Pan African Parliament construction: DIRCO briefing; with Deputy Ministers

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

16 November 2022
Chairperson: Mr S Mahumapelo (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

In a virtual meeting, the Portfolio Committee received a briefing from the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) on the progress of constructing the Pan African Parliament (PAP) building.

DIRCO said they had faced challenges outside of their control, and this had caused a delay in starting construction. The site where the PAP would be located had been illegally sold, but legal proceedings had overruled that sale. This caused significant delays. There were other challenges, such as problems with the operation of the Pan African Parliament institution, while infrastructure technology (IT) issues were also a major concern.

Members raised concern over South Africa being the only country paying for the cost of the building, and asked if this agreement could be reviewed.

The Committee also discussed a recent video surfacing of a South African ambassador making disparaging remarks about his work. The Committee asked the Department to look into the matter and report back to the Committee.

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed everyone present, including the Department of International Relations and Cooperation's (DIRCO’s) two Deputy Ministers, Mr Alvin Botes and Ms Candith Mashego-Dlamini. There was only one item on the agenda, dealing with constructing the Pan-African Parliament.

Committee concern over ambassador's comment

Mr B Nkosi (ANC) raised the issue of a video on social media, in which a South African ambassador spoke about how easy it was to become an ambassador, and also said: “Ambassadors eat and drink on behalf of the people.” Mr Nkosi said this was uncalled for -- it gave the country a bad reputation and reflected very badly on DIRCO. Ambassadors represented the President in other countries, and the comments in the video were uncalled for. He asked if DIRCO and the Ministers were aware of the video, and whether the ambassador had explained what he meant. Would DIRCO take appropriate action against the ambassador?

The Chairperson said he had seen the video, where the ambassador had said he used to be a businessman and a civil servant and had failed at both, but it was easy to become an ambassador. This gave the impression that being an ambassador was easy and one did not have to do anything but eat and drink. This was a misrepresentation, and went against what the South African government stood for. He asked DIRCO to look into this matter and report back to the Committee on this.

Deputy Minister Botes said DIRCO was aware of the video, which had been sent to the Minister and Director-General. It had happened during the full preview of the media, and DIRCO had had to deal with issues around the Conference of the Parties (COP) 27 at the time. DIRCO was totally against what was said in the video, and the Department had taken up the matter. DIRCO would report back to the Committee on this matter.

The Chairperson said this ambassador should be fired, but South Africa was a democracy so due process would have to be followed and DIRCO would have to hear the ambassador’s side of the story first. This ambassador clearly was not qualified to be an ambassador and if possible, he should be suspended pending an inquiry.

Mr D Bergman (DA) commented that he did not understand what the ambassador had done wrong -- the only thing that was wrong about the video was that he was being unpatriotic. What the ambassador had said was actually very true, and was what had been happening at DIRCO. Until the Foreign Service Bill was implemented, South Africa would continue to hire unqualified ambassadors. The Foreign Service Bill would prevent the promotion of unqualified people at DIRCO from taking up positions as diplomats.

The Chairperson disagreed with Mr Bergman, and said it was not true that it was easy to become an ambassador.

Mr Bergman said South Africa had previously promoted and hired people not qualified to become diplomats. These people had cost DIRCO money directly and indirectly because they were not fit to fill these positions.

Mr T Mpanza (ANC) said the Chairperson had decided to engage on this issue because of its importance, but this was not up for debate as there had been an engagement with the Deputy Ministers. There had been an undertaking, and the matter would be looked at. There should not be a debate as to whether it was correct or not, and the matter should be left to DIRCO. The Committee would debate the issue when DIRCO reported back.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Mpanza, and said Members must not make assertions that all ambassadors shared the viewpoint of what was said in the video.

Mr Bergman said he was patriotic towards this country, and was raising this in its best interest. Instead of shutting people down, the Committee and DIRCO must listen to them. They must listen to what the ambassador had to say, as they needed to understand the problems with ambassadors. There was a report that referred to the bad behaviour of ambassadors. He raised these issues because he was patriotic and a team player, and wanted the Committee to resolve these issues.

The Chairperson asked the Deputy Minister to deal with the matter and report back to the Committee before Parliament went into recess. He said the Portfolio Committee could not tell DIRCO how to handle this, but a statement from DIRCO must address the matter.

Construction of Pan African Parliament

Deputy Minister Mashego-Dlamini said the Pan African Parliament (PAP) was one of the most important African Union (AU) organs hosted in South Africa since 2002. This project had been compounded by ambitions and expectations that DIRCO had been unable to fulfil due to issues beyond its control. Other AU organs based in South Africa included the African Union Development Agency, the African Peer Review Mechanism and the African Commission on Nuclear Energy. South Africa’s ambition as a host country was to build an AU house where all these organs could be located. The site where the Pan African Parliament would be located had been illegally sold, but legal proceedings had overruled that sale.

