Commission for Gender Equality vacancies: shortlisting

Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities

23 August 2022
Chairperson: Ms C Ndaba (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

Presentations associated with the meeting are internal committee documents

The Portfolio Committee convened in a hybrid meeting to receive briefings on the shortlisting process for filling vacancies at the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE). The briefings provided Committee Members with details of the legislative framework which underpinned this process, the CGE's mandate, the key responsibilities of a Commissioner, as well as key points which Members needed to bear in mind in the selection process. Members were briefed on the application process, applicants' demographics and socio-economic status, and the appropriate handling of late and duplicated applications.

The meeting began with the Chairperson expressing concern at the terrible conditions and challenges women had to face daily against the background of Women's Month. She referred to the tragedy that had taken 21 teenagers' lives in Scenery Park in East London. She bemoaned the lack of follow-up action by the relevant Eastern Cape provincial departments and the South African Police Service (SAPS). A Member also raised concern over the increase in gender-based violence (GBV) cases in t community halls that were being temporarily used by victims who had been affected by the floods in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN).

Given that it was Women's Month, and the Committee's mandate was directed towards women and children, the Committee adopted two resolutions. Firstly, it would conduct an oversight visit to the community halls in KZN; secondly, it would summon relevant national and Eastern Cape provincial departments to the Committee to provide an update on their follow-up actions for the bereaved families in the Eastern Cape.

During Members' deliberation on the shortlisting process, they were unanimous that the CGE was not functioning and fulfilling its constitutional mandate. This negatively affected the public image of the Committee as the oversight body. 

They asked if there had been sufficient newspaper coverage of the advertisement on the vacant positions, the two-term limit for a CGE Commissioner, the extent to which Members could rely on evidence emerging from the public comment process, whether applicants who were current serving Commissioners and new applicants would be subjected to the same selection process, the issue of gender/female composition on the board, and applicants' criminal records.

Members initially disagreed on whether or not to accept or reject late applications. Given the challenge of load-shedding during the application period and the limited internet access in many rural parts of the country, Members eventually resolved to accept the late applications.

Meeting report

This meeting was hybrid. Due to a myriad of factors, such as a Wi-Fi issue, Members not received emails before the meeting, etc, the meeting was significantly delayed.

The Chairperson greeted Members in attendance and announced that the meeting had officially opened.

Chairperson's opening remarks

The Chairperson began her opening remark by reminding Members that candidates' private information, such as their identity document (ID) numbers, should be kept confidential in line with the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA). Since the documents which would be distributed to Members contained such sensitive information, they needed to be aware of that.  

The Chairperson then highlighted the importance of August being Women's month, and expressed her frustration and disappointment at the various egregious violations committed against women during this month. Eight women had been brutally raped in Krugersdorp, a woman in Cape Town was hijacked, and 21 young learners in the Eastern Cape province had passed on -- and those families still had not received any forensic reports from either the Eastern Cape Provincial Department of Health or from the South African Police Service (SAPS). This issue now requires the Committee's attention, as it ought to intervene and conduct an enquiry on the issue. She suggested that the Committee writes to the Eastern Cape Provincial Department of Health, the SAPS, the Eastern Cape Department of Social Development (DSD), and its own Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities, to enquire on this issue. For instance, she noted that the counselling service promised by the Eastern Cape DSD had still not been provided to the victims' families.

She highlighted the plight which women had to endure in this terrorising world. They were afraid to drive alone, walk free to the garage at night, etc. She urged women to stay safe.

Ms F Masiko (ANC) endorsed the Chairperson's proposal. In addition, she requested an update on the condition of women and children living in the community halls due to the disaster in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) in April. There were reports that gender-based violence (GBV) cases in those halls were rising.

The Chairperson suggested an oversight visit to see how women and children were being treated in those community halls.

The Chairperson said the purpose of the meeting was to commence the process on the shortlisted candidates for the filling of vacancies at the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE). Currently, two vacancies need to be filled, and the other four also need to be filled, as the terms of the incumbents would expire in October. She hoped the process would be finalised by the end of September so that the Committee could determine the names of the candidates to put forward for the President's appointment.

The Committee still needed a report on the suspension of the former CEO at CGE.

The Chairperson informed the Committee of the context of the advertisement for the vacant positions. On 3 June, it was decided that the Committee needed to advertise the Commissioner vacancies. On 26 June, the advertisement was published for public awareness, and the process ended on 18 July.

During the process, the Committee received two letters requesting an extension of the advertisement. After consulting with the legal team, the Chairperson concluded that the advertisement period from 26 June to 18 July was more than sufficient for applicants, and believed that if requests were granted, it would be unfair to other candidates who had worked to meet the deadlines. The Committee had therefore declined those two requests.

The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretary if any apologies had been received from Members. She knew that Ms C Phiri (ANC) had still not arrived at the meeting because the designated driver claimed they had been lost. She found that excuse unacceptable, since the driver claimed to have been lost from 6am till 11:40am.

The Chairperson checked the attendance of other smaller political parties. Ms M Hlengwa (IFP) had submitted an apology, since she was attending a meeting on the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill. The Chairperson was uncomfortable with the scarce appearance of Ms T Marawu (ATM), as she had attended only one Committee meeting. The Committee ought to write to smaller parties to make them aware of their non-attendance, and also needed to emphasise that the Committee had tried all means to get those Members to attend.

Ms N Hlonyana (EFF) said her constituency in the Eastern Cape had been badly affected by a terrible flood. She thus agreed with the Chairperson's suggestion to oversee those community halls in KZN, and stressed that putting them in those halls was only a temporary measure, so Members needed to push the government to provide a more permanent solution.

Mr L Mphithi (DA) noted the suspension of the former chief executive officer (CEO) at the CGE in news articles, and expressed concern over the huge instability affecting the governance issues of the organisation. He said that the  Committee should get to the bottom of the issue.

He stressed the need for the Committee's oversight visit to the Eastern Cape to establish what had really happened on that day in the tavern in Scenery Park in East London. He was of the impression that there was a delay in justice being served on the issue. The Committee had guaranteed those bereaving families it would support them, so it was his view that the Committee should write to the Ministers of Police, Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities, as well as the officials at the Eastern Cape provincial government.

The Chairperson asked the Members whether they preferred summoning them to the Committee, or writing to them.

The Members unanimously supported summoning them to the Committee. Those governmental officials should include the Eastern Cape provincial departments of health, safety and security, and social development. Members found it embarrassing that government was making commitments they did not honour.

Office on Institutions Supporting Democracy (OISD) on criteria for shortlisting

Dr Herman Tembe, Legal Assistant, Office on Institutions Supporting Democracy (OISD), said the purpose of the presentation was to advise Committee Members on the factors they should consider in the shortlisting process for the vacant CGE positions.

Dr Tembe provided the context of the upcoming vacancies at CGE. The Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) currently has two vacant positions following the resignations of Commissioners Jennifer Smout and Dr Tlaleng Mofokeng. The terms of office for both Commissioners expired only on 30 June 2024 and 30 April 2024, respectively. The existing vacancies were two part-time positions, because Commissioner Mazibuko and Commissioner Mothupi were to be converted into full-time Commissioners. Hence there will be four upcoming vacancies by October 2022. All four Commissioners were eligible to serve their second term. The vacant positions were the position of Chairperson Mathebula, Deputy Chairperson Moleko, and Commissioners Sediko Rakolote and Nthabiseng Sepanya-Mogale. He highlighted that the Chair and Deputy Chairperson positions were full-time, and the other two were part-time.

The constitutionally-mandated institution was obligated in terms of legislation to promote the development and attainment of gender equality. Sub-section 2 of the CGE Act states that the CGE had the power to monitor, investigate, research, educate, lobby, and advise on issues concerning gender equality. S193 of the Constitution states that:

(1)The Public Protector and the Members of any Commission established by this Chapter must be women or men who—

(a) are South African citizens;

(b) are fit and proper persons to hold the particular office; and

(c) comply with any other requirements prescribed by national legislation.

(2) The need for a Commission established by this Chapter to reflect broadly the race and gender composition of South Africa must be considered when Members are appointed.

In addition, s193(6) of the Constitution states that:

The involvement of civil society in the recommendation process may be provided for as envisaged in section 59(1)(a).

S59(1)(a) states that:

59. (1) The National Assembly must:

(a) facilitate public involvement in the legislative and other processes of the Assembly and its committees

Dr Tembe highlighted s3 of the CGE Act, which states that:

(1) Subject to section 119(2) of the Constitution, the Commission shall consist of a chairperson and no fewer than seven and no more than eleven members, who shall -

(a) have a record of commitment to the promotion of gender equality; and

(b) be persons with applicable knowledge or experience with regard to matters connected with the objects of the Commission.

Dr Tembe further highlighted that ss7 states that "any person whose term of office as a member of the Commission has expired, may be reappointed for one additional term". S10(1)(b) states that "A member of the Commission, as well as a member of the staff of the Commission, shall perform his or her functions in good faith and without fear, favour, bias or prejudice."

The CGE's handbook clearly states that the Commission shall advance, protect and promote gender equality. This was done through research, public education, policy development, legislative initiative, effective monitoring and litigation.

S5(2) of the handbook outlines the responsibilities of a Commissioner:

  • cooperative governance and determining the strategic direction of the Commission;
  • ensuring the sustainability of the Commission in terms of the economy, environment and society, taking into account the impact on internal and external stakeholders;
  • ensuring the Commission operates and is seen as a responsible, compliant corporate citizen;
  • ensuring the creation of an ethical culture, supportive of gender equality;
  • setting necessary principles, practice and standards;
  • measuring adherence, and incorporating this into its risk management operation, performance management and disclosure mechanism.

The above were the expectations of Commissioners.

Dr Tembe advised the Committee to consider shortlisting capable and capacitated individuals to enhance the institution's vision. He indicated that the failings of most boards became apparent only when one looked beyond its structural attributes and considered more subjective factors, such as the quality of their professional background and engagement in board responsibilities. Although the legal framework, which was the bedrock of the institution, did not provide in-depth details of the personal attributes of envisioned Commissioners, it nevertheless was an activist and knowledge-based statutory requirement to drive the objects of the Commission. He believed that candidates should be familiar with s187 of the Constitution, which related to CGE. Those qualities should be gleaned from candidates' curricula vitae (CVs). He believed those skills were spread across diverse social science fields, with different specialities. Also, the candidate must be able or capacitated to monitor and evaluate policies and practices of the state and the private sector, given the critical role of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in the academic field. M&E shifted from a pure focus on inputs and outputs to an outcome-based assessment of the institution's projects, programmes and policy implementation. M&E clearly indicated whether an institution had successfully fulfilled its constitutional mandate.

For the M&E function, Dr Tembe recommended the Committee needed to recruit Commissioners with such skills. For the continuity of the Commission, he recommended it should reappoint a current board member to serve a second term.

He reminded Members to bear in mind the amendment of the Public Service Commission. For a person to be reappointed to the board, the individual must still be a fit and proper person and perform their duties satisfactorily. He also noted the poor performance management at the CGE, so it was within the Committee's discretion to decide whether a re-appointment should be made.

Dr Tembe explained that "fitness" meant that the person must be able to perform the task expected by the Commission, and the Commissioners must communicate with communities to deliver performance and knowledge on gender issues. Commissioners were equivalent to directors on a board, so the very principle of corporate governance applied to them significantly. The responsibilities of Commissioners were explained in legislation, and s69(8) of the Companies Act also lists the common law duties of a director, including the circumstances under which a person may be disqualified from being a director. Furthermore, s193 of the Constitution provides that the Commissioner must possess South African citizenship.

Dr Tembe highlighted that candidates must be able to demonstrate their knowledge and adapt to the delineation of leadership and management. He emphasised the importance of candidates' understanding of corporate governance. They must know who sets the direction of a company and the limits within which the direction is to be pursued. For instance, on budget and company policies, the Commissioners would be expected to differentiate between the duties of the board and those of the administrative side, such as who sets performance targets, monitors progress and evaluates results. Candidates would also be expected to have dispute resolution skills on gender-related issues and human rights, as required by 11(e) of the CGE Act on the functions of the Commission.

Occasionally, Commissioners would also be expected to develop research outputs on human rights and constitutional matters for publication.

Chairperson's comments

The Chairperson highlighted the importance of making public entities accountable to the Committee, and of the Committee's oversight role. Parliament was responsible for ensuring that every cent of the public funds was being accounted for. She pointed out the terrible state the CGE was in since it failed to appoint senior positions, such as those in the legal division. Given that the legal job was one of the organisation's core functions, not being able to fill those positions was unacceptable.  

She asked Members to look through candidates' CVs after this meeting to understand those candidates better. There were 156 candidates in total.

The Chairperson also clarified the definition of "one term," according to the CGE Act. If a Commissioner resigned before their term expired and the Committee subsequently found a replacement for that vacancy, the person would serve only the remainder of the term left by the previous incumbent, but it counted as one term. Therefore, in the current composition, two candidates would not serve the full five-year term, but they would count as the first term for those two candidates filling those two vacancies.

Committee Secretariat's input

The Committee Secretariat explained that the Commission consisted of ten Commissioners in total. This included the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson. Commissioners were allowed to serve for only two terms.

Chairperson Mathebula would not be eligible on the current board, as she was on her second term. Commissioner Mazibuko and Commissioner Mothupi were currently part-time Commissioners, but would be changing to full-time in due course. Those two part-time positions needed to be filled immediately. The other four vacant positions could be filled in due course. The positions of Ms Mathebula and Ms Moleko ended on 31 October 2022. In the current board, only three current serving Commissioners were eligible to serve for a second term.  

The Chairperson complained about the poor quality of the CGE's report, saying it had not gone through any proofreading and editing processes. She instructed the Secretariat to request the CGE provide a high-quality report that correctly detailed the commencement dates of all its Commissioners.

The Secretariat said that all applicants had to fill in an online application form, for which the closing date had been 18 July. The form included 34 questions, including applicants' basic information such as their ID number, qualification, disclaimer, etc. The Excel spreadsheet which Members had consisted of all the information that would be found in a CV, which had been directly transferred from applicants' online forms.

In total, the Committee had received 165 applications by midnight on 19 July. Of these, nine were duplicated applications, which the Committee noted. The duplications belonged to six applicants, where five had submitted the online form twice and one had submitted five times. Those duplications were highlighted in pink in Members' Excel spreadsheet.

Members expressed shock and disbelief that an applicant had submitted the form five times.

The Chairperson reminded Members to bear in mind the impact of load-shedding during this time. An applicant could be making multiple applications because that person was unsure if their emails had gone through or not. Her opinion was that it would be unfair to penalise people because of that. However, the decision to accept or reject those late applications lies with the Members.

Ms N Sharif (DA) acknowledged that, indeed some applicants may have experienced a struggle, but her view was that the Committee should not accept late applications because it was the applicants' responsibility to make sure that the submission was being made on time.

Ms Phiri interjected and said that Members might discuss the issue later on, and suggested they proceed with the presentation.

The Committee Secretariat indicated that the most recent version was used for those applicants who had made duplicated applications. Hence, there were 156 applicants in total.

The composition of applicants was provided in terms of their demographics, gender, geographical locations, employment status, etc.

In terms of gender, there were 33 male and 122 female applicants. Four applicants were transgender, and one was a non-binary person.

Regarding geographical location, the largest proportion of male and female applicants was from Gauteng, accounting for 50% of all applicants. From the Eastern Cape, there were 19 applicants, of which 16 were female and three were male. From the Free State, there were only four female candidates. From Gauteng, there were 81 applicants, of which 65 were female applicants and 15 were male, and one was non-binary. From KZN, there were six female applicants and two male applicants. In Limpopo, there were nine applicants, of which seven were female and two were male. Mpumalanga had six applicants, all female. In the North West, there were sixteen applicants, of which nine were female and seven were male. The Northern Cape had only one applicant. The Western Cape had 14 applicants, of which 11 were female and three were male.

Regarding race, 138 applicants were Africans, eight were coloured, four were Indian or Asian, and six were white.

Regarding disabilities, 18 applicants indicated disabilities, of whom four were male and 14 were female. This number showed that 11.5% of applicants lived with a disability.

Regarding their employment status, 68 were employed, 41 were self-employed, five were students and 42 were unemployed.

In terms of applicants applying on their own, or having been nominated, 95 (61%) of them had applied on their own, and 61 applicants were nominated by others.  

The Committee Secretariat said that moving forward, Members needed to decide on the number of applicants that would be shortlisted by using the criteria that Dr Tembe had provided. She added that screening candidates and verifying qualifications might take about two to three weeks. Then there was also a public commenting process on the candidates Members had agreed to appoint. The interview process would take place after the screening and verification processes.

Discussion

The Chairperson said that Committee Members need to ensure that only candidates who had met the advertisement requirements were shortlisted. She also reminded them of the Protection of Personal Information Act. Once shortlisted, candidates' names would be published on Parliament's website for public comments for 18 days. All the information would be collated for Members to comment by 16 September.

She said that criminal records should be considered on a case-to-case basis, and that the applicants would be provided an opportunity to clarify the details of their convictions.

Mr Mphithi enquired about the advertisement for the vacant positions. He wanted to know if the newspapers in which the Committee had chosen to place the advertisement covered all nine provinces. He asked this question out of the uneven distribution of applications received, since the Committee had received only one application from the Northern Cape. He sought clarity on the extent to which the Committee could rely on material evidence from public comments to accept or reject an application. He noted the two-term limit for Commissioners, and requested that the CGE provide an accurate version of the appointment dates of the current Commissioners. Committee Members needed to use that information to verify which Commissioners were ineligible for re-appointment.

Ms Phiri welcomed the two presentations, as they had greatly guided Members on how they should conduct the selection process.

She had a critical question for Dr Tembe -- whether it was a MUST to retain some of the current Commissioners if they were eligible to serve the second term, and had applied. She acknowledged the importance of preserving the organisational structure for the stability of the institution, but she also fully agreed with the Chairperson's assessment of CGE, and questioned if any incumbent Commissioner should be considered for another term, given the lack of leadership and lack of ability to resolve issues that they had shown during this term.

She urged Members to be fair to applicants and give every applicant a fair opportunity to participate in the process. She noted the different views proposed by different Members on handling late applications, and pleaded with Members to persuade each other.

She highlighted that load-shedding was a thorny issue. It must not deprive any applicant from being considered for shortlisting. She cautioned that the applicant's intention, who had applied online five times, must not be misinterpreted as an obsession. As for the three late applications, the Committee would need proof to demonstrate that emails had bounced back in their correspondence with Parliament. Leaders must be considerate and empathetic and sensitive to other people's plight.

Ms A Hlongo (ANC) echoed her colleagues' point, and pointed out that in addition to load shedding, there was also the factor of no internet coverage in certain areas such as Port St Johns, where she and the Chairperson were this past weekend. She supported Ms Phiri's proposal.

Ms Masiko sought clarity on whether all applicants, whether current Commissioners seeking re-appointment or new applicants, would be subjected to the same selection criteria. She wanted to know if the work performance of those seeking another term should be factored into the selection criteria. She supported Mr Mphithi's suggestion that the Committee needed to verify which Commissioners were ineligible for another term. She urged Members to be cautious in appointing Commissioners, given the unhealthy situation at the CGE. The situation at the CGE was even affecting the Committee's credibility.

Ms Masiko echoed her colleague's view, and requested the CGE to submit the commencement dates of work for every Commissioner. It was important to assess whether those Commissioners could stay for another term.

Commented on the gender composition, she felt the more females being appointed Commissioners, the better. As long as more than 50% of the Commissioners were women, women were safe. She also pointed out the inclusion of transgender people, people of the LGBTI community and persons with disabilities. She asked if there was an acceptable percentage in the number of CVs to be shortlisted in terms of human resource policy.

The Chairperson suggested the Committee should shortlist 24 candidates, since there were six vacant positions. That meant that every four candidates would be competing for one vacant position. She reminded Members that the Committee could use some of the experience from the shortlisting process for the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA).

Ms Hlonyana enquired if all applicants knew that the remainder of a term would be treated as a full-term. Had any applicants indicated their criminal records? Regarding the applicant who had submitted the application five times, she requested an explanation of the whole application system, because she found it obsessive behaviour. She remarked that there were already enough weird people at the CGE, and the organisation did not need more weird people. She wanted to know if the applicant had submitted five applications because of failures due to technical issues, or if there were deviations in the submissions every time. If it was the latter, she believed that load-shedding did not explain that behaviour but that the applicant had messed up the application. She cautioned the Committee from recruiting people who would only add bad behaviour to the CGE.

The Chairperson explained to Members the applicants had been notified of the definition of the remainder of the term after their applications were captured on the system. In addition, it was expected of candidates to familiarise themselves with the CGE Act. The advertised position was critical, and the CGE was a Chapter Nine institution, so applicants should do their own research work about the position before they applied.

