Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports

Tuesday, 11 November 2014]
2947
No 912014] FIRST SESSION, FIFTH PARLIAMENT
PARLIAMENT
OF THE
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
ANNOUNCEMENTS,
TABLINGS AND
COMMITTEE REPORTS
TUESDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Council of Provinces
1.
Transmission of Bills for concurrence............................................ 2948
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
1.
Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform ......................... 2948
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Assembly
1.
2.
3.
Ad hoc committee to consider report on security upgrades at

Nkandla ........................................................................................... 2949
Powers and Privileges Committee .................................................. 2983
Communications ............................................................................. 3049

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Finance............................................................................................ 3050
Finance............................................................................................ 3050
Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs .......................... 3062
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS NO 912014
2948
[Tuesday, 11 November 2014
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairperson
1.
Message from National Assembly to National Council of

Provinces in respect of Bills passed by Assembly and transmitted
to Council
(1)
Bills passed by National Assembly and transmitted for

concurrence on 11 November 2014:
(a)
Rates and Monetary Amounts and Amendment of

Revenue Laws Bill [B 12 2014] (National Assembly
sec 77).
(b)
Taxation Laws Amendment Bill [B 13B 2014]

(National Assembly sec 77).
(c)
Tax Administration Laws Amendment Bill [B 14

2014] (National Assembly sec 75).
The Bills have been referred to the Select Committee on
Finance of the National Council of Provinces.
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
1.
The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

(a)
Report of the Communal Property Associations for 2012-2013,

tabled in terms of section 17 of the Communal Property
Associations Act, 1996 (Act No 28 of 1996).
(b) Report of the Communal Property Associations for 2013-2014,

tabled in terms of section 17 of the Communal Property
Associations Act, 1996 (Act No 28 of 1996).
2949
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Assembly
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee to consider the Report by the
President regarding the security upgrades at the Nkandla private
residence of the President, dated 11 November 2014
Having considered the report of the President, the reports and

correspondence presented before it on the security upgrades at the
Nkandla private residence of the President, the Committee wishes to report
as follows:
1.
INTRODUCTION
The Ad Hoc Committee to consider the Report by the President regarding

the security upgrades at the Nkandla private residence of the President
was established through a Resolution of the National Assembly on 19
August 2014.
The Assembly Resolution of 19 August 2014 read as follows:
The Chief Whip of the Majority Party moved: That the House -
(1)
notes that a Report by the President of the Republic of South

Africa to the Speaker regarding the security upgrades at the
Nkandla private residence of the President was tabled on 14
August 2014 (Announcements, Tablings and Committee
Reports, p 1026); and
(2)
establishes an ad hoc Committee to -
(a)
consider the Report by the President;
(b)
make recommendations where applicable;
(c)
exercise those powers as set out in Rule 138 of the

Rules of the National Assembly that are necessary to
carry out its task;
2950

(d)
consist of 11 Members as follows: African National

Congress 6, Democratic Alliance 2, Economic Freedom
Fighters 1 and other parties 2; and
(e)
report to the House by no later than 24 October 2014.
On 12 September 2014 the following correspondence from the President

was also referred to the Ad Hoc Committee by the Speaker (see
Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports of Friday, 12 September
2014, p1193):
(a)
A letter, dated 12 August 2014, from the Public Protector to the

President of the Republic regarding the report that he submitted to
the National Assembly in relation to the security upgrades at his
Nkandla residence, and
(b)
A letter, dated 11 September 2014, from the President of the

Republic to the Public Protector in response to her letter of
21 August 2014.
(c)
A letter, dated 15 September 2015, from the Public Protector to

the President.
Also on 12 September 2014, the Final Report of the Special Investigating

Unit (SIU) to the President of the Republic regarding the Prestige Project
involving the security upgrading of the private residence of the President
situated at Nkandla, KwaZulu-Natal, was referred to the Ad Hoc Committee
(see Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports document of
Friday, 12 September 2014, p1205).
Following this, at a Multiparty Chief Whips Forum [date to be inserted], the

political parties agreed that:
the Public Protectors Report [Report number 25 of 2013/2014];
the Report(s) of the Special Investigating Unit established in terms

of Proclamation R59, 2013 and the submission of the President
thereto; and
2951
all other relevant information and correspondence would be

considered.
The following reports and correspondence therefore served as source

documents for consideration by the Committee:
a)
The Inter-Ministerial Security Cluster Task Team Report (Also

referred to as the Inter-Ministerial Security Cluster Task Team
Report);
b)
The Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence (JSCI)

on the Inter-Ministerial Report; and
c)
The Public Protectors Report entitled Secure in Comfort;
b)
The Special Investigating Units Final Report;
The following Members were appointed to the Committee:
AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (ANC)

Frolick, Mr CT
Dlakude, Ms DE
Kubayi, Ms MT
Motshekga, Dr MS
Beukman, Mr F
Ngcobo, Ms BT
Maseko, Ms LM (Alternate)
DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE (DA)

Maimane, Mr M
Selfe, Mr J
Breytenbach, Adv G (Alternate)
2952
ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS (EFF)

Malema, Mr JS
Shivambu, Mr NF (Alternate)
INKATHA FREEDOM PARTY (IFP)
Singh, Mr N
FREEDOM FRONT PLUS (FF +)

Mulder, Dr CP
In line with Assembly Rule 153 the following Members attended some of
the Committees meetings:
AFRICAN CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY (ACDP)

Swart, Mr SN
CONGRESS OF THE PEOPLE (COPE)1

Lekota, Mr MGP
Madisha, Mr WM
ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS (EFF)

Gardee, Mr SM
Ndlozi, Mr MQ
On 23 October 2014 the Assembly, by Resolution, extended the deadline

for the Ad Hoc Committee to report to 14 November 2014.
The Congress of the People does not have party representatives on the
Committee. COPE and other smaller parties as a collective elected the Honourable
Mr N. Singh (IFP) and the Honourable Dr C.P. Mulder (FF+) to represent them in
the Ad Hoc Committee.

2.
2953
COMMITTEE DELIBERATIONS
On 29 August 2014 the Committee convened to elect a Chairperson in

terms of the Rules of the National Assembly. However, at this meeting, due
to differences of opinion on what constituted the Committees Terms of
Reference, a Chairperson was not elected. The opposition parties were of
the opinion that the Resolution establishing the Ad Hoc Committee should
be amended to reflect that the Committee was to consider, and report on,
the Report of the Public Protector.
After consultation amongst all political parties at a special meeting of the

Multi-Party Chief Whips Forum of the National Assembly, the Committee
reconvened, on 9 September 2014, and elected Mr C T Frolick as its
Chairperson.
The Committee convened on the following dates to consider the

Presidents Report and the various reports which served before it as source
documents:
18 September 2014
25 September 2014
26 September 2014
30 September 2014
9 October 2014
30 October 2014
6 November 2014
11 November 2014
At the meeting of 25 September 2014, the Members representing the

Congress of the People (COPE), although not Members of the Committee,
highlighted the partys objections to the constitutionality of the Committee.
All other parties disagreed with the interpretation of the COPE MP's and
agreed that the Committee was indeed constitutional. The representatives
of COPE then left the meeting stating that the party would follow the
proceedings of the Committee, but would not participate in its work.
2954
In the subsequent meeting of 26 September 2014, Members of the

Committee could not reach agreement on the methodology to follow in
performing its mandated task. The key points of deliberation were whether:
the findings, recommendations and remedial actions in the Report

of the Public Protector were binding and enforceable on other
organs of State; and
any person or persons should be invited to present their reports

before the Committee or to provide oral evidence.
In its deliberations the issues of contention between Members of the

Majority Party and the Opposition Parties were as follows:
The Opposition Parties held the following position:
a) The Report of the Public Protector was superior to all other

reports;
b) The Public Protector did not make recommendations her
report, Secure in Comfort, stated remedial actions;
c)
The proposed remedial actions stated in the Public Protectors

Report, Secure in Comfort, were binding and enforceable;
d) The Committee had to invite persons and parties mentioned in

the reports of the Public Protector, the Inter-Ministerial Task
Team (Security Cluster), and Special Investigating Unit to
appear before the Committee as allowed by Rule 138 of the
National Assembly Rules; and
e) The Committee had to seek a legal opinion from senior legal
counsel on the status of the Public Protector Report and
whether or not its proposed remedial actions were binding and
enforceable on the organs of State.
The Majority Party held the following position:

a) The Committees deliberations should remain focused on the
Report of the President;
b) All the reports had to be treated in an equal manner to avoid
casting aspersions on any of the government agencies or
structures that dealt with the matter at hand;
2955
c) The Committee had to consider the following source documents

to get a proper understanding of the issues raised in it:
the Inter-Ministerial Security Cluster Task Team Report;
the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence Report;
the Public Protectors Report; and
the Special Investigating Unit Report.
d) The Public Protector makes recommendations and may state

remedial actions;
e) The proposed remedial actions stated in the Public Protectors
Report were not binding and enforceable on other organs of
State;
f)
The Committee to first consider the Report by the President and

other reports prior to deciding whether or not to call witnesses;
g) The Committee was not reviewing any reports and it was not
opening any inquiry;
h) The Majority Party listed the ten steps as contained in the
Cabinet Memorandum of 2003 as guiding the methodology it
would follow.
The Committee could not reach consensus at this meeting on the issue of
the methodology to be followed. Members of the Opposition Parties
withdrew their participation from the Committee and walked out of the
meeting.
Assembly Rule 133 states that:
(1)
A majority of the Members of a Committee constitutes a

quorum, subject to sub rule (2).
(2)
A Committee may proceed with business irrespective of the

number of Members present, but may decide a question only if
a quorum is present.
(3)
When a Committee has to decide a question and a quorum is

not present, the member presiding may either suspend
business until a quorum is present, or adjourn the meeting.
2956
When the Committee again met on 30 September 2014, it was confirmed

(in terms of the relevant Rules) that the Members present formed a
quorum. The Committee therefore proceeded with its mandated oversight
responsibilities to consider the Presidents Report and the source
documents. The Committee adopted the methodology as contained in (a) (g) above.
In this meeting the technical staff supporting the Committee presented the
commonalities and differences in the findings and recommendations of the
source documents that served before the Committee. In focusing on this
issue, the Committee also considered the Constitutional role of the
President, the Executive, Accounting Officers and officials of the respective
departments.
In concluding the meeting of 30 September 2014, the Committee once

more invited the opposition parties to return and participate in the on-going
proceedings towards finalising the work of the Committee.
Given the nature of the Committees oversight function in considering the

Presidents Report, the Committee decided that it was unnecessary to call
witnesses.
The Committee noted that when the Public Protector submitted his Report
to the National Assembly in 2004 (Public Protectors Special Report to
Parliament 28 May 2004), the National Assembly established an Ad Hoc
Committee to deal with the matters.
The Committee noted that, in processing its work, the Ad Hoc Committee of
2004 did not call witnesses to give evidence, but instead considered the
contents of the report before it. The Committee therefore applied the
principle of precedence (stare decisis) and focused on the content of the
investigative reports that served as source documents before it, rather than
initiating its own in-depth investigation into the matter.
The Committee concluded this meeting by agreeing that a draft Committee

report should be prepared for consideration at its next meeting.
2957
On 9 October 2014, the Committee met to consider its draft report. After
deliberations, the Committee noted that additional time was required to
properly prepare the final report for the Committee's consideration.
The Committee again expressed disappointment at the withdrawal of the

Opposition Parties from the deliberations of the Ad Hoc Committee. The
Committee repeated its call for Members of the Opposition serving on the
Committee to return to the Committee to complete the task in line with the
House Resolution.
3.
OBSERVATIONS
During its deliberations the Ad Hoc Committee made the following

observations:
The status of the Public Protectors Report, remedial actions,
and the High Court (Western Cape) Judgement regarding the
Public Protector as ombudsman:
3.1.
The Committee noted that the outcome in the High Court of South
Africa in the matter between the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the
South
African
Broadcasting
Corporation
(SABC)
(Case
No. 12497/2014) was of relevance to the matter that it was

mandated to consider.
3.2.
This judgement stressed the importance of the Office of the Public

Protector as one of six institutions established by the Constitution to
strengthen democracy through their independence, impartiality and
the exercise of their powers without fear, favour or prejudice.
3.3.
The Committee noted that, in addition, the judgement provided

clarity with regards to the findings and remedial actions of the Office
of the Public Protector as it stated that the powers and functions of
the Public Protector are not adjudicative and that a finding of the
Public Protector is not binding on persons and organs of state.
(p. 32 para 51 of the judgement is made in reference to section
182(1) of the Constitution).
2958
3.4.

The Committee observed that the above mentioned judgment
further stated that the power to take remedial action (as described in
section 182(1) of the Constitution) means no more than that the
Public Protector may take steps to redress improper or prejudicial
conduct. But that is not to say that the findings of the Public
Protector are binding and enforceable or that the institution is
ineffective without such powers. (Ibid).
3.5.
The Committee further noted that the investigative reports produced

by the Inter-Ministerial Task Team, Joint Standing Committee on
Intelligence, and Special Investigating Unit all contained findings
and recommendations, but that specifically the latter, legislatively,
could initiate punitive legal action to ensure redress and remedial
action.
Control and divisions of responsibility the necessary financial

legislative measures are in place:
3.6.
The Committee observed that the legal framework that was relevant
in the matter before it, consisted variously of policy instruments,
legislation and regulation; that is the PFMA, the Ministerial
Handbook, and the Cabinet Policy of August 2003 dealing with
security measures at private residences of the President, Deputy
President, Former Presidents and Former Deputy Presidents
(referred to as the Cabinet Memorandum of 2003).
3.7.
The Committee observed that the Cabinet Memorandum of 2003

had as its main consideration the safety of the President and that it
did not place any limit on the amount to be spent in effecting
upgrades for security purposes (p 29, Inter-Ministerial Security
Cluster Task Team Report, December 2013).
3.8.
The regulatory framework guides the actual processes along which

officials operationalise the project(s) and consists of both legislation
and practice notes from National Treasury on the one hand, as well
as Supply Chain Management Policies of the Department of Public
Works on the other hand.

3.9.
2959
The legislation that gives effect to section 216(1) of the Constitution

is the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) which states that
national legislation is required to "establish a national treasury and
prescribe measures to ensure both transparency and expenditure
control in each sphere of government, by introducinga)
generally recognised accounting practice;
b)
uniform expenditure classifications; and
c)
uniform treasury norms and standards."
Divisions of responsibility:
3.10. The Committee noted that Section 96 (1) of the Constitution
prescribes that Members of the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers must
act in accordance with the code of ethics prescribed by national
legislation.
3.11. Section 96 (2) (c) of the Constitution lays out the conduct that
Members of the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers may not use their
position or any information entrusted to them, to enrich themselves
or improperly benefit any other person.
3.12. The PFMA, in giving effect to what the Constitution states it should
do, ensures that an important division of responsibility between the
political head (President, Deputy President, Cabinet Minister or
Provincial Member of the Executive Council) on the one hand, and
the administrative head of the department, that is, the DirectorGeneral or Head of Department of a national or provincial
department exists.
3.13. The political head - referred to as the Executive Authority - held the
responsibility for matters of policy; while the administrative head referred to as the Accounting Officer - held the responsibility to
implement the departments budget and human resources to
translate policy into concrete outcomes.
2960
3.14. The Executive Authority remains accountable to Parliament for

achieving policy matters and outcomes, while the Accounting Officer
is accountable for the manner in which he or she utilised the budget
and human resources to reach those outcomes.
3.15. The Committee observed that an important aspect of the PFMA was
the establishment and maintenance in each department of
government, of an effective and transparent financial accountability
system.
3.16. In the matter before the Committee, the reports before it contained
evidence that a Roster System through which service providers
were contracted, the Special Bid Adjudicating Committee, the
Regional Bid Adjudicating Committee, and the Supply Chain
Management (SCM) policies were in fact in place and were
supposed to be applied in a uniform and transparent manner. (p16,
paragraphs 52 and 54, of Department of Public Works (DPW) SCM
policy).
Systems of financial control are constitutionally prescribed:

3.17. The Committee observed that the PFMA gives appropriate effect to
section 216 of the Constitution as it places on Accounting Officers
the responsibilities (sections 38 to 44 of the PFMA) to not only
establish, but to maintain systems of financial accountability;
Accounting Officers are therefore responsible for:
a.
the operation of basic financial systems, internal controls in

both the departments and the entities that fall under their
control;
b.
to ensure that budgets are not overspent;
c.
to report on a monthly and annual basis;
d.
to publish annual reports in a prescribed manner which should

include
e.
performance reporting.
2961
3.18. The Committee observed that Chapter 10 of the PFMA states

clearly that Accounting Officers face strict disciplinary sanctions,
including dismissals where they do not adhere to the prescripts of
the PFMA.
3.19. The Committee observed that in her Report the Public Protector
states that there were instances where the Executive Authority
strained too close to the areas of responsibility of the Accounting
Officers and the administration. (Public Protectors Report, p. 61).
3.20. The Committee observed that the residences of families that had to
be resettled for security purposes, were constructed on land that
belongs to the Ingonyama Trust. The President occupies the land
through a certificate issued by the local inkosi termed Permission to
Occupy. (Presidents Report to Speaker of the National Assembly,
14 August 2014, p 4; Public Protectors Report p 425 and 426)
3.21. The Committee observed with concern that the investigating team of
the SIU reported that in spite of the project to secure it, the private
residence of the President remained insecure. (SIU Report, p 244).
The rural character of Nkandla affected the provision of security (all

information based on the Presidents Report to the Speaker of the National
Assembly, and security assessments as reported on by the JSCI and the InterMinisterial Security Cluster Task Team):
3.22. The unique rural conditions of the area and the geography of
Nkandla had a marked influence on ensuring the security of the
sitting President.
3.23. In providing security, government must make the necessary

physical modification to the particular physical and socio-economic
circumstances within which the Presidents private residence is
situated.
2962
3.24. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and

he and his dependents must be provided with:
a. health care by the South African National Defence Force
(SANDF);
b. protection by the South African Police Services, (SAPS)
supported by the SANDF; and
c. transport by the SAPS and the SANDF.
Material conditions at Nkandla that influenced security upgrades:

