NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
FOR WRITTEN REPLY
QUESTION NO 2866
DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: Tuesday, 08 November 2011
DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 23 SEPTEMBER 2011
(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 30 â 2011)
Mr P Van Dalen (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:
(a) What recommendations have been made in the ministerial task teamâs
report on the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC), (b) how are these
recommendations currently being dealt with, (c) what (i) processes, (ii)
procedures and (iii) mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that these
recommendations are dealt with, (d) what has the associated cost been
respectively and (e) what are the (i) time frames and (ii) milestones to
achieve results in respect of these recommendations?
NW3334E
REPLY:
The Minister of Transport:
(a), (b), (c) (i), (ii) and (iii), (d) and (e) (i) and (ii)
|No. |Recommendation |Status of implementation |Cost of |Time frame/|
| | | |implementation|Milestone |
| |Retain the Road Traffic Management |The RTMC remains a national |No additional |Ongoing |
| |Corporation (RTMC) as a national resource in|resource, working in |cost | |
| |accordance with the purpose and mandate of |partnership with all |implications. | |
| |the RTMC Act, 1999 (Act No 20 of 1999). |stakeholders on road safety. | | |
| | | |The estimated | |
| | |The National Traffic Police |cost for the | |
| | |Unit (NTPU) was established |current | |
| | |on the 15th of April 2011, |operations of | |
| | |and traffic officers and the |the NTPU is | |
| | |Chief of Traffic Police were |estimated at | |
| | |appointed. |R66 million | |
| | | |annually. | |
| | |The RTMC is a member of the | | |
| | |United Nations Road Safety |The operations| |
| | |Collaboration, making it a |are currently | |
| | |national resource within the |funded by the | |
| | |international fraternity. |South African | |
| | | |National Roads| |
| | | |Agency Limited| |
| | | |(SANRAL). | |
| |Pursue disciplinary action against the Chief|Disciplinary process against |Costs relating|Ongoing |
| |Executive Officer, Senior Executive Manager |the CEO underway and expected|to instituting| |
| |(SEM): TEIR, SEM: Corporate Services, Chief |to be finalised subject to |disciplinary | |
| |Information Officer (CIO) and Chief |legal disciplinary processes.|actions | |
| |Financial Officer (CFO) on various matters. |All relevant matters raised |against | |
| | |in the report are included in|officials: | |
| |Criminal case pursued against the Chief |the charge sheet of the CEO. | | |
| |Executive Officer and two senior Executive | |Amount to | |
| |Managers of the RTMC. |The employment contract of |date: | |
| | |the SEM: TEIR was |R2 588 422 | |
| |Some of the matters are as follows: |subsequently terminated. All| | |
| | |relevant matters raised in |Settlement | |
| |CEO and SEM: TEIR for bypassing procurement |the report were included in |costs for the | |
| |processes in appointing Lefatshe |the charge sheet of the SEM: |CIO (four | |
| |Technologies. |TEIR. |months salary)| |
| |CEO for negligence in the appointment of | |amounted to | |
| |Mohlaleng (Office Accommodation). |The employment contract of |R260 872 | |
| |CEO, CFO and SEM: Corporate Services for |the SEM: Corporate Services |(total cost to| |
| |their involvement in the irregular award of |was subsequently terminated. |company). | |
| |the Mohlaleng lease contract. |All relevant matters raised | | |
| |CEO, SEM: Corporate Services and CIO for |in the report were included |Settlement | |
| |negligence in the awarding of a contract to |in the charge sheet of the |costs for the | |
| |Mohlaleng for infrastructure without going |SEM: Corporate Services. |CFO (six | |
| |through the normal bid process. | |months salary)| |
| |CEO and CIO for negligence in failing to |The CIOâs matter has been |amounted to | |
| |check the reasonability of the prices and |settled (termination of |R454 689 | |
| |not exercising due care in the approval of |employment contract on four |(total cost to| |
| |invoices for the IT infrastructure. |monthsâ salary settlement). |company). | |
| |CEO for not following procurement processes |All relevant matters raised | | |
| |and for failing to act in the best interest |in the report were included | | |
| |of the RTMC in approving payment of R197 a |in the charge sheet of the | | |
| |day for services rendered. |CIO. | | |
| |CEO for the following irregularities: | | | |
| |Appointing a Bid Evaluation Committee that |The CFO matter has been | | |
| |is not impartial and was unequipped to |settled (termination of | | |
| |evaluate bids resulting in a contract of |employment contract on six | | |
| |R9.5 million being awarded without any price|month salary settlement). | | |
| |comparison. |All relevant matters raised | | |
| |Signing the submission received from the |in the report were included | | |
| |evaluation committee as not approved and on |in the charge sheet of the | | |
| |the same day notifying the supplier of the |CFO. | | |
| |RTMCâs approval of the bid. | | | |
| |Signing a Service Level Agreement (SLA), | | | |
| |which entitled the supplier to advance | | | |
| |payments of R5.1 million without mitigating | | | |
| |the risk associated with it. | | | |
| |Approving the invoice and signing the | | | |
| |payment certificate without following due | | | |
| |processes. | | | |
| |CIO for the following irregularities : | | | |
| |Misrepresenting to the Bid Adjudicating | | | |
| |Committee that the bid received was compared| | | |
| |based on the 90/10 preference system. | | | |
| |Approving invoices and recommending payments| | | |
| |without comparing the deliverables to the | | | |
| |bid or SLA, resulting in financial losses to| | | |
| |the RTMC (R841 114.00). | | | |
| |Allowing the supplier to claim for âproject | | | |
| |closure and sign offâ when the services have| | | |
| |not been rendered in full. | | | |
| |Recommending payment for deliverables based | | | |
| |on professional fees without reconciling | | | |
| |such. | | | |
| |CEO for the following irregularities with | | | |
| |respect to the Waymark Infotech: | | | |
| |Appointing a Bid Evaluation Committee that | | | |
| |is not impartial and was unequipped to | | | |
| |evaluate the bids resulting in a contract | | | |
| |worth R33 million being awarded without | | | |
| |price comparison. | | | |
| |Signing the SLA, which entitled the supplier| | | |
| |to an advance payment of R15.8 million | | | |
| |without mitigating the risk associated with | | | |
| |such (items involved were only delivered six| | | |
| |month after the payment). | | | |
| |CIO for the following irregularities with | | | |
| |regard to Waymark Infotech: | | | |
| |Misrepresenting to the Bid Adjudication | | | |
| |Committee that the bids were for ERP and | | | |
| |were compared based on the 90/10 preference | | | |
| |system. | | | |
| |Recommending payment for deliverables based | | | |
| |on professional fees without reconciling | | | |
| |such. | | | |
| |With regard to the âUse of eNaTIS | | | |
| |Transaction fees, a disciplinary charge | | | |
| |against the CEO be considered for the | | | |
| |insolvency of the RTMC, in terms of section | | | |
| |25(1) of the RTMC Act and the provision of | | | |
| |the PFMA (section 39(2). | | | |
| |With regard to the âUse of eNaTIS | | | |
| |Transaction fees, disciplinary action be | | | |
| |considered against the CEO for failing to | | | |
| |comply with National Treasury Practice Note | | | |
| |10 of 2007/08 and for failing to alert the | | | |
| |Board of the Treasury requirements relating | | | |
| |to transaction fees and also failing to | | | |
| |inform the Board about the actual | | | |
| |performance of the Corporation in terms of | | | |
| |the RTMC Financial plan. | | | |
| |With regard to Nyarhi Technologies, | | | |
| |disciplinary action be taken against the CEO| | | |
| |for the following irregularities: | | | |
| |Appointing a Bid Evaluation Committee that | | | |
| |is not impartial and was unequipped to | | | |
| |evaluate the bids resulting in a contract | | | |
| |worth R3.3 million being awarded without any| | | |
| |price comparison. | | | |
| |With regard to Nyarhi Technologies, | | | |
| |disciplinary action be taken against the CIO| | | |
| |for recommending payment of R828K in respect| | | |
| |of professional fees that would have | | | |
| |required the staff to have worked 60 hours | | | |
| |per day to enable them to bill such an | | | |
| |amount. | | | |
| |Disciplinary action against the CEO for the | | | |
| |procurement of Nosanda Management Services, | | | |
| |Khuthele and Mochaba Trading. | | | |
| |Board to be held accountable for failing to |Board disbanded. |No cost | |
| |follow transparent and equitable procurement| |implications. | |
| |processes in appointing Lefatshe | | |01 October |
| |Technologies. |Audit Committee has been |R65 000 p/a |2011 |
| | |appointed. | | |
| |Legal action be taken to recover R15 million|Matter referred to the South |No cost |Ongoing |
| |from the supplier for overcharges in |African Police service (SAPS)|implications. | |
| |relation to the contract. |for further investigation. | | |
| |Pursue disciplinary action against members |Final written warnings issued|No cost |Ongoing for|
| |of the Bid Evaluation and Adjudication |to Adjudication Committee |implications. |the CEO |
| |Committees for negligence in the appointment|members. | | |
| |of Mohlaleng (Office Accommodation). | | | |
| | |Written warnings issued to | | |
| | |Evaluation Committee members | | |
| |Legal opinion be sought to the quantum of a |10 year lease terminated. |No cost |Ongoing |
| |claim against Mohlaleng for |Attorneys appointed and |implications | |
| |misrepresentation to the RTMC in the lease |matter still in progress. |to date. | |
| |bid. | |Legal costs | |
| | | |could not be | |
| | | |estimated at | |
| | | |this stage. | |
| |Mohlaleng be requested to refund overcharges|Matter referred to the SAPS |No cost |Ongoing |
| |to the tune of R625K or legal advice be |for investigation. |implication as| |
| |sought with regards to the possibility for | |yet. | |
| |civil or criminal action. | | | |
| |The service provider/law firm must be |Matter still under |No cost | |
| |reported to the Law Society for overreaching|consideration. |implications. | |
| |the RTMC. | | | |
| |The RTMC request Odirile to submit all time |Matter still outstanding and |No financial |Ongoing |
| |sheets and supporting documents to allow for|matter referred to the SAPS |implications | |
| |reconciliation of professional fees claimed.|for investigation. |as yet. | |
| | | | | |
| | |All assets which were still | | |
| | |with the service provider | | |
| | |collected. | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| |The RTMC obtain legal advice regarding the |Matter referred to the SAPS |No financial |Ongoing |
| |prospect of civil action to recover R841K |for investigation. |implications. | |
| |from Odirile resulting from the | | | |
| |misrepresentation in that they indicated | | | |
| |software having been delivered which they in| | | |
| |the first place never purchased. | | | |
| |Disciplinary action against the CIO for the |Refer to progress on |No cost |Ongoing |
| |following irregularities: |disciplianary actions above |implication to| |
| | | |date. The | |
| |Misrepresenting to the Bid Adjudication |Progress on other matters: |legal costs | |
| |Committee that the bids for ERP (Waymark | |cannot be | |
| |Infotech) were compared based on the 90/10 |Legal action instituted |estimated at | |
| |preference point system. |against the RTMC by Waymark. |this stage. | |
| |Recommending payment for deliverables based |Infotech for repudiation of | | |
| |on professional fees without rconciling |the contract. | | |
| |such. |Matter defended by the RTMC. | | |
| | |Process in litigation stage. | | |
| |Skills audit be conducted for employees from|On-going: Review of the |The cost of |Ongoing |
| |the supervisor to the executive management |strategic plan finalized and |developing a | |
| |level. |the organizational |new strategic | |
| | |restructuring process still |plan and | |
| | |underway. |related annual| |
| | | |performance | |
| | | |plans at | |
| | | |R296 400. | |
| |Complete review of the job specifications |Part of the organizational |The total cost|Ongoing |
| |for senior management and strict application|restructuring process. |for the | |
| |of these job specs in the recruitment and | |organisational| |
| |selection of candidates. | |restructuring | |
| | | |process | |
| | | |amounts to | |
| | | |R493 976. | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| |Implementation of a change management |Change strategies are |No cost |Ongoing |
| |process, including an appropriate induction |currently being implemented |implications. | |
| |of all new employees, |(Team in place). | | |
| |Request Nyarhi to submit all time sheets and|Forensic report handed over |No cost |Ongoing |
| |supporting documents to allow for a |to the SAPS for further |implications. | |
| |reconciliation of professional fees claimed.|investigation. | | |
| | | | | |
| |Consider action against officials who are |Strengthened controls in the | | |
| |implicated in procurement of office supplies|supply chain environment, |No cost | |
| |from various entities as identified in the |including centralization of |implications. | |
| |internal audit report. |approvals. | | |
| |Revisit the procurement policy as well as to|Centralized approval of |Senior | |
| |tighten monitoring of, and compliance with, |procurement for close |Manager: SCM | |
| |the entire procurement system and |monitoring, |appointed at | |
| |strengthening internal controls, | |an annual | |
| | |Appointed a Senior Manager: |total cost to | |
| | |Supply Chain Management (SCM)|the RTMC of | |
| | |to strengthen governance |R652 572. | |
| | |procedures and controls. | | |
| | | |No other cost | |
| | |Procurement Policy reviewed |implications. | |
| | |and | | |
| | |updated policy/procedures in | | |
| | |place. | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Staff trained on SCM | | |
| | |processes. | | |
| |Establish a standard for the induction of |Process underway to develop |No cost |To be |
| |the Board, which will place emphasis on the |an induction of the Audit |implications. |informed by|
| |RTMC Act, PFMA and other relevant road |Committee. | |the |
| |traffic legislation. |Board not yet appointed. | |appointment|
| | | | |of the |
| | | | |Board |
| |Establish the necessary terms of reference |Terms of Reference (ToR) for |No cost |01 October |
| |for the various committees of the Board, |the Audit Committee to be |implications. |2011 |
| |including: |reviewed by the Audit | | |
| |Audit Committee, Finance Committee and Risk |Committee. |R65 000 p/a | |
| |Committee. | | | |
| |Ensuring that membership of the Audit |Other ToR to be reviewed as | | |
| |Committee complies with King III or a |and when the Committees are | | |
| |similar governance protocol. |established. | | |
| | |Independent Audit Committee | | |
| | |appointed. | | |
| |Set a policy for annual independent |To be done in conjunction |Not |Dependant |
| |governance reviews, including performance of|with the Board. |applicable. |on the |
| |the Entity. | | |appointment|
| | | | |of the |
| | | | |Board |
| |RTMC Financial Capacity |RTMC has applied for an |No cost | |
| | |increased budget and is still|implications. | |
| |Declaration of the financial position and |awaiting budget allocation | | |
| |possible shortfalls of the RTMC to the |from Treasury. | | |
| |Minister of Transport and to National | | | |
| |Treasury. |Request for additional | | |
| | |funding submitted to National| | |
| | |Treasury via the Department | | |
| | |of Transport. | | |
| |To initiate a focused effort to collect al |Progress has been made. The |No cost | |
| |outstanding eNaTIS transaction fees with |major outstanding balance is |implications. | |
| |support of the Shareholders Committee. |less than 90 days old. | | |
| |Request an increase of the RTMC grant income|National Treasury did not |No cost | |
| |for the next two financial years to sustain |increase the allocation. RTMC|implications. | |
| |the RTMC. |insolvent as a result. | | |
| |RTMC Financial Capacity |No funding received. |No cost | |
| | |Submission made to National |implications. | |
| |Request funding from the National Treasury |Treasury in this regard, but | | |
| |for the implementation of AARTO. |chances are very slim for any| | |
| | |progress. | | |
| |Clarify the running and development costs of|DoT is dealing with the |Not | |
| |eNaTIS in relation to the transaction fees |matter as a contracting |applicable. | |
| |being levied. |party. | | |
| |The introduction of financial controls |Ongoing. |No cost | |
| |allowing for the on-going reconciliation on | |implications. | |
| |income from both the eNaTis transaction fees|Capacity is required to | | |
| |and AARTO |strengthen the controls in | | |
| | |this area (due to budgetary | | |
| | |constraints it is difficult | | |
| | |to fill posts). | | |
| |Long Term Funding of the RTMC |Required legislative changes.|No cost | |
| | |Administrative Adjudication |implications. | |
| |Section 24 (1) of the RTMC Act prescribes |of Road Traffic Offences | | |
| |funding opportunities for the Corporation. |(AARTO) regulations to be | | |
| | |amended to include an | | |
| |Other opportunities be identified for the |administrative fee for the | | |
| |provision of services. |RTMC. | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Engagement with the National | | |
| | |Treasury is ongoing. | | |
| |The RTMC be registered as an issuing |Done. Traffic Officers |The estimated | |
| |authority. |attached to the National |cost for the | |
| | |Traffic Police Unit (NTPU) |current | |
| | |can now issue infringements. |operations of | |
| | | |the NTPU is | |
| | | |estimated at | |
| | | |R66 million | |
| | | |annually. | |
| | | | | |
| | | |The operations| |
| | | |are currenly | |
| | | |funded by | |
| | | |SANRAL | |
| |Legislative and Regulatory Capacity |The matter is under |No cost | |
| | |consideration. |implications | |
| |The provisions of the RTMC Act need to be | |at this stage.| |
| |reviewed to facilitate operational and | | | |
| |governance support of the entity. | | | |
| | | | | |
| |The Shareholders Committee must meet twice | | | |
| |per annum (an AGM session and a strategic | | | |
| |session). | | | |
| |The RTMC Board to be appointed. |The matter is under |Not | |
| | |consideration. |applicable. | |
| |Include in the Act the powers to be |As above. |Not | |
| |delegated to the Board. | |applicable. | |
| |To allocate more scope and powers for the |As above. |Not | |
| |Minister to act as the Chairperson for the | |applicable. | |
| |Shareholders Committee. | | | |
| |Revise the RTMC Act, 1999, to facilitate |As above. |Not | |
| |operational and governance support for the | |applicable. | |
| |Committee. | | | |
| |RTMC and DoT Oversight |Realignment of the functions |Not applicable| |
| | |of the public entity |to the RTMC. | |
| |Strengthening and enhancement of the |oversight. | | |
| |functioning of the Public Entity Oversight | | | |
| |(PEO). | | | |
| |Introduce a controlled and monitored |Special Project office set up|No cost | |
| |performance management system. |in the RTMC to monitor |implications | |
| | |progress on key projects. |to date. | |
| |The Director-General, Department of |Ongoing. |No cost | |
| |transport, should be advised of all critical| |implications. | |
| |developments in the RTMC. | | | |
| |The Minister, as Chairperson of the |Ongoing. |No cost | |
| |Shareholders Committee, should be fully | |implications. | |
| |briefed on all critical and strategic | | | |
| |matters. | | | |
| |Entity governance and compliance should be |Ongoing. |No cost | |
| |made part of the performance indicators of | |implications. | |
| |the PEO team members. | | | |
| |AARTO and Road Traffic Infringement Agency |RTIA is formally listed and |Executive | |
| |(RTIA) |it is up and running. |Manager: AARTO| |
| | | |appointed at | |
| |That the DoT deals with the legislation of |Acting Registrar appointed. |an annual | |
| |matters related to the publication of the | |total cost to | |
| |qualifications of the registrar and |The RTMC appointed an |Company of | |
| |adjudication officers. |Executive Manager: AARTO to |R790 953. | |
| | |manage the project and | | |
| | |progress is ongoing on AARTO | | |
| | |implementation. | | |
| | | | | |
| | |The preparations for the | | |
| | |AARTO Summit are underway. | | |
| |Introduce a controlled and monitored |Special Project office set up|No cost | |
| |performance management system |in the RTMC to monitor |implications | |
| | |progress on key projects. | | |
| |AARTO and RTIA |Done. |Total cost for| |
| | | |training for | |
| |That a comprehensive strategy and an |Consultation with key |issuing | |
| |implementation plan with reasonable time |stakeholders ongoing. |authorities | |
| |frames be considered to facilitate AARTO | |amounted to | |
| |implementation. |Training conducted on AARTO. |R554 780. | |
| |eNaTIS |DoT and RTMC to develop a |No cost | |
| | |migration plan. |implication at| |
| |That eNaTIS be transferred to the RTMC, | |this stage. | |
| |subject to meeting risk assessment | | | |
| |requirements as per Treasury | | | |
| |recommendations. | | | |
| |The RTMC develops a comprehensive technology|The RTMCâs IT team members |No cost | |
| |and systems strategy encompassing the wider |are being trained, amongst |implications. | |
| |road traffic environment. |others, in India. | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Need for more resources to | | |
| | |get expertise to assist the | | |
| | |RTMC. | | |
| |Review the RTMC Act to align its provisions |Currently there is no Board | | |
| |with emergent principles, including: |at the RTMC. |Audit | |
| | | |Committee | |
| |A minimum of two meetings for the |Independent Audit Committee |members | |
| |Shareholders Committee |appointed. |appointed at | |
| |Shareholders Committee must appoint a Board | |an estimated | |
| |with requisite expertise and experience. |Risk Management Committee |annual cost of| |
| |Mandate the Board and provide it with |established, comprising |R65 000 per | |
| |appropriate written delegations. |internal stakeholders from |annum. | |
| |Increase the number of the Executive |all the departments within | | |
| |Directors from one to two (CEO and CFO). |the Corporation. | | |
| |Increase the number of Board members to 11. | | | |
| |Authorize the Board to appoint and dismiss | | | |
| |the CEO. | | | |
| |Mandate the Minister of Transport, as | | | |
| |Chairperson of the Shareholders Committee, | | | |
| |to act on behalf of the shareholders in | | | |
| |specific and priority areas as determined by| | | |
| |the shareholders. | | | |