FROM: PUBLIC PROTECTOR

TO : JUSTICE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON
DATE : 21-06-2005


Dear Ms. Chohan-Kota


BRIEFING BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE REMUNERATION AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF THE DEPUTY PUBLIC PROTECTOR

We have noted from the website of the Parliament Monitoring (PMG) that a Justice Portfolio hearing was held on the 07 June 2005 and Mr Rudman and Ms Sewpaul from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (Department) made presentations on remuneration and conditions of service of the Deputy Protector.

We are concerned that we were not informed of the hearing and issues that were discussed related to the Office of the Public Protector and according to the minutes of the PMG there are some factual inaccuracies. The committee was given a copy of my letter dated 11 November 2003 addressed to the Deputy Director-General, Legislative and constitutional Development of Justice.

Subsequent to this letter there has been an exchange of correspondence between myself and the Deputy Minister culminating in my letter to the Speaker dated 08 March 2005. The letter to the Speaker addressed the following concerns raised by the Deputy Minister of Justice. office felt that it was appropriate to benchmark the post against that of the judge of the high court.

This was explained in detail in paragraph 3 of our letter to the Speaker and we still recommend that the salary of the Deputy Public Protector be benchmarked against that of the judge of the high court pending ~ outcome of the Public Service Review Committee and in conformity with the recommendations of the Minister of Finance as stated in the minutes of the PMG.

The suggestion of the Department that the Deputy Public Protector be remunerated at the level of Chief Director in the Public Service would mean that he/she would receive remuneration similar to that of the Control lnvestigators in the Office of the Public Protector, who are supposed to report to the Deputy Public Protector. Clearly this would be an unacceptable situation and not be in the interest of the credibility of the approved organizational structure of the institution.

TONE OF MY LETTER

We noted that it is recorded in the minutes that "the Public Protector had directed that the appointment be driven by the affirmative action and that the appointee should become a Chief Director. We also noted the concern by Mr. Mangwanishe (ANC) that the tone of the letter was both arrogant and ultra vires.

We assume that this refer to our letter dated 11 November 2003. This letter was addressed to the Deputy Director-General Legislative an Constitutional Development at the Department as our proposal on the conditions of service of the Deputy Public Protector and what should be included in the advertisement. This was a proposal and it was never intended to be directing either the Department or parliament on these issues. The Portfolio Committee on Justice has more than once recommended that there must be a lively interaction between Chapter 9 institutions and the Justice Department. This was an effort to implement the recommendations and to ensure that we submit a common recommendation to the Portfolio Committee.

As regards the proposal that advertisement should be specific about the appointment being affirmative action, this was done after reviewing the employment equity profile of the office at the time that was as follows:

Population Group

Representation in October 2003

Black Males

5

Black Females

2

Coloured Males

0

Coloured Females

0

Indian males

2

Indian Females

0

White Males

4

White Females

3

The office was previously not complying with the Employment Equity Act by not submitting reports and was served with compliance order and hence it was necessary for us to ensure that we comply with the targets that had been set to ensure compliance with the Act and to ensure that the advertisement was specific to avoid any claims of unfair discrimination.

CONDITIONS OF SERVICE

We have noted the remark by Ms Sewpaul in the last paragraph of the minutes, and do not agree with the remark but will make submissions to the relevant review committee.

In conclusion we had indicated in the letter to the Speaker, that we are looking to deliberate further on this issue, should we be provided with opportunity and this was to ensure that we present our facts correctly. One would have expected the officials from the Department of Justice to check the accuracy of some facts from the OPP before misrepresenting the OPP. It is particularly disconcerting that Mr. Rudman is quoted as having suggested that a particular individual should be appointed as CEO for the OPP.

We trust that this will be of some assistance to you and the Portfolio committee and will clear the factual inaccuracies contained in the minutes. We stand ready to make a personal representation should needs be.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

Adv ML MUSHWANA

PUBLIC PROTECTOR OF THE

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

Proposed post establishment March 2005

(PMG Note: Diagrams not included)