Chairperson, hon member, I think both you and I must agree on something. The thing that we have to agree on is the initial part of your question, which was in the form of a statement, that neither one of us should countenance the possibility that the state should waste money on matters like this. I think we have a common purpose on that one.
It will be quite incorrect for us to hold directors-general responsible for a legal process over which they have no control. Let me give an example of what happens in some cases. I'm aware of an instance where an employee has been suspended on a serious allegation of misconduct. Sixty days have come and gone and the hearing has not even taken place, because by the time the lawyers come together to agree on a hearing suddenly a lawyer is not available due to some other appointments. The case then gets postponed for 30 days until he is available.
These are some of the procedural matters that result in these cases taking longer than they should. So there is no wilful commitment for a director- general to keep somebody suspended, because it can't be so.
The minute an official is suspended with full pay it means that neither the executive authority nor the director-general can put somebody else in that place. That is where you and I have a common purpose. We have to find the means and mechanisms to cut this process to the point where we are able to accelerate the completion of the hearings that must finalise the allegations. That is the target that we will try to achieve in the work that we are doing. Thank you.