Director-General precautionary suspension & Committee New York Oversight Report

Meeting report

The Chairperson said that the Committee is not in the business of interfering with the internal affairs of the Department, however it is not acceptable that the Committee learns from the media about important issues, such as the precautionary suspension of the Director-General, Mr Kgabo Mahoai, especially when it is claimed that such an action is taken in line with Recommendation 12.13 of the Committee Report on its New York Oversight.

The recommendation provides for the recall of the former DG and former permanent UN representative for his role in the initiation and finalisation of the irregular tender in 2016. There was no mention of precautionary suspension of the current DG. This was the DG who managed to prevent irregular PPE expenditure in this country. Clearly, this was tantamount to undermining the authority of Parliament and also the thinking capacity of Parliament.

The Chairperson said that the Minister cannot just willy-nilly alter Recommendation 12.13 of the Oversight Report. There was no need to suspend the current DG. The Minister is not coming to address the Committee today. The Minister’s letter in response does not, by any stretch of imagination, address the contents of recommendation 12.13, nor any other recommendation in the report. The Department argues that it could not recall the permanent representative because of considerations of national interest to allow him to finalise activities in the USA. The Minister said she was engaged with Chapter 17 of the Senior Management Service (SMS) Handbook on disciplinary action. The handbook guards against arbitrary or discriminatory application of rules in dealing with misconduct of senior management. It is currently a busy time for Departments, with arrangements and preparations for budget votes. The Committee has made recommendations on the first and second quarter performance which the Department ought to work on. The Minister also says that the current DG has approved the consequence management regulations, a matter very close to the oversight mandate of the Committee.

The Chairperson asked why it is not of national interest that the current DG is given time, like the former DG, to process and finalise all these matters on his desk. Is this in line with Chapter 17 of the Handbook which calls for fairness, non-discrimination and equal treatment of employers by their employees? Why are the named individuals in the report not subjected to the same treatment?

The report findings identified officials who should be held responsible for the irregularly awarded tender in the New York pilot project, which includes the former DG, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and other members of the Bid Adjudication Committee. The Committee report recommends actions against the former DG, CFO, Chief Director, property management unit and all those involved in the New York pilot project.

It is not clear why the actual suspects have not been dealt with. The Committee indicated the role of the former DG to the Department and requested his recall. Instead, the Department extended his contract for six months. The Department did not bother to ask him to respond to his role in the irregularly awarded tender. He is now on retirement.

What is the Minister investigating when the Auditor-General (AG) has already investigated and identified the suspects? Why can the Department not suspend all those implicated and let the law take its course? The question arises whether DIRCO avoided taking action while he was still employed by the Department. Is it a coincidence that action was taken after his retirement? Was DIRCO deliberately buying time to save the former DG? Why was it difficult for DIRCO to ask both the current and former Directors General to account for their different roles in the New York project?

The Department’s full responses are needed for the report because of the level of seriousness. The written responses to some recommendations grouped together have resulted in only one answer for more than one recommendation. Some responses are one liners and are withholding information under the pretext that the needed detail is a subject of internal consultation. The responses have no undertaking report-back on the dealings and have no time frames for completing the process. DIRCO says it is "working"  on it. The responses are very selective in which points it wishes to respond to.

The reasons for suspension of the current DG have now shifted to placing him on precautionary suspension, pending the outcome of disciplinary action taken against him. It is not clear how this relates to the oversight report or whether the current DG has been given charges in this regard.

The Chairperson said that she put these points to the Committee because the Minister was not coming to the meeting. The letter of response to our invitation, which was sent on the 15 February, was only responded to yesterday (16 February) at 18:35. The meeting could not just be cancelled and if a meeting were to be postponed or cancelled it would happen during this meeting.

The Chairperson opened the floor to deliberations.

Mr X Nqola (ANC) said the situation was very unfortunate. The first unfortunate element is the Minister refusing to come to the meeting. The matter that has led to the precautionary suspension of the DG involves huge amounts of money that have been squandered by DIRCO officials.

The Committee has been discussing the matter of the New York pilot project since before the Fifth Parliament ended its term. It is 2021 now. There are a lot of role players in the matter, which must infect the part of the consequences which the Minister seems to be applying. Consequence management does not solely mean disciplinary hearings. Recouping the money squandered is part of the resolutions the Committee took and tabled in the National Assembly. There is no comprehensive report explaining how far the matter is or how the recouping is as well.