The PAP was currently hosted at Gallagher Estate, Midrand, which was intended to be temporary. Legal challenges had arisen that had delayed the completion of the project. DIRCO and the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) held approximately 81 meetings to resolve legal and other major issues pertaining to logistical and lease support for the PAP.

The Deputy Minister set out the responsibilities of each Department:

  • DPWI was responsible for the site;
  • National Treasury was responsible for financing the project; and
  • DIRCO was responsible for guiding the process and providing logistical support.

 

The challenges were:

  • Problems with the operation of the PAP institution;
  • Information technology (IT) issues were a big concern; and  
  • Underutilisation of space.

 

Progress achieved so far:

  • Recovery of the fraudulently stolen PAP site in Midrand -- Portion 442 of the farm Randjesfontein 405 Jr.  Information was available in Ministerial reports. The site had finally been recovered via Special Investigating Unit (SIU) and Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) processes. There were 90 days for the other party to contest the preservation order, after which it would become final. The site was currently fenced off and under security arrangements with the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA).
  • Resolution of site and environmental issues in accordance with Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment (DFFE) requirements.
  • Collation of all compiled project documentation -- drawings and construction documentation --for the original project.
  • Development of a high-level implementation plan for PAP project resumption and construction.

 

(See presentation for further details)

Discussion

Mr Bergman said that as the treasurer for the Southern African Development Community (SADC), DIRCO had been going through the same process to find a building for the SADC. The problem was that Namibia was not pressured to find a venue, but pressure had been placed on the SADC’s secretariat. It was unfair that the burden had been placed on South Africa to finalise the venue for the Pan African Parliament, as it should have been the focus of the AU's secretariat.

He said the Department of Public Works had a lot of unoccupied buildings, and asked whether it was possible for one of those buildings to be used for the PAP through upgrading a building. This would save the DIRCO time and money.

Mr D Moela (ANC) thanked the Deputy Minister for the presentation and the progress made on the PAP building. He said this had been a long process and the Committee should have received a report that construction had started. 

He understood the challenges DIRCO had faced, some of which were out of its control and should have been handled by other departments. He said legal proceedings should be concluded so construction could start and costs could be minimised. The PAP's current venue was costing money and there needed to be a permanent structure.

Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) asked for clarity and an explanation on the statement that the site had serious issues. What were these issues? He said it was unfortunate that South Africa had to do all the work while the other partners were doing nothing. Why was South Africa the only country paying the costs for this building and the other AU members were not? South Africa had a higher debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratio than some member states. South Africa was expected to pay billions to construct this building, and this matter should be revisited. Other member states were not struggling with their economies and had to contribute towards the building cost. He asked the Committee and DIRCO to relook at this matter.

Mr Mpanza agreed with what had been proposed. DIRCO should fast-track the issue of migrating all properties it owns from the DPWI to DIRCO, and going forward, DIRCO must not depend on the DPWI for construction. A review of the decision to divide the costs with other member states, should not impact South Africa being the host of the Pan African Parliament. This was a legacy for South Africa. This should also motivate DIRCO and the DPWI to look at buildings for South Africa’s Parliament.

The Chairperson asked if the embedded cost include price fluctuations, rates and taxes and interest to be paid. These items could contribute towards wasteful expenditure, and asked how DIRCO was mitigating this matter

DIRCO's response

Mr Luvuyo Ndimeni, Chief Director: African Union, DIRCO, said Public Works and DIRCO had regular meetings together. A recent decision was taken that the DPWI and DIRCO would look at the building of the Pan African Parliament comprehensively. The agreement for South Africa to pay the costs had been made at a time when the country still had enough resources.

DIRCO had looked at other options -- moving the site, or finding a new site -- but these options would all cost more than anticipated. The other matter was that the building would have to be made according to the AU's specifications in terms of committee rooms, plenary sessions, and the main supporting infrastructure that went with such buildings. Meeting these specifications would be difficult to do at other sites.

DIRCO was also looking at reconfiguring the whole IT structure, and would incur massive costs if they moved the site.

He said there would be an inter-country agreement until the building was completed, which should be in eight to ten years’ time. DIRCO had broken this timeline down into project plans and these plans had to go through country agreements.

The main cost drivers were security, visual equipment and accreditation. DIRCO had found a way to solve this matter, but it would need to review the host country agreements.

Hosting the Pan African Parliament had been highly politicised, and an agreement had been made that this issue should not be with the secretariat. There were certain obligations on South Africa, and South Africa could not ask other members to pay when an agreement had been made that South Africa would pay.

He said DIRCO now owned the site, and they would be able to plan better knowing they had full control over the site.

Deputy Minister Mashego-Dlamini said South Africa was still willing to host the Pan African Parliament. The cost of the building had escalated because this process had run for such a long time. National Treasury had revised the cost because of the delay. Most of the cost up to now had been from Public Works.

The Chairperson thanked the Deputy Minister and said he agreed with Mr Mpanza that Public Works should look for a building that could host South Africa’s Parliament, so it could be moved inland.

The meeting was adjourned.

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: