet with the Committee. Once the Minister finished ‘his leave’ and the Acting Minister was not in the position, Minister Mkhize would be able to present himself to the Committee.

Mr van Staden asked that Mr Frolick’s advice be circulated to the Committee in writing.

The Chairperson stated that he had not communicated with Mr Frolick in writing.

Mr van Staden stated that this was a problem.

The Chairperson stated that he could ask Mr Frolick to put it in writing.

Mr van Staden stated that the Minister could be on a period ‘of leave’ for two years. Did that mean he was not entitled to appear before the Committee for two years? The Committee had constitutional obligations of Section 55(2) and 92(2), which was confirmed by the Legal Team on the 6 June 2021. The Committee had an obligation to hold Dr Mkhize to account. The Committee also needed to be briefed by the SIU on this matter – were there dates for that?

The Chairperson stated that he would get Mr Frolick to put that in writing and he would communicate it to the Committee. He would be guided by the Speaker’s Office about the SIU report. He could only write to the Speaker and request that the Report be given to the Committee.

Mr van Staden asked that the Report be requested, as it was an issue of public importance/relevance.

Mr Munyai stated that the Chairperson could always seek legal opinion if there was confusion, to satisfy all Members.

Mr van Staden asked that timelines be indicated for these matters. He asked that, as soon as the Chairperson received feedback from the Speaker’s Office, it be communicated to the Committee.

The Chairperson stated that he would do so.

The meeting was adjourned.
 

Documents

No related documents

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: