CGE Vacancies: shortlisting for interviews

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed everyone present and opened the meeting with a short prayer acknowledging protection from God.

She announced that the Committee would begin filling in the commissioner vacancies at the Commission for Gender Equality. At the core is to find fit and proper candidates who are prepared to serve the nation selflessly and put the CGE first. The CGE has finally been stabilised and Members intend to keep it that way.

The Committee had been given the responsibility to fill six vacancies with fit and proper commissioners. The support staff would provide a report on the applications and the requirements. As this process often gets public attention, the Chairperson urged Members to be cautious and conduct themselves appropriately to avoid unnecessary social media buzz.

Members will evaluate and analyse all the CVs. Once they have reviewed the CVs, they will submit their preferred candidates. The support staff will then consolidate and indicate the overall preferred candidates. However, the Members need to decide first on the number of candidates that they will shortlist.

Lastly, the Chairperson asked Members to ensure that they committed to the process until the end. If a Member will not be present, their political party must ensure that it sends a representative to ensure that the legitimacy of the interview panel is not compromised.

Framework for considering commissioners for Commission for Gender Equality
Ms Kashiefa Abrahams, Committee Content Advisor, went through the framework that would guide Members in the recruitment process of CGE Commissioners. The framework covered the mandate of the Commission, composition, and appointments (see presentation)

Ms Abrahams told Members that according to the correspondence received from the Speaker’s Office dated 7 November 2023, there are six Commissioner whose term of office is ending by mid-year 2024. She further provided an overview of the Commissioners whose terms were ending this year.

Discussion
Ms F Masiko (ANC) appreciated the briefing and said in the case where a commissioner served a first term and was interested in returning to the CGE, does the commissioner reapply and go through the process?

The Chairperson confirmed that they must reapply.

Ms Masiko said it was important for the Committee to receive a formal indication of the part-time commissioners who were interested in applying to become full-time commissioners. There is an indication that Adv Nthabiseng Sepanya-Mogale requested to become a full-time commissioner, but it remains unclear if that request has been approved or not. She felt that it would be proper to consider those who are already in the system as part-time commissioners to become full-time commissioners.

Ms C Phiri (ANC) said this was a new process and everyone must be given a fair opportunity and everyone must be treated equally. Their return was not automatic but the Committee can write to those commissioners encouraging them to reapply. On the Adv Sepanya-Mogale matter, this is a separate matter because she had written a letter, and the time frame has closed, and it now awaits the response of the President. We should allow that process to proceed and not tamper with it. It is painful that the Sixth Administration is coming to an end and Members do not want their work to be in vain but recognised as diligent. However, Members need to be advised on how many positions they are recruiting including the one who recently resigned.

The Chairperson confirmed that six vacancies must be filled including the commissioner who recently resigned. When there is a full-time position, the CGE chairperson applies to the President for a CGE member who has applied to be converted from a part-time to a full-time commissioner. It is the Committee’s prerogative to recommend to the President which candidates he can appoint on a part- or full-time basis. However, the decision still rests with the President on who to appoint.

Ms M Khawula (EFF) sought clarity about the number of vacancies that must be filled and asked if the person who recently resigned was reapplying to be a commissioner.

The Chairperson replied that her term was ending in July and the Committee would still need to fill six vacancies and the incumbent was not reapplying.

Ms Khawula was concerned about applicants who had applied but never received a response to their e-mail or applications.

The Chairperson said that there are applicants who sent applications to the Committee Secretary, Ms Neliswa Nobatana, and those applications must be forwarded to Kashiefa to ensure that there is no application left behind. All applications must be included in the total number of applications and the reconciled numbers. Any person who sent an application to the Secretariat must consider their application as received. If the application was sent and not received, the applicant can enquire and show proof that they had applied but never received a response and they will be included in the process.

Often people send applications and enquiries to the Chairperson because her details are included in the advertisement, but these applications and enquiries must be forwarded to the Secretary. The Committee previously considered the applicants who were affected by loadshedding when they applied for positions. The Committee assessed the times the late application was sent and the corresponding loadshedding times to verify this. These applicants were allowed to reapply; thus, anyone who experienced difficulties in applying due to technical reasons or issues outside their control may be considered to reapply.

Criteria for recruitment
Dr Herman Tembe, Legal Officer at Office of Institutions Supporting Democracy took Members through a presentation on the appointment procedure that will utilise the CGE Act, the Constitution and the Companies Act as a guide. The purpose of his presentation was to advise the Committee on the practical factors that must be considered by the Committee during the shortlisting process so that suitable candidates for these vacancies can be recruited (see presentation).

Discussion
The Chairperson noted assessment of the work done by the current commissioners was still outstanding and their performance will be considered for those who are reapplying. Secondly, Members must consider persons living with disabilities. The commissioners remaining at the CGE exclude any persons living with disabilities. Thirdly, Members will also have to consider young people and ensure that fit and proper young people are appointed. The criteria will ensure that geographical spread is included as well as the skills and experience needed by CGE to push its vision forward.

An insolvent person will not be considered. Members do not want stories and will ensure that everyone is screened to avoid recommending persons with bogus qualifications. The screening will be done by the State Security Agency (SSA). Every applicant will be required to submit their fingerprints – this can be done physically or they must be couriered.

Once the shortlisting is completed the next day, within two weeks the names of shortlisted candidates will be published. CVs will be published for 14 days including the weekends but personal information of candidates will not be published. The Committee will also ensure that the SSA and Parliament Human Resources fast-track their screening process for criminal records and qualifications. All candidates will be subjected to screening. All applicants will have to account for the outcomes of the screening process. Anyone who applied must communicate to the Committee before the interviews to avoid any shock of screening outcomes. It is important for anyone who applies to be honest and transparent to the Committee because it does not want anyone feeling as if their skeletons, if they have any, are being exposed.

Ms Masiko supported all that had been raised, but she was concerned about representation of every province. In previous processes, the Committee did not receive applications from every province. The Committee should strive for fair representation instead of requiring representation from all provinces.

The Chairperson conceded and requested Dr Tembe to make the necessary amendment.

Dr Tembe said Members can omit all provinces and stick to the Constitution as it mentions fair representation.

Ms Khawula advised that the advertisements must be in all South African official languages. She had checked the Isolezwe newspaper but she did not see an advert. Secondly, when the Committee was shortlisting candidates for the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) the Committee experienced a challenge with most candidates coming from Gauteng but when asked some candidates said they were from the Eastern Cape and but were in Gauteng for work purposes. She wondered how the Committee would address this matter this time around.

The Chairperson said Members will note what the candidates say when they are introducing themselves during interviews to avoid unfair representation and Members will also assess the CVs for this. At this stage, it is difficult to pre-empt the outcome of the interviews.

Ms T Makata (ANC) was concerned about the requirement of a 'record of commitment to promotion of gender equality'. She asked Dr Tembe to unpack what he meant by this.

The Chairperson said that it was the Committee that compiled the requirements which is done in line with the Constitution and the CGE Act. The issue of experience is not working for the Committee as some people have been activists since a young age and cannot be excluded if they possess the experience and the skills required. Often people come and speak 'big English' but when assessing the content, it is empty. Skills, knowledge, leadership, creativity, innovation and whether a person can bring something that brings value to the Commission are some of the areas that are considered in the process. Those who participated in civil society organisations are also considered.

Ms Khawula said the Committee previously had issues with fingerprint screening of people who had criminal cases from the apartheid era. What will the Committee do about such candidates? Are they going to be considered even though those cases were during the apartheid for the liberation struggle?

Secondly, the issue of experience is problematic because some candidates may possess the requirements but lack the experience. Thirdly, what is the plan for candidates who completed qualifications from bogus institutions?

The Chairperson replied that the Committee would not consider any bogus qualifications or bogus institutions. When people apply for schools, they must verify with the Department if the institution is legitimate. Anyone who is corrupt or has been accused or found guilty of gender-based violence will not be considered.

Anyone arrested for activism during apartheid will be considered but they are also advised to apply to the Minister for the expungement of their criminal record. Persons with credit issues such as clothing accounts or debts are not disqualified; however, this is not the case for insolvent persons.

Overview of Applications
Ms Abrahams provided an overview of the applications compiled by the Research Unit. The Committee had received a total of 82 applications, out of which 77 were received online, five were received via email, and the rest were received via post. Out of the 77 online applications, three were received late.

All received applications were recorded in the spreadsheet. Any applications that were incomplete or submitted after the deadline were excluded from the report. This means that there were 67 complete applications received. The online application form had a feature that prevented candidates from proceeding if they did not upload all the required documents.

Out of all the applicants, 47 were female, 18 were male, and only one identified as non-binary. Gauteng had the highest number of applicants with 32, followed by KwaZulu Natal with 10, and the Western Cape with nine. No applications were received from the Northern Cape, while the Eastern Cape and North West had one applicant each. Limpopo had five applicants.

Out of the total number of candidates, 58 were black African, five were coloured, two were Indian and Asian, and three were white applicants. The median age of all the applicants was 42 years old, with the youngest being 23 and the oldest being 71 years old. The majority of the applicants, accounting for 36%, fell within the youth category, followed by those aged 40 to 45 years old, accounting for nearly 15%. Three applicants indicated that they had a disability.

Out of all the applicants, 33 were employed, 20 were self-employed, two were currently studying, and 12 were unemployed. Out of the total applicants, 18 were nominated and 49 applied without nomination.

On employment preference, most of the applicants indicated that they had no preference for full- or part-time employment. 21 applicants preferred part-time employment while 13 preferred full-time employment.

She presented on issues such as fitness for office, convictions, and unprofessional conduct findings by professional bodies, as well as any disciplinary inquiries faced (see document).

