Minister on Electoral Reform Consultation Panel; Border Management Authority Plans for Festive Season

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson congratulated the IEC for hosting a successful 25th anniversary celebration of the Electoral Commissions Forum of SADC. He hoped that their deliberations would further strengthen the SADC forum. He noted that the Committee was behind in finalising the Electoral Amendment Bill. The Committee had interacted with Parliament's Constitutional and Legal Services Office (CLSO) to find out how best they could accelerate the process to finalise the bill. The Committee legacy report would be deferred for another day due to issues that they identified in the report that needed to be discussed further.

Electoral Reform Consultation Panel
Minister of Home Affairs, Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, gave a presentation to the Committee on the establishment of the panel. The purpose of the presentation is to request the National Assembly as contemplated in section 23(9)(b) of the Electoral Amendment Act No 1 of 2023 to approve the names of nine identified nominees to be appointed as members of the Electoral Reform Consultation Panel. In terms of the legislative timeframe for establishing the panel and its functions, section 23(1) of the Act requires that the Minister of Home Affairs to, within four months after the commencement of the Act, establish the panel.

Section 23(2)(a) of the Electoral Amendment Act stipulates that the functions of the Panel are to independently investigate, consult on, report on, and make recommendations in respect of potential reforms of the electoral system for the election of the National Assembly and the election of the provincial legislatures for elections to be held after the 2024 elections. Section 23(9) of the Act sets out the procedure in establishing the panel. The section provides that the Minister must call on the public and interested parties to nominate fit and proper South African citizens. These nominees must have the necessary skills, expertise, experience, knowledge or academic qualifications in the administration and running of elections or constitutional law or electoral systems. The nominees cannot be members of parliament or of any provincial legislature. The nominees may have not been office-bearers or employees of any political party in the past 12 months.

The work of the panel prior to the 2024 elections involves engaging in research and considering the issues that fall within its functions. After the 2024 elections the panel is expected to report to the Minister every three months on its progress. The Panel must also, within 12 months of the date of the 2024 elections, submit a report to the Minister on the possible options for electoral reform for the election of the National Assembly and the election of the provincial legislatures. Proposals made in the report must include reasons, potential advantages and disadvantages, legal and constitutional implications, and financial implications.

As of 11 August 2023, the Department received 25 nominations ranging from medical doctors, academics, former and current IEC personalities. After receiving the nominations, the Department began the process of analysing the nominations in accordance with the criteria set in section 23(9)(a) of the Electoral Amendment Act and the Notice. Of the 25 nominees received, 4 are females and 22 males. All nominations with motivations must be accompanied by an acceptance of nomination duly signed by the nominated candidate. Two of the nominees did not hand in proof of acceptance of nomination as per criteria set in the Notice, one of them wrote a letter stating that he has been nominated but he did not attach any proof of such nomination, leaving the Department with 23 nominees.

On 27 November 2023, the Minister consulted with the IEC pursuant to section 23(9)(b) of the Electoral Amendment Act. During the consultation the IEC resolved that its Commissioners and staff should not be part of the Panel and hence must be removed from the list. This then removes three individuals from the list. It left the Department with 20 nominees only 2 of which are women.

The Minister stated that they had not complied with the four month timeframe after the commencement of the Act to establish the panel. They missed the timeframe by 6 weeks. The Minister explained that it was faced with a very difficult problem which entailed pushing three Acts through Parliament which took a lot of time and resources.

(See presentation for further details)

Discussion
The Chairperson stated that it was important for the Minister to meet his timeframes because the delay affected the work of Parliament as well. He asked the Minister to explain the IEC’s reasoning to bar their team from participating in the selection process for the panel. One of the criteria is the demographic profile which is not reflected in the list of nominees because women, youth, people living with disabilities and other minority groups have been excluded from the mentioned nominees. The lack of representation is concerning, and it must be remedied before it could amount to a dispute in court. How can the Committee be assured that the process is credible because the Minister made the Committee privy to information on the lack of complete documentation like CVs from some of the nominees?

Ms T Legwase (ANC) asked why there is a final list of 11 names whereas only 9 nominees are supposed to be adopted onto the panel. Are there legal repercussions for missing the stipulated timeframe in the Act? She expressed her concern about the lack of representation of women among the nominees. This lack of representation went against the pursuit of equal opportunities and fostering gender diversity. She suggested that the Committee call for a renomination process which would allow more women to form part of the process. In opening the process, it was important to acknowledge the efforts made by the 20 individuals who had already submitted their applications and had met the necessary criteria. It would only be fair to include them in the reopening process.

Ms Molekwa (ANC) stated that she appreciated the presentation by the Minister. She noted the list of names of the recommended nominees that would be appearing before Parliament.

Ms L van der Merwe (IFP) agreed with the Chairperson about the timeframes. Although the Minister explained that he had a lot on his plate, ultimately when timeframes are set it is important to adhere to those timeframes. There should have been clarity from the beginning why the deadlines were not being met. She expressed her disappointment that they were only able to find 20 eligible nominees considering that the topic of electoral reform has been such a hotly debated topic. People are interested in electoral reform so to receive only 20 eligible nominees is a concern.

Considering that the report will not serve before the National Assembly before they rise next Wednesday this means that the report will not serve before the National Assembly this year. It means that the Committee will have to deal with the report and finalise the names and adopt the report in February. The panel will start its work after the elections. So, if the elections are in May, then the panel will have to be in place by May. She recognised five names from the nominees and she was certain that those five names would be able to perform the work required of them but the work will be very complex which means the kinds of people required for that work need to check certain boxes and she was of the view that from looking at the names and the requirements that the Minster listed, it did not seem as though they had checked all the boxes.

She suggested reopening the nomination process as a matter of urgency. There should be more effort in ensuring that people are aware of the process which entails publishing the Notice widely so that it reaches the masses. After reopening the nomination process until January, they can do another shortlisting in February and get the National Assembly to approve the names in February or March. Twenty names were not enough considering the complex task that was ahead of the panel. On the CV of Mr Michael Atkins which not submitted, they were all familiar with Mr Atkins. The Committee knows him and he is someone that is passionate about electoral reform so it would be worthwhile to get his CV.

Mr K Pillay (ANC) agreed with the Chairperson and others that the Committee had been delayed. He was concerned that they had not been able to look at the CVs of the nominees because the report had provided only brief summaries. He was concerned that they did not have the relevant skills and experience specific to the work required. The nomination process is very important as it is vital that they get people with the necessary skills and experience. Gender representation is a challenge. The process must allow women to be represented. He was also concerned about youth representation and the demographics of the country. He supported the Committee’s suggestion to reopen the nomination process. This would give an opportunity for those who did not submit proof of acceptance to do so. He emphasised the importance of communicating the nomination process to citizens.

Mr M Lekota (COPE) remarked that he found it extremely worrisome that on the gender question, the South African society is reluctant to move progressively as it should. Most of the country constitutes women but there is an extreme reluctance to appoint women into positions where they can seriously contribute to transforming society. Gender equality must not simply be a subject for discussion. It needs to be a reality. Why is there a reluctance to promote women, young and old into areas where they can affect and change the decisions made by the so-called men’s club because decision-making appears to be the preserve of men. It is not only a men’s club but also a pensioners club for men judging from how old the male nominees are. He supported the Committee’s suggestion to reopen the nomination process to find as many women as possible who are qualified to occupy positions on the panel. Part of the work in increasing women representation involved educating the girl child so that society takes seriously gender as it moves in the direction of creating equal opportunity.

Mr A Roos (DA) noted that the Committee had only received the presentation document only 41 minutes after the meeting had started. Why had the Committee not received the presentation well in advance as per parliamentary rules because the delay undermined their ability to prepare for the meeting.

The excuse given by the Minister for his delay in establishing the panel is a crisis of the Minister’s own making. All the bills have been on the table for a long time, for years in fact, but the matters never seem to get resolved. The excuse about there being other bills and that is why this work is late is disingenuous. The matter of bills dragging on because of a lack of capacity must be resolved because it is not productive. Electoral reform has been called for by government and parliamentary forums for many years.

On the criteria, he was very surprised to see some of the extra criteria brought in because s29(a)(1) of the Act talks about having the necessary skills, expertise, knowledge or academic qualification in the running of elections, or constitutional law, or electoral systems. However, in the report there are new criteria mentioned like a willingness to explore options and even demographics. Where do these additional criteria come from? If the process is reopened the criteria in the legislation must be what guides the selection process, otherwise if there is legislation with deadlines that are ignored and criteria that are ignored, then the executive can do whatever they want.

He supported reopening the nomination process, but the deadlines must be adhered to and there must be extensive public participation which is difficult to do around elections. That demographics is not a requirement included in the criteria in legislation is a problem because it cannot be that 30 years after democracy there are no women who have developed in this space. This is concerning and it is something that the Committee needs to look at in the long run. Also, were people with disabilities considered because it appears that minority categories were not taken seriously?

As part of the reopening process there needs to be transparency because although the Minister has spoken of a CV being a requirement this was not made explicitly clear in the Government Gazette. It just said that persons with suitable qualifications can apply. In the Gazette it needs to be clear that a CV is required. When the Committee makes its decision there needs to be a scoring metric that it can use to justify the selection of specific candidates. What will be the consequence if the Minister decides to go beyond the 12-month deadline after elections and does not submit the report?

Mr T Mogale (EFF) agreed with the sentiments of the Committee. They need to reopen the nomination process because the current list of nominees is not as representative as was envisaged. If there are no young people and women involved in the panel, then this should be a cause for concern. It means that they cannot proceed with finalizing the panel to review the electoral system in light of the views of the broader society as the panel itself is not representative of the broader society.

Adv B Bongo (ANC) commented that the presentation was good in the sense that it highlighted the work gone into the Act's enforcement. He agreed with the Committee’s suggestion to reopen the nomination process and extend it within a reasonable period. If the nominations will be finalized by next year, this gives the Minister more time to readvertise for nominations. They need to include youth, women, and demographics in the nominations.

He really appreciated the consultation the Department had with the IEC on how they narrow the shortlisting. This is a very important aspect to give effect to s23(2)(a) and (b). The criteria the Department established with the IEC encapsulate issues that need to be looked at when shortlisting. An important matter is IEC people being excluded whereas the panel will need to tap into the resourceful knowledge of IEC people who have the expertise and experience.

Ms M Modise (ANC) noted that she was strongly persuaded by the views put forward by the Committee members. She agreed with the suggestion to reopen the nomination process and advertise it widely so that more candidates have an opportunity to be nominated. She emphasised the importance of adhering to the stipulated timeframes so that when faced with similar challenges, they will still have sufficient time to deal with a reopening process. She cautioned the Department that presentation documents must be sent earlier so that Members have adequate time to prepare.

Electoral Commission (IEC) response
IEC Chairperson Mr Mosotho Moepya, that he had noted the issues on the members of the Commission and the staff of the commission which were raised in the meeting. They had put something in writing to the Minister and they also had no objections. He noted the concern about reopening the nomination process. The Commission in consultation with the Minister had been amazed at the short list of nominations. They had anticipated more nominations. The suggestion to add more names so the list is enriched is reasonable. It is work that needs very careful consideration because this will add value to the process.

Ms Janet Love, IEC Deputy Chairperson, noted the Members' reference to inclusivity and demographics. The Minister’s report captured how this is something that would need to be considered holistically. Given the brief list of nominations, she admitted that they had not attempted at that stage to weight certain aspects of inclusivity differently.

Judge Dhaya Pillay, IEC Commissioner, said that the panel could only be enhanced and benefit from the extension. This would mean actively encouraging the relevant demographic groups such as women and people with disabilities to make themselves available and to vet their capabilities on elections. It would also mean encouraging people to apply because it is not going to happen unless there is some activism around harvesting a good crop of panellists.

Department of Home Affairs response
Minister Motsoaledi accepted the Committee’s sanction on the timeframe and took full responsibility for missing the deadline. The Minister appealed to the Committee to engage the IEC about including IEC employees in the nominations excluding IEC Commissioners. Demographics were not mentioned as part of the criteria in legislation, but the Notice includes various categories such as age, gender, disability, and various other factors.

The Minister clarified that they only needed nine nominees, but they had wanted to list 12 nominees for the sake of offering the Committee a variety of people.

If you look at local government, there are very few women who are nominated publicly to be part of the ward. The proportional representation in the 4000 wards in South Africa demonstrates how the numbers are skewed in favour of men.

Minister Motsoaledi noted that he had always given the Committee presentation reports on time; the last time a report was delayed was around two years ago. In today's case, the report involves people’s names and other sensitive information so if it were to be sent electronically the information is vulnerable and may be compromised by being leaked to the public which explains why the report was read to the Committee in the meeting as opposed to sending it prior to the meeting. It would be very dangerous for this process to send the report via email. Perhaps future such reports will be couriered to Members because they would each have to sign for the report, and this might be a safer option.

The Chairperson thanked the Minister and the Committee members for interacting and giving guidance on the issues raised. The Committee’s recommendation is that the nomination process must be reopened immediately. The Notice must be advertised as soon as possible so that the nomination process is finalised by the Department and the IEC by January. Representation must be considered and should guide the IEC and the Ministry in their work. The Minister must note that documents must be sent in advance so that Members can consult with their parties before a meeting. The presentation report is an administrative matter which the Committee secretary and the Department team will liaise on. The names in the report must indeed be protected and kept confidential.

see call for comment here https://pmg.org.za/call-for-comment/1406/​ 

Border Management Authority (BMA) briefing
Dr Mike Masiapato, BMA Commissioner and CEO, spoke on the state of readiness of border authorities for the 2023/4 festive season. He stated that each year they reflected on their preparedness in managing the increased volume of people moving across borders during the festive period.

He gave a brief analysis on the border crossing statistics between 2017 and 2023, keeping in mind that the pandemic had a big impact on people’s ability to move across borders. The second key aspect of the presentation was the security context and the assessment of threat or risk in and around the borders. The third key aspect is the festive season plan which will be executed in several phases along set timelines. During the festive period there is a significant increase in people and goods moving through South Africa’s ports of entry. As the congestion increases it is often accompanied by various operational challenges as well as security threats and risks. It is therefore imperative that a sound plan is formulated to ensure the efficiency of port operations and deal with security threats that may emerge.

Reflection on movements during previous festive season:
- The top ten ports that processed majority of movements were OR Tambo, Beit Bridge, Lebombo, Ficksburg, Maseru Bridge, CTIA, Oshoek, Klopfenstein, Caledonspoort and Groblersbridge (mainly land and air modalities).
- OR Tambo International Airport processed the highest number of travelers.
- Lebombo surpassed Beitbridge in movements recorded during festive period but the deployed were able to withhold and sustain the operation.
- The highest number of refusals was recorded at Beitbridge followed by Lebombo; Ficksburg and Maseru Bridge. It noted Zimbabweans used Botswana borders to enter SA.
- Incidents of congestion were experienced due to poor traffic control and non-adherence to ports operational plan by some stakeholders, but the operation proceeded seamlessly.
- It should be noted that there was an increase of traveler movement compared to the past two previous seasons and a further increase is to be expected for upcoming festive season.
- Illegal migration remains the biggest threat to border security (mainly from the northern, eastern, and central borderlines).

Security and Threat Assessment
- Fraudulent travel documentation
- Fraudulent or illegal stamping of travel documentation
- Undocumented travelers
- Personnel integrity challenges
- Access control challenges and runners
- Frequent travelers have “free movement” because they are familiar with officers.
- Disruptions in the supply of electricity
- Risks along the borderline.

Planning and execution phases
Planning for this operation commenced end of September 2023 and will be concluded on 5 December 2023 and will culminate in a consolidated operational plan. The implementation and execution of approved plan commences on 6 December 2023. The demobilisation phase which is the withdrawal of additional resources commences on 19 January 2024.

Infrastructure Improvements
Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI), through contractors, will improve infrastructure at selected ports where infrastructural deficiencies are experienced to enhance operations. Requirements were sent to DPWI and confirmation has been received that they will provide support. These infrastructure improvements include: Provision and set up of temporary fencing; Water tankers (JoJo type); Tents, tables, and chairs. Resources will be deployed from 1 December 2023 to 20 January 2024.

(See presentation for further details)

Discussion
Ms M Molekwa (ANC) asked if it is possible for BMA and other law enforcement agencies to rotate staff deployment to cut the corrupt activity that is happening at ports of entry. If a person stays in one port of entry for too long, they will probably become familiar with the people crossing the border but if there is a rotation system, it will prevent the scourge of corrupt officials.

Mr M Lekota (COPE) thanked the BMA team for the presentation because it gave the Committee a broad picture of what the border situation will be looking like in the coming festive period. When the BMA team return to the Committee, he hoped that they would return with positive feedback.

Ms T Legwase (ANC) asked for clarity on the roles that SANDF and BMA would be playing. How will the BMA ensure that personnel integrity and the security cautiousness of port officials are maintained to prevent corruption and unprofessional conduct?

