CGE 2020/21 Annual Report; Complaint about Portfolio Committee interference

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed the Commission for Gender Equality.

Meeting apologies
The Chairperson noted that she had declined the CGE CFO’s apology. The CFO was key to the discussion as the Committee was dealing with the annual financial statements. The Commission had been given ample time to prepare for the meeting. It was also noted that Commissioner Busisiwe Deyi had a long-standing apology not to attend Committee meetings until the end of the year but she did not understand what a standing apology was. Commissioners were supposed to account to Parliament quarterly. She asked if the members could explain what that meant.

Ms N Sharif (DA) agreed that Commissioners were expected to account to Parliament. She commended the chairperson for declining the apology by the CFO.

Mr L Mphithi (DA) expressed his concern about the apologies the Committee would get particularly when CGE was expected to come and report. The apologies had already been raised and strongly spoken against in the previous meeting. Apologies had become a trend and it had become detrimental. He asked the CGE senior leadership to clarify this because they were all paid by the South African taxpayers and not showing up for work was misappropriating taxpayers’ money. He also asked about the measures to deal with such situations because everyone had to account in their jobs. Being an independent constitutional body did not excuse them from being accountable to the South African population. It was an issue that had to be dealt with because it had continued three months after they had spoken about it. They had to understand why people were not attending meetings. Seemingly, there was a causal link between absenteeism and what had been happening with CGE in those previous months. People were ruining the CGE brand even though they were great people who were really invested in their work. It was unfortunate that a few individuals were tainting the image of CGE.

Ms P Sonti (EFF) spoke in her vernacular [10:29-12:00].

Ms Tamara Mathebula, CGE chairperson, responded that they had asked for an explanation from the Commissioner. The reasons were given through an email sent to the Commission on the 20 October. It stated that the part-time Commissioner had various responsibilities to other committees and academic responsibilities for the rest of the year. The Commissioner’s academic responsibilities were going intensify during October, November and December. These were responsibilities such as lecturing 15 students, consultations with students as well as marking papers, and finalizing projects at the university. In past meetings, the Commissioner’s attendance was intermittent.

The Chairperson with concern referred to the Constitution and National Assembly Rule 227 that stated that the CGE would be accountable to the National Assembly for its performance. The Commissioners had been interviewed and recommended to the President by the National Assembly. The Committee's oversight over the CGE was being distorted therefore the Committee was going to take upon itself to stick strictly to the constitutional mandate and the NA Rules. She asked the other Commissioners to give a report of how they worked in the Commission.

Dr Nthabiseng Moleko, CGE deputy chairperson, pointed to the Commissioner's handbook which outlined the way they were to be governed, the requirements of the Commissioners and the expectations. The handbook addressed the failure to attend meetings and had guidelines on how the chairperson would deal with this. She asked for clarity if that was deemed the situation at that point and she had advised in line with the governance framework. The performance of Commissioners was a serious matter and all Commissioners had to read their functions and to perform in line with the National Assembly expectations. In the event where Commissioners were unable to, there was a governance framework to help them to deal with that.

The Chairperson asked Commissioner Sepanya-Mogale, as one of the part-time Commissioners, how they worked, also highlighting that a recent finding had stated that part-time Commissioners were getting paid without supporting documents.

Commissioner Nthabiseng Sepanya-Mogale replied that they worked very well as part-time Commissioners. Commissioners Ms Nomasonto Mazibuko, Ms Dibeela Gertrude Mothupi, Mr Mr Sediko Rakolote and herself worked more than some of the full-time Commissioners. They had prioritized CGE and ad hoc committees. The absence of one defeated the purpose of part-time Commissioners. She had been involved in drafting the CGE Act as activist. The vision was that the part time practitioners who would come in from time to time but would still set aside time to enhance the work of the CGE. They would strengthen areas of expertise that they would bring with them from their individual professions. She was not too sure on the issue of Commissioner Deyi and she asked if the chairperson could clarify.

Commissioner Gertrude Mothupi agreed with Commissioner Mogale that they fully availed themselves for the work of the Commission. She highlighted that unlike herself and Commissioner Mazibuko who did not have fulltime employment, Commissioner Mogale was more committed. She believed that it was upon each one of them to avail themselves for CGE work especially for those meetings that happened occasionally.