There is some level of arrogance in the authority. Where is the report on how the money was squandered? A lot of people were involved, including the Bid Specification committee members, the Bid Evaluation committee members, the Bid Adjudication committee members, the CFO – who has written a letter to the Accounting Officer to approve the matter of the pilot project. As much as the Committee finds itself in this calamity, the Committee members are reporting amongst each other now, because DIRCO has refused to come and give a comprehensive report on this matter.

Mr Nqola suggested that the Committee make the decision that all those who formed part of the committees that administered the tender should be suspended. This would include the committee members that did not comply with standards that were meant to be checked. This would include the Ambassador who ran away from the Committee.

What is the proper process when a Minister refuses to come and answer to the Committee? The Committee ought to report her for refusing to account about DIRCO, and by doing so, defying the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr M Chetty (DA) agreed with the Chairperson’s opening remarks. The Minister is definitely disrespecting the Committee. From the very first meeting this Sixth Term Committee had, the matter of the New York pilot project was raised with the Minister. The Committee told the Minister that the matter had to be resolved, in no uncertain terms, as there was definitely something wrong as indicated in the AG’s report.

He was disappointed that the Minister was treating the Committee like a spaza shop. It was unacceptable that the Committee invested its time as well as finances to do the oversight study and ensure that it comes back with facts to clarify any misunderstandings on whether the tender was for vacant land or an abandoned, dilapidated building.

The fact that the Minister believes that the Committee must be made aware of the suspension of the DG via the media is totally unacceptable. More so because the Minister abused the Committee’s report, using it to benefit her own interests by suspending the current DG, which was not in the report’s recommendations. The people who the Committee felt action needed to be taken against seemed to be protected.

There is an Animal Farm mentality that exists in DIRCO. Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. It is clear. The CFO seems to continuously be saved. He is like a cat with nine lives. Every time something happens, someone else protects him.

The Committee Report stated that during our oversight, the officials informed the Committee that the CFO used to fly into New York to have meetings about the issue of properties but then fly back without even having a consultation with the heads of mission. That was in the report! Clearly, the Minister failed to look at that, or at least address it.

The Committee also noted that during the origin of the New York pilot project, Ambassador Matjila, was the Accounting Officer at the time, and the Committee had wanted answers. The Committee recommended that Matjila, who by then was South Africa's permanent representative to the UN in New York, be recalled from his position and be brought to SA to answer for irregularities identified by the AG in the New York matter.

Mr Chetty said that Mr Nqola had hinted that Ambassador Matjila was not present for the oversight visit. The Committee raised it as a concern. He knew the Committee was arriving yet he absconded. When the Committee contacted the DG and the second-in-charge at the Embassy, both had confirmed that they were unaware that the Ambassador was going to be on leave. These are serious transgressions. All knew the Committee wanted to get first-hand information from him as to his involvement in this project. It seems as if the Minister does not think that the Committee’s input about his misconduct was serious enough.

If the Minister wanted to take the Committee and its report seriously, at the very least, she had the right to suspend the DG. Mr Chetty would have expected that Ambassador Matjila as well as the CFO would have also been placed under suspension.

The Committee looks like it is toothless right now because its Minister can abuse the report that the Committee presented to Parliament, can interpret it how she wants and can do what she wants to do.

The Minister’s response to the properties that were visited, investigated and had oversight done on them by the Committee was that security measures had to be in place before DIRCO would implement or move the missions into one of the preferred sites the Committee had overseen. However, they were already housing embassies of other countries.

It was very weak. Her responses are as if she woke up and for the sake of appeasing the Committee and ticking the box, just typed out one-line answers thinking that the Committee can be treated with such disrespect.

The Committee must be very clear that it will not allow the Minister run roughshod over us and over the Committee’s work.

DIRCO was in a shambles when the Sixth Term Committee was initiated. Clearly that situation still exists, because the Minister’s actions have proved that the CFO seems to be the person in charge of DIRCO, and not the DG. Everyone knows the number of charges that the CFO was facing when the Committee arrived.

Mr Chetty was astounded that the Minister did not, at the very least, take action to suspend the CFO and the Ambassador. More so, the fact that the Committee requested the cost as well as the number of flights that the CFO had taken to New York. That must also come to the Committee, because that will assist in proving the role certain people had played in the R118 million shenanigan. This Committee must recommend that when, not if, those who were involved are found guilty, criminal charges must be laid against them and the monies must be recovered.

Mr B Nkosi (ANC) agreed with the Chairperson’s opening remarks. The essence is that the Committee wants to ensure accountability in all matters, in particular though, the issue of New York. There was a point when the Minister undertook to come back to the Committee on this. Unfortunately that did not happen, and now here the Committee sits with a precautionary suspension of the DG, outside of what the Committee recommended.

The Committee must request that the report, or the Minister’s response to the report, be amplified in greater substance on the Committee’s recommendations, rather than the one-line sentences the Committee has received. If the matter has been with DIRCO since 2016 until now, there should have definitely been processes undertaken, in particular, after the AG reported on the matter. If the Minister did indeed undertake to brief the Committee in greater detail, then it means there were processes undertaken and the Committee should be privy to that.

Mr Nkosi suggested that after everyone has spoken, the meeting be adjourned and the Committee allow for these matters be attended to by DIRCO and an urgent meeting be called with the Minister. She must be present to respond to these.

Ms T Msane (EFF) said she finds the situation very disturbing. This shows how Parliament has been operating, especially with this Department, where the Minister does not actually see the need to account to the Committee. The Committee did oversight in December 2019. This was after finding that irregularities had happened in 2017 and 2018. Committee members left their homes, spent taxpayers’ money and flew to New York to check what had honestly happened to taxpayers’ money. They returned and did a proper report with recommendations to hold people accountable. The Committee wants accountability.

The report was adopted by the Committee in March 2020. It took the National Assembly more than seven months to adopt it. After the report was adopted in November 2020, the Speaker wrote to the Minister on 9 November. The Minister only responded to the Speaker on 1 February. Note the timelines. This matter has never been urgent. The Committee took it upon itself to ensure the matter was considered urgent and that the liable people are held to account.

The Committee found out through the newspapers and social media that there had been no response or communication from November to date from either the Minister or DIRCO to report about New York.

The Committee did not get concrete reasons why the current DG is suspended. The Minister sent a response one minute before the start of this meeting. The Minister said it was “misconduct” and “incapacity.” In the 13 recommendations the Committee put forward, there was no mention of the current DG. The AG found irregularities of more than half a billion rand around 2013/14, which is when the previous DG was working. Nothing ever happened to that DG. The Committee is stuck with the same problem and findings for which the previous DG was pinned, who was then transferred to be an Ambassador. Nothing has happened. Is the Committee becoming an accomplice to irregular expenditure and wasting taxpayers’ money?

When the Committee began in 2018, the CFO was on paid leave also for irregularities. What happened? He was found not guilty. Is this Department becoming one for money-squandering? Why did the Committee even bother to go to New York? All that money on flights and accommodation was wasted. The Committee got to witness with its own eyes how supply chain management processes are not followed by this Department in overseas missions.

Immediately the EFF saw the newspaper article, it wrote a letter requesting the Minister to account because it did not want to interfere with internal affairs, as the Chairperson said in her opening remarks. The EFF wanted to know what informed the DG suspension. Unfortunately, the Committee will leave today’s meeting without an answer. How long is the suspension? He is getting paid by taxpayers while suspended for reasons the Committee does not know. How is the Minister going to ensure all DIRCO targets are going to be met?

Ms Msane said that the Minister feels as if the Committee is not needed and the Committee should not conduct its oversight. The Minister does not account to the Committee. She agreed with Mr Nqola that whatever needs to be done to ensure the Minister accounts to the Committee must go ahead.

On the point of the current leasing of offices, when the Committee arrived there, the CFO and his people in DIRCO versus the current DG… there was a crisis on which office to lease, which should not have existed in the first place, because one office was ready to be moved into – feasible to DIRCO – and the other office was just a shell. But that office was the one that was recommended. The Committee’s report states that very clearly. There were no security issues.

The Committee made a decision then and there on the offices that DIRCO should choose and occupy, so that money is saved on rent. DIRCO is paying more than $265 000 per month on rent. Why does DIRCO not implement the Committee recommendations? The National Assembly, the highest decision-making body in the country, endorsed and approved the report in November. What is taking so long?

The Minister refuses to come and meet with the Committee. It is unacceptable. The Committee wants an urgent meeting and needs answers. The public needs answers. Too much money is being squandered in this Department.

Mr T Mpanza (ANC) said that most of what he wanted to say had already been said and he would not waste time repeating this. This matter was very emotional for him because of the way the Committee was treated when it was in New York doing the oversight. Hearing of the DG's suspension DG via the media invoked feelings of being undermined and mistreated, with no regard to the work the Committee did to turn DIRCO around. It is very painful and the Committee must not allow itself to be subjected to this treatment from anyone irrespective of their position going forward.

Mr Mpanza thanked the Chairperson for convening the meeting and for representing the Committee very well in all the media interviews. The Chairperson was a leader in the face of chaos. The Chairperson was interviewed the previous day by an SABC journalist who was stationed in the USA. This matter is no longer national, but international. He thanked the Chairperson for providing leadership and making sure the matter was well-managed in the public domain. He commended the Chairperson.

DIRCO was nowhere to be found. The SABC mentioned the fact that they had contacted the DIRCO spokesperson to provide answers, but the Department was nowhere to be found. If the Chairperson had not stepped up, the matter would have reflected very badly. DIRCO started something and when it had to account, it was nowhere to be found.

Mr Mpanza agreed with the Chairperson’s remarks about not wanting to interfere with the Minister's powers or the Department. However, DIRCO and the Executive must be held accountable. They cannot be allowed to do as they please or else the Committee does not do its work. In fact, the problem with the Department, and perhaps with the Executive as well to a certain extent, is that the previous Committee did not exercise as robust an oversight as this Committee. He noted that he was not passing judgment.

This Committee has refused to do desktop oversight. It is a culture that this Committee has come in with that has made people uncomfortable in that the Committee does site visits. This was the Committee’s first oversight visit. If COVID-19 had not happened, the Committee would surely have continued with this kind of oversight at other missions too.

Mr Mpanza could not understand how someone who was not a part of those who participated in the irregular activities could be the one to get suspended. He agreed with Ms Msane that the Committee needs to know the nature of his misconduct; otherwise, the Committee’s recommendations are used as reasons. The Committee needs to know because it recommended something different. If the reason is unrelated to the Committee’s recommendations for New York, then the Committee must be told so it knows that the New York matter has not yet been addressed, and the Committee will want to know why it has not.

Mr Mpanza agreed that an urgent meeting with the Minister was needed. The Committee cannot be talking to itself and answering its own questions. The Minister must engage with the Committee.

Mr D Bergman (DA) was very sorry not to go on the oversight visit. He thought as the longest-serving Committee member, he would have had the opportunity. It was sad to see the pictures and the parking lot. Is it correct that the Committee bought the land from Regiment Capital?

[Photographs were shared from the New York oversight trip. One photograph showed a ceiling under construction with wires hanging everywhere. Another showed a city street with two cars and a scooter with brick buildings in the forefront. A third showed a street with four cars including a taxi. The last one showed a interior staircase under construction with raw materials exposed.]

When one looks at the Tender Adjudication Committee and you see that the CFO chairs that committee, then one of the reasons for his suspension at that time was possibly the New York matter.  Imagine you are chasing a buffalo with a shotgun. You shoot the buffalo and the buffalo does not go down. You shot him in the leg and he has not really been hurt. What is the buffalo going to do? The buffalo is going to come back after you. Given the suspension of the DG, does it not look as if the Committee is assisting the buffalo?

The Committee wrote a report and it was pretty clear and gave good direction. Mr Bergman was trying to understand what the Minister is thinking. Hopefully her briefing will help bring the Committee into her confidence in saying that the DG, who was never part of the New York decision, all of a sudden found himself in an embarrassing headline that he is the one that is suspended, which has a lot of consequences.

Further, this is matter should have gone to Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) months and months ago. Even though the report has already been served before Parliament, this is something that can still go to SCOPA and can still be re-interrogated. The Committee asks itself two questions: Did the tender committee adhere to the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) at the time? What was DIRCO’s internal legal opinion? The legal advisers do not sit at the EXCO table, but they do advise. The Chief State Law Advisor expressed an opinion at the time. What was that opinion? If the DG has been suspended, and he was not there, without being personal or pointing fingers, why is the CFO not suspended again? Surely, in terms of the Labour Relations Act, there cannot be a trial by media. Both should surely be suspended.

Mr D Moela (ANC) said that the Chairperson’s opening remarks were spot on. Previously, the Committee made a decision about the behaviour of Mr Matjila, starting from the New York oversight visit. Somebody needs to account. Up until today, nothing has happened on the matter.

After the visit, the Committee made some recommendations and presented these to Parliament. DIRCO is far away from implementing those recommendations. This suggests that the Committee under the leadership of the Chairperson is being undermined. This is not the first time the Committee is discussing such behaviour from the Department.

Is the Committee rising or falling? The due dates have long passed, as Ms Msane said. There is no one with authority to respond in the meeting. What does that say? The Committee is falling.

Money was spent in New York. Who is accountable for that? The only things the Committee wants is accountability and consequence management. If the suspension of the current DG is part of consequence management, then why was only he suspended? Because there are many people who were involved in the New York matter. If the Committee is not firm, then most of its decisions will not be implemented as the Committee is being undermined. The gear needs to be changed from now onwards. Let the Committee continue doing its work and if they hate the Committee for doing so, let it be so.

In a previous meeting, the Minister promised the Committee that she would come before it and outline her and DIRCO’s intentions. But that did not happen. DIRCO is like a spaza shop, rather than a department. The spaza shop is just sitting there, making some money and going back home. And the spaza shop is falling apart every day. The Committee must not be allowed to be undermined, ever.

Mr Moela thanked the Chairperson for standing firm and confidently representing the Committee well. The Committee needs to applaud the Chairperson. He agreed the Minister must face the Committee and clarify what informed her decision.

Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) thanked the Chairperson and said her introductory remarks were very informative. The Committee is being undermined and disrespected. When this Committee started its term, it was told how ineffective the previous Committee was. How it was taken for a ride; how it was taken for granted. It looks as if there are those who want to continue that culture that every Committee that serves this Department is going to be undermined. He agreed with those who said the Committee must never be allowed to be undermined.

The public complains that Parliament is a rubber stamp or a toothless dog. Now the public must see that there are parliamentary committees who have guts and there are Members who can stand for what is right and who understand what it means to hold the Executive to account.

What the Minister has done is totally unacceptable. It was shocking that the Speaker had to write to the Minister and the Minister took weeks to respond to the Speaker's letter. That shows the Minister’s disregard for the Office of the Speaker too. This must be corrected. The Minister, like all ministers, must know that the Executive is accountable to Parliament – which is a fact, not a thought or a suggestion. This matter is now in the public domain. One way or another, the public must know that this Committee disagrees with the suspension of the current DG.

If the Committee had been briefed on the facts and had reasons identified for him to be suspended – because the Committee works with him all the time – the Committee could agree. But there is nothing the Committee knows that warrants a suspension, particularly as the subject matter was the New York report that the Committee placed before Parliament. It is baffling that people who should have been held accountable, as recommended in the New York report, seem to be protected for unknown reasons. The one person not mentioned in the report is the one targeted.

The Committee has to stand for justice. What is being done is unjust and should not be perpetuated. This Committee has heard that this type of thing happened with the previous Committee, but this Committee determined at the beginning that it was not going to be toothless or a walk-over like the previous Committee. That is something the Committee agreed on. This New York matter cannot and must not be swept under the rug. It looks like things are being hidden. Perhaps there are people who have benefitted financially. It is not understandable how so much money can be spent on monthly rent. It does not make sense. Is somebody benefitting from the rent money? The Committee needs answers.

Rev Meshoe agreed that the Committee should not interfere with the responsibilities of the Minister and DIRCO, but it is totally unacceptable that under the former DG there was so much wastage. A recommendation was made, even by the AG, that he be held accountable. But suddenly that person is promoted to be an ambassador. Somewhere, somehow, the Committee has to express itself on this. Something like this has never happened; someone always has to be the first. The Committee might obviously be targeted for doing it, but someone has to put one's head on the block and say, “I understand what accountability means.”

If a person who should be disciplined or investigated is promoted to be an ambassador to escape the wrongs he has done, then something has to happen. Are people going to say they are happy he is gone now he is an ambassador? If the Committee talks about integrity, the Ambassador must also have integrity. If disciplinary measures have to be taken, if there are questions that he must answer, let him answer, even if he is an ambassador. He needs to account for what he has done.

If the Minister accounts to the Committee and not the other way around, the Chairperson must write her a letter giving her a time frame. Perhaps the Speaker should be copied into that letter because of the seriousness of the matter. The Minister cannot be given a month to come before the Committee. Perhaps she could be given a maximum of 14 days, as long as she is in the country. She should priotise this Committee because she accounts to this Committee.

Mr W Faber (DA) said that the matter was in contravention of Treasury’s regulations. This was said quite clearly by the AG. He could not see how the CFO and the previous DG now Ambassador could not be held to account. Eventually, someone must be held to account.

The previous Minister must be held responsible. She was on duty, on guard. Even though she was a political head, it was her duty to ensure such things do not happen, or, when the matters become public, take action. She did nothing of the sort. She should be summoned to the Committee to explain why she did not stand up and do her ministerial duty.

Ms B Swarts (ANC) thanked the Chairperson for convening the meeting despite the invitee excusing herself. The Committee is not being taken seriously and the Chairperson is being disrespected. This is a very serious matter. She takes note of the Minister’s response, that is, that the circumstances surrounding irregular expenditure are unfolding. The Minister says that the suspension of the DG is pending disciplinary action. The Minister quoted from Chapter 17 of the Senior Management Service (SMS) Handbook, citing misconduct and incapacity. The very purpose and scope of the handbook is to prevent discrimination by superiors against SMS members, of which the DG is one.

Why would the Minister place only the current DG on precautionary suspension while she never dealt with the former DG when he was still employed by DIRCO? That is inconsistent application of law and the very handbook she is quoting.

This Department is responsible for foreign policy implementation and relations with other countries. A DG becomes a key contact person for the purpose of this mandate. This is not a domestic affairs department. Why would a Minister ignore this act and just opt to put a DG on precautionary suspension without having given full mind to this?

Ms Swarts imagined that the Minister would have considered that an upheaval at the senior level of Director General could immediately affect how South Africa is viewed by other countries. The Committee was surprised that precautionary measures were implemented. It did not matter that the Committee did oversight. The Minister did not even consider it before writing to the President to request delegation powers to implement consequence management. She did not come to the Committee to get its perspective on New York report submitted to the Speaker and tabled in the House. What led to this suspension of the DG? One could conclude that there could be motive of something more, like a witch hunt. The Committee will just watch and see what happens.

The Committee was very clear with the Minister in one of the committee meetings that the CFO be suspended about the New York issue. During the same time, the very same DG was put on sick leave and when he returned the disciplinary hearing against the CFO was done and dusted and he was found not guilty.

The Committee is being undermined. She remembered the CFO responded to the Committee saying that he did not agree with the AG’s finding and was prepared to take the AG to court. All this is about the New York matter. She had asked him if he was planning on using taxpayers’ money or his own money to take the AG to court. He did not respond because, clearly, the AG Report and recommendations was pages and pages of where the AG was actually cautioning the Committee. The people who were involved in this are not dead; they walking around scott free.

What the Committee would like to know is if there is something more than what it knows… Surely the Minister would have spoken to the Chairperson and informed the Committee before implementing the precautionary suspension so it could understand that the AG Report is missing parts, which therefore requires an investigation. This means that the Committee would be meeting for hours with Department officials who do not have capacity and an acting DG telling the Committee that, “I’m new… therefore I am still finding my feet. I must still meet all the sections and all the desks,” and so on. This just takes the Committee backwards. Fourteen days is too long as the very investigation that the Committee does not know anything about is unfolding, and the Committee is in the dark. It is a burden for the Chairperson, who constantly has to be protecting the image of Parliament to the media. The fact that the Committee found a parking lot in New York - did the Minister actually read the letter she got from the Speaker and the Committee Report? Or did people in her office read it for her? She is sure the Minister did not see the photographs of the New York site otherwise she would have taken the matter much more seriously.

The situation in New York shocked the Committee and is still shocking everyone else. The Minister must let the Committee know, other than the findings of National Treasury and the AG, what else there is to this matter that the Committee does not know about. Even this last minute apology shows that the Committee is not being taken seriously. The Committee is hell-bent on doing its oversight work firing all the time to bring DIRCO to where it should be. It means that the Minister does not really know how much money is being paid for rent.

Ms Swarts said she was in pain and hurt because the Committee used all its strength to ensure that the Foreign Service Bill is adopted. Indeed, the Committee achieved that in a few months, whereas others took years with this Bill. Yet everyone is sitting as if the Bill is not coming into operation. It makes one wonder, what else is the Minister going to surprise the Committee with? The Committee has been telling DIRCO to prepare itself to start running properties on its own without Public Works. All Committee members are surely feeling this urgency. Please can the Chairperson write to the Minister today requesting her to talk to the Committee next Tuesday. Otherwise the next the Committee will hear in the media is the investigation is done and dusted.

Ms Swarts said she wishes she knew what the Minister wrote to the President when she requested to be given the delegation of power to implement consequence management and to suspend the DG. It would be interesting to know what she said to the President, because she never spoke to the Committee. The Committee does not know what made the President give her that power. It means that there is more than meets the eye.

The Chairperson thanked Committee members for deliberating on this matter because it would not have been fine for the Chairperson to make a decision on the Committee’s behalf on a matter that is so serious. The Committee has a responsibility to continue with its duties and make decisions even if the Minister cannot be present at a meeting.

It seems that everyone agrees that the precautionary suspension of the current DG should not be associated with the Committee’s recommendations for it is not the case. There is no mention of the current DG anywhere in the Committee’s report in terms of what needs to be done. Therefore, the Committee is firm in saying that the precautionary suspension should not be associated with it.

The number of flights taken to New York by the CFO needs to be noted. It is agreed that the Committee must convene an urgent meeting where the Minister will be present and to respond to all the questions the Committee members have. There was a suggestion that the previous Minister is summoned to account as well, but the possibility of that will have to be checked.

The Chairperson said she was perturbed that the Minister chose to implement the decisions of the Committee only now and cite incapacity on the matter and quote Chapter 17, when the AG Report, amongst other things, stated that the whole finance branch of DIRCO has no capacity and a skills audit should be undertaken. No consequence management has happened on the AG Report.

The selective approach of implementation of recommendations and consequence management in is tantamount to the collapse of the entire Department because there are seemingly those who are favoured and who were never brought to book.

The New York matter has become an international scandal. This scandal impacts the image and the footprint of South Africa. The Committee will not sit on its laurels and not perform its oversight responsibilities as it is not scared to be undermined by anyone who does not want to be accountable. The Committee will continue and expose such behaviour.

After this meeting, the Committee must write to the Minister to request the letter she wrote to the President. The Committee has a right to the information in the letter that made the President give the Minister the ability to suspend the DG because the Committee was said to have recommended all this. That letter needs to be got obtained before the end of business today so the Committee is able to prepare for its next meeting.

A parking lot was approved by DIRCO to be the offices of South Africa’s Embassy. Corruption has been happening for a long time in the Department. There are certain individuals… This corruption and squandering of money was pointed to not only by ourselves but by the Auditor-General report. The Committee is not going to sit here and allow a Chapter 9 institution to be undermined and not recognised and when it makes recommendations no one cares to implement them. Chapter 9 institutions were established as independent bodies to enhance, amongst other things, the work of Parliament and government. The Committee is going to continue to take the findings seriously because it believes they are credible. All these reports show that the current DG has nothing to do with the New York saga.

The Minister probably has something up her sleeve, but the precautionary suspension of the DG should not be associated with the recommendations of Committee, whether it is for incapacity or misconduct. The Committee will be in touch with the Minister. She must suggest a date herself. The Committee does not know her diary, but she does.

The Chairperson said the Committee must guard itself against the Minister telling the Committee about her prior commitments. She must suggest a date, not later than next week, where she will appear before the Committee and clarify to the whole country about her actions. The Committee must have the letter by that time so that the Committee can be empowered.

The Committee made a decision a long time ago that when the Committee moves, it moves in unison, regardless of the different political parties represented. What is important is the Committee’s oversight work. The Chairperson commended the Committee members for keeping that promise so that oversight can be done without hindrance. If the Committee had not gone to New York, this would have been a different case, but this is something else. She would work with the support staff to implement what the Committee decided on.

Meeting adjourned.