Chairperson, I was not informed of such a warrant. No arrangement is in place yet that I should be informed of such matters. Therefore, I do not know which charges are reflected in the warrant. The person will not be suspended. I've already said that. The President briefed me. The circumstances relating to the warrant are unknown to me. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairperson. Minister, I would like to know if you really believe that anyone in this country would be likely to have any incriminating documentation still lying about as hard copy or on computer after the existence of a warrant or warrants that were leaked to the press and made public; some cancelled, some not; followed then by some sort of investigation launched by the ANC into the matter.
In your opinion, if the ANC decides, at some future date, that an inquiry into Jackie Selebi is necessary, has the ANC not already done enough to ensure that such an inquiry would turn up absolutely nothing, as the entire country has been informed of every move of the NPA's investigation, not the least of whom is the man who was to be investigated himself. Has this investigation not effectively been irredeemably compromised?
Deputy Chair, I am going to supply the hon member with the contact details of the Secretary-General of the ANC so that she can raise that question with him. [Interjections.]
Order, order, please! Order!
Seeing that there are no other supplementary questions, we ...
Minister, if you still have that position here in the House and not the secretary-general, the President stated publicly that he had not "seen the warrant or warrants". You said, that "you are in the dark..." - it seems you might still be - "... about this issue".
I find it incredible to believe that the Minister of Safety and Security is in the dark about what's going on regarding his own employee. Well, I'd like to know if today you have seen the warrant or warrants, how many you have seen - I mean looked at and examined - and if you indeed were the person behind the move to quash those warrants, to wipe them out, and if it wasn't you, kindly tell this House who it was. [Interjections.]
Order! Order, please! Give the Minister a chance to respond.
Well, I don't know what she wants me to say but I seem to be understanding her to be asking if I'd seen the warrants and I've given a response that I had not seen the warrants because it is not my job to go around the courts of this land looking for warrants. That's not my job. [Interjections.]
Order, order, please! I think the hon member should take up the Minister's promise that he will supply you with some information.
Thank you, I would be obliged but I would like another follow-up. [Interjections.]
Hon Ndlovu, can ... I'll come to you, ma'am. [Interjections.] Order, order, order, Mr Bloem! [Interjections.] Order, please, order! Can we give the other hon members a chance to have their say, please!
Thank you, Chairperson. Thank you, Minister.
Bengicela nje ukubuza kumhlonishwa ukuthi ngabe uke wambuza yini uKhomishane ukuthi le nto okukhulunywa ngayo iyiqiniso noma cha? [I would just like to ask the hon Minister if he has ever enquired from the commissioner whether the matter in question is true or not?]
Of course I have. I've asked him if he was guilty of any crime and he has said no, he was not. [Interjections.] Unfortunately nobody has brought me evidence to show that indeed he was guilty of any crime. [Interjections.]
Order, order, please! Order, order, order! I think we should have order here. If you want to ask questions, we should have order here.
Minister, I don't think I've ever been quite so shocked as to be in this House and ... [Interjections.] Perhaps you could ask your members to be quiet so you can hear. ... to hear from a Minister that he is totally ignorant about what is going on in his own Ministry.
For you to suggest that you are a judge and jury and that you have the right to declare to the land, "Oh well, I asked him," is worse than the President saying: "Trust me." I'm sorry, I don't listen to men saying trust me and I haven't done so since I was 13 years old!
Now, Minister, I would like you to come clean to this House and tell us what on earth is going on within your Ministry. This man is not suspended. You suspend the Pikolis of the country but you do not suspend the man ... [Interjections.] ... with the biggest cloud hanging over him of any person in this entire country. He has confessed to having friends none of us should have. He is in a position ...
What is your question, hon member?
I'm asking him to come clean and tell this House why he is misleading the House. It is absolutely outrageous!
Well, for starters, Deputy Chairperson, you will have to take a decision on the allegation she is making that I'm misleading the House. [Interjections.] That's the first thing that you need to determine.
Order, please, order! Minister, we shall give a ruling on this tomorrow.
Thank you very much. The rest of the questions she has been putting on the table ... [Interjections.]
Order, please! Order! [Interjections.] Order, please!