The Committee Chairperson said that she was glad the questions had reminded the commissioners what they were asked during their interviews and the commitments they had made.

Ms Mathebula, CGE chairperson, agreed with her colleagues highlighting that they were committed and that they had been submitting part-time Commissioner reports to parliament. Chapter 9 institutions such as CGE were constituted differently in that they had both part time and full-time Commissioners. Section 10 of the Commissioner handbook provided that the part-time Commissioners work for 100 hours a month which translated to two days a week. Part-time Commissioners were to offer expertise to the CGE and any Chapter 9 institution for the benefit of the Commission and the people they served.

Ms F Masiko (ANC) stated that absenteeism defeated the purpose of being a part-time Commissioner. She asked if the Commission had assessed the availability of the Commissioner in terms of performing her responsibilities and what was the assessment of the actual work assigned to her given the standing apology.

Ms N Sharif (DA) emphasized the importance of the expertise brought into the Commission by the part-time Commissioners especially during times of so much violence against women. Two days was too little, and it was a problem because there was so much to be done. Based on the experience over the prior months, the Auditor General had spoken about a leadership problem at CGE. Two days could not have contributed to making it a strong organization therefore the Committee had to careful consider it. They had to consider the challenges CGE was facing and perhaps the structure was where the gap was. She asked for the number of meetings they were supposed to attend to meet the specific target. They were not unreasonable as not to understand if people could not legitimately attend the meeting, but it had become a trend. South Africans were watching what it was doing on their behalf. She was concerned about the long-standing leave because it did not give an end date and what it would mean for the process going forward. What was the organization going to do to ensure consistency among the members.

The Chairperson said they had done justice to their work of assessing the work of the Commissioners by diagnosing where the problem was and they needed to get the remedy. She asked how CGE was going to remedy the situation of the attendance and the performance of Commissioners.

Ms Mathebula, CGE chairperson, agreed with the observation by Ms Masiko that there should be an assessment of the Commissioner’s performance. Since the apology was submitted in October, they were going to look at the performance of the Commissioner for the three months to follow. She responded to Ms Sharif, stating that they had been given December in the long-standing apology. During the three months to follow, they would assess the performance of the Commissioner beyond the reports and to look at what the Commissioner was engaged in. Although the handbook had been finalized, they were still clearly articulating gaps because it was their guide in terms of expectations and conduct. Two days was indeed not enough therefore Commissioners were putting in more time and they had to address such gaps.

Dr Moleko, CGE deputy chairperson, stated that it was a complex case because they had the regulations about breaches or when sanctions or improvements were to be taken. It was very clear; however, the delegation could recommend.

Mr L Mphithi (DA) said that his main concern was to do the work and to get the information required from the constituencies and not how they went about it. He said trust in the CGE chairperson’s ability to remedy the situation and he agreed with the recommendation to observe the performance of the Commissioner in the three months that follow. However, it had to be clearly minuted.

The Committee Chairperson asked the CGE chairperson to assess the performance of the Commissioners for the previous financial year and the ongoing financial year. The Committee expected the report next year when they appear before the Committee. She went on to close the apologies segment and highlighted that they were doing so in terms of Rule 227 which empowered the Committee to deal with any matter falling within their portfolio.

Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) complaint to Speaker
Ms Tamara Mathebula, CGE chairperson, provided CGE's response to the letter from the Portfolio Committee asking how the Committee had interfered in CGE's work. She stated that the Commission had never received a formal complaint against the Portfolio Committee from any Commissioner as well as the Commissioner in question. The Commissioner in question submitted a letter of complaint to the Speaker’s Office which did not represent the CGE. The letter dated 25 August represented Commissioner Deyi who was represented by the Centre for Applied Legal Studies. The Commission was never represented by CALS for any legal opinion. It became public through the media and CGE had been unaware that the issue had reached the media. The contents of the letter and the complaint did not represent CGE but rather Commissioner Deyi. The Commission wanted to distance itself from the letter. They were aware as a Chapter 9 institution, their duty to support the constitutional democracy in South Africa and to promote gender equality. If there were any matters with the Portfolio Committee, they were going to communicate directly.

Dr Moleko agreed that the CGE chairperson’s response was a true reflection of the position of the CGE.

Discussion
Ms N Sharif (DA) said that she was not surprised because she did not find merit in the accusations. They knew their mandate and carried it without fear or favour. It was important for CGE to allow itself to be held accountable by Parliament. The CGE had always been helpful in sending any cases.

Ms Masiko (ANC) appreciated the way CGE had handled the situation. The matters highlighted in the letter were to be addressed by Commission first if they were legitimate. The Portfolio Committee had to ensure that CGE was supported in ensuring that every concern impacting the way it related with the Portfolio Committee had been dealt with thoroughly with CGE itself even before it is received by the Portfolio Committee so that there was total ownership in the Commission.

The Committee Chairperson thanked the Commission for the clarity on the letter. It was not an easy experience headlining newspapers. They did not know how to respond until the Speaker sent the letter to them to respond. She asked how the chairperson would deal with the issues raised by the Commissioner. She expressed her disappointment about appearing in the newspapers. She did not know whether it was motivated by a campaign to discredit some of them and the work being done by the Committee.

Ms Mathebula, CGE chairperson, agreed with the observation made by the chairperson about appearing in the newspapers. Seemingly, there was a concerted effort to discredit some of the individuals in the Commission and the Committee. They had deliberated on the matter and they there was an internal process of which they could not divulge details. They were going to establish the facts by sitting down with the Commissioner about the complaints lodged. They were going to find a way in which the Commissioners would raise those issues internally, so they understood the complaints and the matters raised.

The Committee Chairperson highlighted that there was a distortion of facts in the letter because they were not the ones that had approached Commissioners on whether they had reasonable accommodation or not. Some of the issues had been raised by the Commissioners but it appeared as if it was the Committee that raised them. Their communities in the Eastern Cape were the ones not accessing services since the President had declared gender-based violence a pandemic. The Committee expected CGE to have taken responsibility for the matters raised and issues of public interest. The participation of CGE on matters of public interest was not felt. Most of the time it was the Human Rights Commission and the Public Protector. In one instance the Committee was discussing a case and they needed to review it because most cases were of public interest. The interference complaint was a surprise because the Committee never interfered when there were administration issues within the Commission. The integrity of the Committee had to be maintained. She asked the Commission to resolve such concerns amongst themselves when they arose. The communities were waiting on them and the Commission was an important institution, and it was not meant to be dragged into the newspapers without proper representation. The integrity of the institution was to be protected at all costs and she hoped that was the last time they had such a discussion. The Committee would wait for a comprehensive report on this.

Ms Mathebula, CGE chairperson, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to clarify. Going forward they would try their best to focus on the work and they were going to deal with the misunderstandings within.

CGE Internal Audit and Risk Committee report
Ms Refilwe Matenche, CGE internal audit and risk committee chairperson, made a presentation on behalf of the Audit Committee and discussed the effectiveness of CGE internal controls, internal audit reports, risk management, the evaluation of annual financial statements, as well as the Auditor-General’s report.

Discussion
The Committee Chairperson asked if the CGE structure allocated a secretary for the CEO.

Ms Matenche replied that CGE had a plenary secretary; however, there was a liaison gap between the plenary and the CEO. The administrative functions of plenary were handled by the secretary of the Office of the Chairperson who would take care of Commissioners. Traditionally, they would have a company secretary who would have legal expertise. They would advise the plenary on legislation, processes and systems. The institution had been looking into closing the gap to ensure proper segregation of duties and a coherent process flow between plenary and the secretariat.

The Committee Chairperson said the gap needed to be looked at. They needed clear segregation of responsibilities. CGE was struggling to keep separate the role of the board and the role of the administration and the accounting officer. The secretary of the board was junior staff, but they needed someone with executive authority. They would be working with the board and the secretariat; they would know the roles and how information flowed in the organization. Junior staff could not handle senior management issues and it was something that had to be corrected.

Ms Mathebula, CGE chairperson, said they had considered a company secretary who would come in as someone a bit senior with a governance speciality who would benefit the organization. The plenary and the other meetings could then rely on the company secretary to provide advice on good governance practices even when the Commission made decisions. They were looking at putting out the vacancy and filling it.

The deputy chairperson, Dr Moleko, provided background on Ms Matenche indicating that the plenary needed to review the governance structure. They had been in discussion with the internal audit and risk committee to understand the gaps. They wanted the Audit Committee to tabulate those items that were not clear so they could have a clear understanding of the gaps. Some of these could be rectified through updating the handbook. The position of company secretary was not in the organogram and they had tried to resolve the issues of funding and changing the organogram. The Commission had a governance framework in which delegation and roles were allocated. Policy and strategy were the job of the plenary while implementation was the job of the administration. They had to be careful when managing those as a plenary and a Chapter 9 institution.

The Committee Chairperson highlighted the CEO complaint about interference by Commissioners. They needed to come up with a solution on how to ensure they had a good working relationship. Filling of vacancies had been a problem; the positions were critical for the institution to carry out functions at the right time. She was glad about the idea to review the governance structure and the alternative ways in which the risks would be managed without going through that route. One of the ways was the handbook which was in the process of being revised; another was the delegation of authority. This would give the Committee the confirmation that there were mitigating factors in place, and they were going to engage further on the broader project they were proposing.

CGE Annual Report 2020/21
CGE Chief Executive Officer, Ms Jamela Robertson, presented and discussed the CGE mandate, 2021/22 budget allocation and expenditure compared to that of 2019/20; the Auditor-General's findings, human resources overview, and the programme performance (see document).

Mr Moshabi Putu, CGE CFO, clarified the reason he had asked for an apology. He explained that his employment with the Commission was coming to an end. He had been invited for an interview with a prospective employer today and he had asked for accommodation.

Mr Putu presented the CGE annual financial report outlining the financial position, financial performance, changes in net assets and cash flow. Additionally, he discussed general financial management matters such as corporate services, risk management, internal controls, and the audit outcomes.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked on who was responsible of the electronic case management system.

Mr Moshabi Putu, the CFO, responded that it had been a project, in which the legal department was the customer. It had been reported that it did not function as intended and they had to reclassify the amounts spent as fruitless expenditure.

The Chairperson asked about the R6.9 million surplus that would be surrendered to National Treasury. She asked if CGE did not have good reasons to retain it.

Mr Putu replied that CGE had already written to National Treasury about retaining the funds to attend to the development of knowledge management systems and capacitating CGE.

The Chairperson said the CGE budget allocation was inadequate and therefore without making the request, Treasury would think CGE did not need the money.

The Chairperson asked about the litigation matter where CGE was supposed to pay 17% to a provident fund for several employees. She asked who had drafted the employment contracts. She asked if the new employee contract did not have that clause.

Mr Putu clarified that CGE had a policy to contribute 17% of the basic salary to the provident fund for employees up to level 10. Level 11 was total cost to company which was a similar arrangement to the public service as determined by DPSA. It was a fringe benefit in the CGE remuneration policy. It had been an established policy practice for over 20 years. The matter predated the Commissioners. The problem arose in 2008 when employees at level 11 discovered that their written contract of employment contained a clause that stipulated that CGE would contribute 17% over and above their salary to their pension fund. The clause had been replicated to employees who were not entitled to 17%. The person responsible was an old HR manager who had since left the organization. The affected employees had demanded that it had to be honored; the plenary of that time agreed. There was then a decision to return to normal as level 11 was to be remunerated on total cost to company. The old employees still demanded the 17% hence there were problems about pay parity, non compliance with established policies that had to be addressed. They decided to address it as an administrative error and not an entitlement for those employees, so an adjustment had to be made going forward and not recovery. The employees had refused and had now gone to litigate in Labour Court. In July, there were considerations and advice from the lawyer. He could not share further details.

The Chairperson stated that the payment of 17% is a substantial amount. The one responsible had to pay for such mismanagement. Letting officials off the hook without accounting for their actions only meant government paid for deliberate mistakes. She asked if the CFO did not read the contract and if they did not counter sign.

Mr Putu clarified that the incorrect employment contract had occurred in the early 2000s before their time.

The Chairperson highlighted how the matter was still affecting the organization until today. The Commissioners had to take the matter very seriously because legal representation for the case was a lot of money. It would be expenditure not budgeted for.

Ms Mathebula agreed with the concerns of the Chairperson. It was a historic matter that had started in 2008. They had noticed the irregularity since 2019. They were carrying out an investigation, but they were struggling to find some of the information such as who made the decision. They faced resistance from staff members because they had been irregularly getting 17% over and above their salaries. They were digging deep so they could take corrective action to resolve the matter because litigation would mean paying out a lot of money. They planned to bring a complete report to the Committee after finding out the details.