Ms L van der Merwe (IFP) stated that they could not run away from the fact that the BMA has been given a mammoth task without the requisite resources to run this operation expected of them. The presentation correctly diagnoses all the challenges faced daily in immigration management. Even though the BMA is in place, the stamping of fraudulent documentation still happens at the borders. When engaging with illegal immigrants they are honest about how much they have had to pay to cross the border into South Africa. So, these corrupt practices are prevalent. The question is how will these challenges be resolved?

Ms van der Merwe said that the presentation does a good job of highlighting the issues, but it does not really give details about a plan to combat these challenges? People talk about being at the border and seeing people crossing because the border infrastructure is derelict. When the Committee did an oversight inspection at the borders there were holes in the border and the border gates were open. Will the SANDF be stationed at the borders to prevent easy access through the borders? Will the fences be erected? What is the plan to deal with the corruption? With the additional staff that will be supporting the BMA, what is the staff shortfall currently and after the 318 staff are allocated to the BMA as we head towards the festive season? What is the budget and timeline for the additional staffing capacity at selected ports?

On the continuous engagement with South Africa’s neighbouring countries about border integrity, she remarked that this was an interesting area. It seems that engagements with neighbouring countries are not fruitful because undocumented migrants are still coming into the country without consequences. What positive outcomes flow from these engagements? Recently the Minister tabled his immigration reform policy for public comment and he stated that South Africa does not know how many undocumented migrants are inside our borders. This illustrates how we need to strengthen internal enforcement because undocumented migrants are a threat to the country’s security, and the economy in terms of counterfeit goods. The immigration crisis needs to be remedied not only at the country’s borders but also in and around South Africa.

Mr K Pillay (ANC) asked if there was a plan to deploy additional staff in light of OR Tambo being so busy. On the situational risk analysis at ports of entry, will the analysis be reviewed after plan execution, specifically Durban port of entry. This is where the country is losing almost R1 billion per day with a backlog of about 80 000 containers still at sea and some of those having to be diverted. Has there been an intervention at Durban port as clearly there is a crisis?

Mr A Roos (DA) wished the BMA team the best during the festive season. The tourism and travel statistics are quite alarming. Looking at the BMA capabilities and capacity and the immigration system in general. There are about 780 internal enforcement officers and if the intention is to take 318 of them and subject them to border duties, this would leave about 400 immigration enforcement personnel across the entire country. He asked for clarity.

Is South Africa liaising with neighboring countries on border times because there have been challenges in the past where the border was open but when you get through the other border is closed? This lack of coordination with the neighboring countries created a roadblock and caused chaos. Outside the busiest seasons there have been plenty of challenges with only two or three immigration counters open. If 60 additional staff are allocated to OR Tambo, will this plan ensure that all immigration counters are always staffed? Are they also trained on the relevant systems they are required to use?

A while back there was an announcement about the system being off-line at OR Tambo and requesting people to be patient. What are the system challenges at OR Tambo that stop travelers from coming in. Is IT support on stand-by to prevent such a disaster from happening? Do all border posts have full back-up capacity to counter loadshedding? There have been challenges before with trucks queuing for kilometres and there being no water infrastructure, no bathroom facilities and no vending facilities. This causes safety risks. Will that infrastructure supplementation be only at the border posts or will it be go several kilometres inland to ensure that where there are queues, persons have adequate access.

Adv B Bongo (ANC) appreciated the BMA report. He commended the Commissioner as since the BMA started, it seems like it is all systems go. He was worried about department staff integration and asked if it had been finalized yet. In the previous week he had been driving from Mozambique, the number of trucks exceeded the truck lines at Beitbridge. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that the congestion is properly controlled? If not controlled during the festive season, it will be disastrous because there is also road construction and several other road inconveniences.

BMA response
Dr Mike Masiapato thanked the Committee for their input. He replied that the staff rotation model is a good model, and it has proven to assist in addressing corruption. It is also a model that the apartheid government had perfected. How they managed to do this was to establish hostels or accommodation for officials but these hostels have disappeared with the introduction of the new dispensation. The reality now is that the officers have bought houses providing accommodation for themselves. So there is a struggle in moving officials away from their homes.

If the BMA adopts the rotation model, the officers would have to be accommodated by the BMA which becomes very expensive. This is the struggle that has made the rotation model impossible. However, part of the BMA future model is to allow a public-private partnership in the same way the BMA has done with the design of the new ports. The intention of having a PPP in this instance, is to allow the private sector to go to ports and build staff accommodation. Once the BMA succeeds in doing this, this model can be applied across various ports to move officers around from one port to the next. This will take a bit of time.

On corrupt officers, looking at the BMA plan, it is clear how it is planning to combat corruption. However, the reality is that quite a bit of resources are required, and the unfortunate reality is that the agency does not have much money. For instance, one of the easiest to do is to ensure every officer has a body cam which must be controlled not by themselves but by a central point to ensure that the body cam is not tampered with and compromised. If this can be achieved, then every interaction of each officer will be monitored on camera. This is what BMA is pursuing. It has not been possible to date but all these plans are on paper and at some point they should be carried out because these plans are very much possible. He appreciated the political cover that Members had provided as they do the work on the ground.

The roles of the BMA and the SANDF are defined in law. When Members passed the BMA Act, they indicated in the Act that the BMA needed to write down an implementation protocol which is stipulated in section 27 of the BMA Act. The protocols have been set out and they define practically what it is that the SAPS, BMA and SANDF do. The Defence Act and the Constitution stipulate that the SANDF’s responsibility is border protection and safeguarding. The BMA has functions which cut across immigration, environmental functions, agricultural functions and health functions. This means that when the border guards are on the border line, they must implement border laws. The border laws include immigration.

If a five-year-old were to cross the border line illegally, that child has subverted immigration laws, and the border guards would be responsible for the deportation process in that instance. However, if the SANDF were to come across such a case, they would do the arrest and hand over to the BMA to handle the admin. Similarly, the BMA has an agricultural function in that they must ensure that animals from other jurisdictions do not cross the border as they could ultimately bring foot and mouth disease. If an animal crosses, then that animal will be captured and veterinarians will be called to assist. The BMA will process the animal with the next jurisdiction and it will be transported across the South African border. The SANDF would not be called to run after goats and cattle that have crossed the border line; this is the role of the border guards.

On staff integrity, section 30 of the BMA Act states that everyone must undergo vetting. Some staff colleagues were integrated from departments that did not have this provision. The intention of vetting staff is to ensure that they are people of integrity. Going forward this will necessitate the BMA to do continual lifestyle audits because if someone is unable to explain their accumulation of wealth, then this requires further engagement.

BMA has already made submissions to ARMSCOR which is currently procuring critical tools of trade so that BMA can start gaining a presence. These include drones and speedboats that must be used by the coastal guards to protect the country’s marine resources. This was made possible primarily because the agency was able to request funding from the Criminal Assets Recovery Account (CARA). After putting in a request with a business plan, BMA was able to get R150 million in funding. These tools will enable the BMA to address some of the historical challenges that have been prevalent like the stamping of fraudulent documentation.

The Beitbridge border fence between South Africa and Zimbabwe is a topical issue. The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) had investigated the contract and found that the service provider lacked good service standards and had overcharged for the fencing. That service provider had to pay back the money.

On overall capacity, the BMA is supposed to do environmental bio-security functions but there are only 12 people from the department who have been assigned to assist with this function. This means that the BMA does not have a presence for this function in any of the 72 ports. All the BMA environmental bio-security experts are in Pretoria and when they must be deployed to a particular port because there is a particular invasive species that is going to arrive there, officials must be dispatched to that location. Port health functions are only at 37 ports out of the 72. The rest of the other ports do not have such a function. When it comes to the capacitation of BMA there are a lot of issues which is why there have been adverts to try and build capacity.

South Africa continues to engage with its neighboring countries but they are reluctant to accept the fact that they also have a responsibility to help it deal with illegal migration in particular. From the 6 to 9 November, the BMA met with Mozambiquan representatives and discussed how better to facilitate and synchronise processes at Lebombo. They were reluctant to assist.

BMA has the National Targeting Centre (NTC) which has multiple intelligence structures. All of these structures have a unit that is responsible for BMA functions, and they are the ones assisting the agency to do risk assessments as well as providing the agency with intelligence on the ground. From these assessments and intelligence, the BMA has established countermeasures to deal with the issues on the ground. On the Durban port challenges, most of those are Transnet-based related to bringing containers onshore. That is not related to BMA immigration functions.