The questions that the hon member - I'm sorry, hon member - that she has been putting on the table are nothing but an attempt on her part to use this platform to vilify all of us from the President right down the line. She has not asked a question. What question am I going to answer? She has not asked a question.
All that she wanted to do was to use the issue to criticise all of us who are in government. And, Chairperson, if that is her style, if that is what makes her happy, I say thank you very much; continue to derive happiness from what you've raised. [Interjections.] She has not asked a question. [Interjections.]
Order, order, please! Order! I think, hon members, we ask questions of Ministers because we want to solicit information. I don't think it is appropriate to behave the way we are doing now. It looks as if we're not soliciting information but are in fact adopting a confrontational stance. Please, seeing that there are no other supplementary questions, the following question is Question No 353 by the hon ...
Mr Chairman, I had pressed my button to ask a further supplementary question.
Hon Davidson, I think we've had four supplementary questions, which is the maximum.
Position regarding the National Prosecuting Authority obtaining a warrant of arrest for a certain person
353. Dr J T Delport (DA) asked the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:
(1) Whether the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has obtained a warrant for the arrest of a certain person (name furnished); if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;
(2) whether she will make a statement on the matter? NO2344E
I see that the hon member who asked the question is not in the House. Deputy Chairperson, I am unable to speak on this matter as it may be the subject of an inquiry.
Thank you, Minister. We then move to Question 361. The hon Joubert.
Chairperson, Madam Minister, Dr Delport has had an operation and that is why he is not here. I am standing in for him. Minister, the way that I understand it, is that a warrant of arrest is issued by a court on application and that application has to be supported by prima facie evidence. We take it that in this particular case, because the person concerned is such a senior person, the commissioner of police, the court would not be likely to issue a warrant of arrest.
It has been reported that the warrant was eventually withdrawn or cancelled. The question is: If it is such an important document, why was it not immediately executed? Secondly, if it was withdrawn, what were the reasons for its withdrawal or cancellation? Thirdly, I would like you to respond as to whether you personally had anything to do this whole process?
This is a point of order, Chairperson. The Minister has clearly said that this point is the subject of an investigation. The Minister has said that. That member still continues to put a question.
Hon member, that is not a point of order.
No, you must rule on that, Chairperson.
Hon member, please take your seat.
Chairperson, on a point of order: May I just ask if it is parliamentary for the hon Bloem to make signs like this across his neck to members of this House. Ask him to withdraw, thank you.
Hon member, I don't know about signs like that. I know that in Zulu when you say that, it means you love the person. [Laughter.] Does the Minister insist on not answering the question?
Yes, absolutely, I insist. I would like to plead that we respect the law. You see, at some point, this very same matter or related matter will come to Parliament and we have to uphold the law. [Interjections.] Please stop shouting at me, Madam. Patience. What is wrong? Honestly, the hon member there is quite something. I mean, she just goes on screaming. I am saying that I am not going to respond.
Thank you, Minister. I don't see any point in us continuing.
Mr Chairperson, could I address you on that, please?
Can I just rule on this, please?
Before you rule on it, Mr Chairperson, I would actually like to address you on it. I think the hon Minister is conflating two things. One is the whole question of Adv Pikoli and there is an investigation going on. Quite rightly, that investigation will lead to a report before this House and this House will then have to take a decision.
This question is not about Adv Pikoli. We have just heard from the hon Minister of Safety and Security that he has spoken to the commissioner and has satisfied himself that the man is innocent. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister: What investigation is there into Mr Selebi? The hon Minister has said there is no such investigation.
Order, order! Please, I want to appeal to members that if the Minister insists that it is sub judice ... [Interjections.] Order, please! But then I also say that we will give a ruling on this matter. [Interjections.]
Chairperson ...
The Minister is raising a point of order.
Chairperson, on a point of order: You can look it up in Hansard; I did not say that I had satisfied myself that the national commissioner Jackie Selebi is innocent. I did not say that.
We will, Minister, also look at the Hansard and see what the Minister actually said. I want us to move on now. We move on to Question 361 by the hon Shah to the Minister of Defence.
Steps taken to determine those responsible for prepayments and advancements totalling R176,5 million 361. Moulana M R Sayedali-Shah (DA) asked the Minister of Defence:
(1) Whether, in light of his department having received a qualified audit report from the Auditor-General for the 2006-07 financial year (details furnished), he or his department has taken any steps to determine who was responsible for the prepayments and advancements amounting to R176,5 million; if not, why not; if so, what steps;
(2) whether any action has been taken against those responsible; if not, why not; if so, what action? NO2356E
The reply is as follows: All the advances for the amount of R176,5 million are only captured after the documentation has been received and correctly checked. These advances then become valid transactions that are reflected on our financial management system.
With regard to question two, the answer is no. The problem is that we have two financial systems. I've been saying this to Shah but I'm going to repeat until he understands me. Of course, my job, even in the church, is to preach every day, even if I've preached the previous week. The two systems are not integrated and as a result the auditor is unable to trace transactions back to the source documents - I've already said that, Shah.
The Department of Defence is currently in the process of finding a solution to the problem by combining the information of the two systems into an Information Management Centre. As a result, the Department of Defence has developed plans to implement the integrated financial management system in line with the National Treasury's expectations. Of course, like I said, when answering Question 360, the question is similar but it has just been put in a different language. That's the same question I answered in Question 360.
Chairperson, just as the hon Deputy Minister said that he has to repeat it again and again, I am also going to repeat it again and again. The challenges in financial services are caused by the delay in the implementation of the National Treasury's financial management improvement programme and the integrated financial management system without which the Department of Defence will not be able to achieve an unqualified financial statement.
That is a fact, Minister, and we agree on it. The problems raised by the Auditor-General were reported in the 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 annual reports, which means they are recurring. I can understand that the old system did not allow for proper reporting. Don't blame everything on the old finance system, you are not taking action on noncompliance in terms of the department's own internal procedure. The question is: No action is being taken against people who do not comply with the Public Finance Management Act, the PFMA. It is the job of the Minister and the Deputy Minister to ensure compliance internally.
Hon member that was not a question. Deputy Minister, it is your choice.
Mr Shah, once the systems are in place and there is no compliance, I can assure you that we will definitely take action. I have said that and I must repeat that: We will definitely take action for any noncompliance once the systems are in place and this is what we are doing. We even had a meeting with the Auditor-General to help us to move forward. It is not a matter that we are just ignoring. We cannot do so because that will be irresponsible. We are talking here about the taxpayer's money; we are doing something about it. Give us a chance. Once we've put the systems in place and there is no compliance, we will definitely act.
Can I ask the hon Deputy Minister to assure the hon Shah, not the House, that yesterday the department informed the portfolio committee that both the department, as well as the National Treasury, are working on a plan to put the information systems of the department in place. It will not be this year but it will be phased in to satisfy the requirements of both the National Treasury and the department to correct this. There is no quick fix for this one but the problem is being addressed by the two departments in order to correct the situation.
Mr Koornhof, in fact this is what I've been trying to say and this is what I'm saying. But what I will do, I will find time tomorrow to have coffee with Mr Shah - or tea - because I know he is not the type of person who understands quickly. So, you need to take time and I'm going to repeat what I've been saying to him here over tea and once we have drank the first cup, I will repeat what I've said and we will order another cup of tea and I'll repeat it until he understands.
Mr Shah is a very important person. He is a representative and he is here because he has been voted in to represent people in Parliament. So, I cannot ignore him because he takes time to understand. All that I need to do to save time, Deputy Chairperson, is to ask for special time with Mr Shah. I will either meet him somewhere or I'll invite him to my office; I'll make sure that there are two pots of coffee and two pots of tea so that I can repeat myself until he understands. Thank you.
I want to repeat what I have said to the hon Deputy Minister. For years now you've had bad audits. Every year the Auditor-General issues you with management letters explaining to you what the problems are. Why has it taken you three years to identify the problems so that you are only now taking action? That's my question.
Chairperson, the hon member is mistaken when he thinks that it is only Mr Shah who thinks like that in this country. There are many people like Shah in the country - even in the department. Just as I will be explaining so many times to Shah, there are also people in the department whom we are sorting out. They do not listen, like Mr Shah, and that is why we are setting up a system so that we can act against them. Thank you.
Questions concluded.
See also QUESTIONS AND REPLIES.