Ms F Masiko (ANC) commended CGE on reaching their overall targets without reducing targets, considering the budget cuts and Covid-19. They had observed the good performance overall especially in service delivery and that there was no overspending. The development of policy to regulate the interaction between Commissioners and staff had been described as 'partially completed'. Targets were either achieved or not, what did 'partially complete' mean. The concern was that the draft policy had been in the work plan for over two years. How were interactions happening at an operational level? She made a plea to the Commission to finalize the policy because it had been long outstanding.

The AG and the Audit Committee had raised consequence management for irregular and fruitless expenditure. The Commission had to prioritize and investigate these. Irregular expenditure was a concern because they had recorded over R3 million in 2020/21. The bulk of it was due to the payment of part-time Commissioners without requisite time sheets. Where were the checks and the balances? Other irregular expenditure was made to companies without a tax certificate. R160 000 had been paid for what was coined ‘similar services’. Clarity was required to what that referred. Fruitless and wasteful expenditure included R248 000 attributed to the wide area network paid for three months after the lease period when no services were received. The electronic case management system that was not in use amounted to R113 000. management system license had expired and submission for the renewal was not granted. Why was there need for renewal. With human resources, the concern was that 11 of the 12 who had received training were Commissioners. How was CGE going to ensure staff were trained especially with many new staff members?

Ms N Sharif (DA) raised a concern about cases and how long it would take CGE to finalize cases. CGE had to look at their processes and improve them to ensure constant communication with complainants. There was a lot of red tape involved in government but given the advance in technology they could find a way to speed up case management. She was concerned about CGE selecting only cases that were media worthy.

The Chairperson asked if CGE monitored gender-based violence cases that were in the courts.

Mr S Ngcobo (DA) asked about the status of the Engaging Men and Boys project given that it was very important in fighting GBV.

The Chairperson asked if the Commission had checked with government departments about employing people with disabilities in their monitoring and evaluation and if they had a report on it.

Ms N Sharif (DA) asked for an update on the forced sterilization case with the Ministry of Health and if there a way forward in dealing with the issue.

Mr L Mphithi (DA) asked about the irregular expenditure of R 2.7 million due to the absence of time sheets by part-time Commissioners. Why were the time sheet not made available? He asked how R455 000 was incurred through the personal assistant salaries. He asked about the services provided by Telkom, Deloittee and Shushsa Enterprises. He noted the 15 employees leaving CGE was very concerning – what were the reasons for these resignations, was it the culture? The AG had highlighted problems with internal controls particularly consequence management as well as a lack of follow up of the audit action plan. What was going to be done about the audit action plan to ensure CGE did not violate the PFMA. He asked about the case management SOPs and what had been done to improve the success rate of the cases.

Ms P Sonti (EFF) asked how the Commission was ensuring the continuity of its work on assessing women’s representation and participation in the traditional sector.

Commissioner Sepanya-Mogale explained the irregular expenditure of the Commissioners. On 26 March 2020, the president had instituted the Covid-19 lockdown. The Commission held a plenary to hear about its Covid-19 response plan. At the meeting, they asked what was going to happen to the part-time Commissioners as Level 5 Lockdown meant no one would be able to go out. The Commissioners set up a task team to come up with options. In consultation with CGE Act and the handbook and other governing instruments, they came up with the proposal to use 100 hours as a pay cap for part-time Commissioners.

She digressed stating that after doing a background investigation on the 100 hours pay cap, the part-time Commissioners found out it was the full-time Commissioners who had set it to 100 hours. The 100 hours itself was arbitrary. The proposal was to last until the end of lockdown. The full time Commissioners were going to be at home doing nothing and getting their salaries. The 100 hours was only 14% of the salaries of full-time Commissioners yet the part-time Commissioners were the ones that were working. The 100 hours was only R30 000 after deductions while full-time Commissioners got R77 000 after deductions even though they did not do much. It was not fair to leave them without pay as not every part-time Commissioner had another job. They had agreed to keep working during the period through meetings.

Commissioner Mazibuko and herself went out in Gauteng under very difficult circumstances. They had produced a report and submitted it to the Commission about shop closures and grocery items deemed non-essential. They picked up that baby clothing had been classified as non-essential. They had monitored when nurses had reported a lack of PPE. Commissioner Mothupi was active in the Bloemfontein area following up on PPE to show that they were earning their due unlike some full time Commissioners. The audit committee chairperson had agreed and wrote a circular on it as approved by plenary and signed by the chairperson.

The CFO and CEO then called them to a long meeting where they tried to explain that if they did not work, they would not get paid. They agreed to have an invoice signed by the part-time Commissioners to get paid. She noted the session they had with the Committee where they had reported on their work. They were surprised that there was a report by the CFO and CEO that the part-time Commissioners had not worked. Fortunately, the Committee rejected the unsanctioned report. The report stated not to pay them by saying that Parliament had said so. The part-time Commissioners did not understand why but the report deliberately stated that CGE wanted to reverse the mistake of paying the part-time Commissioners and they were going to take corrective measures. Nobody seemed to know who wrote it. Despite fulfilling the requirements, the issue had not been put to bed.

She stated her disappointment, asking what kind of organization was it that had them putting their lives at risk yet it called itself a human rights organization. This had been a part of the organizational culture for a long time. The situation passed and they had been paid. They were working very hard to prove that they earned their keep. However, the Auditor-General's finding was that the part-time Commissioners got paid illegally. They tried to explain as much as possible that they were working, and it was only in the past they would supply time sheets but during the pandemic a circular had been adopted by the audit committee to say it was okay. The audit committee turned around in December 2020 to say part-time Commissioners were being paid illegally after inheriting a report. This could not be because the audit committee was the one that had advised them on how to go about it and to say they could account for it.

She told the Committee that it was not a coincidence that it had been emphasized as irregular expenditure when all those measures had been taken. There was no mala fide, it was known that appointed Commissioners were being paid and it had been brought to Parliament. The new audit committee chairperson brought it up again saying they had to take it to Parliament. Ms Matenche is the individual who said they had put something in writing. She believed some in CGE had been deliberately misleading the Committee as well as committing perjury. They were using legitimate institutional mechanisms to victimise Commissioners. They were aware of such attempts.

On the matter of Commissioners interfering in the administration, there was a need for a context. Commissioners had the responsibility to carry out its constitutional requirements on the behalf of South Africans. It was their duty to ask questions in the Commission, but the culture did not allow it. They had dared to ask questions which unearthed the R500 000 000 which had not been accounted for. They unearthed the labour challenges CGE had with CCMA and the labour court and other places. They had continued to ask questions on the Vox Telecom expenditure. They had noticed the negative reactions. People were using legitimate structural systems of the law to try and discredit them.

She concluded by emphasizing the part-time Commissioners had done more work than some of the full-time Commissioners who were sitting at home getting R77 000.

The Chairperson stated the Commissioners had come to the Portfolio Committee meetings the previous year, and CGE was recognised as an essential institution. They had been working indeed and it was evident in their work on the Covid-19 inter-ministerial committee decision about baby clothing not being essential. The problem was that the Commissioners had not submitted their supporting document of all those meetings to the Auditor-General and the internal audit committee. No one had doubts that they had been working. She highlighted instances when they worked together. The issue was that if they did not work as a collective, they would experience all those hurdles. The Commissioners had to go back and correct it through the internal audit committee or through the AG so that the matter was closed. In a previous meeting, a Commissioner had been given the responsibility. She did not want to see the Commissioners divided amongst themselves.

Ms T Masondo (ANC) asked what 'similar services' meant for Deloitte, about various attorney legal costs and the process followed for this and what services were procured. He asked who authorized those and who condoned the payment of the part-time Commissioners.

The Chairperson spoke in her vernacular [4:39:00].

Ms N Sharif (DA) said that leadership was not easy, but CGE had to resolve conflict internally. As a Committee, they did not want to be dragged into internal issues. Division was felt by South Africans, and they had to find ways in which they could deal with conflict by finding a middle ground to buy into equality and freedom of women in South Africa. She implored the leadership to do team building to unite them so they could focus on the bigger issues.