Discussion
The Chairperson welcomed the presentation and noted the reconciled information received.

Ms Masiko said that the Committee needs to note a concern about the non-participation of certain provinces. Advertising for six positions is not a small endeavour.

Ms N Sharif (DA) agreed and said the Committee needs to assess how the vacancies were advertised and how much reach the advertisement had. In future, we should consider innovative ways to advertise. Members may be aware of sponsored Facebook posts that are tailored to a specific area. Members may be surprised at how many people in South Africa are not aware of the existence of the CGE.

Ms T Masondo (ANC) noted that there were applicants who resided in Gauteng but came from other provinces. She encouraged Members to be mindful of that.

The Chairperson noted the comment and agreed.

Ms Khawula said that it was concerning that most of the applicants came from Gauteng because it would make the Committee seem as if they did not do their job by ensuring that the advertisement had reached other provinces. She shared the same sentiments about race. This is why the advertisement needs to be as vast and inclusive as possible in terms of languages and the medium used for the advert.

Ms Makata said the Committee should not be hard on itself on the reach of the advert. The study shows that across age groups there is much utilisation of cell phones and much impact in terms of online adverts. Perhaps, the Committee could request an analytical report from IT services because it will break down the reach and interaction of the advert.

Ms Sonti was concerned as there were only three applicants with disabilities and they were males. There are no females. She also felt that the 23-year-old could not do much for the CGE, perhaps from 26 years old upwards would be adequate.

The Chairperson said the Committee cannot discriminate against any applicant based on their age. She also encouraged Members not to be hard on themselves because they cannot force people to apply if they do not apply of their own free will. Conducting the interviews live and publicly may also be a deterring factor for others to apply. She was appreciative that applications were received, and these people were prepared to serve the nation.

The Chairperson said that she was also concerned about the number of applications for persons with disabilities because there are organisations that could have intervened and spread the message to the disability community. The reason more applications were received from black Africans is that they are the majority in South Africa. Members must also be mindful that the application deadline was extended.

Adoption of recruitment criteria report
The Chairperson noted that Members needed to adopt the criteria presented by Dr Tembe so that future Committees may also utilise it when the need arises.

The Committee adopted the criteria.

The Chairperson said that shortlisting will commence tomorrow and the criteria will be used as a reference document to ensure that the candidates shortlisted and interviewed meet the requirements.

Reconciliation of applications received
Ms Abrahams provided Members with an Excel spreadsheet containing all the names and personal details of the applicants who applied. For confidentiality reasons, she advised that when a Member refers to a particular candidate, they use the number allocated to that candidate instead of their name.

She assured Members that all information received from the applications was compiled and captured on the spreadsheet. It was directly interpreted by ICT for the Committee. The spreadsheet included the personal details of the applicant, the time stamp of when the application was submitted by the applicant and links to ID documents, among other useful information. All the personal documents were saved separately, and Members could click on the link to access those documents, which are safely secured.

She presented all the information contained in the spreadsheet and noted that summarized CVs will soon be published.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that Members needed to decide if they should accept the late applications. However, the deadline for applications was extended and the advert had run for two months. She felt that enough time had been given for applicants to apply. Members need to advise accordingly and decide on the number of candidates that will be shortlisted.

Ms Phiri said that late applications are nullified. These are mere late applications and must be treated as such. Two months is enough time for the advert to run. She did not entertain acceptance of late applications. The Committee is tasked with appointing six candidates from the overall number of 67 people. 15 candidates for shortlisting should suffice to pick the best candidates.

Ms Sharif, although inaudible due to technical issues, agreed with Ms Phiri.

An exchange ensued if late applications should be accepted for whatever reason they were late such as loadshedding or the applicant comes from a rural area, Members had mixed reactions about this; however, due to difficulties with audio quality this could not be captured.

Ms Phiri said before getting into reasons for the late applications, she requested that the Committee stick to the principle of recruitment and maintaining the decorum of the process. An extension was granted in addition to the two month that the advert ran. Applicants had been granted a grace period. Secondly, if the lateness is entertained, someone out there could send an application now because these proceedings are live. In addition, loadshedding and residing in rural areas cannot be excused because there are applicants who submit their applications via post or social media or e-mails. She pleaded with Members and cautioned that this was not a political debate or process but a process guided by the Constitution and the guidelines of the criteria for recruitment of commissioners for the Commission on Gender Equality.

The Chairperson noted Ms Phiri’s comments and conceded. Those who submitted their applications late do not fall into the category that Members wanted to protect. Most of those who were late were professional people, not a vulnerable group. Therefore, the late applications will not be accepted leaving 67 applicants to be considered.

She proposed a shortlisting of 20 candidates for interviews, and the Committee can recommend 10 candidates to the President for appointment. If Members cannot find suitable candidates to recommend, they can simply indicate that to the House.

The Committee will interview 10 candidates a day for 35 minutes for each candidate’s session.

The meeting was adjourned.