PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
WRITTEN REPLY
QUESTION NO: 760
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 15 March 2010
QUESTION PAPER NO: 7
DATE OF REPLY: 19 March 2010
Mrs J D Kilian (Cope) to ask the Minister of Communications:
(1) (a) How many disciplinary processes have been instituted in his
department since 1 September 2009, (b) against (i) which officials and
(ii) on what grounds and (c) what was the material loss to the
department in respect of each official;
(2) whether his department engaged the services of the Auditor-General to
determine the extent of the alleged irregularities; if not, why not;
(3) (a) which firm(s) was/were appointed to conduct investigations, (b)
what was their brief in respect of each case, (c) what process was
followed to appoint a chairperson for the disciplinary committee in
each case, (d) what are the (i) names and (ii) designations of the
persons who constituted the disciplinary committee in each case, (e)
when did the disciplinary hearing of each official take place, (f) who
rendered legal advice to the disciplinary committees and (g) what was
the outcome in each case?
NW889E
REPLY:
Please read the reply together with the reply for Question 643
1) (a) Twenty six (26) disciplinary processes have been instituted in the
Department from 2008 to 2010.
(b)(i): This information cannot be provided as it requires personal
information of the officials. The employer is restricted to disclose
certain information in terms of Section 16(5) of the Labour Relations
Act (No 66 of 1995). In addition, Part 2, Chapter 4 of the Promotion
of Access to Information Act (No 2 of 2000) provides mandatory
protection of privacy of a third party who is a natural person. The
information officer of a public body must refuse a request for access
to a record of that public body, if the disclosure would involve the
unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a third party,
including a deceased individual. Any such information may only be
provided if the applicants (third parties) have consented in writing
to the disclosure of information, the information being available
publicly and they have been informed.
(ii): The grounds for the disciplinary processes can be summarised
as follows:
⢠Non-compliance with departmental policies and procedures â 2
cases
⢠Distruptive behaviour - 1 case
⢠Wrong documents to Executive Authoruty -1 case
⢠Insubordination 4 cases
⢠Absenteeism -1 case
⢠Irregularities -12 cases
⢠Fraud -1 case
⢠Dishonesty â 4 cases
(c) Most of the charges are not quantifiable in monetary terms, and
as such we are unable to indicate material loss suffered by the
Department.
2) The Department followed its internal disciplinary process, as
prescribed by its internal policy in this regard as well as that of
the Public Service.
3) (a) The names of private companies which were appointed to conduct
investigaiton cannot be disclosed n terms of Chapter 4 of the
Promotion of Access to Information Act (No 2 of 2000). This Act
prescribes that an information officer must refuse a request for
access to a record of that public body, if the disclosure thereof
would constitute a breach of a duty of confidence owed to a third
party in terms of an agreement, and if disclosed, could prejudice the
future supply of similar information or information from the same
source; and it is in the public interest that the information from the
same source continue to be supplied. However, it can be mentioned
that the Public Service Commission did conduct investigations.
(b), (d), (e), (f) and (g): Please refer to the reply in (b)(i)
above.
(c) The processes followed in the appointment of a chairperson for
the disciplinary committee in each case were prescribed by the
Departmentâs internal Procurement Procedures and Disciplinary
Procedures as well as the Senior Management Service (SMS) Handbook of
the Department of Public Service and Administration.