The statistics in the presentation do not reflect the current figures. These were the stats during the festive period in December 2022. The 380 personnel that the BMA is borrowing for the festive period are Department of Home Affairs officials. They have the requisite training and experience, and they know how to operate the systems. There are only 60 inspectorate members that will assist the BMA but this is during the demobilization period so it will not disempower the inspectorate in any significant way.

On capacity during loadshedding, there are generators which are well-serviced and ready to ensure that when loadshedding strikes, the ports will not be negatively impacted. There are bathroom facilities along the corridors and there is water provision so that people who are queuing in the corridor have access to water.

Staff integration was officially and fairly concluded in March 2023. BMA took 1 200 staff from Home Affairs, 380 from Agriculture, 370 from Health, and 12 from Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment (DFFE), as well as 220 border guards. All in all, by 1 April 2023 the agency had integrated everyone and there was a staff complement of over 2 100.

On the trucks at Lebombo border post, the interesting thing is that the more BMA attempts to ease congestion, the more the volumes keep on increasing. The agency was handling 800 trucks per day. The congestion increased from an initial 1 200 per day to 1 800 per day. With the challenges at the Durban port of entry, BMA predicts that it will be passing the 2000 mark. As the National Logistics Crisis Committee chairperson for corridor and port management in the Presidency, they meet on a weekly basis to discuss better ways of addressing Lebombo challenges. There is a long-term solution which is getting trains to assist in moving the cargo.

Major General David Chilembe, BMA Deputy Commissioner of Operations: On the issue of extension of hours, he stated that they do not deal with the extension of hours only. In the phases of planning, they meet with their counterparts, and they agree on both sides that whatever extension they take it will be adhered to on both sides. In terms of the tourist statistics, they have had two meetings with the Department of Tourism. In the Western Cape they also met with the provincial Minister with regards to the issue of tourism. The Minister offered them cadets that are coming from tourism to assist at the airports as well as in the harbours.

On capacity building, BMA capacity is very low. Some of the departments have not agreed to assist. The main areas where capacity is low includes personnel in charge of access control. SAPS is not willing to assist in transferring this function to BMA which is why they are still struggling. The digital system collapse is also a challenge that BMA has been facing but they are working with SARS to remedy this and are ensuring that they ramp up their Biometric Movement Control System (BMCS) that will be used to cure this. There are generators in all the ports of entry to ensure that the system does not go down during loadshedding.

BMA has partnered with a private company who is responsible for the corridor to track the safety of travellers on the N4. They are also coming up with infrastructure to assist truck drivers that are waiting in the lines. The traffic police have been brought in to divert trucks away from the N4 during periods of congestion to ensure that traffic moves along. At Lebombo, the immigration and customs office have been combined so the truck drivers do not have to get out of their trucks anymore. The office now functions as if it is a toll gate. There are three different issues when it comes to trucks. These are trucks carrying perishable goods, cargo, and bulk minerals and coal going to Maputo harbour. There should be one stop for trucks instead of several, but this is an ongoing conversation.

The plan for the festive season is to divert all trucks to a place called Kilometre Seven, this is an old port where the trucks will be diverted and managed. The long-term plan is to build infrastructure which will be a truck holding area which will have all the facilities including security. BMA will bring in the immigration function into that space as well as customs. Once the trucks have been assisted, they will be escorted back to the ports of entry. They have also engaged crime intelligence. There are undercover operations that they are busy with that will be dealing with the issue of corruption.

On deployment of additional staff at OR Tambo, 60 officials will be placed at the airport in accordance with the demand time. For deployment on the ground, they are working with SANDF and deploying border guards from SANDF in the identified vulnerable ports of entry. They are working to ensure everyone crossing the border goes to the correct declared area.

There are a lot of people arriving at a port during Christmas time announcing they do not have documentation, and therefore declare their deportation. Together with the inspectorate and the BMA officials on the ground, they ensure that all these individuals go through the deportation process. Many of them will leave as a foreign national but return saying that they are South African and in terms of the Immigration Act, officials cannot refuse a South African entry into their own country. To combat this, the deportation process requires fingerprints be taken when individuals leave the country. This will enable them to verify if the individuals declaring that they are South African. If they have lied, there are repercussions for such dishonesty.

Closing remarks
The Chairperson thanked the Commissioner for briefing the Committee on the BMA preparations and plan for safeguarding the ports of entry during the festive season.

The minutes for the 21 November meeting were adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.