The Committee had requested the CGE to provide the correct information on the appointment dates of each Commissioner.

The Chairperson appreciated Members' acknowledgement of the need for continuity in an institution, and emphasised the critical role of institutional memory for the CGE. She agreed that many institutions fell apart because they took out everyone and replaced them with new people. However, the questions asked of those who had served as CGE Commissioners were different, and were related to their work performance at the CGE, their conflict management skills, etc.

In the advertisement process, the Committee had looked at all the provinces and factored in the newspapers that were commonly used by everyone. It also had to consider the affordability of the advertisement concerning the budget provided by Parliament. The Committee had therefore used City Press for the advertisement and included indigenous African languages in the text. All of this had been done to encourage citizens' participation.

The Chairperson was unsure of the causes of the late applications. In her opinion, if an applicant had submitted an application late because of an internet access issue in rural provinces, depriving them of an opportunity would be unfair. For instance, the Chairperson could confirm the lack of network connectivity in Port St John's.

She responded to the question as to what extent Members could use public comments and the accompanying evidence produced to accept or reject an applicant. The process was that the Committee would summarise, collate and present all the applicants' information to Members, and then it was up to Members to decide what they thought of those applicants. Apparently, they could not accept information without the assurance of state security screening. Should an applicant be found with a criminal conviction, the Committee should also give the candidate an opportunity to clarify the details of a conviction. She recalled the experience with the NYDA shortlisting that some criminal charges were revealed to be minor issues, such as a speeding fine etc.

Dr Tembe reiterated that the Committee had to decide how much Members could rely on public comments to determine a candidate's suitability. However, if a person was found to have been in contravention of the Company's Act, that person would be ineligible/disqualified.

Mr Mphithi interjected, and asked if the State Security Agency (SSA) report would be the one recognised document for Members to rely on, and whether public allegations would have no standing.

Dr Tembe responded that in terms of s59(1)(a) of the Constitution, it was within the Committee's prerogative to decide on such issues. However, he could confirm that the document from the SSA should not be the only document for Members to rely on.

He clarified the meaning of "leadership skill." He explained that the position of a Commissioner or a company director was the same. In this case, the appointees were the Commission's stewards and should thus conduct themselves at the highest standard. In addition, he asked Members to distinguish between "must" and "may," as the CGE Act clearly states that a Commissioner may be reappointed for one-extra term, but that was within the Committee's discretion. Furthermore, the Act also states that a Commissioner may be reappointed at the Committee's discretion as long as it meets the rationality criteria. Rationality meant that the purpose must be aligned to the end, and there must not be any discrepancy.

Dr Tembe clarified gender roles, and indicated that the Committee must consider all different sexual groups, such as the LGBTQIA groups etc. The gender roles did not mean the binary biological sex, such as male and female.

The Chairperson clarified that applicants must fit the criteria to be considered. Qualified Members could not be pushed out because of gender. The Committee also had to consider persons with disabilities, equal geographical spread, and demographics.

She confirmed that the terms of those vacant positions had been explained to candidates in the advertisement. The decision would be made at a later decision stage on whether an applicant would fill in the full-time or part-time position.

Ms G Marekwa (ANC) commented on the late submissions due to the late communication to applicants by their nominating organisations. Her view was that Members were not in a position to intervene in those situations. It should be an issue between those candidates and the organisations that nominated them. She agreed that late submissions caused by load shedding or network challenges must be considered. The Committee's administrative team could perform the verification of the validity of such reasons.

Ms Sharif disagreed, and said that whether it was one minute past twelve or not, being late was late. She cautioned the Committee against setting a bad precedent, because if the Committee accepted late submissions up to three minutes, then it should also accept late submissions up to three hours or even longer. She agreed that the Committee needed to determine the cause of those late submissions.

The Committee Secretariat explained that the Excel spreadsheet had recorded all 34 responses in the Google form from their applications. Regarding the late submissions, application 167 was submitted at one minute past midnight on 19 July, application 168 was submitted at 28 minutes past twelve on 19 July and application 169 was submitted at 8:49 am on 19 July. However, the applicant who had submitted application 169 had already submitted a duplicate application before this one. She said that the moment an organisation nominated an individual, an automatic email or WhatsApp text would be sent to remind them to kindly note that all applicants needed to complete the online form before the deadline.

The Committee Secretariat confirmed that for that late submission that had been received at one minute past midnight, the Committee had received a WhatsApp text at 9:55pm explaining that the applicant had been struggling to submit her phone, with a screenshot attached to corroborate her claim. The applicant was based in Queenstown in the Eastern Cape.

Members sympathised with the applicant's situation, and wondered whether the poor connectivity was caused by the municipality under which Queenstown fell, as it was being placed under administration.

Ms Hlonyana attested that in many parts of the Eastern Cape, electricity and the Internet were challenges deterring people from making submissions on time.

Ms Masiko appreciated the fact that the candidate had communicated to Parliament to explain her situation, and thus her application should be considered.

The Committee Secretariat said the second late submission came from Gauteng. The candidate had not communicated with the Committee why the submission had been made late.

Ms Hlonyana supported considering the application that had been made at one minute past midnight. As well as the one who had made submissions multiple times, but the last version was late. She objected to considering the application of the candidate from Gauteng.

Ms Marekwa said that those applicants who had communicated to the Committee and provided a valid reason for late submissions should not be penalised.

Ms Sharif pointed out that the Committee should make a uniform decision on whether to accept all the late submissions or not. In terms of consistency and fairness, since there had been a system glitch at around 10pm on 18 July, it was highly likely that the applicant who had applied at 20 past 12 had experienced the same technological issues as the one that had submitted at one minute past 12.

Mr Mphithi asked about those applicants who did not have the means to communicate with the Committee on WhatsApp. If the Committee decided to accept those two applications, he asked how it planned to justify its position and respond to those who had experienced the same problem.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would be working only on the applications Parliament had received, and would not be dealing with any application the Committee did not receive. Parliament's online application system could also check which candidates were registered.

After lengthy deliberation and discussion, the Committee resolved to accept those two late applications.

The Committee adopted the two briefing documents.

The Committee Secretariat informed Members of the duplications that had been picked up in the applications. The Committee had noted five applicants who had submitted different addresses in their duplicated applications.

Applications numbers 44 and 145 were of the same applicant, where different contact numbers, qualifications and employers were provided. The Committee Secretariat suspected that some applicants might have struggled to comprehend that the application system allowed for the insertion of multiple employers, which led to them submitting more than one version of the application to provide their full details.

For applications 67 and 68, the applicant did not insert the full address, and the missing information was inserted in the duplicated application.

For applications 95 and 150, the first application was not provided with the full address, nor with the full details of employers. The applicant provided the information of the two employers in two separate applications.

For applications 108 and 111, the applicant made amendments to the motivation for serving as a Commissioner in the duplicated version.

For applications 120 and 121, the applicant amended the address and the motivation for serving as a Commissioner.

The Committee noted two criminal convictions from all the applications -- in applications 90 and 168. It was also noted that No.168 was also one of the late submissions. However, although both applicants had indicated that they had been convicted of a criminal charge, neither had provided more detailed information.

The Chairperson was confident that those truths would emerge after public comment and screening. Parliament's human resource department also performed the function of vetting qualifications. Any criminal record or fraudulent degrees would be revealed in those processes.

Ms Maziko sought clarity on the expectation of educational standards for potential Commissioners. The Act states that the Commissioner must possess skills in diverse social science fields, which she needed clarity on. She also asked Dr Tembe to explain the monitoring and evaluation skills and the academic report writing skills.

The Chairperson responded that the Committee should consider those applicants that may not have a degree, but possess those skills. Consideration should not be confined only to those applicants who have a degree.

Dr Tembe said that s31 of the Act stated that a person must be knowledgeable about the Commission's objectives and have had experience on gender issues, which was activism. Those were the two criteria, and there was nothing beyond those two criteria.

The Chairperson was confident that Members would immediately have an objective opinion of a candidate's overall quality once the interview process unfolded. The purpose of an interview was to assess and determine a candidate's suitability to fill the vacant positions, so candidates and Members on both sides needed to be well-prepared. She commented that some candidates who were professors had been caught and been unable to respond to Members' questions. She highlighted that Members must strive to create a friendly ambience for candidates during the interview process.

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: