Meeting with the Home Affairs Director General

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson explained that the Constitution had established the system of Portfolio Committees as a tool with which the Parliament can oversee the work of the executive. He explained that the Constitution provides guidelines on how information is to be acquired from the various departments of the government. Thus the Department of Home Affairs was subject to oversight and was accountable to the Portfolio Committee for Home Affairs. Since the adoption of the devolution of powers in 2006, provincial heads had now taken over the management of provincial offices of the Department. As such it was necessary for the Committee to engage with those provincial managers as they were in the best position to explain to the Committee what was happening in their offices.

The Chairperson explained that during recent visits by the Committee to certain of the offices of the Department, the Committee had discovered that there was a lot of chaos. At one office they had visited, there was no provincial manager appointed and thus there was no proper management of the office. In another office they had found ID documents scattered around the floor and of the seven computers that were in one office only two were functioning. The Chairperson did not expect the national department to know everything that was going on in their offices. However there were managers who were supposed to ensure that everything was under control and it was these managers who should be questioned when something was found to be out of place.

The Chairperson said that on 15 February 2008 the Committee sent out a letter to the Department stating some of the issues that they wanted to engage on with the provincial managers. On 18 February 2008 they received a response from the Director General’s office stating that their request could not be met. The Committee then met and discussed this response on February 18 and responded to the letter by requesting that the Department appear before the Committee. In this letter the Committee explained what information they required from the Department. The Chairperson acknowledged that after this they did receive reports from provincial managers. However, on February 21 they received a letter from the Director General stating that he could not comply with their request. In this response the Director General articulated that he would not allow provincial managers to appear before the Committee. After a long and tedious battle, the Committee wrote a letter to the Department requesting that the Director General appear before the Committee. This brought them to this meeting.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would like to know from the Director General why he had disregarded the requests made by the Committee as this resulted in the restriction of the Committee’s work. He asked the Director General to explain why he insinuated in his correspondence that the Committee was calling for ‘dubious meetings’ yet it was their duty to oversee the work of the Department of Home Affairs. He concluded that although this meeting was to discuss the roles and responsibilities of the Committee and the Department, whatever was discussed in this meeting would not preclude the Committee from their endeavour to meet with provincial managers.

Director General of Home Affairs’s Response
The Director General, Mr Mavuso Msimang, explained that his speech would be made on the premise that he acknowledged that everything that the Chairperson had said was true. However although he accepts the oversight responsibility of the Committee, he would show how the actions taken by the Committee had resulted in more harm than good.

The Director General explained that the Department had several concerns with the actions of the Committee. First, the random changes to, postponement and cancellation of meetings had made it difficult for the Department to work together with the Committee. He said that the department spent time and money planning such meetings only to have  them cancelled or postponed. In the worst case, the Department was once even dismissed from a meeting on the grounds that they had not adequately prepared an annual report. Another issue was the fact that the Minister had been falsely accused of disrespecting the Committee by not attending their meetings yet she always provided an apology when she could not attend.

The Director General complained about the impromptu visits of the Committee to offices of the Department. He explained that on one particular day the Committee was set to meet with ‘Turn Around Consultants’ (at the Department of Home Affairs in Pretoria) at 8.30am but they instead went on a surprise visit to one of the Department’s other offices. The arranged meeting was then cancelled but the consultants still had to be paid.

The Director General also expressed concern regarding the Committee’s involvement with potential bidders for the Smart Card initiative. He also said that their planned tour of DRC and their recent visit to Germany was a waste of tax-payers' money.

The Director General claimed that the Portfolio Committee often insisted on discussing operational matters that were still under review. This had the potential to compromise the departments’ negotiations. A case in point was the suspension of senior officials. The DG became worried when he saw a scribbled note, in which a member of the Committee claimed that the Department had “absolutely no chance” in winning a case against one of the suspended employees. As late as yesterday, the Department’s legal representatives reported that one of the suspended employees was openly boasting that he knew what the Department was saying in Parliament about them. Also, he was openly flashing a document with a parliamentary letterhead. These were obvious attempts to intimidate the Department by showing that they were well connected.  The Department would appreciate it if the Committee would allow the Department time to complete its internal process before forming judgments, such as “we will never win any case”.

The Director General concluded that he acknowledged the authority of the Committee to call whomever they require from the department in accordance with their oversight responsibility but he felt that there was a need to conduct this amicably. He explained that he felt undermined by the Committee as it was improper to invite junior management to meet with the Committee without the knowledge of the Director General. The centralised nature of documentation was such that security and registration issues were best found at the Head Office which he heads. Finally he said that at a Ministerial and Executive meeting (MINEXCO) the Department and the Ministry had adopted a resolution stating that the Committee should follow protocol when requiring the presence of the Department and should not call junior management to appear before them.

Discussion
The Chairperson reiterated that the Committee did not need permission from anyone when they seek to engage with Provincial Departments. Their authority came from the Constitution and that the MINEXCO resolution did not bind them in any way.

The Director General explained that the resolution was borne out of frustration.

The Chairperson rebutted the presumption that the Committee intentionally dismisses the department and cancels meetings with the department just to disregard the Director General. He explained that the time when they were dismissed from a meeting, it was at the Department’s request as they had not adequately prepared for the meeting.

With regards to the trip to DRC, the Chairperson said that the Committee was not required to report to the Department when they had overseas trips. He explained that the go-ahead came from the Speaker of Parliament. He suggested that the Department should not engage with the Committee as they did with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA).

Finally the Chairperson said that if the Committee had been allowed to do their oversight work and if they had acquired a report from the provinces, they would had been able to advise the Department and by now restoration would have begun. 

Mr P Mathebe (ANC) asked the Director General if he had a copy of the speech he had made.

The Director General replied that he had used his personal notes and that there were no copies of the speech available for distribution to the Committee.

Mr Mathebe then commented that perhaps the Committee had been misinformed about the role of a director general. He explained that it was not clear whether he was an administrator or a politician. With regards to the MINEXCO resolution, the Department and the Ministry were exercising political opinion on the wrong platform. The Committee could and would question whomever they need to and that they would not tolerate those that try to usurp their power. Finally he highlighted that as a result of the devolution of power, provincial managers were now accountable to the Committee.

The Director General confirmed that he supported devolution and that he understood that the Committee had a right to request the provinces to report to them. He apologised for any disrespect that was embedded in the letters he had written to the Committee. He also added that he accepted the Chairperson’s guidance.

Mr Mathebe suggested that there should be a parliamentary debate to resolve this issue. He explained that the Department should be focusing on the corruption within their office (in particular the cases against the Deputy Director General and the Chief Financial Officer). He also pointed out the wasting of tax-payers’ money that was occurring in the department. He said that the outstanding R8 548 000 million in fines and penalties that had not been collected by the Department (and had prescribed in terms of the Prescription Act) was an indication of such waste.

He advised the Department that in future when they had an Annual General Meeting, they should remember to include strategic planning and statistics for review by the Committee otherwise their presentations would be considered faulty as they had been in the past.

The Director General tried to explain that if the Committee had read the report and then asked questions where they did not understand, then the meeting could have progressed but unfortunately they had been dismissed.

The Chairperson pointed out that the Department had asked to be excused so that they could re-work the presentation. He said that as the meetings were recorded, this could be verified.

Mr Mathebe went on to explain that the Committee did not have to announce when they intended to visit the department as this was what oversight was and as such the Department should expect that the Committee would visit. He agreed that there were procedures to follow when calling for reports from the provinces but he pointed out that these had been followed. It was the duty of the Committee to ensure that the Department goes through a turn-around process. He requested that the Director General should apologise for insinuating that the Committee was colluding with suspended officials.

The Director General did not respond to this comment.

The Chairperson added that the meetings of the Committee were recorded and as such, if collusion took place, then it was recorded.

Mr M Sibande (ANC) questioned how the attitude of the Committee affected the work of the Department. In particular how would it affected the way they were dealing with ninja gangsters who operated between the Limpopo and Beit Bridge border.

Mr M Lowe (DA) interjected. He advised his colleague Mr Sibande to address his comments to the Chairperson as was protocol.

Mr Sibande continued by asking what had been done to boost the morale of Home Affairs Department workers who were clearly contributing to the poor service delivery.

Mr F Beukman (ANC) commented that democracy required that the Department and the Committee should have healthy and fruitful talks. He explained that the role of the parliamentarian was to engage with the executive to ensure value for money (good service delivery). He also pointed out that all this was done as a service to the public. The Committee only wanted to ensure that the issues of the past were resolved by the Department.

Mr Lowe reiterated the sentiments of Mr Beukman that the work of the Committee was to serve the people of South Africa. He noted that it had been nine months since the new Director General had taken office. In those nine months the Director General had been frank and open and his commitment to improve the Department was apparent. He rebuked the Committee for being hard on the Director General and said that during the seven years that this Committee had been in existence, this was the first time that they were trying to show their concern for the problems encountered by the Department. He questioned whether this was a reaction to Polokwane.

The Chairperson asked Mr Lowe to refrain from entering a debate about party politics.

Mr Lowe continued that he agreed that the Committee needed to have  frank meetings with the Department but he expressed his disapproval at the ugliness of the meeting at hand.

The Chairperson chastised Mr Lowe again and warned that he should focus on the issues at hand.

Mr Lowe said that if he were not permitted to speak freely then he would leave the meeting and return when the Committee had resumed their oversight duties. He then walked out of the meeting.

Ms M Maunye (ANC) agreed with Mr Lowe about the fact that the Director General was still new in office. She repeated Mr Lowe’s sentiments that the Committee must work together with the Director General to ensure that they could fulfil their mandate.

Ms Maunye also accepted that the Committee had the right to subpoena whomever they wish but she would prefer that this did not occur. The mandate of this Committee was to serve the people and she again appealed to the Committee and to the Director General that they must work together.

She explained that the trip to DRC was part of their duties as a Committee. She did not agree that there was a need for the Committee to get permission from the Department before going to DRC.

Ms H Weber (DA) noted that there was a need for mediation between the Director General and the Chairperson. It was clear that the Department and the Committee were in agreement about the responsibilities of the Committee. However it was also clear that there was some animosity between the Chairperson and the Director General and this was now a personal war and one that the Committee did not need to be a part of.

The Chairperson said that there were no personal issues between himself and the Director General. He added that nonetheless the tension would be dealt with in the impending workshop.

Mr W Skhosana (ANC) said that clearly issues had been piling up and now the Director General and the Committee had reached a point of explosion. His only expectation had been to deal with the reasons for conflict with the Department. He suggested that perhaps there was a need to appoint a mini-committee to deal with the misunderstanding. Both the Committee and the Director General acknowledged the oversight responsibility of the Committee. It was now necessary to deal with the conflict instead of repeating something they both acknowledged.

Mr Skhosana went on to say that since the inception of the turn-around programme, the Committee had been trying to find ways to assist the Department to improve service delivery. The Committee and the Director General need a chance to observe and determine what work was needed. Where there was no synergy one must look for resolutions.

Mr Skhosana explained that the Committee had visited the DRC as it was their duty to attend with regard to the work of the Independent Electoral Commission. He pointed out that the Department had done excellent work in DRC and deserved to be congratulated

Ms N Mathibela (ANC) reiterated the view that this was now a personal battle between the Chairperson and the Director General. She said that surprise visits were intended to catch the department unawares. If they announced their intended visit then the Department would have the chance to clean up their act beforehand. She added that she was concerned about the bogus marriage scams.

The Director General concluded by saying that compared to the challenging issues faced by the Department, the most stressful time the Department had was when they had to face the Committee. He explained that he did not fear the Committee but he did feel under pressure when summoned by then. He emphasised that the Department recognised the authority of the Committee. Finally he said that there was much work to be done to improve the Department.

The Director General asked for the Committee to provide him with a copy of the Committee agenda for 2008.

The Chairperson said that the programme was already in circulation. He apologised to the Director General that he had not received one yet and directed the committee secretary to give him a copy.

The Chairperson agreed with the Director General that there was a lot of work to be done in the Department. He stated that the date for the proposed meeting with the provinces would be announced at a later stage. The arranged workshop would be held next week. At this point the meeting was adjourned.