Glencore Bribery Case & alleged misuse of Mining Rehabilitation Funds

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed all the Members and support staff to the virtual meeting. He said that the Committee would deal with internal briefings on Glencore and the allegations of misuse of mining rehabilitation funds. Members would be allowed to ask questions for clarity. The Committee would deal with the programme and correspondence thereafter. The Committee would merge the programme and correspondence discussions because some of the issues in the correspondence would impact the Committee’s programme.

He reminded Members that the Committee had met last in the first or second week of June. It had nearly three months of no activity. It had tried its best during the period to deal with legislative matters that required its attention. Several developments had taken place. Amongst those was the shocking news of the eight women that were raped in at a non-operational mine in Krugersdorp. This was condemned. The social issue of gender-based violence is one of the worst that the country has ever had. It is a pandemic on its own. This is a matter that the Committee remained seized with, together with its colleagues from the Police and Home Affairs. It was working on mechanisms because a once-off attendance or occurrence did not address the problem.

The Committee hoped it could take a much broader macroscopic view of the challenges brought to society by illegal mining activity. It was critical to say it was still seized with many other challenges. This included energy and petroleum challenges, as well as matters relating to economic growth, amongst others. This was one of the busiest Committees if one looked at the tasks it had to perform. He hoped the Committee could address many of the challenges it was faced with.

There were no objections to his request that the meeting go straight to the presentations.

Content Advisor’s Briefing to the Committee
Mr Sivuyile Maboda, Committee Content Advisor: Mineral Resources & Energy, briefed the meeting on the Glencore Bribery case and on the misappropriation of mining rehabilitation funds. [Please see the detailed presentation slides].

Part One – Glencore

On 24 May 2022, the United States (US) Department of Justice announced charges in two separate districts, and two separate criminal cases involving [the international mining company,] Glencore. Glencore pleaded guilty to both charges. The first case was on the violation of the (US) Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The second case was on the manipulation of fuel prices. In total, Glencore had agreed to pay $1.185 billion in penalties for its wrongdoings.

South Africa was not on the list of affected countries. There is no evidence that Glencore’s network of corruption found expression in South Africa. However, the guilty pleas do signal a warning to South Africa.

The State Capture Commission had also made no adverse findings on Glencore, especially on issues of corruption, despite some evidence presented in this regard. There were claims of President Cyril Ramaphosa trying to influence the terms of coal supply deals the company had with Eskom.

Based on the corrupt history of the company, it is possible that South Africa is a victim of what has been revealed in the US, although it was not mentioned in the US case. Therefore, the recommendation of the Content Advisor was that the South African Government, through the relevant institutions such as the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and Special Investigating Unit (SIU), should investigate all Glencore operations in South Africa. There might be potential criminal activities in South Africa similar to those found in the US and other countries.

Part Two – Misappropriation of Mine Rehabilitation Funds (MRFs)
The Content Advisor reported how three people, including a former Deputy Director General (DDG) for Mineral Regulation, and mine officials associated with “Gupta” coal mining companies, had appeared in the Randburg Magistrate’s Court on 25 and 26 May 2022 in a case related to the misuse of mine rehabilitation funds. It is alleged that funds meant for the rehabilitation of the Koornfontein and Optimum Coal mines were illegally transferred to other companies in 2016.  The complex details of the case were summarised. The accused had been granted bail.
 

What did Parliament do?
Questions had been asked to department officials and mine executives in Committee Meetings at the time, [See https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/24101/ ] and Members had asked specific questions of the then Minister in the National Assembly. Responses of the Minister to Parliament at the time and media statements by the DMR on the issue of the Mine Rehabilitation Funds implied that the Department had done nothing untoward regarding the funds. However, the prosecution of the former DDG and others implied wrongdoing in respect of the Department.

Recommendation
Therefore, it was recommended that the Committee should:
Request the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) to come and account to Parliament on this issue as it relates to Optimum and Koornfontein Mines. This would be in addition to the request the Committee had previously made for a general briefing on the status of MRFs.
Request the Department report on the outcomes of its investigation into the allegations of corruption in the Mpumalanga and Limpopo regional offices related to the management of licensing backlogs.

Opinion on Glencore and the former DDG of DMRE
The Parliamentary Legal Advisers responded to specific questions which had previously been asked of them by the Committee.

Legal Framework
Rule 227 of the National Assembly Rules prescribes the role of portfolio committees in the performance of their oversight function. Rule 227(1)(b) provides that a portfolio committee (PC) must maintain oversight of - 
The exercise within its portfolio of national executive authority, including the implementation of legislation
Any executive organ of state falling within its portfolio
Any constitutional institution falling within its portfolio, and
Any other body or institution in respect of which oversight was assigned to it

Question One: What approach should the Committee take to address the issue of Glencore, in light of the fact that it is an international company operating in the mining sector in South Africa?

On the facts provided to Parliament’s Legal Advisers, there is no evidence that Glencore’s network of corruption found expression in South Africa. Glencore is a public company not an organ of state. Hence, even if the Committee wanted to enquire into the admission of guilt by Glencore, it would not be empowered to summon witnesses to produce documents and give evidence without linking the enquiry to oversight of an organ of state in respect of Glencore in South Africa – including wrongdoing in awarding mining rights or licenses to Glencore.

Notwithstanding the above, the Committee should, as part of its oversight function over the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, schedule a meeting with the Minister to consider a review of all Glencore mining licenses and contracts awarded by the DMRE in South Africa. In this regard, the Committee could also recommend to the Minister that such a review should be conducted with the assistance of an independent body or entity that possesses forensic capacity to ascertain that due process has been followed.

Question Two: What approach should the Committee take to address the issue of the former DDG, in light of the fact that the matter is before court?

No rule or law prevents Parliament from enquiring into and reporting on a matter merely because the same matter is also before the courts. Rule 89 of the NA Rules [Matters sub judice] provides that no member may reflect on the merits of a matter on which a judicial decision is pending. Parliament and the judiciary perform different functions and may do so in parallel concerning the same matter. Parliament and the judiciary are institutions of equal standing and neither trumps the other regarding their respective mandates. Therefore, the fact that a matter is pending before one does not neutralise the other.
The Committee is consequently not in any way restricted if it wishes to undertake a review of governance functions at the DMRE regarding the alleged misappropriation of the Mining Rehabilitation Funds by the former DDG and any other official for that matter, even if it overlaps with the issues before the court. The Committee is also empowered to call upon the Minister to account and report on the governance lapses related to the alleged misappropriation of funds.

However, section 165(1) of the Constitution states that the judicial authority of the Republic is vested in the courts. Section 165(2) goes further and provides that the courts are independent and subject only to the Constitution and the law, which they must apply impartially and without fear, favour, or prejudice. Given the fact that the former DDG has already been charged, and his alleged criminal conduct is currently being processed by our courts, the advice is for the Committee to allow the legal process to run its course.

The Committee is not precluded in any way from performing its functions merely because these concern a matter before the courts. The fact that the matter is before our courts does not relieve the Committee of any of its oversight obligations.

Advice
In view of the above, it is the opinion of the Parliamentary Legal Advisers that, on the issue of Glencore, the Committee is at will to schedule a meeting with the Minister and call on the Minister to undertake a review of all Glencore mining licenses and contracts awarded by the DMRE in South Africa. The Committee is also at liberty to recommend to the Minister that such a review should include a forensic investigation by an independent body or entity.
The Committee is not in any way restricted if it wishes to undertake a review of governance issues at the DMRE regarding the alleged misappropriation of the MRF by the former DDG and any official for that matter, even if it overlaps with the issues before the court. However, the alleged criminal conduct of the DDG should best be left to the courts to settle.

Discussion
The Chairperson announced that Mr Maboda was now the Committee’s Content Advisor and no longer the Energy Researcher.

He asked if the Glencore matter could be dealt with first, then the Committee would deal with the misuse of the rehabilitation funds.

Mr J Lorimer (DA) said that Mr Maboda did well on all his reports. On the Glencore presentation, everything was excellent, except the conclusions and recommendations, because the reasoning that there were no resources available essentially implied that the Committee could do nothing. It had such little information on this and he thought the Committee should be informed more about Glencore.

The Chairperson thought he might have done a disservice by not checking with legal services before allowing Mr Lorimer to speak to ensure that when it deals with the matters at hand it is done holistically. This way, before dealing with the matter the Committee knew what it could and could not do.

Adv Andile Tetyana, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, Constitutional and Legal Services Office (CLSO), said that his colleague who spoke before him painted the context beautifully. If he said anything on the matter, it would spoil what had already been said. Members would recall that the CLSO was requested by the Committee to provide an opinion on Committee processes related to legal proceedings against Glencore and the former deputy director-general (DDG) at the DMRE. The Chairperson asked legal services two questions. The first question was about Glencore’s admission and guilty plea to its vast network of corruption in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and other parts of the African continent. As previously stated by his colleague, Glencore had a footprint in South Africa. This spoke to what Mr Lorimer was about to say. The matter was that the Committee’s hands were tied under the circumstances, particularly the view that there was no evidence from Glencore’s guilty plea to say its vast network of corruption was found in South Africa.

Referring to the legal opinion drafted for the Committee, he said that section 55(2) of the Constitution imposed a duty on the National Assembly to provide mechanisms to hold the national executive accountable. National Assembly Rule 227 (1)(b) stated that the Committee must maintain oversight of any executive organ of the state. He dealt with the first question in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the opinion – on what approach the Committee was going to take to address the issue of Glencore since it was an international company that was operating in the mining sector of South Africa. Glencore is a public company and not an organ of the state. Therefore, even if the Committee wanted to enquire into the admission of guilt, it would not be empowered to summon witnesses to produce documents or give evidence without linking the enquiry to the oversight of an organ of the state. This would include acquiring documents for mining rights and licenses given to Glencore. Notwithstanding this, the Committee should, as part of its oversight function over the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, schedule a meeting with the Minister to consider a review of all Glencore mining licenses and contracts awarded by the DMRE in South Africa. In this regard, the Committee could also recommend to the Minister that such a review should be conducted with the assistance of an independent body or entity that possesses the forensic capacity to ascertain that due process has been followed.

The Chairperson asked if there were any additions and allowed Mr Lorimer to continue. He asked that the Glencore matter be dealt with first, and the licensing issue afterwards.

Mr Lorimer said that he was covered, to an extent, by the legal advice that a review is taken of Glencore’s operations. He liked the idea that it could be conducted by an independent entity with forensic capacity. He believed that this kind of review of Glencore’s operations should be limited not only to the mining rights and conditions under which they were granted but also details about inspections and levels of compliance with the conditions attached to those rights that they had. He thought it should include a list of all health, safety, environmental and other violations reported by departmental inspectors dealing with  Glencore, and actions taken by the Department to address these issues. The Committee should also see a list of all inspections, regular and otherwise, carried out for each of those licenses. It should be asked that there be a list of complaints received by the Department, if any – during any Glencore operations. There should also be a report back to the Department on what it had done about each of those complaints. Besides that, the legal advice was good.

Ms P Madokwe (EFF), welcomed the report and said it was quite informative. She may have missed it in her emails, but she would have appreciated the report from legal services so that the Committee could have gone through it prior to the meeting.

She agreed that there must be an investigation into Glencore. Where there is smoke, there is fire and it could not be taken for granted when there was an investigation in South Africa. There were findings in South Africa that there had not been any wrongdoing by the company. Above this, whether South Africa was spared from the corruption and bribery, it did not take away from the fact that Glencore had admitted on an international platform and had been found guilty on an international platform to be a company that had involved itself in wrongdoing and corruption. As South Africa, it needed to be investigated and whether the country would want to associate itself with such a company and allow such a company to operate on its shores, considering it had taken a strong stance against corruption in whatever form it presented itself as. It should also be considered that, as a company, Glencore was operating in South Africa and should be held accountable for its actions. She agreed that the investigation should not only be on the mining licenses but on every operation it had done. The investigation should be thorough.

Ms V Malinga (ANC) welcomed the presentation by the newly appointed Content Advisor and the legal team. The way in which Mr Maboda started exposing the corrupt nature of Glencore begged the question of what kind of a president would pardon people who had 65 criminal charges. [The reference here was to the fact that US President Bill Clinton had pardoned Glencore executives in 2001, after they had been indicted on 65 criminal counts. – see slide 4.] This made people ask what was so special about Glencore that even presidents would pardon them for racketeering and evasion of taxes. She welcomed the slide on recommendations that the DMRE come before the PC and outline all of Glencore’s wrongdoings. She said she did not know how Judge Zondo had dealt with some of the individuals named in the Commission’s proceedings. [See Zondo report:  Part IV Volume 3 Paragraphs 1915 and 1930]. She welcomed the fact that an independent body should be appointed to investigate Glencore. She said she would come back on the rehabilitation issue at a later stage.

Mr S Kula (ANC) welcomed the extensive presentation that would help the Committee come to a proper decision. On the issue of Glencore, one could tell from the presentation on the company that there were serious challenges around it, in how it conducted its business. He concurred with some of Ms Malinga’s points. It was understood that there were institutional cultures that characterise companies. So, it was nearly impossible for Glencore to be doing two different things in America and South Africa, because it operated based on an institutional culture. This was a major concern. What was done in South Africa would also be done in America.

There had not been an extensive investigation around Glencore and its operations – how it was doing its business, and whether it was complying with all the necessary regulations. There was doubt about whether such an extensive investigation had been done. The Committee had to look into the advice given by legal services. He concurred with other Members that it should base its way forward around that – on the approach needed to address the Glencore issue. Point 18 [of the legal opinion] said that, in view of the above, the legal services are of the opinion that the Committee is at will to schedule a meeting with the Minister, and call on the Minister to undertake a review of all Glencore mining licenses and contracts awarded to it by the DMRE. A forensic investigation should be responsible for investigating the company. If that advice were to be used, the Committee would then be able to do its job as Members of Parliament to hold the executive and all other institutions accountable. The Committee should move along those lines. It would then have been doing justice to deal with the matter to its full satisfaction. 

Mr M Wolmarans (ANC) welcomed the report. The brief was comprehensive, and the work that went into compiling the information was commendable. It gave a full background of what Glencore was all about – how it started and where it was now. It was a well-researched document. In the report, it was found that Glencore, in its operations and culture, had been found guilty in other jurisdictions. The company had accepted to pay fines in recent times for the same allegations and guilt findings that had been attributed to it. It was a huge acknowledgement even if it was not in the Committee’s jurisdiction. South Africa had not investigated this matter nor made any discoveries on anything connected to Glencore in South Africa. What would be our legal standing? Would it not be seen as a fishing expedition to try to find what can be done without anything being put on the table? He was satisfied with the advice given by Mr Maboda earlier, and said it did not prevent the Committee from asking questions, but its hands were tied under the current situation. Having heard all the acknowledgements, fines, and guilty findings, Glencore was doing business with the South African Department. Could the Department not call Glencore and tell them what it had heard? Ask them “What is your take on that?” This could influence the country, so the Committee could hear what Glencore had to say, positive or negative. This was so the Committee could have a starting point. What was its take on its operations? That was notwithstanding all the other issues that could have happened and the normal inspections that take place. The Department should inform the Committee of what it was doing about the issues at hand. He wanted to check if the Department had taken that route. Depending on whether it had, where did it leave the Committee on the item he saw on the report, where Glencore was being investigated? The Committee could be taking advantage of that, and find out what was happening. The legality and what the Department had done after hearing what was happening to Glencore elsewhere could trigger a deeper investigation from the Committee. There was also a need for a meeting about Glencore, with the Minister.

The Chairperson asked if Mr Maboda and legal services had any comments. He asked if the Committee could agree on inviting the Department to give its accounts on the issues raised in the meeting on Glencore, with the questions posed by legal services and Mr Maboda as broad guidelines. The problem with Glencore was that it could not be closed when it was in the public domain, except if space was given to those who held some information. When the Committee was told to put its enquiries [about the misuse of the MRFs in 2017] on hold, there was an expectation that the Zondo Commission would deal with some of these issues, but it had not done so. There is a credential that the Committee may now have to revisit that which it previously committed to doing. The Minister should be invited and subjected to the presentation. Thereafter, the Committee should consider whether a deeper investigation is warranted, as previously stated by Mr Wolmarans – into the inner details of Glencore’s operations and activities in the South African market. Would it not be sufficient if the Committee first calls a meeting with the Minister? Subject to the Minister’s presentation, the Committee could then decide what to do, going forward.

Mr Lorimer said he was always pleased to hear of the Minister’s take on things. He did not think the Committee needed to wait for that to decide it needed a full investigation of the operations of Glencore. He was okay with the Committee meeting the Minister, but said that it was not necessary that its call for a thorough investigation be contingent on that appearance.

The Chairperson said that what he understood was that both legal services and the Committee section should open the issue for public submissions. He wanted it to be concrete that, once the Minister was called, it would it look for public comments, because there may be information people would have on Glencore within the South African minerals and energy markets.

Mr Lorimer said it would be a very valuable step, and it would be great if the Committee could get the Minister for a meeting within the following two weeks. He did not want the issue to last for months and drag on longer than it should.

The Chairperson said that whilst the Committee deals with the Minister, it could simultaneously collect content or complaints. This would be so that, when it is done with the Minister, it could have an intake on the general view. For example, it could give a month for people to make comments. The staff could then work on a programme – not to guide the Committee, but to call for public comments.

Mr Lorimer said that the Chairperson phrased this perfectly. At the same time, while the public comments were still welcomed, could the Committee have a full accounting of Glencore’s operations, all its rights, licensing processes, dates, areas, and complaints that it had dealt with, so that the Committee would have something to work on?

The Chairperson said that Mr Kula would tell him that it was a legal matter.

Ms Malinga said that she went through her notes, and there was a slide on Mpumalanga and Limpopo licensing.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would deal with that later. Right now, the agenda item is Glencore. There was a proposal on the table that the Minister be invited to give a broad presentation on Glencore's licensing activities. At the same time, the Committee said that, from its point of view, public comments should be open for one month. Then the Committee would move on to the next matter on the presentation – rehabilitation funds, and so forth.

Ms Malinga asked if the Committee was asking for submissions from the public. Did it not trust what the Department and the Minister were going to bring on Glencore’s activities? Is that the reason the Committee would call for submissions?

The Chairperson said that the Committee would fast-track the process. So, it did not listen to the Minister and then ask if there were any other comments on the matter. The proposal said that the Committee would fast-track the process and conduct this simultaneously. This was so that it could make an informed decision with the comments of the public, along with what the Department and the Minister have to say. This way it could decide whether it should pursue the matter further or close it based on what it had at its disposal. The Committee would make its informed decision based on that. He asked if Mr Maboda and the people from legal services could give guidance on the best legal approach to handle this.

Mr Wolmarans said he heard the proposal on the table but had a small concern that legal services would advise. If the Committee requested or called for public comments whilst it was also dealing with the Department, would it not look like, from a public perspective or from Glencore itself, it was desperate and trying to canvas something that would lead to an investigation? The Department should be dealt with so that it could inform the Committee. Should the need arise, it could go to the communities. If the communities were involved now, it would look desperate. This was a concern, and if he was wrong he should be advised.

The Chairperson said that he thought the Members were saying that they would see when they went to the project. Instead, Members were saying that, with the magnitude of what they were facing from the submission of Mr Maboda on the Zondo Commission, the matter on Glencore operations would arise at the Commission. It did not arise, which meant that the Committee was back to square one. Whilst the Committee waited for the main submission from the Department, looking at the magnitude of the matter, it could do this. It could decide, at the time of the submissions by the Minister and the Department, what to do next.

He said that the Committee had received a letter asking what it was doing and how it was delayed on the issue of Glencore. The response to this was that the Committee would be dealing with the matter in its first meeting, which was that meeting. It was not only a matter of communication, but a matter of the interest of Parliament. The Speaker also raised the issue with the House Chair. So, from here, the Committee needed to report back to the House Chair and the Speaker. He thought the submission by Members was that it listened to the Department. Also, to fast-track the process, the Committee said that, if anybody had any information, not necessarily fishing, it would be welcomed. When the Committee made its informed decision on whether it would pursue the matter, at least it would be based on what was presented. This was preferable to waiting until the Minister had presented, and only then asking if there would be any additional information it could gather. It would also have to give an additional period for these comments to be submitted. The Committee was saying that it should get everything together, and listen to submissions. Once the submissions are made, it could decide whether to pursue the matter or not. This way, it could decide if it was receiving factual information, or if it was receiving submissions on public speculation.

Mr Wolmarans said he reserved the comments had made earlier on what was mentioned by the Chairperson about the letter from the House Chair on Glencore. The letter and the request on what the Committee was doing about Glencore changed the thought he had in his mind, and he withdrew his first comment. 

The Chairperson asked if the letter could be flighted even if he did not read it out, so that the Members would have an idea of what it was about. In the meantime, he asked for comments from legal services, Mr Maboda and possibly the Committee secretariat. Was it possible to do all those things simultaneously, and have the Committee request the Minister come and make submissions on Glencore-related activities, within two weeks?

Mr Tetyana said that he would take a cautious approach. In the Department, the Minister accounted for Parliament; the Committee exercised oversight over the executive and the Department. The point was that, if the Committee was already in the investigation domain, there was no reason to second guess what the Department was going to say. His submission was that the Committee should first speak with the Minister and the Department. After hearing from them, it could find a way forward. This was his view, but the Committee could proceed in any way it deemed fit.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would deal with the administrative letters. He asked if the Committee could resolve and agree that it would invite the Department. From that meeting, the Committee would decide the way forward in handling the matter. This meant that, when the Committee dealt with its programme, it should take into cognisance that, within two weeks, it would be inviting the Department. This meant that the Committee would look at how it prioritises its programme. For the sake of expediency, he asked Mr Tetyana and Mr Maboda to be ready to set up the process once the Committee had come to a decision. If it did not, then that would be fine, but in case it did manage to come to a decision, [the support staff should be prepared]. They would see once the programme had been set up that there was a high level of concessions spilling over to the final lap of the year. He asked if the rehabilitation and licensing issues could now be dealt with.

Mr Lorimer said that legal services gave the Committee good advice on the issue of rehabilitation funds, advising it to view the report on the corruption at the Mpumalanga and Limpopo regional offices. This would be very valuable for Members to see. He wanted to underline the idea that the Committee should receive a full briefing on the general state of rehabilitation funds, as that was long overdue. He asked that the Department give an update on what happened, specifically at Optimum and at Shiva Uranium [both of which have been placed in business rescue]. The business rescue programmes seemed to be going on forever, and there seemed to be no change in what was happening. He knew that, at Shiva, there were still workers who had not been paid for a period extending beyond four years. In the meantime, the Shiva mine had been slowly stripped of any value. The Committee had seen this happen before – it had just seen this in West Rand, where one company stopped mining, and then there was a mysterious resumption of mining under certain special circumstances. What this meant was that there was huge opportunity for illegal miners to move in. He wanted to make that request specifically for those mines formerly owned by the Guptas.

Ms Malinga said that Mr Lorimer had taken her point. She wanted the Department to submit the report, especially on the Mpumalanga and Limpopo alleged corruption issues. When the Committee conducted its last oversight, there was a business rescue practitioner for Optimum. So, it did not have a report on how far the process had gone. Labour was up in arms about not receiving salaries. On all the issues about the rehabilitation funds, she thought it would be helpful if the Department could explain whether it was a normal practice. This was especially for the ones in Oakbay where it requested R1.7 billion. [See Mr Maboda’s presentation, slide 11 / and Zondo report:  Part IV Volume 3 Paragraph 1808]. New trustees were appointed to facilitate this. She asked if the Department could clarify if it was normal to assemble unknown trustees to ensure the money was transferred, leaving beneficiaries unpaid.

Ms Madokwe welcomed this section of the report and the input from the Members of Parliament. She thought that the one thing she wanted to stress the most was the issue of the former DDG and the case related to that, because her understanding was that this was brought to the Department before. The Department had said that there was nothing wrong and nothing worth investigating. It was only now that this conversation was raised again because there was now a criminal case that was opened against the former DDG and other people before the court. It was important that the Committee reflected on this. This was to get some form of accountability on how it was that the Department said everything was under control and years later, the Committee was seeing people being taken to court and being held accountable in court. The Committee had a responsibility to do oversight – whether or not that oversight was properly done in the past by the Department and the Committee at the time. The current Committee was responsible for ensuring that there were investigations not only now on the case but also while the Department had given the green light and said everything was under control.

On the mining rehabilitation funds, she supported the view that the matter needed a much more comprehensive report. The Committee should be given a report showing what was happening with these funds in South Africa, and further showing the funds' status and the procedures for people needing to use the funds. The Committee and the Department were also sitting with a challenge where there were all these funds, and mines needed rehabilitation and needed to be closed. The Committee was receiving reports on various challenges. Perhaps the Committee needed to find out what exactly was happening and what could be done to ensure the rehabilitation of mines was done properly. With this, the Committee would not find itself five to ten years down the line with another backlog and serious money needs that nobody could provide. 

The Chairperson summarised that the Committee agreed that the Department should come and give presentations on the status of the rehabilitation funds, and also give feedback on the internal investigation on the status of the licensing backlog. This was so that the Committee could ascertain what actions had been taken in the related provinces, since the report gave assurance that there was no evidence of potential corruption. This was considering the arrests, which included one of the highest executive members. What recourse had this Committee sought after from the executives on accountability?

Mr S Jafta (AIC) seconded what the Chairperson said, and commented that the Committee was taking the correct direction.

The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretary if she heard what the Members were saying. Two things were possible, and the Department should return to report on both. The first one would be on Glencore, and the second one would be on rehabilitation funds and licensing backlog. Both could happen in the same meeting. This was including the internal investigation by the Department.

Lastly, there should be accountability for the commitments made by the executives irrespective of who is in office now. That was the summary of what the Committee had to say. He asked if the Committee could move to the next item. He proposed that they start with the programme so that they knew what programme they had when amending.

Committee Programme and Correspondence Received
The Chairperson said that the Committee was dealing with legislation until 20 September 2022.  He added the issue of Glencore to the programme. On the rehabilitation funds, they would also include the internal investigations on the three provinces. It had just been agreed on. That is why he said they would have to see how busy the schedule would be. The Committee still needed to meet with the PCs on Transport and Finance. Members should agree broadly if there were any matters that Members wanted to add, as the Committee could only finalise the programme once it had dealt with the correspondence. The Committee’s last day would be on 27 September 2022. The next matter would be the correspondence.

The Committee had received correspondence from June until August, during the recess period. In summary, Mr T Matemma had sent a letter to the Committee complaining about the DMRE office in Polokwane. He had an appeal that he sent to the DG. It should be noted that most of the correspondence had been sent to the Speaker, and the Speaker had sent the letters to the Committee for deliberation. There was a report sent by the Office on Institutions Supporting Democracy [a unit within the Office of the Speaker]. It came from the high-level panel about the enquiry on the impact of rural land use and ownership patterns on human resources. The Committee was expected to look at the report and report back to the Speaker.

The Chairperson referred to an engagement that the Committee had with MACUA (Mining-affected Communities United in Action) and WAMUA (Women Affected by Mining United in Action) [on 30 August 2022 https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/35404/ ]. He was happy to report that the meeting had managed to enlighten the two organisations on how Parliament, and the Committees operate. In that background meeting, they seemed to have come to an understanding because the biggest issue was a deep misunderstanding and perception about the committees of Parliament. Would the Committee allow them to present their social report? As a Committee of Parliament, they should listen to everyone who wants to share ideas and views to improve the quality of lives in society. He asked if he was still in the same meeting, because Members were quiet.

Ms Malinga said that one of the Members had network issues and left the platform.

The Chairperson asked if it would cause any harm if it shifted the deliberations by three days from where they were. The worry was to do a stop-and-go when dealing with legislation.

One of the Members said that meetings should be shortened. The reason for this was that, in recent days, one of them had been on social media and television on the basis that there were issues that were publicised. Hence, it should grant them an audience to curb that.

The Chairperson said that he would move on to other correspondence. In his view, some of the correspondence had more to do with the Department. He suggested that all those more commercial should be sent to the Department’s office [for their comment]. The Committee staff would then give a progress report to the Committee in the following meeting. This was because it was very difficult for the Committee to say why a mine would have given someone certain work. It did not have the authority to say who should be given what work. Some of the delays complained of were from the side of the Department and reports as well as the reactions received from the Department. When someone writes to the Committee, it has to attend to them.

A Member said there was also a report on illegal mining where the Auditor-General (AG) wanted to brief the Committee.

The Chairperson asked if those things could be left to the Committee Secretariat to process. All of those issues, including the high-level panel, could be considered the following week. The Committee would account on how it was going to process those issues. This included the issue of the AG. He asked Members if that would be sufficient.

Ms Malinga said it would be sufficient. Mr Wolmarans seconded.

The Chairperson said that the Secretariat would return with updates on how to handle all those issues. The Committee was suggesting that, on the weekend, together with its sister Committees – Home Affairs and Police – it undertook a broader scan on illegal mining, especially the violent crimes that took place under illegal mining with specific provinces. These included Gauteng, Free State, North West, and Limpopo. The Committee would not receive approval [from the House Chair] if it was using [time during] the week, but, starting from the weekend of 03 September 2022, it would begin the process of visiting to have community meetings and other activities like site visits. He was unsure if Members would grant that leeway and see if the House Chair approved those visits.

Two Members supported the Chairperson’s suggestion.

Mr T Langa (EFF) said that since the National State of Disaster was lifted in April, the general public was now back to work in physical attendance. When was the Committee going back to physical meetings?

The Chairperson said that the Committee should have fewer virtual meetings and more physical meetings. Alternatively, it could have hybrid meetings, like the Section 194 meetings, which are now hybrid. A few committees have planned to pilot this. Physical meetings were going to be the norm, but the date was not concrete. The Committee secretariat would inform Members once this is possible. The Committee would prefer to be considered as one of the first Committees to have physical meetings.

Adoption of programme
The Chairperson asked Members if they would adopt the amended programme.

Ms Malinga moved for the adoption of the programme. Another Member seconded the motion.

The programme was adopted.

The Chairperson thanked everyone for attending and participating in the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.