Department of Defence Equal Opportunities Directorate; Public Protector on Appointment of a Military Ombuds: briefings

She said that it was a fact that some racial groups tend to dominate certain geographical areas. She however noted that one needs to look at the broader picture of representativity. The aim was to get all members of the SANDF involved in decision-making processes. Chaplain General Gqiba commented that many sea-faring coastally located communities who are in the navy often oppose re-deployment to other areas. From a military perspective, he felt that this to be very unacceptable.

Mr Blaas (NNP) said that it was evident from the survey done by the Directorate that the old SADF members felt that the Department of Defence does not offer equal opportunities to everyone. He asked whether the survey included new SANDF members or was it restricted to the older members.

Brigadier General Lizamore explained that the survey was conducted across the board. It included old and new members.

Ms P Daniels (ANC) asked whether there was a substantial decrease in racism in the SANDF.
She also asked what was being done to alleviate problems relating to language barriers.

Brigadier General Lizamore noted that since 1998, racism has decreased by up to five percent.
Major General Sedibe responded that key documents such as the Defence Act have already been translated into Zulu. She made the point that it would not be practically possible for various languages to be used in the SANDF as it could lead to confusion, which in the end could have disastrous effects.

Mr Jankielsohn asked how the Department envisaged solving the problem of the negative perceptions on affirmative action that was held by the old SADF members. Some of the older white members of the SANDF feel threatened by Affirmative Action programmes.

General Matanzima pointed out that the problem was evident especially amongst the ranks of brigadiers up until majors. It was therefore a problem predominantly at middle management level.
Major General Sedibe reiterated her point of representativity in the SANDF and an Affirmative Action policy is one way of achieving it.

Appointment of a Military Ombudsman
The Public Protector, Mr Lawrence Mushwana, asked for guidance on exactly what the Committee wanted him to address. He noted that he had prepared a synopsis of the types of military cases that were referred to the Office of the Public Protector.

Mr Motumi, Chief director: Policy and Planning from the Department, gave some background to this matter. He explained that the Department had intensely deliberated the issue and agreement had been reached that the position of a military ombudsman would be a high ranking one (for example, deputy director general) and that it would be situated within the Office of the Public Protector. Advocate D Scroobe was subsequently appointed as the Military Ombudsman operating from within the Office of the Public Protector. Mr Motumi noted that the issue has once again arisen due to the resignation of Adv Scroobe. He emphasized that the Department fully supports the appointment of a Military Ombudsman.

Mr Mushwana commented that the Department's input had shed light on what was required in his briefing. He informed the Committee that the post for a Military Ombudsman had been publicly advertised. Interviews had been held and a possible candidate was being considered. He referred to his written briefing which outlined the type of complaints received which ranged from unfair military court decisions to delays in pension payouts (see document).

Mr Mushwana felt that a Military Ombuds would not be the quick fix that it was expected to be. He noted that it was the policies of the military that were outdated and inflexible. Despite this, he did not have any objection to the appointment of a military ombuds.

Mr Mushwana was however concerned that the appointment of an ombudsman in the military would spark off appointments in every government department. This was the very scenario playing itself out in Great Britain. British government departments are now backtracking as the departmental appointments of an ombuds had become superfluous.

Discussion
Mr Morwamoche asked the following questions:
- What criteria if any had been used in advertising the post of the Military Ombudsman?
- Were there processes within the military that allowed its members to lodge complaints given the constraints of rank and protocol?
- Does the Office of the Public Protector represent persons suing the SANDF?

Mr Mushwana responded as follows:
- The Military Ombudsman has to have a law degree and knowledge of the inner workings of the military. The potential candidate for the position has a masters in law and has six years experience as a legal advisor in the military.
- The question remained unanswered.
- The Office of the Public Protector does not provide legal representation but that it investigates maladministration.

Ms Daniels observed that the Military Ombuds needed to have access to information in the SANDF in order to perform the mandate of the position.

Mr Dlali said that the Committee supports the idea of a Military Ombuds but only if the person is totally independent and knowledgeable about military matters. The Office of the Military Ombuds should preferably not be linked with that of the Public Protector.

Mr Mushwana commented that the issue of where the Office of the Military Ombuds should be located is indeed a serious one. It cannot be located within the Department as the person will lose all sense of impartiality. The previous ombuds had close ties with the Department. Mr Mushwana said that the Minister did not want this mistake to be repeated.

Mr Motumi commented that Adv Scroobe had expeditiously handled the complaints referred to him as Military Ombuds. He added that it might have been the impression that he was in cahoots with the Department but this was in fact not the case.

Mr Jankielsohn felt that if indeed a Military Ombuds were to be appointed, this information should be communicated to SANDF members. This will enable them to direct their complaints to the proper person.

Mr Dlali said that the issue was a complex one and that it would not be resolved in the present meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.