Mr L Mphithi (DA) said that the issue of the irregular expenditure was already a finding in the Auditor-General report. As a Committee they had to understand what happened as it was a substantial amount of money; what was going to happen and who was going to be held accountable. There was a great need for consequence management which required the Committee to do adequate oversight. The CGE chairperson had to explain what happened and what would be the consequence management. The point made by the AG was that the amounts were being paid unfairly to Commissioners and the Committee had wanted to know what that meant exactly.

The Chairperson asked the CGE chairperson for a way forward as they did not want to keep repeating this.

Ms Mathebula, CGE chairperson, replied about the handbook review. It had started in 2018 and they were being comprehensive about the review. They wanted to assess if the policies were relevant and in line with laws and regulations as the current handbook was not in alignment. They wanted to ensure the changes in the handbook would improve the organization. They were using the current handbook signed off by the chairperson in 2013. On training, they had trained the Commissioners in February 2020 as offered by IODSA. There were four Commissioners initially; the others joined so that they could do it together. Having done the training, the plenary recommendation was that the senior managers complete that training. They had planned a team building session for the end of November.

The Chairperson commended the team building session. She suggested CGE prepare a report in answer to the queries so that they would get details.

Commissioner Sepanya-Mogale responded about case management and monitoring and evaluation, stating that they had taken fewer cases than normal due to the shortage of staff. The Head of Legal, PLO and key investigators had resigned and had not been replaced. It was frustrating because they had been trying to resolve matters but these were not being implemented. They had decided to focus on high impact cases such as the one in Mpumalanga, where a woman was being denied chiefship because she was a woman. Such cases had a bigger footprint in the country. There was the case of the domestic worker who fell and drowned in her employer's swimming pool. Through CGE intervention they were able to change the legislation. A whole sector made up of 99.9% black women had been included in the legislation as recognized employees.

On the child bride racket that was going on in Lenasia, they had brought on board the Departments of Education, Social Development and Home Affairs. They were aiming for bigger impact, and were looking at minimizing the mishandling of such cases. They had tightened their case management protocols right from the moment a complainant walked in. They had referred cases to where they were supposed to go but they often found that the system was failing them. They had agreed on having a good referral system by building relationships with the government and civil sector. The departments had been updating them.

Commissioner Octavia Lindiwe Ntuli-Tloubatla responded about traditional leaders and the role of CGE. As a Commission, they were working closely with the house of traditional leaders to engage with traditional leaders on issues such as economic empowerment. They had established structures within the house of traditional leaders in the provinces that were women-led. They were called by a different name; in Mpumalanga it was called Amakhosiyati. The other focus area was information as they realized they could achieved a lot with information. They had conducted a series of legal clinics empowering women and traditional councils on legislation and gender transformation. There had been an ongoing open engagement to ensure continued development.

Commissioner Sepanya-Mogale added that they had made inroads in the provinces of Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Free State and they were working with traditional leaders in the North West. This month they had held a session with the entire traditional leadership base in the North West numbering 29 to 30.

Ms Mathebula, CGE chairperson, asked if Mr Mphithi’s questions could be responded to in the report they were going to prepare within seven days.

Ms Robertson, CGE CEO, replied about training that they had adopted a bursary policy going forward. They had established a training and development committee and would use funding from ETDP Seta but they had their own funding for training and development. CGE had produced a draft succession plan that was presented to the HR Committee though it was still a work in progress. The Commission had a flat structure which contributed to attrition hence talks about business remodeling and reconceptualizing the CGE structure. They had costed it to ensure a structure that was fit for purpose. The attrition in the organization was due to lacking competitive salaries. They planned to investigate this as CGE reached its 26th anniversary to become an employer of choice.

On forced sterilization, she could not go into detail because it was an ongoing investigation and was at a sensitive stage. They were still working with the Department of Health and the affected women. The last meeting was in KZN with the affected women, so they were still implementing the recommendations.

On the Men and Boys’ programme, during the month of August the programme had intensified. The Deputy Director General in the Department of Education and its spokesperson had been invited to address the topic of toxic masculinity and involving men in combating gender-based violence. They had an invitation to participate in a Department of Social Development webinar the following week on the same topic. It was happening on request, and it was being initiated.

Deputy Chairperson, Dr Nthabiseng Moleko, thanked the Committee for the engagement.

Ms Masiko thanked the Commission for their engagement and for their reports.

Meeting adjourned.