3.25. The Presidents private residence is geographically located in a
deep rural area that is characterised by a low level of infrastructural
development with statistics showing that Nkandla rates in the top
five poorest areas in the province of KwaZulu Natal (KZN).
3.26. Roads are of low quality which influences security due to the need
for access roads that enable staff who are responsible for the
Presidents health, protection and transport to quickly reach, and in
cases of emergency, evacuate the President and his dependents.
3.27. The terrain is steep and mountainous which make any form of
transport difficult especially in bad weather; due to the situation of
Eskom pylons, even transport by air (helicopter) has proven to be
dangerous.
3.28. Health care facilities in Nkandla are too far from the Presidents
residence.
3.29. There is a general lack of bulk water and electricity supply, and
communication infrastructure that negatively influences the socioeconomic condition of the area.
3.30. The municipality of Nkandla and surrounding areas has, over a

number of years, experienced high political tension with sporadic
threats and warnings of a resurgence of political violence.
2963
3.31. Rural villages are soft targets for criminals and the security
assessment by the Departments of Police and Defence and Military
Veterans concluded that Nkandla was a high risk area.
A difficult terrain on which to construct and ensure security:

3.32. The land on which the Presidents private residence has been
developed lies at a gradient of 40 to 70 degrees which makes it
even more susceptible to flooding during storms.
3.33. Due to this gradient all construction activities such as earthworks

and landscaping had to include fortifications, buttresses, and paving
for proper water-flow and storm-water drainage.
3.34. To ensure general security, and a swift flow of traffic in case of

emergencies, all structures that could have slowed down traffic or
that could have been used as hideaways and strategic attack
positions by possible assailants, had to be removed and cleared.
3.35. Where structures and other residences had to be removed and

cleared, they had to be re-erected elsewhere.
The private expansion and improvements to the Zuma homestead:

3.36. In 2008, prior to being elected as President, the Zuma family started
expanding and improving the homestead.
3.37. At the time of the Presidents inauguration in 2009, the three houses
on which work had started were at various stages of construction;
the first house was at roof level with work on the roof at the first
stages; the second house was also at roof level just ready for the
roof to be installed; and the third house was just below roof level
(Inter-Ministerial Security Cluster Task Team Report, p 8).
3.38. The Zuma family had appointed its own architect, contractors and
engineers for the project and no state funds were used to improve
the homestead.
2964
3.39. In the Inter-Ministerial Security Cluster Task Team Report, the

Department of Public Works made it clear that the Department did
not pay any contractor for the construction of the houses of the
President. (p 31 Inter-Ministerial Security Cluster Task Team
Report).
The introduction of Mr Makhanya

3.40. The President introduced Mr Makhanya to the DPW team. This was
done because there were already advanced construction taking
place at the Presidents homestead. The President notes that he
facilitated a meeting between this same grouping of persons and
Mr Minenhle Makhanya, the consultant who was already engaged
with building work at my home so that they would be appraised of
the pre-existing plans for construction at the residences and that
there would be as little disruption as possible to the work
commissioned. (Presidents Report to the Speaker, 14 August
2014, p 7, para 31).
Regarding allegations that the Presidents brothers may have

benefitted from the prestige project:
3.41. The Public Protector (para 10.5.1, p 431) found no evidence that the
Presidents brothers benefitted from the prestige project and
contractual arrangements that involved the security upgrades at his
private residence at Nkandla.
3.42.
We equally observe that despite the above finding, in para 9.3.2

and 9.3.3. on p 408, the Public Protector continues to allege that,
There is no question that his family benefitted from these as they
now form part of the Presidents estate. The question that arises is
whether or not the family has and will continue to unduly benefit
from the luxurious items not recommended in the security
evaluation.
The Committee holds a different view.
2965
Steps taken by the President to deal with the allegations of

maladministration and wastage related to the project to secure his
private residence at Nkandla:
3.43. Following sustained media allegations of maladministration and
wastage that the President used State funds to build his private
residence at Nkandla the President took a number of steps to deal
with the matter;
3.44. These actions by the President as Head of the national executive

(Section 83 of the Constitution), took place in addition to the
investigation that the Public Protector undertook and reported on in
Secure in Comfort dated 19 March 2014;
3.45. Each of the investigations resulted in reports that included findings

and remedial actions that cannot be ignored;
3.46. The investigations and reports can be recorded chronologically, as

follows:
a.
On 5 October 2012, the Minister of Public Works announced

that an investigation into allegations of maladministration and
wastage of public resources would take place by a specially
convened Inter-Ministerial Security Cluster Task Team;
b.
On 20 December 2013, the President signed Proclamation

R 59 of 2013 for the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) to
investigate the matter and where relevant, institute civil action
to recover any state funds that might have been lost due to
possible irregular activities;
c.
The Inter-Ministerial Security Cluster Task Team reported on

its investigation on 27 January 2013;
d.
The President, in his letter dated 2 April 2014 addressed to

the Speaker of the National Assembly, noted the Report of the
Public Protector its findings and recommendations.
2966

e.
The President in this letter stated that he had requested the

SIU to provide him with a provisional report of its investigation
as soon as possible, in order to assist him in providing the
National Assembly with a further final report (Ibid).
f.
On 14 August 2014, the President provided a further report to

the National Assembly on the efforts he and the government
as a collective had made and were busy making to ensure
that whatever state funds might have been lost due to the
security upgrades, could be identified and recovered, and that
persons who were implicated through evidence, were brought
to book.
With regards to whether the President and his dependents benefitted

unduly as a result of the security upgrades, the committee noted that:
3.48
The security list developed by SAPS and relied upon by the Public
Protector in her report, was not developed in accordance with Step
2 of the Cabinet Memorandum of 2003. There was no evidence that
it was conducted together with SSA or that it was submitted to the
Inter-Departmental Security Coordinating Committee (para 9.1.1.5,
p 389, Public Protectors Report). The Committee could thus not
rely on the authenticity of this list.
Commonalities across reports on non-compliance with relevant

legislation that led to irregular actions and massive cost escalations:
3.49
There was agreement across investigative reports on noncompliance

management
with
the
legislative
regulations,
treasury
framework,
regulations
supply
as
chain
well
as
unnecessary cost escalation.
3.50
The reports of the Inter-Ministerial Task Team, the Public Protector

and the Special Investigative Unit indicated that costing escalations
inflated the project costs in a irregular manner to an amount in
excess of R216 million.

3.51
2967
Having read and perused the investigative reports, there was

agreement in the initial meetings of the Committee between all
political parties that the value of the existing structures and work
that was performed had been grossly inflated and not worth the
amount that was spent in excess of R216 million.
3.52
The table that follows shows general agreement across the reports
of the Inter-Ministerial Task Team, the Public Protector and the
Special Investigating Unit on the issues of non-compliance,
unnecessary cost escalations and irregular activities that took place
in this project.
Comparative findings across investigative reports
Security Cluster
Public Protector
Task Team
August 2003 Cab Memo
Same
Area declared National Key Point
Same
SIU
Same
National Key Point Act not applicable
to this project & investigation
Not dealt with - found to be irrelevant
Violation of National Key Point
Same
to the investigation instead

applied the Cabinet Memorandum
dated August 2003.
Non Compliance with PFMA, National

Treasury Regulations and DPW Supply Chain
Same
Same
Project improperly budgeted for
Same
Same
Project improperly managed
Same
Same
Same
Not applicable
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
None
Same
Not applicable
Same
Same
Same
Same
Management Policy
Non-compliance with Government Immovable

Asset Management Act (GIAMA)
Excessive cost escalations
Department of Public Works officials violated
PFMA, NT Regulations and DPW SCM
No public funds were used to build the
Presidents private residence
Failure to ensure security clearance
for service providers
Failure to comply with National Treasury
regulation 16A
Funds transferred from other underspending
programmes (Inner City Regeneration and
Dolomite) of DPW to fund Project 1
2968

Recommendations
National Key Point Act should be reviewed
Same
DPW to take steps against officials
Finding of Task
that violated legislation and policies
Team
Review of SCM to Regional Offices
Same
Not applicable
DPW to apportion costs to SAPS and DD
Same
Not applicable
Same
Not applicable
Same
Not applicable
Development of policy on prestige projects

is needed
Lease agreement needed between DPW
Not applicable
Not applicable
and Ingonyama Trust
Evidence in the investigative reports of control ceded to the private

professional team:
3.53
The reports document a process amounting to dereliction of duty

with control over the design, costing and the procurement of service
providers ceded to the private professional team; this was a process
in which DPWs professional team systematically and irregularly
ceded control of the budget and the procuring of service providers
to the private professional team, namely Makhanya Architects and
R&G Consultants.
3.54
DPWs cost control system that normally takes place through the
Special Bid Adjudicating Committee (SBAC), the Regional Bid
Adjudicating
Committee
(RBAC)
and
the
Supply
Chain
Management (SCM) was corrupted once the acting DirectorGeneral,
the
Deputy
Director-General
of
Key
Accounts
Management, the regional manager of the Durban Regional Office,

and project manager increased the RBAC cost limitations of
R500 000 to an unlimited amount.
3.55
This meant that the Makhanya-R&G Consultants combination was

able to procure service providers with access to state funds that had
no limit set to it through the normal cost control system.

3.56
The
investigative
2969
reports
affirm
that
the
Makhanya-R&G
Consultants combination continued to do the design and costing on

behalf of the DPWs professional team.
3.57
The reports provide evidence that Mr Makhanya, the architect of the

private renovations at the Presidents private residence at Nkandla,
became the Principal Agent (PA) of the project.
3.58
The SIU report further points out that the appointment procedure of
the Principal Agent, and the manner of procuring services by ceding
control to the Principal Agent, were evidently irregular (para 66 to 70
pp 87 to 89, and para 30, 31, and 32, pp 198 and 199 provide
evidence of this).
3.59
The SIU report further provided evidence that the ceding of total
control into the hands of the Principal Agent, took place in
combination with the removal of control of DPWs SCM department.
(Ibid).
3.60
The reports stated that, in this capacity, Mr Makhanya acted on

behalf of the DPW, and that he would, in designing and procuring
services on behalf of the DPW, ensure the prudent use of project
funds.
3.61
The Committee observed that as the Principal Agent, Mr Makhanya

had a duty to provide regular reports to the DPW Professional Team
on matters of design, the procurement of services, and the costing
of all parts of the project. (pp 174 and 175 of Public Protectors
Report, the SIU report, para 22, 23 and 24, p194 and 195).
3.62
The Committee observed that the reports refer to the DPW

Professional Team expressing its concerns that the Principal Agent
did not prepare and send monthly reports to the DPW professional
team (Public Protectors Report, para 6.43.3, p 175 and SIU report,
para 66, p 87 and 88).
2970
3.63
The reports unanimously refer to evidence collected from persons

involved that the operationalisation of the project by the Department
of Public Works constituted non-compliance with the Public Finance
Management Act (PFMA), National Treasury regulations and the
department's own Supply Chain Management policies. The SIU
report goes as far as referring to the DPW Project Managers as
flouting the SCM policy and going so far as making the rules as
one went along. (para 28, p 197).
Applicable legislation and policy:

3.64
The Committee noted that the Public Protectors report stated that
the authority to implement security measures at the private
residence of the President is primarily conferred by the Cabinet
Policy of 2003 (p 427).
3.65
However, because National Key Points Act (Act 102 of 1980) was
inexplicably dragged in halfway through the implementation of the
Nkandla Project, it was her opinion that its provisions had to be
complied with (Public Protectors Report, p 427, para 10.1.3).
3.66
The Committee noted that the Special Investigating Unit (SIU)

expressed a view that the upgrades were not installed in terms of
the National Key Points Act, but in terms of the Cabinet
Memorandum of 2003.
3.67

was adopted by Cabinet after the promulgation of PFMA, and the
steps contained in it are aligned to the provisions of the PMFA.

3.68
2971

stated the following steps to be followed when security measures
had to be installed at the private residence of a President, former
President, Deputy President or former Deputy President:
a.
A request from the President followed by an Evaluation by the

South African Police Service (SAPS) based on a threat
analysis by the State Security Agency (SSA) of structures that
the State shall construct to secure the safety of the President
and his immediate dependents including their personal
property.
b.
Formulation by SAPS and the SSA of a proposal on

appropriate measures (staff and structures) to be put in place
by the State. These measures shall be submitted to the
Interdepartmental Security Coordinating Committee (ISCC) for
technical assessment.
c.
The DPW prepares a cost estimate based on the proposed

structural security measures and submit this to the SAPS.
d.
The SAPS then advises the Minister of Safety and Security on

the proposed security measures and the related costs.
e.
The
Minister
of
Safety
and
Security
approves
and
communicates such measures to the President for consent.

f.
SAPS submits measures as approved by the President to the

DPW which approaches the Minister of Public Works for
approval of costs of the structural security measures;
g.
Structural security measures that were approved are then

implemented as follows:
(i)
SAPS personnel and related costs provided and funded

by SAPS;
(ii) Structural additions and amendments to the property is

made, and thereafter maintained, from the DPW budget;
h.
The security situation at the Presidents private property

should from time to time be revisited by SAPS to ensure
continued security assessments and threat analyses.
2972

i.
These assessment reports may from time to time necessitate

up or down grades or termination depending on the dynamic
security requirements of the political principal.
j.
Where downgrades or termination takes place, any permanent

structures become the property of the owner on which said
structures were erected who shall then maintain them. (InterMinisterial Security Cluster Task Team Report pp. 28 and 29).
3.69
The Committee observed that only two of the above steps as set
out in the Cabinet Memorandum of 2003 were implemented:
The two security assessments were done by SAPS (Public

Protectors Report p 389), and
The DPW cost estimates was done (SIU Report, p 240, para
34).
4.
FINDINGS
With regards to the legislation and regulation that guided the

security upgrade project, the committee finds that:
4.1.
The Cabinet Memorandum of 2003 is the appropriate policy

document that should have guided the process of securing the
private residence of the President;
4.2.
The National Key Points Act of 1980 was not the applicable piece of
legislation that guided the security upgrades of the Presidents
residence at Nkandla.
4.3.
Neither the National Key Point Act nor the Cabinet Memorandum of
2003 requires the residence to be declared a National Key Point
before security upgrades can be effected. The residence was
declared a National Key Point after the project started.

4.4.
2973
It seems as if there was a lack of oversight by the relevant

Executive Authority (relevant Ministers) to ensure the proper
departmental co-ordination and implementation in compliance with
the Cabinet Memorandum of 2003.
4.5.
From the source documents, it appears as if regular security

assessments, as stated in the Cabinet Memorandum of 2003, were
not performed by the South African Police Services (SAPS).
4.6.
The SIU, using the security requirements as set out in the security
assessment reports of the SAPS and SANDF, issued a considered
view of concern that requires urgent attention; in the final two points
of its report (para 46 and 47 on pp 247 and 248), it places urgency
on the need for further security assessments by security experts
from the State Security Agency (SSA), SAPS and the SANDF; cited
here in part, it reads as follows:
during the inspection in loco, the investigating team noted a
number of matters of concern relating to the upgrades that
have been effected. having regard for what was produced
under Makhanyas stewardship of the project and measuring
it against what the security assessment reports set out as
requirements, in our respectful view, a further review by
SAPS should be undertaken as soon as possible.
With regards to initiation of security upgrades at the private

residences of the President, Deputy President, former Presidents and
former Deputy Presidents, the committee finds that:
4.7
It is common cause that security upgrades had to be effected at the

Presidents private residence at Nkandla.
4.8
The Public Protector (p 427, para 10.1.1.) and the Special

Investigating Unit (pp 68, 69, and 189) both reported that the
Cabinet Memorandum of 2003 is the authority for implementing
security measures at the Presidents private residence.
2974

The Public Protector states as follows:
However, no evidence has been submitted or found
indicating that the Presidency requested the SAPS and
State Security services to consider securing the private
residence of the President, yet this is the trigger mechanism
stipulated in paragraph 8.1.2 (b) (i) of the Cabinet Policy of
2003. (p 20, para 9, Public Protectors Report)
In the light of the aforementioned comments by the Public Protector,

it is clear that the President did not request the upgrades.
4.9
The Public Protector further states that However, I was persuaded

by the submissions by various representatives of the State that the
normative process is not to wait for a request from the Presidency.
I was advised that the action is taken to provide immediate basic
security
while
commencing
process
of
conducting
comprehensive security evaluation as soon as a President is

elected. (p 20, para 10, Public Protectors Report).
The President in his report to the Speaker states that:

25. In 2009 I was appointed as President of the Republic.
Immediately upon my inauguration, members of the security
cluster engaged with me regarding security requirements at
my homestead which are commensurate with a Head of
State of the Republic.
In view of the above, the Committee finds that the project to secure
the Presidents private residence was correctly initiated.
4.10
The President in his Report to the Speaker of the National Assembly

indicates as follows:
30. In the course of the engagements with the security
cluster, I initially met with the then Minister of Public Works,
Mr. Geoff Doidge, senior SAPS officials and other
government officials at my homestead in a consultative
process regarding improved security due to my occupying
the office of President of the Republic.
2975
The President further states that:

32. From time to time I received briefings both formally and
informally from the various Ministers engaged with the
security enhancements. I was advised at some stage of the
need to declare the homestead as a National Security Key
Point. Whilst I took no exception to such declaration, I was
not intimately involved with the finer details.
Whilst the President may not have requested the security upgrades,
it is certain that he became aware of them.
4.11
It is, however, important to note that the reports contain no evidence

that the President in any manner influenced the Executive
Authorities or officials to act in ways that may suggest that they
should have acted irregularly while securing his private residence at
Nkandla.
With regards to the appointment of Mr Makhanya and the Private

Professional Team, the committee finds that:
4.12
Those officials who were responsible for Mr Makhanyas later

appointment as Principal Agent knew the requirements of the legal,
regulatory, and supply chain management framework, but did not
follow these important prescripts to the letter and therefore it can be
alleged that they acted irregularly.
4.13
The Private Professional Team was appointed in an irregular

manner and the ceding by the DPW officials of their responsibilities
to Makhanya and R&G Consultants allowed for "scope creep" and
massive irregularities that saw costs soar to in excess of
R216 million as highlighted by both the Public Protectors and the
SIU reports.
4.14
There was gross negligence on the part of the senior officials of the
Department of Public Works. The officials who have acted outside of
the legal and regulatory financial framework exposed themselves to
the consequences as prescribed in the relevant legislation that
gives effect to section 216 of the Constitution, which is the Public
Finance Management Act (PFMA), National Treasurys Practice
Notes, and the DPWs Supply Chain Management Policies.
2976
4.15
It appears from the Public Protectors Report that the former

Minister and Deputy Minister of Public Works were at some stages
involved in the implementation of the Nkandla project. The
involvement albeit for a short period of time appears to have created
an atmosphere that was perceived as political interference or
pressure, although the evidence does not show any such intent on
their part (Public Protectors Report p 435 para 10.7.1.1.).
4.16
The National Key Points Act of 1980 was erroneously applied to

deal with the security requirements of the President.
4.17
The oversight over the implementation of the 2003 Cabinet

Memorandum is the responsibility of the relevant Members of the
Executive Authority.
Systems of financial control are constitutionally prescribed
4.18
The measures of financial control were flouted that transparency

and control was not evident in the manner in which the project was
implemented.
With regard to efforts of the President to investigate allegations of

maladministration and wastage in the prestige project involving
security upgrades at his private residence at Nkandla, the Committee
finds that:
4.19
The Public Protector alleges that the President failed to act to

protect state resources and that this failure constituted a violation of
paragraph 2 of the Executive Ethics Code. (Public Protectors
Report, p 439 para 10.10.1.6)
4.20
The information before the committee shows that the President as

Head of the Executive instituted the following actions:
On 5 October 2012, the Minister of Public Works announced that an

investigation into the allegations would take place by a specially
convened Inter-Ministerial Security Cluster Task Team. This Task
Team would, in all likelihood, have been appointed after
consultation with the President.
2977
It is inconceivable that a Task Team would have been appointed

without the President being aware of its appointment:
On 20 December 2013, the President signed Proclamation

R, 59 of 2013 for the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) to
investigate the matter and where relevant, institute civil
action to recover any state funds that might have been lost
due to possible irregular activities;
The Inter-Ministerial Security Cluster Task Team reported on

its investigation on 27 January 2013;
Once the Public Protectors Report, Secure in Comfort was

made public on 19 March 2014 and was submitted to the
National Assembly by the President. The President,
adhering to Chapter 9 of the Constitution, noted her report,
its findings and recommendations and responded to it
through a letter to the Speaker of the National Assembly, on
2 April 2014 (Announcements Tablings and Committee
Reports document, p 2418);
The President in this letter stated the he requested the SIU

to make a provisional report of its investigation available so
that he could respond more fully to the report of the Public
Protector (Announcements Tablings and Committee Reports
document, p 2419);
On 14 August, 2014, the President reported to the National

Assembly on the efforts he and government as a collective is
making to ensure that whatever state funds might have been
lost due to the security upgrades, could be identified and
recovered, and that persons who were implicated through
evidence, were brought to book.
4.21
In light of the above points, the suggestion that the President did not
act, is not correct.

unduly as a result of the security upgrades, the Committee finds that:
4.22
The Committee finds that the security list developed by SAPS and
relied upon by the Public Protector in her report, was not developed
in accordance with Step 2 of the Cabinet Memorandum of 2003.
2978

Step 2 of the Cabinet Memorandum of 2003 requires a formulation
by the SAPS and the SSA of a proposal on appropriate security
measures to be put in place by the State at the Presidents private
residence. These measures must thereafter be communicated to
the Interdepartmental Security Coordinating Committee (ISCC) for
technical assessment.
4.23
In view of the fact that the list compiled by the SAPS was not
developed in accordance with the Cabinet Memorandum of 2003,
the Committee could not rely on the list.
4.24
It is common cause that the Public Protector is not a security expert.

The Cabinet Memorandum of 2003 outlines ten steps to be followed
when security measures are to be installed at the private residences
of a sitting President, Deputy President, former Presidents and
Deputy Presidents. All the Reports prepared on the security
upgrades at the President's private residence are unanimous that
most of the aforementioned steps were not complied with.
4.25
A Senior Parliamentary Legal Adviser provided a legal opinion to the

Committee on undue enrichment and arrived at the following
conclusion:
"Therefore, in my view it would be premature for the
Committee to make a finding of undue enrichment prior to
the matter having been attended to by the relevant security
experts consistently with the Cabinet Memorandum of
2003".
The Committee concurs with this legal advice.

With regards to the ownership of the land, including the structures
and amenities that were constructed on it, the committee finds that:
4.26
The Presidents report to the Speaker of the National Assembly

provides clarity on the issue of ownership and occupation of land in
question. Paragraph 11 of the Presidents Report reads as follows:
My family homestead is located some 24 kilometers south
of Nkandla town centre. The land on which it is situated is
2979
owned by the Ingonyama Trust, the legal entity that owns

traditional land and is administered by His Majesty King
Goodwill Zwelithini Ka BhekuZulu. Together with my family,
I occupy the land through a certificate issued by the local
inkosi termed Permission to Occupy.
4.27
It is evident from the source documents before the committee that

both pieces of land where the security upgrades took place belong
to the Ingonyama Trust and that the Zuma family occupies one of
the pieces of land.
With regards to the question of whether the President was in violation

of the Executive Members Code, the Committee finds that:
4.28
There were several allegations about the President, amongst others

that:
He lied to Parliament when he said Government did not build

his house;
Government build a spaza shop for Mrs Zuma;
Family benefited from the project (Presidents brother)
The Public Protector in her Report has noted that:
President Zuma improperly benefited from the measures

implemented in the name of security which include nonsecurity comforts such as the Visitors Centre, such as
swimming pool, amphitheater, cattle kraal with culvert and
chicken run. (para 10.5.3, p 431)
The Public Protector cleared the President in all these serious

allegations (para 10.5.1, p 431) except that she found that there
were according to her, nonsecurity related items that were erected
or built which the President and his family materially benefited.
(Public Protectors Report, p 431, para 10.5.1. and p 432, para
10.5.4.).
2980
4.29
In the judgment of the Democratic Alliance v The South African

Broadcasting
Corporation
Limited
and
Others
(Case
No: 12497/2014) WC, High Court Judge Schippers referred to the

nature and extent of the powers of the Public Protector and stated
as follows:
(51) Further, unlike an order or decision of a court, a finding
by the Public Protector is not binding on persons and organs
of state. If it was intended that the findings of the Public
Protector
should
be
binding
and
enforceable,
the
Constitution would have said so.
4.30
Regarding the above, the Committee thus finds that the

Constitution,
section
167,
(4)(e)
specifies
that
only
the
Constitutional Court may decide that Parliament or the President

has failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation.
5.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
With regards to non-compliance with relevant legislation, policy

instruments and regulations that led to irregular actions and massive
cost escalations, the committee recommends that:
5.1
The President must ensure the implementation of all measures, as

outlined in his final Report on the upgrades at his Nkandla private
residence to the Speaker of the National Assembly (Announcements,
Tablings and Committee Reports, 1026, 14 August 2014).
However, the Committee is of the considered view that the Cabinet
Memorandum of 2003 is applicable and not the National Key Points
Act (102 of 1980). A report must be made available to Parliament
within three months.
5.2
The President should consider whether any Member(s) of the

Executive Authority failed to implement the provisions of the Cabinet
Memorandum of 2003, either through complacency or negligence in
the execution of their duties, and, if necessary, take appropriate
action.

5.3
2981
The President should note the instances where the Executive

Authorities i.e. the former Minister and Deputy Minister of Public
Works did not act according to the prescripts of the PFMA that sets
out precise divisions of responsibility between the Executive Authority
and the administration, and, if necessary, take appropriate action.
5.4
The Cabinet must strengthen efforts to ensure greater co-ordination

of strategic projects pertaining to the security of the President, Deputy
President, former Presidents and former Deputy Presidents.
5.5
All persons responsible for the loss of state funds should be held
accountable and the law should take its course. The committee fully
supports the measures that are being implemented by the Special
Investigating Unit (SIU) and the relevant authorities.
5.6
The Department of Public Works should strengthen its supply chain

management processes and key accounts management branches,
and include as part of this process, precisely set time frames and cost
limits for prestige projects and report to the Portfolio Committee on
Public Works within three months.
With regards to the structures and amenities that were constructed on

the land adjacent to the Zuma homestead that belongs to the
Ingonyama Trust, the committee recommends that:
5.7
The relevant Executive Authority should discuss, at the appropriate

time, the post-tenure arrangements with the relevant local, provincial
and national authorities to facilitate the future use of such structures
and amenities by the local communities.
5.8
The Department of Public Works, should ensure that the necessary

consultations take place with the state security departments so that
proper security assessments regularly take place to ensure the ongoing security of the President, Deputy President, former Presidents
and former Deputy Presidents and their dependents after they leave
office.
2982

unduly as a result of the security upgrades, the committee
recommends that:
5.9
The Committee recommends that the matter of what constitutes

security and non-security upgrades at the Presidents private
residence be referred back to Cabinet for determination by the
relevant security experts in line with the Cabinet Memorandum of
2003. Cabinet must report back to Parliament on the steps taken to
give effect to this recommendation within three months.
With regards to the legislation and regulation that guided the security
upgrade project, the committee recommends that:
5.10
Policy and regulatory gaps in the current legislative and regulatory

framework relating to securing the private residences of political
office bearers requires urgent attention to avoid further possible
waste of state resources.
5.11
A comprehensive review of the National Key Points Act (102 of

1980) should be undertaken to ensure that a new piece of
legislation that is relevant to the current Constitutional and
Legislative dispensation is promulgated.
5.12
The Cabinet Memorandum of 2003, and related regulations such as

the Ministerial Handbook must be reviewed by Cabinet;
5.13
A technical team of qualified security experts from the State Security

Agency (SSA), the South African Police Services (SAPS) should
undertake an evaluation of the existing security features at the
private residence of the President at Nkandla to assess whether the
implemented security features are secure, and to evaluate the
concerns raised by the SIU report. The outcome of this evaluation
must be reported to Cabinet and Parliament within three months.

5.14
2983
All contractors involved in projects that are focused on security

upgrades of senior public office bearers, should in future be properly
vetted by the relevant security agencies and should comply with the
construction industry building standards as set out in the policies
and regulation of the Department of Public Works.
5.15
The relevant Executive Authorities, after doing the necessary

assessment with security experts should, in future report to Cabinet
and the Parliament on the implementation of security upgrades of
Prestige Projects. Regular reports as per the relevant legislation
should be made to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence of
Parliament.
5.16
A private home of the President and the Deputy President that is

used for official government accommodation should qualify for the
necessary security installations and security improvements.
Report to be considered.
Mr. C T Frolick, MP
Date:
Chairperson
Report of the Powers and Privileges Committee of the National

Assembly on the hearing into allegations of conduct
constituting contempt of Parliament by members of the National
Assembly
1.
Referral
On 26 August 2014, the Speaker of the National Assembly referred

an incident of grave disorder in the House (sic) to the Powers and
Privileges Committee (the Committee) for inquiry. The incident,
involving 20 members of the National Assembly, took place on
21 August 2014, during Question Time to the President.
2984
In her referral letter, the Speaker requested the Committee to deal

with the issue as a matter of urgency and with due regard to the
Rules of the National Assembly and the Schedule to the Rules, and
to submit to the National Assembly a report on its findings and
recommendations in terms of Rule 194(2)(b).
2.
Mandate
Rule 191 of the National Assembly Rules establishes the Committee

as required by section 12(2) of the Powers, Privileges and
Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act, No. 4 of
2004 (the Act). The Committee is mandated by section 12(1) of the
Act to inquire into and pronounce upon any act or matter declared
by or under section 13 to be contempt of Parliament by a member,
and taking the disciplinary action provided therefore.
Furthermore, section 12(3) of the Act requires the Committee to

inquire into the matter in accordance with a procedure that is
reasonable and procedurally fair, and table a report on its findings
and recommendations in the National Assembly.
3.
Membership of the Committee
3.1
The Committee was constituted as follows-
Chairperson: B L Mashile (ANC)

R M Mdakane (ANC)
M R M Mothapo (ANC)
J D Kilian (ANC)
J Moloi-Moropa (ANC)
C Nqakula (ANC)
A Lotriet (DA)
S Esau (DA)
NF Shivambu (EFF)
M A Mncwango (IFP)
M L Filtane (UDM)

3.2
2985
Alternate members of the Committee-
M Booi (ANC)
B T Bongo (ANC)
S Luzipho (ANC)
N Mthembu (ANC)
K Litchfield-Tshabalala (EFF)
W M Madisha (COPE)
3.3
Members of the Committee present at the Hearing

were-
Chairperson: B L Mashile (ANC)

M R Mdakane (ANC)
M Booi (ANC)
BT Bongo (ANC)
M R M Mothapo (ANC)
J D Kilian (ANC)
A Lotriet (DA)
S Esau (DA)
D L Twala (EFF)
M A Mncwango (IFP)
M L Filtane (UDM)
Honourable Shivambu and Litchfield-Tshabalala could not represent

their party at the hearing as they were part of the affected members
of the National Assembly who were charged. Initially, the party was
represented by honourable A M Matlhoko, who was subsequently
replaced by honourable D L Twala. Honourable Twala walked out of
the proceedings on 30 October 2014.
4.
Initiator
The Committee met on 4 September 2014 and resolved to appoint

an Initiator in terms of item 5 of the Schedule to the Rules. Three
nominations were proposed and considered by the Committee. On
the same day, the Committee resolved to appoint Mr Randal Van
Voore, an attorney with the law firm Bowman Gilfillan, as the Initiator.
2986
In terms of the Schedule, the Initiator presents the evidence

regarding the allegations against the affected members. The
evidence presented to the Committee took various forms, including
oral evidence by witnesses, documentary evidence and audio-visual
recordings.
5.
Notice
In terms of the Schedule, charges were finalised against the affected

members and notices containing the charges were served on the
affected members as follows:
notices were emailed by the secretariat to both the personal

and parliamentary email addresses of the affected members;
attempts were made by the Protection Services Unit of

Parliament to hand-deliver the notices to the affected
members; and
notices of six (6) of the affected members were delivered by

the Sheriff of the High Court in line with item 2 of the
Schedule.
6.
Meetings of the Committee
The Committee convened to hear the allegations of contempt of

Parliament against the 20 affected members on the following dates:
7, 8, 9, 15, 20, 21, 28, 30 October 2014 and 3 November 2014.
The Committee also met on 7 November 2014 to consider
aggravating and mitigating factors before it considered appropriate
penalties. The Committee held its last meeting on 10 November
2014 to adopt the Report.
7.
Hearing into allegations of contempt of Parliament
For purposes of the hearing, the 20 affected members were

categorised into three groups (A, B & C) in terms of the number of
charges leveled against them. To this end, the affected members in
Group A faced between four and seven charges, Group B two
charges and Group C one charge respectively. In relation to the six
2987
affected members in Group A, the hearing into allegations and

charges
of
contempt
were
initially
scheduled
for
Tuesday,
30 September, Wednesday, 1 October, and Thursday, 2 October

2014. The six members were honourable N F Shivambu, R P
Ramakatsa, G A Gardee, Q Ndlozi, J S Malema and K LitchfieldTshabalala.
The Committee hearing scheduled for the above dates, however,

were postponed out of respect for the court process instituted by the
Economic Freedom Fighters in the Western Cape High Court. On
29 September 2014, the court began proceedings in this regard. The
Court dismissed the application challenging the legality of the referral
by the Speaker of the incident of grave disorder of 21 August 2014,
and struck the application off the court roll.
The postponement of the hearing was extended to the hearing that

was scheduled for 3 October 2014 in respect of Group B, which was
scheduled to inquire into allegations and charges of contempt of
Parliament in relation to honourable J A Mngxitama, N S Matiase, O
H Maxon, E N Louw, M Moonsamy and R N Mashabela.
The hearing for Group C members, which was scheduled for

6 October 2014, was consequently also postponed. The affected
members were honourable A Matshobeni, P N Sonti, S M Khawula,
V N Nqweniso, P Ntobongwana, Z K Morapela, B D Joseph and M S
Mbatha.
8.
Commencement of Hearing
On 30 September 2014, all 20 affected members were notified in

writing that they were required to attend the hearing of the
Committee as from Tuesday, 7 October 2014. Furthermore, the
members were informed that it was anticipated that the hearing,
would continue until about 13 October 2014, and that further dates
would be determined if required.
2988
The affected members were informed that they were required to

remain in attendance until the conclusion of the hearing. They were
further advised that should they fail to attend the hearing, the hearing
may be conducted and concluded in their absence in terms of the
Rules.
All the affected members were present on the first day of the hearing,
except honourable Moonsamy. The Committee was informed by
honourable Malema that honourable Moonsamy was ill, that she had
received the charges, that she understood the charges and that she
was willing to appear before the Committee. The Committee was
further informed that a medical certificate would be submitted in
connection with honourable Moonsamys absence from the hearing.
The first item of business that the Committee dealt with was whether
the hearing should be heard in closed session or whether it should
be opened to the public in terms of Rule 193(2) and (3) of the
Assembly Rules. All parties agreed that the hearing should be open,
and that it was in the public interest to do so.
9.
Charges against the affected members
The Initiator put the charges to the affected members as follows:

9.1
Charge 1
Honourable Shivambu, Ramakatsa, Gardee, Ndlozi and LitchfieldTshabalala were charged with the same charge, namely:
It is alleged that you are guilty of conduct constituting contempt of
Parliament in terms of Section 13(a) of the Powers, Privileges and
Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act No 4 of
2004 (the Act) in that as a Member of Parliament and during
Questions to the President in the NA on 21 August 2014, you
contravened Section 7(a) of the Act by improperly interfering with
or impeding the exercise or performance by the National
Assembly (the House) of its authority or functions when you
2989
refused to obey the instruction of the Speaker that you take your
seat. This conduct impeded the House from performing its function
of exercising oversight over the Executive by posing questions to
the President and continuing with its business for the day.
This charge appears in the notices of hearing as Charge 1 in respect

of the five (5) members above.
9.2
Charge 2
Honourable Shivambu, Ramakatsa, Litchfield-Tshabalala, Gardee,

Ndlozi and Malema were charged with the same charge, namely:

Parliament in terms of Section 13(c) of the Act in that as a
Member of Parliament and during Questions to the President in
the National Assembly on 21 August 2014, you willfully failed
and/or refused to obey Rule 51 and Rule 53(1), read together, of
the Rules of the National Assembly in that you refused to withdraw
immediately from the Chamber for the remainder of the days
sitting when you were ordered to do so by the Speaker.

of the six (6) members above.
9.3
Charge 3
Honourable Shivambu, Ramakatsa and Litchfield-Tshabalala were

charged with the same charge, namely:
Parliament in terms of Section 13(a) of the Act in that as a
Member of Parliament and during Questions to the President in
the National Assembly on 21 August 2014, you contravened
Section 7(b) of the Act by improperly interfering with or impeding
the performance by a member of his or her functions as a
member, in the following manner when the Speaker requested
2990
Mr BH Holomisa (a Member of Parliament) to pose a question

(i.e. a supplementary question) to the President, your conduct
prevented Mr Holomisa, and other Members of Parliament who
might have wished to ask the President further questions, from
asking their question /s, thereby preventing them from performing
one of their functions as a Member of Parliament (namely to hold
the Executive to account by asking the President questions).
This charge appears as Charge 3 in the notices of hearing in respect

of the three (3) members above.
9.4
Charge 4
Honourable Shivambu and Ramakatsa were charged with the same

charge, namely:
It is alleged that you are guilty of conduct constituting

contempt of Parliament in terms of Section 13(c) of the Act in
that as a Member of Parliament and during Questions to the
President in the National Assembly on 21 August 2014, you
willfully failed and/or refused to obey Rule 49 of the Rules of
the NA by failing to resume your seat when the Speaker rose
while you were speaking or offering to speak, and thereby
preventing the Speaker from being heard without interruption.
This charge appears as Charge 4 in the notices of hearing in respect

of the two (2) members above.
9.5
Charge 5
Honourable Litchfield-Tshabalala, Shivambu, Ramakatsa, Gardee

and Malema were charged with the same charge, namely:
contempt of Parliament in terms of Section 13(c) of the Act in
2991
willfully failed and/or refused to obey Rule 72 of the Rules of

the NA by speaking when you were not called upon to do so
by the presiding officer (i.e. the Speaker) and/or without the
Speaker recognizing you.

of honourable Shivambu and Ramakatsa, as charge 4 in respect of
honourable Litchfield-Tshabalala, as Charge 3 in respect of
honourable Gardee, and as Charge 2 in respect of honourable
Malema.
9.6
Charge 6
Honourable Shivambu, Ramakatsa, Gardee, Ndlozi, Malema,

Matiase,
Mngxitama,
Litchfield-Tshabalala,
Louw,
Mashabela,
Maxon, and Moonsamy were charged with the same charge, namely:

contempt of Parliament in terms of Section 13(a) of the Act in
contravened Section 7(e) of the Act by creating or taking part
in a disturbance within the precincts of Parliament while the
House was meeting by, inter alia, shouting, and/or banging on
the tables, and/or refusing to obey the Speakers instructions,
and/or generally conducting yourself in a grossly disorderly
manner, thereby interfering with or disrupting the proceedings
of the House forcing the Speaker to suspend proceedings
temporarily, and ultimately to adjourn the sitting for the day.
of honourable Shivambu and Ramakatsa, as Charge 5 in respect of
honourable Litchfield-Tshabalala, as charge 4 in respect of
honourable Gardee, as Charge 3 in respect of honourable Malema
and Ndlozi, as Charge 1 in respect of honourable Louw, Mashabela,
Maxon, Moonsamy, Mngxitama and Matiase.
2992
9.7

Charge 7
All 20 affected members were charged with the same charge,

namely:

contempt of Parliament in terms of Section 13(a) of the Act in
contravened Section 7(a) of the Act by improperly interfering
with or impeding the exercise or performance by the National
Assembly (the House) of its authority or functions by
remaining in the Chamber, after the sitting of the House had
been temporarily suspended by the Speaker so that you could
leave, alternatively, be removed from, the Chamber, in order
for the House to continue with its business for that day. Your
refusal to leave the Chamber resulted in the House being
adjourned for the day.

of honourable Shivambu and Ramakatsa, as Charge 6 in respect of
honourable Litchfield-Tshabalala, as Charge 5 in respect of
honourable Gardee, as Charge 4, in respect of honourable Malema
and Ndlozi, as Charge 2 in respect of honourable Louw, Mashabela,
Maxon, Moonsamy, Mngxitama and Matiase, as Charge 1 in respect
of honourable Khawula, Matshobeni, Nqweniso, Ntobongwana,
Sonti, Mbatha, Joseph and Morapela.
10.
Charges put to the affected members
The Initiator put the charge(s) to the affected members individually,

however, at the request of honourable Malema, on behalf of the
affected members of his Party, the Initiator deviated from putting the
charge(s) to the individual members, instead putting the following
affirmation to the members who were asked to confirm the following:
- that they have received the charges;
- that they have read the charges;
2993
- that they understand the charges; and

- that they have no objection to the charges being put in this
manner.
After the Initiator had put the charge(s) to the affected members, they
affirmed that they understood the aforementioned questions in
respect of the charges.
11.
Submission made by honourable Malema on behalf of

the affected members of the EFF
Before the affected members could plead to the charges, honourable

Malema requested to make certain representations to the
Committee on behalf of the affected members of his Party. The
Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, noted that the Act and the
Rules do not provide for the making of such a statement.
Nevertheless, the Committee allowed honourable Malema to
proceed. Honourable Malema read out a written statement into the
record and presented a copy of the written statement to the
Chairperson.
Following the submission by honourable Malema, the affected

members informed the Committee that they no longer wished to
participate in the hearing and proceeded to leave the hearing.
The Committee considered and accepted the legal opinion which

was presented as a legal note by the Parliamentary Legal Adviser
that the submission does not constitute evidence in terms of items 7
and 8 of the Schedule, which deal with the hearing. It was not given
under oath and could not be questioned by the members of the
Committee, the Chairperson, the Initiator and the charged member,
whether directly or through their legal representative.
It was pointed out that there was no procedure in the rules for the
making of such a statement of withdrawal of charges but that no
harm would be done in allowing it.
2994
The Rules provide for the Speaker to refer a matter to the Committee
and for the Committee to table a report to the House. It is the House
that must take the decision on the recommendations of the
Committee. The Committee must act strictly in accordance with the
Act and the Rules and it has no power to withdraw charges.
Presumably, representations to withdraw charges should be made to
the Speaker before a hearing commences, as in law. It is only the
Speaker that can refer the matter to the Committee. Therefore,
presumably, it is only the Speaker that has the power to withdraw
such a referral.
The Committee was further advised and noted that the statement by
honourable Malema cannot be considered as evidence but that the
issues raised in the statement could have been raised as evidence
by the charged members at the appropriate time during the
proceedings.
12.
Pleading to the Charges
The hearing therefore proceeded accordingly from the point where

the charged members indicated they will no longer participate and
left the meeting. As empowered by the Schedule to the Rules of the
National Assembly, the Chairperson entered a plea of not guilty on
their behalf. The Committee then proceeded to hearing the evidence
against the affected members.
1 3.
Evidence before the Committee
1 3.1
Witnesses
13.1.1 Mr Masibulele Xaso (Secretary to the NA)

The Initiator led the evidence before the Committee by way of oral
evidence provided by Mr Xaso, with reference also to Hansard
records, Minutes of the events of the day and with reference to the
footage that was available. To this extent Mr Xasos evidence was
factual and objective and was corroborated by the record.
2995
Mr Xaso confirmed that on 21 August 2014 he was present in the

House during Question Time to the President. He indicated that as
the Secretary to the NA, he was the most senior official present in
the House on that day, fulfilling his regular duties as an officer of the
House to provide support to the House and to ensure that the House
functioned smoothly from a procedural and administrative point of
view.
Mr Xaso confirmed that the Minutes of Proceedings of the NA

correctly
recorded
that
on
21
August
2014
BUSINESS
SUSPENDED AT 14:58 DUE TO GRAVE DISORDER IN TERMS

OF RULE 56 AND RESUMED AT 16:15. He added that the
Assembly Minutes must be read with the Hansard to obtain a
complete picture of what occurred on that day. He further confirmed
that on 21 August 2014 the proceedings commenced at 14h10, and
was suspended for the first time at 14h58 for a brief reconvening,
which was followed by a longer suspension. A resumption of the
sitting followed at 16h15 and an adjournment for the day at 16h17.
After the first suspension of the proceedings of the House for about
7 minutes, the Speaker reconvened the sitting to announce that
members must vacate the Chamber. Where after, the Speaker
suspended proceedings. Mr Xaso submitted that Rule 111 of the
Assembly Rules provides that questions to the President must be
scheduled at least once per term. In respect of each question, four
supplementary questions are allowed, with the first opportunity being
given to the member who asked the question. He indicated that there
are avenues or recourse available to members who are not satisfied
with the answer given by the President during questions for oral
reply.
Mr Xaso was in a position to testify to all the charges as they were

framed. He was able to identify all the honourable members who
appear in the video clips with reference to the video footage and
Hansard record.
2996
13.1.2 Mr
Ravi
Poliah
(Section
Manager:
Information
Communication Technology)
The Initiator called as witness Mr R Poliah to give evidence in
relation to the technology available and used in the NA. Mr Poliah is
employed by Parliament as the Section Manager: Information
Communication Technology (ICT).
Mr Poliah is ultimately responsible, among other things, for the

technical maintenance and support of Parliaments information
technology, audio and video infrastructure equipment and systems.
He has both technical and managerial staff responsible for the dayto-day maintenance and support of the various systems. The audio
system allows members to speak and be heard in the Chamber. It
includes a request to talk system which is used primarily during the
question and answer sessions.
Mr Poliah indicated that the system used in the NA Chamber is new

as it was commissioned for the first time in February 2014.
He said that in the NA Chamber, there are two testing regimes and
that reports were produced following the testing of the system.
Examples of reports produced were submitted into the evidence.
Mr Poliah stated that on 19, 20, 21, and 26 August 2014, tests were
conducted and that the reports which were produced indicate that the
system and subsystem were functioning properly and that all the
systems were operational.
13.1.3 Ms Regina Mohlomi (Serjeant-at-Arms)

Ms Mohlomi testified that on 21 August 2014 she was in the
Chamber during the House sitting. She added that she occupies her
bench in the Chamber, which is at the back of the House, and which
is directly opposite the Presiding Officers chair.
2997
She said that she was aware whom the Speaker was referring to
when the Speaker asked for assistance in removing the members
who were not serious. She was certain that the Speaker was
referring to the affected honourable members of the EFF.
Ms Mohlomi confirmed that when the Speaker had asked for her
assistance she initially approached honourable Ndlozi and said to
him please, the Presiding Officer has spoken; you are requested to
leave the Chamber. She then approached honourable Malema and
Shivambu, and repeated to honourable Malema in Sepedi that the
Speaker has spoken, instructed him to leave the House, and
informed him that if he did not do so she would have to request
security to escort him out of the Chamber, including the members of
his Party.
13.1.4 Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party (Honourable

D E Dlakude)
Honourable Dlakude was present in the House when the Speaker
suspended proceedings, first for a short period and thereafter for
a longer period. She said that during the longer suspension, she
convened an urgent meeting of the Chief Whips Forum as she
was concerned at the unfolding of events in the Chamber. Most
political parties were represented at the meeting, except the EFF
as its whips were in the House. She testified that at the meeting
all those present had expressed concern at what had transpired
in the House and agreed to cooperate.
13.1.5 Chief
Whip
of
the
Opposition
(Honourable
Steenhuisen)
Honourable Steenhuisen confirmed that he was present at the sitting
of the House on 21 August 2014.
2998
He corroborated the evidence of the Deputy Chief Whip of the

Majority Party. He said that some members expressed disdain in
regard to the behaviour of the affected members and at what had
happened in the House, and that their behaviour was unacceptable.
He said that what had happened in the House on that day was a new
experience for members who had been in Parliament before. He said
it was unprecedented, and parliamentary officials were in confusion
about what actually need(ed) to take place, probably because this
has not really happened in Parliament before. He went on to say
that I dont think its anything we were prepared for.
13.2 Affidavits presented to the Committee

As part of the evidence presented to the Committee, the Initiator
presented the following affidavits:
a)
Mr Abraham Sheldon, vision mixer / camera operator in the

Broadcasting and Audio Visual Technical Support division of
the Corporate Services Department. He recorded some of the
events which took place in the Chamber, as well as outside
the National Assembly, on 21 August 2014. He confirmed that
the video footage which he had recorded on 21 August 2014
onto a compact disc was what was presented to the
Committee;
b)
Mr Nishkar Maganlal, a vision mixer / camera operator in the

Broadcasting and Audio Visual Technical Support division of
the Corporate Services Department. Mr Maganlal works in the
broadcasting and audio visual control room at the National
Assembly and is responsible for controlling various cameras
from the control room which record video footage in the
Chamber of the National Assembly. The video footage which
the various cameras recorded on 21 August 2014 was
downloaded onto a compact disc and a video tape;

c)
2999
Ms Cornelia Morecomb, a Control Editor in the Hansard

Transcription Service. Ms Morecomb transcribed the audio
recordings of the proceedings in the National Assembly on
21 August 2014, and the subsequent corrections;
d)
An affidavit deposed to by the Minister of State Security,

Minister M D Mahlobo was also presented to the Committee.
The Minister states in his affidavit that on 21 August 2014 he
was in the Chamber after the short adjournment of the sitting
during the Presidents reply. He and Minister Cwele, the
Minister of Telecommunications and Postal Services, had
approached the leaders of the EFF, honourable Malema and
Shivambu.
They requested them to co-operate and leave the Chamber to

avoid
an
unnecessary
scuffle
with
the
Parliamentary
Protection Services. The two leaders flatly refused their plea

and vowed that even if the session resumed they would
resume where they had left off. They left the two leaders when
it became clear that their plea was not favourably received;
and
e)
an affidavit deposed to by the Minister of Telecommunications

and Postal Services, Minister S Cwele, in which he states that
he was in the Chamber on 21 August 2014. He states that
during the proceedings of that day, and while President Zuma
was attending to the question and answer session, members
of the EFF became extremely disorderly and disruptive. They
were banging on their desks and were generally causing a
major disturbance in the House.
The Minister states that honourable Malema and Shivambu
were amongst the EFF members who were involved in the
disturbance. In the affidavit the Minister says that he recalls
the Speaker at some stage ordering Honourable Malema to
3000

leave the House and the member refusing to do so. He states
that the Speaker ordered the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove
Honourable Malema but the member still refused.
As a consequence of the behaviour of the EFF members and

the refusal of honourable Malema to leave the House, the
Speaker suspended the proceedings of the House. It was at
that stage that he went over to the leaders of the EFF,
honourable Malema and Shivambu, to persuade them and
their members to leave the House since it had been brought to
his attention that the South African Police were planning to
remove the EFF members by force. Notwithstanding his
attempt to persuade honourable Malema and Shivambu to
leave the House, they refused to leave and stated that they
wanted the President to answer their questions.
14.
Findings of the Committee
The charges in relation to these findings appear as they were in the

notices of hearing that were issued to the affected members.
The Chairperson emphasised that the Committee operated in terms

of the standard of a balancing of probabilities. This means that where
the Committee has to decide on a finding, that it must consider the
evidence and decide on a version that is more probable and
reasonable. All the findings made by the Committee are therefore
based on a balance of probabilities.
Having considered the charges, the evidence led by the Initiator, the
written submission made by the Initiator, the questions posed by
Members of the Committee to the witnesses, the Committee makes
the following findings in respect of the 20 affected members:

14.1
3001
Honourable N F Shivambu:
Charge 1
The consequence of the members conduct was that it impeded the
House from performing its function of exercising oversight over the
Executive by posing questions to the President and continuing with
its business for the rest of the day on 21 August 2014. The
Committee found that, on a balance of probabilities, the evidence
before it proved the charge, and it had not been rebutted.
The following honourable members agreed as follows:

1. Guilty on this charge - M R Mdakane, B T Bongo, M R M
Mothapo, J D Kilian, A Lotriet, S Esau and M A Mncwango.
2. Not guilty - M L Filtane.
Charge 2
The Committee deliberated on this charge based on the evidence
presented to the Committee, and found the member guilty of
contravening section 13(c) of the Act in that he wilfully failed or
refused to obey Rules 51 and 53(1) by refusing to withdraw
immediately from the Chamber when he was ordered to do so by the
Speaker. The Committee found that, on a balance of probabilities,
the evidence before it proved the charge, and it had not been
rebutted.

1. Guilty on this charge M R Mdakane, B T Bongo, M R M
Mothapo, J D Kilian and B L Mashile (the Chairperson exercising his
deliberative vote in terms of Rule 129).
2. Not guilty - M L Filtane, A Lotriet, S Esau and M A Mncwango.
Charge 3
contravening section 13(a) read with section 7(b) of the Act by
preventing honourable B H Holomisa MP and other members of
3002
Parliament from asking questions to the President. The consequence

of the members conduct was that it prevented honourable Holomisa
and other members of Parliament, who might have wished to ask the
President further questions, from asking their questions thereby
preventing them from holding the Executive to account. The

Charge 4
refused to obey Rule 49 by refusing to take his seat when the
Speaker rose to speak. The consequence of the members conduct
was that the Speaker was prevented from being heard without
interruption. The Committee found that, on a balance of probabilities,
rebutted.

1. Guilty on this charge - M R Mdakane,B T Bongo, M R M
Mothapo, J D Kilian and B L Bashile (the Chairperson exercising his
Charge 5
refused to obey Rule 72 by speaking when he was not called upon to
3003
do so by the Speaker or without the Speaker recognising him. The


Mothapo, J D Kilian, A Lotriet and S Esau.
2. Not guilty - M L Filtane and M A Mncwango.
Charge 6
contravening section 13(a) read with section 7(e) of the Act by
creating or taking part in a disturbance within the precinct of
Parliament while the House was meeting by shouting, banging on
tables, or refusing to obey the Speakers instruction or behaving in a
grossly disorderly manner. The consequence of the members
conduct was that it interfered with or disrupted the proceedings of the
House, forcing the Speaker to suspend proceedings temporarily and
ultimately to adjourn the sitting. The Committee found that, on a
balance of probabilities, the evidence before it proved the charge,
and it had not been rebutted.

Mothapo, J D Kilian and S Esau.
2. Not guilty - M L Filtane, A Lotriet and M A Mncwango.
Charge 7
contravening section 13(a) read with section 7(a) of the Act in that
the member interfered or impeded the performance of the House or
its authority or functions by remaining in the House after the sitting
had been suspended so that he could leave or be removed from the
3004
Chamber in order for the House to continue with its business for that
day. The consequence of the members refusal was that the House
needed to be adjourned before completing its business for that day.
The Committee found that, on a balance of probabilities, the
evidence before it proved the charge, and it had not been rebutted.

Mothapo, J D Kilian, S Esau and A Lotriet.
14.2
Honourable R P Ramakatsa
Charge 1
contravening section 13(a) read with section 7(a) of the Act by
refusing to obey the instruction of the Speaker to take his seat. The
consequence of the members conduct was that it impeded the
its business for the rest of the day. The Committee found that, on a

Mothapo, J D Kilian A Lotriet, S Esau and M A Mncwango.
Charge 2
immediately from the Chamber when he was ordered to do so by the
3005
Speaker. The Committee found that, on a balance of probabilities,

rebutted.

2. Not guilty - M L Filtane, ALotriet, S Esau and M A Mncwango.
Charge 3
of the members conduct was that it prevented honourable Holomisa
preventing them from holding the Executive to account. The

Charge 4
refused to obey Rule 49 by refusing to take his seat when the
Speaker rose to speak. The consequence of the members conduct
was that the Speaker was prevented from being heard without
3006
interruption. The Committee found that, on a balance of probabilities,

rebutted.

Charge 5
refused to obey Rule 72 by speaking when he was not called upon to
do so by the Speaker or without the Speaker recognising him. The

Charge 6
tables or refusing to obey the Speakers instruction or behaving in a
ultimately to adjourn the sitting.
3007


Charge 7
was adjourned before completing its business for that day. The
Committee found that, on a balance of probabilites, the evidence

Mothapo, J D Kilian, S Esau and A Lotriet.
14.3
Honourable K Litchfield-Tshabalala
Charge 1
contravening section 13(a) read with section 7(a) of the Act by
refusing to obey the instruction of the Speaker to take her seat. The
consequence of the members conduct was that it impeded the
3008
its business for the rest of the day. The Committee found that, on a

Mothapo, J D Kilian, S Esau, A Lotriet and M A Mncwango.
Charge 2
contravening section 13(c) of the Act in that she wilfully failed or
immediately from the Chamber when she was ordered to do so by
the Speaker. The Committee found that, on a balance of
probabilities, the evidence before it proved the charge, and it had not
been rebutted.

2. Not guilty - M L Filtane, M A Mncwango, S Esau and A Lotriet
Charge 3
of the members conduct was that it prevented Honourable Holomisa
preventing them from holding the Executive to account.
3009


1. Guilty on this charge M RMdakane, B T Bongo, M R M
Charge 4
before it and found the member guilty of contravening section 13(c)
of the Act in that she wilfully failed or refused to obey Rule 72 by
speaking when she was not called upon to do so by the Speaker or
without the Speaker recognising her. The Committee found that, on a

1. Guilty on this chargeM R Mdakane, B T Bongo, M R M
Charge 5
before it and found the member guilty of contravening section 13(a)
read with section 7(e) of the Act by creating or taking part in a
disturbance within the precinct of Parliament while the House was
meeting by shouting, banging on tables or refusing to obey the
Speakers instruction or behaving in a grossly disorderly manner.
The consequence of the members conduct was that it interfered with
or disrupted the proceedings of the House, forcing the Speaker to
suspend proceedings temporarily and ultimately to adjourn the
sitting. The Committee found that, on a balance of probabilities, the
3010

1. Guilty on this chargeM R Mdakane, B T Bongo, M R M
Charge 6
had been suspended so that she could leave or be removed from the

14.4
Honourable G A Gardee
Charge 1
read with section 7(a) of the Act by refusing to obey the instruction of
the Speaker to take his seat. The consequence of the members
conduct was that it impeded the House from performing its function
of exercising oversight over the Executive by posing questions to the
President and continuing with its business for the rest of the day. The
3011

Charge 2
of the Act in that he wilfully failed or refused to obey Rules 51 and
53(1) by refusing to withdraw immediately from the Chamber when
he was ordered to do so by the Speaker. The Committee found that,
on a balance of probabilities, the evidence before it proved the
charge, and it had not been rebutted.

deliberative vote).
2. Not guilty - M L Filtane, S Esau, A Lotriet, and M A Mncwango.
Charge 3
of the Act in that he wilfully failed or refused to obey Rule 72 by
speaking when he was not called upon to do so by the Speaker or
without the Speaker recognising him. The Committee found that, on
a balance of probabilities, the evidence before it proved the charge,

1. Guilty on this charge - M R Mdakane, B T Bongo, S Esau, A
Lotriet, M Mothapo, and J D Kilian.
3012
Charge 4

1. Guilty on this charge - M R Mdakane, B T Bongo, S Esau, M R
M Mothapo and J D Kilian.
Charge 5
read with section 7(a) of the Act in that the member interfered or
impeded the performance of the House or its authority or functions
by remaining in the House after the sitting had been suspended so
that he could leave or be removed from the Chamber in order for the
House to continue with its business for that day. The consequence of
the members refusal was that the House was adjourned before
completing its business for that day. The Committee found that, on a
1. Guilty on this chargeM RMdakane, B T Bongo, S Esau, M R M
Mothapo, A Lotriet and J D Kilian.

14.5
3013
Honourable Q Ndlozi
Charge 1
read with section 7(a) of the Act by refusing to obey the instruction of
the Speaker to take his seat. The consequence of the members
conduct was that it impeded the House from performing its function
of exercising oversight over the Executive by posing questions to the
President and continuing with its business for the rest of the day. The

Mothapo, J D Kilian, S Esau, A Lotriet and M A Mncwango.
Charge 2
on a balance of probabilities, the evidence before it proved the

3014
Charge 3

Charge 4
completing its business for that day. The Committee found that, on a
3015

M Mothapo, A Lotriet and J D Kilian.
14.6
Honourable J S Malema
Charge 1
on the balance of probabilities, the evidence before it proved the

Mothapo and J D Kilian and B L Mashile (the chairperson exercising
his deliberative vote in terms of Rule 129).
2. Not guilty - M L Filtane, A Lotriet, A Esau and M A Mncwango.
Charge 2
of the Act in that he wilfully failed or refused to obey Rule 72 by
speaking when he was not called upon to do so by the Speaker or
without the Speaker recognising him. The Committee found that, on
the balance of probabilities, the evidence before it proved the charge,

M Mothapo, A Lotriet and J D Kilian.
3016
Charge 3
sitting. The Committee found that, on the balance of probabilities, the

1. Guilty on this charge - M R Mdakane, B T Bongo, S Esau, R M
2. Not guilty - M L Filtane, A Lotriet, and M A Mncwango.
Charge 4
completing its business for that day. The Committee found that, on
Lotriet, M R M Mothapo and J D Kilian.

14.7
3017
Honourable J A Mngxitama
Charge 1

Charge 2
Committee found that, on the balance of probabilities, the evidence
3018

14.8
Honourable N S Matiase
Charge 1
ultimately to adjourn the sitting. The Committee found that, on the

1. Guilty on this charge M R Mdakane, B T Bongo, S Esau, M R
Charge 2
was adjourned before completing its business for that day.
3019
The Committee found that, on the balance of probabilities, the


14.9
Honourable O H Maxon
Charge 1

Charge 2
3020

1. Guilty on this charge M R Mdakane, B T Bongo, S Esau, A
14.10 Honourable E N Louw

Charge 1

Charge 2
3021


Lotriet, M Mothapo and J D Kilian.
14.11 Honourable M Moonsamy

Charge 1

1. Guilty on this charge M R Mdakane, B T Bongo, S Esau, M R
3022
Charge 2

14.12 Honourable R N Mashabela

Charge 1
3023

Charge 2
that she could leave or be removed from the Chamber in order for
the House to continue with its business for that day. The
consequence of the members refusal was that the House was
adjourned before completing its business for that day. The

14.13 Honourable A Matshobeni

Charge 1
adjourned before completing its business for that day.
3024
The Committee found that, on the balance of probabilities, the


Lotriet, M Mothapo and J D Kilian.
14.14 Honourable P N Sonti

Charge 1

14.15 Honourable S M Khawula
Charge 1
3025

14.16 Honourable V N Nqweniso

Charge 1

14.17 Honourable P Ntobongwana
Charge 1
3026


14.18 Honourable Z K Morapela

Charge 1

3027
14.19 Honourable B D Joseph

Charge 1

Lotriet, M R
14.20 Honourable M S Mbatha

Charge 1
3028

15.
Mitigating, aggravating and other factors
The affected members were informed in writing on 4 November 2014

of the findings of the Committee on the allegations of conduct
constituting contempt of Parliament. The letters were emailed on
4 November 2014 and hand-delivered on 5 November 2014. The
members were also informed that, notwithstanding the fact that on
7 October 2014 they aligned themselves with the decision to
withdraw from the proceedings, the Committee was affording them,
in terms of item 9 of the Schedule, an opportunity to present
mitigating factors in respect of sanctions to the Committee on Friday,
7 November 2014. The affected members did not take up the
opportunity to present mitigating factors.
They were further advised that should they not make representations
in mitigation of sanctions, the process would continue without their
inputs.
16.
Presentation by Initiator on aggravating and other factors
The Committee proceeded to hear the Initiators presentation on

aggravating or other factors inclusive of recommended sanctions,
which is attached as Annexure A.
17.
Penalties recommended by the Committee
Following the findings by the Committee and the presentation by the

Initiator the Committee proceeded to deliberate on the appropriate
penalties for the members found guilty on the charges.

17.1
3029
Group A
Affected members in this group are:

Hon N F Shivambu (7 charges)
Hon R P Ramakatsa (7 charges)
Hon K Litchfield-Tshabalala (6 charges)
Hon G A Gardee (5 charges)
Hon Q Ndlozi (4 charges)
Hon J S Malema (4 charges)
The following honourable members: B T Bongo, M R Mdakane, M

Booi, M R M Mothapo and J D Kilian agreed that the members be
suspended for a period of 30 days without remuneration, in terms of
section 12(5)(g) of the Act.
The following members disagreed: A Lotriet and S Esau and

instead recommended a reprimand.
The Committee recommends that:
The National Assembly suspends the members for a period of

30 days without remuneration in terms of section 12(5)(g) of the
Act.
17.2
Group B
Hon E N Louw (2 charges)

Hon R N Mashabela (2 charges)
Hon O H Maxon (2 charges)
Hon M Moonsamy (2 charges)
Hon J A Mngxitama (2 charges)
Hon N S Matiase (2 charges)
The following honourable members: BT Bongo, M R Mdakane, M
Booi, M R M Mothapo and J D Kilian agreed that the members be
suspended for a period of 14 days without remuneration, in terms of
section 12(5)(g) of the Act.
3030
The following honourable members disagreed: A Lotriet and S

Esau and instead recommended a reprimand.
The Committee recommends that:
The National Assembly suspends the members for a period of

14 days without remuneration in terms of section 12(5)(g) of the
Act.
17.3
Group C
Hon B D Joseph (1 charge)

Hon M S Mbatha (1 charge)
Hon Z K Morapela (1 charge)
Hon S M Khawula (1 charge
Hon A Matshobeni (1 charge)
Hon V N Nqweniso (1 charge)
Hon P Ntobongwana (1 charge)
Hon P N Sonti (1 charge)
The following honourable members concurred: B T Bongo, M R

Mdakane, M R M Booi, M Mothapo and J D Kilian agreed that the
members be suspended for a period of 14 days without
remuneration, in terms of section 12(5)(g) of the Act. In addition, the
members should be ordered to give an apology in the House.
The following honourable members disagreed: A Lotriet and S

Esau and instead recommended a reprimand.
The Committee recommends to the National Assembly:
a)
an order for the members to apologise to the House in a

manner determined by the House, in terms of section
12(5)(c) of the Act; and

b)
3031
a fine equivalent to 14 days salary and allowances

payable to the member concerned by virtue of the
Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act, in terms of
section 12(5)(f) of the Act.
18.
Summary of Recommendations to the National Assembly
18.1
The Committee makes the following recommendations in

terms of the Findings:
18.1.1
The following honourable Members be found guilty of

conduct constituting contempt of Parliament in terms of
section 13(a) of the Act in that as a Member of Parliament
and during Questions to the President in the National
Assembly
on
21
August
2014,
they
contravened
Section 7(a) of the Act by improperly interfering with or

impeding the exercise or performance by the National
Assembly (the House) of its authority or functions when
they refused to obey the instruction of the Speaker that they
take their seats:
Honourable Shivambu MP
Honourable Ramakatsa MP
Honourable Litchfield Tshabalala MP
Honourable Gardee MP
Honourable Ndlozi MP
18.1.2
The following Honourable Members are found guilty of

section 13(c) of the Act in that as a Member of Parliament
Assembly on 21 August 2014, they wilfully failed and/or
refused to obey Rule 51 and Rule 53(1), read together, of
3032

the Rules of the National Assembly in that they refused to
withdraw immediately from the Chamber for the remainder
of the days sitting when ordered to do so by the Speaker:
Honourable Malema MP
18.1.3
That the following Honourable Members be found guilty of

Assembly
on
21
August
2014,
they
contravened
section 7(b) of the Act by improperly interfering with the

performance by a member of his or her functions as a
member, in the following manner - when the Speaker
requested Mr B H Holomisa (a Member of Parliament) to
pose a question (i.e. a supplementary question) to the
President, their conduct prevented honourable Holomisa,
and other Members of Parliament who might have wished
to ask the President further questions, from asking their
question/s, thereby preventing them from performing one of
their functions as a Member of Parliament (namely to hold
the Executive to account by asking the President
questions):

18.1.4
3033
That the following honourable Members be found guilty of

Assembly on 21 August 2014, they wilfully failed and/or
refused to obey Rule 49 of the Rules of the National
Assembly by failing to resume their seat when the Speaker
rose while they were speaking or offering to speak, and
thereby preventing the Speaker from being heard without
interruption:
18.1.5

Assembly on 21 August 2014, they willfully failed and/or
refused to obey Rule 72 of the Rules of the National
Assembly by speaking when they were not called upon to
do so by the presiding officer (i.e. the Speaker) and/or
without the Speaker recognizing them:
18.1.6
The following honourable Members be found guilty of

Assembly on 21 August 2014, they contravened section
3034

7(e) of the Act by creating or taking part in a disturbance
within the precincts of Parliament while the House was
meeting by, inter alia, shouting, and/ or banging on tables,
and/or refusing to obey the Speakers instructions, and/or
generally conducting themselves in a grossly disorderly
manner,
thereby
interfering
with
or
disrupting
the
proceedings of the House forcing the Speaker to suspend

proceedings temporarily, and ultimately to adjourn the
sitting for the day:
Honourable Louw MP
Honourable Mashabela MP
Honourable Matiase MP
Honourable Maxon MP
Honourable Moonsamy MP
Honourable Mngxitama MP
18.1.7

on 21 August 2014, they contravened section 7(a) of the
Act by improperly interfering with or impeding the exercise
or performance by the House of its authority or functions by
remaining in the Chamber, after the sitting of the House had
been temporarily suspended by the Speaker so that they
could leave, alternatively, be removed from, the Chamber,
in order for the House to continue with its business for that
day. Their refusal to leave the Chamber resulted in the
House being adjourned for the day.
3035
Honourable Louw MP
Honourable Mashabela MP
Honourable Matiase MP
Honourable Maxon MP
Honourable Moonsamy MP
Honourable Mngxitama MP
Honourable Joseph MP
Honourable Khawula MP
Honourable Matshobeni MP
Honourable Mbatha MP
Honourable Morapela MP
Honourable Nqwenisa MP
Honourable Ntobogwana MP
Honourable Sonti MP
18.2
That the Committee makes the following recommendations

in terms of Penalties:
The Committee recommends that the following honourable

remuneration in terms of section 12(5)(g) of the Act:
Hon N F Shivambu (7 charges)

Hon R P Ramakatsa (7 charges)
Hon K Litchfield-Tshabalala (6 charges)
Hon G A Gardee (5 charges)
Hon Q Ndlozi (4 charges)
Hon J S Malema (4 charges)
3036

remuneration in terms of section 12(5)(g) of the Act:
Hon E N Louw (2 charges)

Hon R N Mashabela (2 charges)
Hon O H Maxon (2 charges)
Hon M Moonsamy (2 charges)
Hon J A Mngxitama (2 charges)
Hon N S Matiase (2 charges)

members be ordered to apologise to the House in a manner
determined by the House, in terms of section 12(5)(c) of the Act;
and be fined an equivalent of 14 days salary and allowances
payable
to
the
member
concerned
by
virtue
of
the
Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act, in terms of section

12(5)(f) of the Act:
Hon B D Joseph (1 charge)

Hon M S Mbatha (1 charge)
Hon Z K Morapela (1 charge)
Hon S M Khawula (1 charge
Hon A Matshobeni (1 charge)
Hon V N Nqweniso (1 charge)
Hon P Ntobongwana (1 charge)
Hon P N Sonti (1 charge)
19.
Adoption of the Report
On the proposal of honourable M R Mdakane, seconded by the

honourable M R M Mothapo, the Committee agreed to adopt the
Report. The proposal by honourable A Lotriet that the Report not be
adopted was not seconded, and it therefore fell away.
3037
[Signed on 10 November 2014]

B L Mashile
Chairperson: Powers and Privileges Committee of the National
Assembly
Annexure A
14.1
Presentation by the Initiator on mitigating and other

factors
14.1.1 The charges of contempt relate to the conduct of the named

Honourable Members on 21 August 2014 in the National
Assembly.
14.1.2 The Committee has found each of the Honourable Members
guilty of the charges of contempt of Parliament against them.
14.1.3 The charges are all of a serious nature.
14.2 The provisions of the Act regarding any possible penalty
or penalties
14.2.1 Section 12 of the Act reads as follows:
12. Disciplinary action against members for contempt (1)
subject to this Act, a House has all the powers which are
necessary for enquiring into an pronouncing upon any act or
matter declared by or under section 13 to be contempt of
Parliament by a member, and taking the disciplinary action
provided therefore.
14.2.2 Section 12(3) of the Act reads as follows:
12(3) Before a House may take any disciplinary action against
a member in terms of sub-section 1, the standing committee
must
(a) enquire into the matter in accordance with a
procedure that is reasonable and procedurally fair;
and
(b) table a report on its findings and recommendations in
the House.
14.2.3 Section 12(5) of the Act reads as follows:
12(5) When a House finds a Member guilty of contempt, the
House may, in addition to any other penalty to which the
Member may be liable under this Act or any other law, impose
anyone or more of the following penalties.
(a) A formal warning;
(b) a reprimand;
3038
(c) an order to apologise to Parliament or the House or

any person, in a manner determined by the House;
(d) the withholding, for a specified period, of the
members right to the use or the enjoyment of any
specified facility provided to members by Parliament;
(e) the removal, or the suspension for a specified period,
of the member from any Parliamentary position
occupied by the member;
(f) a fine not exceeding the equivalent of one months
salary and allowances payable to the member
concerned by virtue of the Remuneration of Public
Office Bearers Act, 1998 (Act No.20 of 1998);
(g) the suspension of the member, with or without
remuneration, for a period not exceeding 30 day,
whether or not the House or any of its committees is
scheduled to meet during that period.
14.2.4 In terms of the Act, one or more of the penalties set out
above may be imposed on any Member of Parliament who is
found guilty of contempt of Parliament in terms of the Act
(such as any of the Honourable Members).
14.2.5 Section 12 (9) of the Act reads as follows:
12(9) A member may not be suspended under sub-section
(5)(g) unless the House has found that
(a) the member is guilty of serious or repeated contempt;
and
(b) none of the other penalties set out in sub-section (5)
will be sufficient.
14.3 Relevant considerations in respect of any possible
penalty or penalties
14.3.1 A variety of considerations may be relevant when
considering the presence of mitigating or aggravating factors
and when determining what penalty or penalties should be
imposed.
14.3.2 It is respectfully submitted that in the circumstances of this
matter, the factors to be considered by the Committee in
aggravation or mitigation in determining the appropriate
penalty or penalties to be imposed on the named Honourable
Members include the following.
14.3.3 the seriousness of the charges of contempt of Parliament
which the named Honourable Members have been found
guilty of, as well as the nature and severity of the their
conduct;
14.3.4 acknowledgement of wrongdoing and remorse on the part of
the named Honourable Members, as well their co-operation
with the work of the Committee;
14.3.5 any previous incidents involving the named Honourable
Members; and
14.3.6 the interests of Parliament.

14.4
3039
The seriousness of the charges of contempt of

Parliament which the named Honourable Members have
been found guilty of, as well as the nature and severity
of their conduct
The charges of contempt of Parliament which the named Honourable

Members have been found guilty of are serious.
14.4.1 The charges of contempt which the Honourable Members
have been found guilty of, may be summarised as follows:
Charge 1
The relevant Honourable Members are guilty of conduct constituting
contempt of Parliament in terms of Section 13(a) of the Act in that as
a Member of Parliament and during Questions to the President in
the National Assembly on 21 August 2014, they contravened Section
7(a) of the Act by improperly interfering with or impeding the exercise
or performance by the National Assembly (the House) of its authority
or functions when they refused to obey the instruction of the Speaker
that they take their seats. This conduct impeded the House from
performing its function of exercising oversight over the Executive by
posing questions to the President and continuing with its business for
that day.
The Honourable Members that have been found guilty of this charge
are as follows: The Honourable Shivambu MP, the Honourable
Ramakatsa MP, the Honourable LitchfieldTshabalala, the
Honourable Gardee MP and the Honourable Ndlozi MP
(5 Honourable Members).
The Speaker requiredthe Honourable Shivambu, the Honourable
Litchfield-Tshabalala, the Honourable Gardee, the Honourable
Ramakatsa and the Honourable Ndlozi to take their seat on a
number of occasions. The Speaker was addressing these
Honourable Members. The Honourable Members also knew that the
Speaker was addressing them.
The purpose for instructing these Honourable Members to take their
seat was that the Speaker wished to allow Honourable Members in
the House, who were in the queue, an opportunity to ask
supplementary questions. Notwithstanding the Speakers instruction /
requirement the named Honourable Members did not take their
seats.
These Honourable Members acted deliberately and wilfully when
they refused to take their seats. Their conduct improperly interfered
with and / or impeded the exercise or performance by the National
Assembly of its authority or functions. This type of contempt of
Parliament is very serious.
3040
As a consequence of the conduct of the named Honourable

Members the House was unable to complete its business for the day
on 21 August 2014.
Charge 2
contempt of Parliament in terms of Section 13(c) of the Act in that as
the National Assembly on 21 August 2014, you wilfully failed and/or
refused to obey Rule 51 and Rule 53(1), read together, of the Rules
of the National Assembly in that you refused to withdraw immediately
from the Chamber for the remainder of the days sitting when you
were ordered to do so by the Speaker.
Honourable Gardee MP, the Honourable Ndlozi MP, the Honourable
Malema MP (6 Honourable Members).
The affected Honourable Members (Mr Shivambu, Mr Ramakatsa,
Ms Litchfield-Tshabalala, Mr Gardee, Mr Ndlozi and Mr Malema)
engaged in conduct that required the invoking of Rule 51 by the
Speaker, being the instruction or order that the affected Honourable
Members withdraw from the House immediately. The affected
Honourable Members engaged in conduct which was grossly
disorderly, in disregard of the Speaker and which would properly
result in the invoking of Rule 51.
The said Honourable Members acted deliberately. Their conduct was
so serious that it was appropriate and reasonable for the Speaker to
instruct that the affected Honourable Members withdraw immediately
from the Chamber for the remainder of the days sitting.
The affected Honourable Members refused to withdraw immediately
from the Chamber for the remainder of the days sitting when ordered
to do so by the Speaker. It is respectfully submitted that these
conclusions are underscored by the comment of the Honourable
Shivambu to the effect that we will not be removed.
Charge 3
the National Assembly on 21 August 2014, you contravened Section
7(b) of the Act by improperly interfering with the performance by a
member of his or her functions as a member, in the following manner
- when the Speaker requested Mr BH Holomisa (a Member of
Parliament) to pose a question (i.e. a supplementary question) to the
3041
President, your conduct prevented Mr Holomisa, and other Members

of Parliament who might have wished to ask the President further
questions, from asking their question/s, thereby preventing them
from performing one of their functions as a Member of Parliament
(namely to hold the Executive to account by asking the President
questions).
Ramakatsa MP and the Honourable Litchfield Tshabalala
(3 Honourable Members).
The affected Honourable Members engaged in conduct which
prevented the Honourable Holomisa and other Members of
Parliament, who might have wished to ask the President further
supplementary questions, from asking their questions. The said
conduct prevented the Honourable Holomisa and others who might
have wished to ask the President further supplementary questions
from performing one of their functions as a Member of Parliament
(namely to hold the executive to account by asking the President
questions), and was an improper interference.
On a number of occasions the Speaker specifically sought to
recognise the Honourable Holomisa as being the next Member who
would ask the President a supplementary question. The improper
conduct of the Members did indeed have the result that the
Honourable Holomisa and other Members who might have wished to
ask the President further supplementary questions were prevented
from doing so. The affected Members knew and understood that the
next Member to speak was the Honourable Holomisa. The
Honourable Members conducted themselves so as to prevent the
Honourable Holomisa and others who might have wished to do so
from asking the President further supplementary questions.
Prior to engaging in their improper conduct the Speaker had on at
least two occasions explained to the House, which included the
affected Honourable Members, the system of supplementary
questions. Notwithstanding their knowledge of the Rules,
notwithstanding the fact of the two prior explanations of the Rules
and notwithstanding the fact that the Speaker had specifically
referred to her recognising the Honourable Holomisa on a number of
occasions, the affected Honourable Members acted improperly so as
to prevent the Honourable Holomisa and others who might have
wished to do so from asking the President supplementary questions.
Charge 4
the National Assembly on 21 August 2014, you wilfully failed and/or
3042
refused to obey Rule 49 of the Rules of the National Assembly by

failing to resume your seat when the Speaker rose while you were
speaking or offering to speak, and thereby preventing the Speaker
from being heard without interruption.
are as follows: The Honourable Shivambu MP and the Honourable
Ramakatsa MP (2 Honourable members).
The Honourable Shivambu and the Honourable Ramakatsa wilfully
failed and / or refused to obey Rule 49 of the Rules of the National
Assembly by failing to resume their seats when the Speaker rose
while they were speaking. In doing so they prevented the Speaker
from being heard without interruption.
Charge 5
the National Assembly on 21 August 2014, you willfully failed and/or
refused to obey Rule 72 of the Rules of the National Assembly by
speaking when they were not called upon to do so by the presiding
officer (i.e. the Speaker) and / or without the Speaker recognizing
them.
Honourable Gardee MP and the Honourable Malema MP
(5 Honourable members).
The affected Honourable Members did indeed wilfully fail and/or
refuse to obey Rule 72. The affected Honourable Members spoke
when not called upon to do so by the Speaker and/or without the
Speaker recognising them.
Charge 6
the National Assembly on 21 August 2014, you contravened Section
7(e) of the Act by creating or taking part in a disturbance within the
precincts of Parliament while the House was meeting by, inter alia,
shouting, and/ or banging on tables, and / or refusing to obey the
Speakers instructions, and / or generally conducting yourself in a
grossly disorderly manner, thereby interfering with or disrupting the
proceedings of the House forcing the Speaker to suspend
proceedings temporarily, and ultimately to adjourn the sitting for the
day.
3043
are as follows:
the Honourable Shivambu MP, the Honourable Ramakatsa MP, The
Honourable LitchfieldTshabalala, the Honourable Gardee MP, the
Honourable Ndlozi MP, the Honourable Malema MP (i.e. Group A);
and
the Honourable Louw, the Honourable Mashabela, the Honourable
Matiase, the Honourable Maxon, the Honourable Moonsamy and the
Honourable Mngxitama (i.e. Group B).
The affected Honourable Members conducted themselves in a
grossly disorderly manner. The affected Honourable Members rose
one after the other in quick succession, and the conduct of the
affected Members built up to a crescendo of activity which included a
number of them rising to their feet and addressing the Speaker
simultaneously, shouting, banging on tables and / or refusing to obey
the Speakers instructions. By the time that course of conduct as
engaged in by the affected Honourable Members reaches its zenith
their conduct had reached one of the high - watermarks of gross
disorderly conduct or behaviour.
The affected Honourable Members were not engaging in robust or
healthy debate. Their conduct was persistent and did not tolerate or
permit or allow any other voices of Members, let alone the Speaker,
to be heard disagreeing with them. The conduct of the affected
Honourable Members does not, by any reckoning, approximate
debate.
Charge 7
a Member of Parliament on 21 August 2014, they contravened
Section 7(a) of the Act by improperly interfering with or impeding the
exercise or performance by the House of its authority or functions by
remaining in the Chamber, after the sitting of the House had been
temporarily suspended by the Speaker so that you could leave,
alternatively, be removed from, the Chamber, in order for the House
to continue with its business for that day. You refusal to leave the
Chamber resulted in the House being adjourned for the day.
All twenty of the named Honourable Members have been found guilty
of this charge, namely:
the Honourable Shivambu MP, the Honourable Ramakatsa MP, The
Honourable Litchfield Tshabalala, the Honourable Gardee MP, the
Honourable Ndlozi MP, the Honourable Malema MP (i.e. Group A);
the Honourable Louw, the Honourable Mashabela, the Honourable
Matiase, the Honourable Maxon, the Honourable Moonsamy,
3044
the Honourable Mngxitama (i.e. Group B); and the Honourable

Joseph, the Honourable Khawula, the Honourable Matshobeni, the
Honourable Mbatha, the Honourable Morapela, the Honourable
Nqwenisa, the Honourable Ntobogwana and the Honourable Sonti
(i.e. Group C).
The affected Honourable Members remained in the Chamber after
the sitting had been temporarily suspended, so that they could leave,
alternatively, be removed in order for the House to continue with its
business for the day.
The affected Honourable Members to leave the Chamber resulted in
the House being adjourned for the day. The affected Honourable
Members knew and understood that they were ordered to leave the
House, and notwithstanding this, the affected Honourable Members
refused to obey the Speakers instruction to leave the House. That
refusal was intentional and deliberate. This is further underscored by
the statements of the Honourable Shivambu and the Honourable
Malema, those statements made it clear that the affected Honourable
Members would not be leaving the House. In point of fact the
Honourable Malema expressly informed the Sergeant-at-arms that
the affected Honourable Members would not leave the Chamber. It
would appear that the only way to avoid any forcible removal and a
confrontation (perhaps physical) was to adjourn the proceedings of
the House for the day.
The evidence that serves before the Committee confirms that the
nature of the affected Honourable Members conduct was very
serious indeed. It has been described as unprecedented. It is
respectfully submitted that the evidence that serves before the
Committee confirms that the cumulative effect of the conduct of the
affected Members was so grave that Parliament could not continue
with its business on 21 August 2014.
The affected Honourable Members have been found guilty of a range
of contempt. The serious contempt and its consequences would
warrant a sufficiently serious penalty or penalties.
14.5
Acknowledgement of wrongdoing and remorse on the

part of the named Honourable Members, as well their
cooperation with the work of the Committee
14.5.1 The Chairperson entered a not guilty plea on behalf of each

of the named Honourable Members in respect of each
charge of contempt of Parliament that they had been
charged with.
14.5.2 The named Honourable Members have not acknowledged
any wrongdoing whatsoever. They have also not shown any
remorse for their conduct.
3045
14.5.3 The hearing commenced on 7 October 2014. The

Honourable Members, save for the Honourable Moonsamy,
were present at the commencement of the hearing. On
7 October 2014, the Honourable Members confirmed that
they had received the charges, that they had read the
charges, that they had understood the charges and that they
had no objection to the manner in which the charges were
being put to them. The Honourable Moonsamy subsequently
confirmed the same.
14.5.4 Prior to being requested to enter a plea by the Chairperson
of the Committee and after a presentation had been made by
the Honourable Malema, the Honourable Members left the
venue of the hearing informing the Chairperson of the
Committee and the other Members of the Committee that
they would play no further part in the hearings.
14.5.5 The Committee decided to proceed with the hearing and a
not guilty plea was entered on behalf of each of the
Honourable Members, in accordance with the provisions of
the Act as read with the Rules of the National Assembly
(8th edition (the Rules).
14.5.6 The Committee continued with the hearing on 7 October
2014, 8 October 2014, 9 October 2014, 15 October 2014,
20 October 2014 and 21 October 2014 without the
participation of the named Honourable Members.
14.5.7 Whilst the affected Honourable Members could not be
compelled to remain and participate in the work of the
Committee, one of the consequences of their election is that
they have not presented any mitigating factors and
circumstances.
15.5.8 The lack of acknowledgement of wrong doing and the lack of
remorse should appropriately inform the penalty or penalties.
14.6
Any previous incidents involving the named Honourable
Members
Whilst it is the case that the affected Members have not prior to
21 August 2014 conducted themselves in similar fashion in the
National Assembly, it is respectfully submitted that this is outweighed
by the serious nature and severity of their conduct. That conduct was
intentional and deliberate. It is further submitted that notwithstanding
earlier cautions on 21 August 2014 and having had time to
reconsider their conduct, the affected Members persisted with
conduct which was gravely disorderly and contemptuous. The
Members also acted in defiance of the Sergeant-at-Arms, conduct
itself unprecedented.
3046
14.7

The interests of Parliament
The interests of Parliament (and the public) are advanced by orderly

and robust debate and engagement. It is respectfully submitted that
the conduct of the affected Members was destructive of orderly and
robust debate and engagement. It is respectfully submitted that the
conduct had about it the hallmarks of a designed and concerted
effort to, inter alia, disrupt the proceedings of the House.
14.8
Further considerations
14.8.1 The Honourable Shivambu stated the following to the Speaker

on 21 August 2014 - You wont remove us. We are going nowhere
(Bundle B, Hansard of 21 August 2014, page 34).This is an
indication of the attitude and state of mind of the named Honourable
Members.
14.8.2 The named Honourable Members were fully aware of the
Rules of the National Assembly, and notwithstanding such
knowledge, disregarded those rules. The Honourable
Shivambu indicated on 21 August 2014 in response to
another Member of Parliament that we have dealt with the
issue of the rules, we have got that book as well, we know
those things (Bundle B, Hansard of 21 August 2014, page
28). The evidence which served before the Committee was
that members of Parliament had participated in an onboarding session (i.e. an orientation process) which
familiarised them with the Rules of the National Assembly
and how they should conduct themselves as members of
Parliament. There was also evidence before the Committee
that the National Assembly rule book and the National
Assemblys Guide to Procedure was available on
Parliaments website and that a copy of the National
Assembly rule book had been given to members of
Parliament.
14.8.3 No evidence served before the Committee that there has
been previous and comparable incidents such as those
which transpired on 21 August 2014 in the National
Assembly.
14.9
Conclusion - possible penalty or penalties to imposed

on the named Honourable Members
14.9.1 The Committee is now required to consider which penalty or

penalties, if any, it will recommend should be imposed by the
House on each of the Honourable Members.
3047
14.9.2 In accordance with the provisions of clause 12(5) of the Act,

the Committee may recommend the imposition of, and the
House may impose, one or more of the penalties referred to
in clauses 12(5)(a) to (g) of the Act. It is respectfully
submitted that this course of action is appropriate in the
circumstances.
14.9.3 Further, and in accordance with the provisions of clause
12(9) of the Act, the Committee may recommend the
suspension of, and the House may impose the suspension
of, any of the named Honourable Members in terms of
clause 12(5)(g) of the Act as they have been found guilty of
serious contempt by the Committee and none of the other
penalties set out in clause 12(5) of the Act would be
sufficient. It is respectfully submitted that this course of
action is appropriate in the circumstances.
14.9.4 It is respectfully submitted that for the reasons as set out
herein, the following penalties are appropriate penalties for
the Committee to recommend in respect of the named
Honourable Members.
14.9.4.1
Group A
(a) The Honourable Shivambu MP, the Honourable

Ramakatsa MP, The Honourable Litchfield Tshabalala,
the Honourable Gardee MP, the Honourable Ndlozi MP
and the Honourable Malema MP have been found guilty of
a number of charges of contempt of Parliament.
(b) Each one of those charges and findings of contempt is
serious. Taken together they warrant a penalty that is
sufficiently serious. It is submitted that the multiple and
deliberate acts of serious contempt warrant an
appropriately serious penalty. It is further submitted that
anything short of a sufficiently serious penalty will signal
that that Rules of the National Assembly, which Rules the
Members of the House collectively impose upon
themselves, may be ignored, observed only in the breach
and transgressed without fear or concern of serious
consequence. It is respectfully submitted that such an
approach is inappropriate and impermissible.
(c) It is submitted that a sufficient penalty in respect of these
Honourable Members should be a serious penalty or
penalties.
3048
14.9.4.2
Group B
(a) The Honourable Louw, the Honourable Mashabela, the

Honourable Matiase, the Honourable Maxon, the
Honourable Moonsamy and the Honourable Mngxitama
have been found guilty of two (2) charges of contempt of
Parliament. Individually, these two (2) charges are serious.
Contempt in the form of creating or participating in a
disturbance is in and of itself a very serious form of
contempt and would warrant a sufficiently serious penalty
or penalties. Taken together with the further contempt of
improperly interfering with or impeding the exercise or
performance by the House of its authorities or functions by
remaining in the Chamber after the sitting of the House
had been suspended so that they could leave, the
contempt of these members is very serious indeed.
(b) It is submitted that an appropriately serious penalty is
warranted in the circumstances. The members acted
intentionally, deliberately and apparently in concert so as
to disrupt the proceedings of the House. No amount of
reasonable intervention had the effect of the members
reconsidering their conduct.
members should be a serious penalty or penalties.
14.9.4.3
Group C
(a) The Honourable Joseph, the Honourable Khawula, the

Honourable Matshobeni, the Honourable Mbatha, the
Honourable Morapela, the Honourable Nqweniso, the
Honourable Ntobogwana and the Honourable Sonti have
been found guilty of contempt which is serious.
(b) Their conduct is however, both cumulatively and in its
nature and extent different from that of the other groups of
Members. Nonetheless, it is submitted that the contempt
of which have been found guilty warrants a sufficiently
serious penalty.
members should be a serious penalty or penalties.
3049
2. Progress report of the Portfolio Committee on

Communications on the filling of a vacancy on the
Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA)
Board, dated 11 November 2014
The Portfolio Committee on Communications, having considered the
request by the President informing the Assembly that since Mr
Jimmy Manyi is already a Media Development and Diversity
Agency board member in terms of section 4(1)(c) of the MDDA Act
(No 14 of 2002), he is unable to appoint Mr Manyi in terms of
section 4(1)(b) of the Act; and
requesting the Assembly to commence with the process of

recommending, in accordance with the principles set out in section
4(1)(b) of the Act, a suitable candidate to fill the vacancy caused by
the expiry of the term of office of Ms Nothando Migogo on
31 December 2013, reports as follows:
The Committee advertised the call to nominate a person to serve on

the MDDA Board. The Committee received 20 nominations and
subsequently shortlisted the following five candidates:
1.
Ms Palesa Kadi
2.
Ms Crystal Orderson
3.
Ms Louise Vale
4.
Adv Lufuno Tokyo Nevondwe
5.
Mr Yengwayo Kutta.
The interviews are scheduled to take place on Monday,

17 November 2014.
3050

1.
Report of the Select Committee on Finance on the

Development Bank of Southern Africa Amendment
Bill (B 2B 2014) [National Assembly sec 75]),
dated 11 November 2014
The Select Committee on Finance, having considered and examined
the Development Bank of Southern Africa Amendment Bill
(B 2B 2014) [National Assembly - sec 75]), referred to it, and
classified by the JTM as a section 75 Bill, reports it has agreed to the
Bill.
2. Report of the Select Committee on Finance on

termination of section 100 (1) (b) issued to the
Limpopo Province and issuing of directives in
terms of section 100 (1) (a) of the Constitution of
the Republic of South Africa, 1996, dated 11
November 2014.
1. Background
1.1 Reasons for the intervention
On 5 December 2011 the South African cabinet announced its intervention
in the Limpopo provincial government in accordance with section 100(1)(b)
of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. This effectively
placed five Limpopo provincial departments, namely Provincial Treasury,
Education, Transport & Roads, Health, and Public Works under national
executive administration.
The following were identified as the provinces major challenges:
underspending, overspending and supply chain management.
3051
1.2 Intervention Procedure
Section 100(1)(b) provides for the national executive to assume

responsibility for the relevant obligation in a province to the extent
necessary to:
i. maintain essential national standards or meet established
minimum standards for the rendering of a service;
ii. maintain economic unity;
iii. maintain national security; or
iv. prevent that province from taking unreasonable action that is
prejudicial to the interests of another province or to the country
as a whole.
The national executive intervention team was guided by the abovementioned constitutional provisions in how it undertook its task.
1.3 The transition from section 100(1)(b) to section 100(1)(a) of the

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
On 09 July 2014 Cabinet approved the transition of the intervention from
section 100(1)(b) to section 100(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa, 1996. This means that the MECs of the affected provincial
departments will assume full executive powers to run the departments and
the accounting officer role will revert back to HODs of the respective
departments. The concurrence of the National Council of Province (NCOP)
is being sought in terms of section 100(1)(2)(c) of the Constitution.
Cabinet has also given clear conditions that the Provincial Executive will
have to fulfil, as a pre-requisite for determining complete withdrawal. In this
regard, the national executive authority will define the measures that the
province will need to take to address identified areas of failure and will
monitor the provinces progress. The province will also be supported to
avoid relapse.
Cabinet mandated the Inter-Ministerial Committee to enter into a

memorandum of understanding with the Premier and his executive. This is
to give effect to section 100(1)(a) to make provision for outstanding issues
3052
and to exercise oversight and provide support on implementation of the

sustainability projects. Performance against the conditions set will form the
basis for determining the time at which both the transition to section
100(1)(a) is finalised as well as when the intervention is withdrawn
altogether.
2.
Progress report by the Administration Team
2.1 Provincial Treasury

The next section summarises progress achieved by the administration
team in Limpopo province by the five departments in terms of the financial
position of the Province and the service delivery achievements.
2.1.1 Financial position of Province
The financial position has improved and the Province had over R4 billion
cash surplus in the bank compared to an overdraft of R1.7 billion in 2011. It
had the lowest number of unpaid invoices (over 30 days) in the country,
amounting to R80 million, which was a decrease from R1.1 billion at the
start of the intervention. The accumulated unauthorised expenditure has
been reduced from R2.7 billion in 2011 to R600 million in 2014/15, the rest
will paid out by the 2016/17 financial year. The departments were no longer
over-spending on their budgets.
2.1.2 Achievements
The Compensation of Employees (COE) in the Province has been
stabilised. The Province was no longer over-spending on its budget; the
process of headcount verifications has been completed and the number of
temporary educators has been reduced from 2 544 to 6.
The Province has improved its compliance to the 30 day payment

requirement over the past two years, from 78 per cent in 2012/13 to 86 per
cent in June 2014. The process of verification of learners, and educators in
the provincial departments of Health and Education has been completed.
3053
In the provincial Department of Education, there have been improvements

in per capita transfers in terms of the norms and standards, the amounts of
which increased from 62 per cent to 90 per cent. The Learner Teacher
Support Material (LTSM) textbooks procurement and delivery has resulted
in greater coverage.
Medicine stock levels in the provincial Department of Health has been

raised from 48 per cent to the current average of 78 per cent, while the
value of expired medicine has been reduced from R11 million to
R2.5 million. The medicines supply chain has also improved and direct
delivery to institutions was being piloted to avoid the unnecessary stockpiling of medicines at the depot. Furthermore, ad-hoc management of
hospitals, which was identified as a challenge previously, has been
addressed by appointing 37 hospital CEOs out of 40 vacancies. The
Department has also installed boilers at 19 hospitals and 52 autoclaves.
Within the roads sector, the provincial Department of Roads and Transport
has completed eight road construction projects.
2.1.3 Challenges
The following section presents the outstanding challenges which must be
addressed during the transition phase:
Resolving weaknesses in Supply Chain Management systems;
The conclusion of disciplinary and criminal cases;
Appointment of competent Senior Managers in key positions; and
Addressing
the
skills
gaps
in
financial
management
and
infrastructure.
2.3 Department of Health

During the diagnostic phase, the National Department of Health took over
the following functions: Financial Management and Budget Control;
Procurement
Management;
Human
Resource
Management;
Pharmaceutical supply Management; Infrastructure Management and

Information Technology Management. The next section discusses progress
achieved with respect to these areas.
3054
2.3.1
Financial Management
The current CFOs position was one of the high-profile disciplinary cases
and was in the process of being resolved. The improved Standard
Operating Procedures (SoPs) has been approved to guide SCM practices
and SCM decision-making has improved. The team has centralised the
payment verification process at Districts and provincial level in order to
address
the
weaknesses
identified.
Incidences
of
unauthorised
expenditures has been reduced significantly.
2.3.2
High Compensation of Employees Expenditure
Statistics South Africa has assisted the Department with the head count
verification process. The Persal clean-up has reduced the number of
approved and funded posts from 62 430 to 38 000. The Department of
Public Service and Administration (DPSA) and National Department of
Health were leading a process of designing a generic macro structure for
the Health Sector. This was expected to enable the provincial Department
of Health to realign its organisational structure accordingly.
2.3.3
The
Health Infrastructure
Department
has
adopted
strategy
to
conduct
conditions
assessments (mainly for Electro-Mechanical equipment and installations) in

all its facilities. A total of 30 hospital assessments, out of 42, have been
done. The remaining 12 assessments were expected to be finalised by the
end of July 2014. The full magnitude cost of the project will be determined
once all facilities have been concluded.
2.3.4
Pharmaceutical and surgical supplies
The procurement of pharmaceutical and surgical supplies remained stable

at 86 per cent and 62 per cent availability, respectively, against a target of
95 per cent as compared to 48 per cent when section 100 processes
began.

2.4
3055
Department of Education
At the beginning of the intervention, the Department of Education was not

able to fund key strategic educational priorities, resulting in failure to meet
essential national standards. The system of financial, supply chain,
contracts, asset, records and cash flow management and controls was not
effective and efficient. The compensation of employees budget was found
to be bloated.
2.4.1
Achievements
The following section presents some of the achievements of the

intervention:
The Department has implemented an innovative Learner Teacher

Support Material (LTSM) procurement and delivery strategy;
The budget (particularly for the CoE) has been stabilised. There
was no overspending at the end of the 2013/14 financial year and
substantial savings were realised, mainly arising from austerity
measures implemented;
Funding of schools in terms of the National Norms and Standards

has been improved from 62 per cent in 2012 to 90 per cent in 2014;
The organisational structure has been realigned, but was being

refined to meet the directives from the DPSA in relation to the
education sector generic structure;
PERSAL clean-up has been completed and unfunded posts were

abolished;
The head-count verification process has been completed by the

Stats-SA and was in the process of being consolidated with the
Education Management Information System (EMIS) and PERSAL;
The Department was left with only 6 out of 2 544 temporary

educators to be placed permanently;
The post baskets of ordinary public schools has been established

and published; and
An audit rectification project team has been appointed by the

National Treasury and deployed to the Limpopo Departments of
Education and Health.
3056
2.4.2

Challenges

Skills profiles for specialised line functions, particularly in the CFOs

Branch;
Ownership of sustainability projects, especially those that should

address AG audit queries;
Constant challenges arising from the procurement and delivery of

CAPS-aligned
textbooks,
in
spite
of
the
structured
LTSM
procurement and delivery strategy;
Irregular appointment of educators by schools as well as the

unstructured changes of subject streams without following due
processes and priori approvals by relevant authorities;
Failure by schools to retrieve Curriculum Assessment Policy

Statements (CAPS) aligned textbooks at the end of the school
calendar year and reporting of textbook shortages timeously;
The differences in salary scales paid to educators when compared

with the other provinces;
A new phenomenon (nationally) where educators resign or take

severance packages from the department, and later re-enter the
system at higher salary scales as per Public Service Co-ordinating
Bargaining Council (PSCBC) agreements;
Schools enrolling higher learner numbers than the schools capacity

in order to be classified differently, resulting in a higher salaries for
principals, additional promotional posts, and additional educators
required;
Ineffective merging and closure of small schools which are not

educationally and/or economically viable; and
2.5
Contingent liability arising from litigations.
Department of Public Works
The Department of Public Works had to address the following: poor

management of property portfolio; spiralling unauthorised expenditure;
inadequate capacity in the public financial management and technical
capacity; poor IT infrastructure planning and under budgeting.

2.5.1
3057
Achievements

intervention:
The Department has completed the final lease review report and
has made recommendations. This was in response to the Province
paying close to R200 million in leases.
The Province has since identified land to build a government

precinct in order to reduce lease costs;
A service provider has been appointed to rectify the asset register;
Vacant positions have been filled with appropriately qualified staff.

All other departments in infrastructure delivery have access to the
necessary technical capacity for project identification and planning
of feasibility studies;
The AG audit findings have been reduced from 8 to 2 during the

2012/13 financial year; and
The BAUD system for movable asset management has been

implemented.
2.6
Department of Roads and Transport
The challenges in the Department of Transport, at the beginning of the

intervention, included weak internal controls or inadequate SCM policies;
no contract management, Auditor General audit opinions; poor financial
management at Road Agency Limpopo (RAL) and Gateway Airports
Authority Limited (GAAL) and lack of proper mechanisms for verification of
payments.
2.6.1
Achievements

intervention:
The cash situation has been stabilised and the Department has not
over spent on the 2012/13 budget;
All outstanding invoices have been paid, with 99 per cent of which
was being paid within the required 30 days, and implementing cost
containment measures;
3058
The internal controls with regard to payments in the Department

have been introduced. From December 2011 to date a total of
23 912 invoices to the value of R5.2 million have been verified and
processed for payment;
The budget has been aligned to the Strategic Plan and the Annual
Performance Plan and broken down to project level;
Brought additional capacity from the Department of Transport (DOT)

to do quality checks and invoice verification with regards to two
main cost drivers, namely; roads infrastructure and bus contracts as
well as;
Additional capacity from DOT to improve financial management and

Supply Chain Management (SCM) at both Road Agency Limpopo
(RAL) and Gateway Airport Authority Limited (GAAL);
An official from the Department has been seconded to act as an

interim CEO for the duration of the intervention; and
Contract management in the department has improved;
The Public Protectors recommendations have been implemented;
Obtained unqualified Audit Report for 2012/13; and
Cleared the payments backlog, particularly at RAL.
2.6.2
Challenges

Outstanding disciplinary cases;
Finalisation of the study on the appropriate models to deliver

infrastructure and management of the airports in the province;
Provision of support on criminal and related investigations;
Provision of support to the numerous litigation cases; particularly at

RAL;
2.7
Support in the filling of key positions; and
Support in the SCM practises for high value contracts.
Progress report by the Anti-Corruption Task Team
As at 15 August 2014, the provincial department of transport had a total

number of 14 cases, 14 cases in the department of Health, 7 cases in the
Education and 4 cases in Public Works.
3059
There were 22 forensic investigation reports on disciplinary cases when the

intervention started. DPSA was requested to facilitate the disciplinary
hearings thereof. There were 47 cases of irregularities identified from the
forensic reports issued by the National Treasury against state officials and
302 cases of conflict of interest established by the Special Investigative
Unit (SIU).
When the DPSA commenced with management of disciplinary cases, only

99 cases were recorded for disciplinary processes. Other cases have been
resolved and withdrawn. Additional cases from the Department of Roads
and Transport (8), RAL (1), GAAL (10) and Public Works (1) increased the
total number of cases to 108.
The key challenges on slow finalisation of disciplinary cases are continuous

postponement of cases, failure of state witnesses to attend meetings and
resignation of officials before the cases are concluded. The SIU has
devised strategies to address the challenges identified.
During the investigations, the SIU discovered that, in relation to tenders

awarded by the provincial departments, there were actual losses to the
value of approximately R1.420.102 billion.
The table below reflects the departments in question, the amounts

tendered for, and the losses incurred in relation to those tenders.
Provincial Department
Tender Amounts
Actual Loss
Roads and Transport
R1.222.9 billion
R 409.7 million
Health
R1.421.264 billion
R268.83 million
Education
R1.587.7 billion
R445.572 million
Public Works
R207 million
R192 million
During the investigation, the SIU uncovered new cases which had not
formed part of the Limpopo investigations: these tenders amounted to
R948 million, and actual losses to the value of R104 million were
discovered.
3060
3.
3.1

Committee observations
The intervention team has made progress in Limpopo, particularly the
improvement in the financial position of the Province;
3.2
There are challenges and concerns related to the sustainability of the

intervention, which include vacancies, outstanding fraud and
disciplinary cases, lack of integrated systems and lack of capacity;
3.3
The Committee has noted the decision of Cabinet to approve the

transition of the intervention from section 100(1)(b) to section
100(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996;
3.4
There is a need for provincial departments to improve on their audit

outcomes;
3.5
The National Treasury has appointed consultants funded by the

European Union to conduct capacity and skills audit assessment of
offices of Chief Financial Officers and that the process started in July
2014;
3.6
The legacy projects in the Department of Education have a negative

impact on the Auditor Generals audit outcomes;
3.7
Statistics South Africa has been reluctant in releasing detailed

database information for use in further analysis by the Province; and
3.8
The Department of Public Service Administration (DPSA) does not

have a mechanism linking PERSAL systems between the public
service and the municipalities.
4.
Recommendations
After having considered the submissions by the National Intervention Team

together with the Limpopo Leadership, the Committee recommends that:
4.1
The Limpopo Provincial Legislature should continuously monitor

and exercise oversight over departments and municipalities
throughout the transition phase;
4.2
The five provincial departments that were put under administration

should sustain the mechanisms/systems that are in place during the
transition period and over the long term period;

4.3
3061
The transition process from the Administrators team to the

Provincial Officials should be clear and systematic for the
purposes of accountability and continuity;
4.4
The Province should consider making use of the experts who no

longer work for the Development Bank of Southern Africa following
its restructuring, to fill the critical vacant positions;
4.5
The HOD of the Department of Education in particular, should put

plans in place to address the legacy projects that are having a
negative impact when it comes to audit outcomes from the Auditor
General;
4.6
The National Department of Basic Education should address the

issue of reinstating rural allowance providing the Limpopo
Department of Education with funding;
4.7
Statistics South Africa should provide the Province with the required
information as an amount of R18.5 million was provided to fund the
project in the provincial Health and Education Departments;
4.8
The Department of Cooperative Governance should, within 90 days

after the adoption of this report by the House, table progress report
on the draft legislation that would provide regulations on
interventions in terms of section 100(3) of the Constitution; and
4.9
The National Council of Provinces should approve the transition of

the intervention from section 100(1)(b) to section 100(1)(a) of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
3062
3.
REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON

COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL
AFFAIRS, ON THE OVERSIGHT VISIT TO
ABAQULUSI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, DATED
11 NOVEMBER 2014
1.
Background
1.1
On the 20th March 2013, the Provincial Executive Council resolved

to intervene at Abaqulusi Local Municipality in terms of section
139(1)(b) of the Constitution, and assumed the functions specified
in terms of section 51, 54A and 56 of the Local Government:
System Act (Act 32 of 2000). On the 04th December 2013, the
Provincial Executive Council noted progress in relation to the turnaround strategy, more specifically in respect to local economic
development, municipal financial viability, good governance, public
participation as well as spatial development planning.
1.2
However, there were some challenges which remained unresolved,

these included the regression from an unqualified audit opinion to a
disclaimer audit opinion for the 2011/12 financial year; governance
challenges in relation to compliance with laws and regulations. On
that basis, it resolved to extend the intervention until 30 September
2014. The intervention was further extended on 10 September 2014
until 31 March 2015, due to outstanding key intervention priority
areas prevalent
1.3
On the 9th September 2014, the MEC for Cooperative Governance

and Traditional Affairs in KwaZulu-Natal, tabled to the Office of the
Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), a Notice
of the request for extension of intervention in terms of section
139(1)(b) of the Constitution at Abaqulusi Local Municipality.
1.4
Subsequent to the tabling, the Chairperson of the NCOP referred

the notice of intervention in terms of Rule 101, to the Select
Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs for
consideration and report.

1.5
3063
On the 21 October 2014, a multi-party delegation of the Committee

conducted an oversight visit to the Abaqulusi Local Municipality.
2.
Objective of the Oversight Visit
2.1
The objective of conducting the oversight visit was to consult and

interact with the internal and external stakeholders of the
Municipality, in order to solicit their opinion with regard to the Notice
of the request for the extension of intervention in the Municipality in
terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution, and thereby report
back to the NCOP in terms of Rule 101.
3.
Overview of the Oversight Visit to Abaqulusi Local Municipality
3.1
On the 21st October 2014, the delegation of the Select Committee

on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs had interaction
and a consultative meeting with the internal and external
stakeholders of the Municipality. The stakeholders the delegation
interacted with included the Mayor, Speaker, Chief Whip, senior
officials of the Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance
and
Traditional
Affairs,
the
Ministerial
Representative
and
representatives of the Organised Labour and Ward Committee

members and members of municipal political parties.
4.
Presentation on the Justification for Request of Extension of

Intervention in Abaqulusi Local Municipality
4.1
The Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance and

Traditional Affairs briefed the Members of the Select Committee on
the background of the constitutional intervention and the resolution
of the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Executive Council, dated 10
September 2014, to extend the intervention in terms of section
139(1)(b) of the Constitution.
4.2
The Departmental presentation focused on the background, reason

for the intervention and the terms of reference of the Ministerial
Representative in Abaqulisi Local Municipality.
3064
5.
Context
5.1
On the 20th March 2013, the Provincial Executive Council resolved

to intervene at Abaqulusi Local Municipality in terms of section
in terms of section 51, 54A and 56 of the Local Government:
System Act (Act 32 of 2000).
5.2
On the 04th December 2013, the Provincial Executive Council noted

progress and some challenges which still remained. On that basis, it
resolved to extend the intervention until 30 September 2014. The
intervention was further extended on 10 September 2014 until 31
March 2015, due to outstanding key intervention priority areas
prevalent.
6.
Reasons for the Intervention
6.1
The Municipality had regressed from an unqualified audit opinion to

a disclaimer audit opinion for the 2011/12 financial year, highlighting
significant deficiencies in financial management, performance
management and compliance with laws and regulations which
reflected a clear failure to fulfil executive obligations.
6.2
The Municipality also failed to raise and account for the interest on
arrears as required by section 64(2)(g) of the Municipal Finance
Management Act (MFMA), Act 56 of 2003, and the absence of
council resolution to grant the exemption from charging interest as
required by the Act.
6.3
The annual report was not compliant with section 121 of the MFMA,
and there was also substantial disagreement in the council,
regarding the filling of the post of the Municipal Manager. The
Municipality was without a Municipal Manager or an acting
Municipal Manager from 31 January 2013 to 05 March 2013, which
is a statutory violation.

6.4
3065
Further, the Municipality refused or neglected to opt for support

offered by the Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance
and Traditional Affairs, despite having no top management structure
in place.
7.
Terms of Reference of the Ministerial Representative at

Abaqulusi Local Municipality
7.1
The terms of reference for the Ministerial Representative were as

follows:
To review any decisions of the municipal council, its

committees and that of the Municipal Manager or managers
directly accountable to the Municipal Manager for the purpose
of ensuring legality.
To devise a turn-around strategy for the Municipality, including

a strategy to promote good governance and ensure
implementation
of
the
council
resolutions
by
the
administration.
To implement a system to control and approve all expenditure.
To implement all governance systems and procedures

including appropriate council oversight mechanisms.
To ensure implementation of financial systems, policies and

procedures.
To review the organisational structure of the Municipality and

undertake all steps of the section 54A and section 56 of the
Local Government: Municipal Systems Act.
8.
Presentation on the Intervention Progress Report
8.1
The Ministerial Representative briefed the delegation of the

Committee on the municipal progress report since the intervention,
and the challenges which are the basis for the request of extension
of intervention in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution. The
presentation focused on the five key performance areas of the fiveyear Local Government Strategic Agenda, namely, institutional
development and municipal transformation; municipal financial
3066

viability
and
participation,
management;
basic
good
service
governance
delivery
and
and
local
public
economic
development.
9.
Institutional Development and Municipal Transformation
9.1
The Municipality developed its process plan for reviewing the IDP
for 2015-2016, and adopted by council on the 27th August 2014.
The process plan was advertised on the 4th of September 2014, and
the IDP Representative Forum was scheduled to take place on the
11th September 2014 and was rescheduled to November 2014.
9.2
The
Municipality
drafted
its
Service
Delivery
Budget
and
Implementation Plan (SDBIP) for the 2014/15 financial year in a

session with the following as attendees: Executive Committee,
Speaker, Chairperson MPAC, Chief Whip and MANCOM. The point
was to inculcate a culture of common purpose. The SDBIP was
approved by the Mayor on the 18th June 2014, and submitted to
council on the 26th June 2014. The first quarter departmental
performance assessments were conducted from the 13th to the
17th of October 2014.
9.3
The review of the Human Resources Policies has been completed

but was scheduled for a workshop of all councilors, before final
adoption. An assessment was currently conducted for the annual
skills development for all the employees and has been finalized. An
annual training plan has been finalized and it was due for the
Training Committee.
9.4
A procedural document in compliant with section 75 of the MFMA,

that regulates the information to be published on the municipal
website has been drafted, the website was being updated.
9.5
The Employment Equity Plan has been drafted and was due for the
managers to make comments, and shall be presented to the Union
members
for
consultation
processes,
before
submission to the Department of Labour.
approval
and
3067
10.
Financial Viability and Management
10.1
The Municipalitys revenue for the month of August 2014 was

20,5% of budget. Trading services revenue was 15,7% of budget.
The revenue collection rate for the month of August was higher due
to the 1st tranche of the equitable share having been received
during July. Stricter credit control of zero tolerance on agreements
and disconnections has been implemented. Plans were underway
to solve that and embark in a study for alternative revenue sources.
10.2
Expenditure for the month to August 2014 was 11,6% of budget.

This was due to the payment for Eskom being made during the
month of August, for the July account, as Eskom was paid in
arrears. The prior audit report showed a significant improvement in
the SCM and expenditure controls.
11.
Good Governance and Public Participation
11.1
Council has for the current year adopted an annual program for the
sitting of council, EXCO, Portfolio and Municipal Public Accounts
Committee. However, during the first quarter of the current financial
year, committees did not sit as scheduled due to the instability
within the institution, which was created by the dismissal of the
MECs appeal at the Constitutional Court. The reviews of the Rules
of Order, and the Orders of Delegation have been completed and
await a workshop and council approval. A workshop of councilors
on Roles and Responsibilities including the Code of Conduct has
been conducted by the Department of Cooperative Governance and
Traditional Affairs.
11.2
All Directors concluded performance contracts by end July 2014

and the one of the Chief Financial Officer will be concluded in
December 2014, and all copies were submitted to Department of
Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs in August 2014.
11.3
The annual financial statements implementation plan and corrective

action has been stringently adhered to. All processes and
committees have been put in place to deal with the AuditorANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS NO 912014
3068

Generals requirements. The fourth quarter dashboard by the
Auditor-General has confirmed that the Municipality is in a better
stead to achieve a better audit opinion.
11.4
The risk management situation in the Municipality has improved

drastically in that Provincial Treasury has concluded the risk register
which each of the departments, and now it was in the process of
departments monitoring and reconciling other risk areas to be
addressed. The risk chapter will be included in the monthly reports
and departments will report progress on risk. The Audit Committee
was fully functioning and has met the seating requirements and will
continue to meet going forward by the end of the financial year.
Management has advertised the two vacancies in the committee,
and the advert was closing on the 28th of September 2014, the
process of filling the vacancies will be concluded in October 2014.
12.
Local Economic Development
12.1
The Municipality has not yet developed its Local Economic

Development Plan, but has committed to complete the Plan in
December 2014.
13.
Basic Service Delivery
13.1
Municipality was in the process of developing draft social assistance

policy to be completed by November 2014. It has facilitated a
partnership with the Development Bank of South Africa (DBSA) on
support, including its comprehensive Infrastructure Plan.
14.
Opinion of the Member of Democratic Alliance (Party Whip)
14.1
The member of Democratic Alliance raised concerns with regard to

the manner in which the intervention was issued. Some of the major
concerns raised related to the non-implementation of projects
during the period of the intervention and the municipal requirement
for the current councillors to repay monies committed by the
previous councillors.
3069
15.
Opinion of the Member Inkatha Freedom Party (Party Whip)
15.1
The Inkatha Freedom Party member raised concerns with regard to

the justification of the intervention and extension. The major
concerns raised related to the manner in which section 56
managers
have
been
recruited
and
appointed,
municipal
requirement for current councillors to repay debts committed by

previous councillors and the dismissal of 25 municipal employees.
16.
Opinion of the Member of National Freedom Party (Party Whip)
16.1
The Member of the National Freedom Party raised concerns with

regard to the intervention. The major concerns raised related to the
report of the Ministerial Representative on the projects implemented
by the councillors and the implementation of decisions by the
Ministerial Representative.
17.
Opinion of the Member of African National Congress (Party

Whip)
17.1
The African National Congress member expressed support and

welcomed the progress made in the Municipality in terms of section
139(1)(b) of the Constitution. The major progress reported included
the
improvement
of
political
relations
among
councillors,
reconciliation during the strategic planning workshop held in

February 2014 and the restoration of political stability and
governance.
18.
Opinion of the Representative of Organised Labour
18.1
The senior official of the South African Local Government

Association (SALGA) pledged on behalf of the office bearers,
support of the request for extension of the intervention in terms of
section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution. The Association welcomed the
progress made by the Ministerial Representative, more especially
with regard to governance, municipal administrative and political
stability and the processes around restructuring and municipal
amalgamation.
3070
19.
Opinion of Labour Unions
19.1
The representative of the labour Union submitted a joint opinion of

the IMATU and SAMWU supporting and welcoming the progress
made since the intervention was invoked. Although acknowledging
the progress made with regard to the functionality of local labour
forum, organised labour raised concerns with regard to unfair
dismissal of 25 municipal employees, employers decision to take
the matter of dismissed employees to the labour court and legal
costs incurred by the Municipality in that regard.
20.
Committee General Observations and Opinion
20.1
The Committee has observed and noted that the Provincial

Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs has
failed to comply with the resolution passed by the NCOP during the
Fourth-Parliament, which required the Department to table quarterly
progress reports in respect of intervention issued in terms of section
139(1)(b) of the Constitution in Abaqulusi Local Municipality.
20.2
The Committee has also noted that on the 20thMarch 2013, the
Executive Council resolved to intervene at Abaqulusi Local
Municipality in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution, and
assumed the functions specified in terms of section 51, 54A and 56
of the Local Government: System Act.
20.3
On the 04 December 2013, the Provincial Executive Council noted

the progress and the challenges which remained in the Municipality.
On that basis, it resolved to extend the intervention in terms of
section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution, at the Municipality until
30 September 2014. The intervention was further extended on
10 September 2014 until 31 March 2015, due to the outstanding key
intervention priority areas.
20.4
The Committee has observed and noted that the intervention

priority areas which becomes justification for the request of
extension of intervention until March 2015, which related to strategic
objectives of local government namely, institutional development
3071
and municipal transformation, financial viability, good governance

and public participation, local economic development and basic
service delivery.
20.5
The Committee has noted and welcomed the progress made by the
Municipality in developing the 2014/15 SDBIP, conclusion of
performance contracts of section 26 managers; completion of the
review of the Rules of Orders and delegation and the role of the
Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional
Affairs in conducting workshops for the Councillors.
20.6
Despite the progress made in respect financial viability, good

governance and public participation, the Committee was of the
opinion that the Ministerial Representative, needs to fast-track the
process of developing the municipal Local Economic Development
Plan and Social Assistance Framework, in order to deal effectively
and efficiently with challenges related to basic service delivery.
20.7
The Committee has further observed and welcomed the proactive

role played by SALGA and the part played by the Provincial
Monitoring Task Team on the interventions in the KwaZulu-Natal
Province.
21.
Committee Recommendations to the NCOP
21.1
Having conducted the oversight visit to Abaqulusi Local Municipality

in response to the request of extension of intervention terms of
section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution, the Select Committee
recommends to the Council as follows:
20.1.1 The NCOP approves the request of the extension of

intervention in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution
in Abaqulusi Local Municipality, until March 2015.
20.1.2 The Ministerial Representative should fast track the process
of developing the municipal Local Economic Development
Plan and Social Assistance Framework, for consideration
and adoption by the Municipality.
3072

20.1.3 The KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Department of Cooperative
Governance and Traditional Affairs should table an exit
report on the intervention in Abaqulusi Local Municipality to
the NCOP by April 2015.
20.1.4 On cross-cutting issues with regards to women and youth

that were raised during the oversight visit, to be referred to
the Department of Women in The Presidency and the
National Youth Development Agency (NYDA).
4.

AFFAIRS, ON THE OVERSIGHT VISIT TO
IMBABAZANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, DATED 11
NOVEMBER 2014
1.
Background
1.1
On the 23rd January 2013, the Provincial Executive Council resolved

to intervene at Imbabazane Local Municipality in terms of section
in terms of section 51 of the Local Government: Municipality System
Act (Act 32 of 2000). The Executive Council further resolved on the
06th March 2013, to extend the scope of the intervention by
assuming the executive functions of the council in terms of section
54A and 56 of the Municipal Systems Act. Based on the current
challenges, which had the potential of causing instability within
council, then on the 10th September 2014, the Executive Council
resolved to extend the intervention in at the Municipality from
30 September 2014 to 31 March 2015.
1.2
The KwaZulu-Natal MEC for
Cooperative Governance and
th
Traditional Affairs, on the 19 September 2014, tabled to the Office

of the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), a
notice of the request for extension of intervention in terms of section
139(1)(b) of the Constitution at Imbabazane Local Municipality.
3073
Subsequent to the tabling, the Chairperson of the NCOP referred

the notice of intervention in terms of Rule 101 to the Select
Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, for
consideration and report.
1.3
On the 22nd October 2014, a multiparty delegation of the Committee

conducted an oversight visit to the Imbabazane Local Municipality.
2.
2.1

Municipality, in order to solicit their opinion with regard to the
request for the extension of intervention in the Municipality in terms
of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution, and also to report back to
the NCOP in terms of Rule 101.
3.
Overview
of
the
Oversight
Visit
to
Imbabazane
Local
Municipality
3.1
The
delegation
of
the
Select
Committee
on
Cooperative
Governance and Traditional Affairs had interaction and consultative

meeting with the internal and external stakeholders of the
Municipality, during 22nd October 2014. The stakeholders the
delegation interacted with included the Mayor, Speaker, Chief Whip,
the senior official of the Provincial Department of Cooperative
Governance and Traditional Affairs, the Ministerial Representative
and representatives of the Organised Labour and Ward Committee
members and members of municipal political parties.
4.
Presentation on the Request of Extension of Intervention in

Imbabazane Local Municipality
4.1
The Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

briefed the members of the Select Committee on the background of
the constitutional intervention and the resolution of the KwaZuluNatal Provincial Executive council, dated 10 September 2014, to
extend the intervention in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the
Constitution.
3074
4.2

The Departmental presentation focused on the background, reason
for the intervention and the terms of reference of the Ministerial
Representative in Imbabazane Local Municipality.
5.
Context
5.1
On the 23rd January 2013, the Provincial Executive Council resolved

to intervene at Imbabazane Local Municipality in terms of section
in terms of section 51 of the Local Government: Municipality System
Act (Act 32 of 2000). The Executive Council further resolved on the
06th March 2013, to extend the scope of the intervention by
assuming the executive functions of the council in terms of section
54A and 56 of the Municipal Systems Act.
5.2
Based on the current challenges, which had the potential of causing

instability within council, then on the 10th September 2014, the
Executive Council resolved to extend the intervention in at the
Municipality from 30 September 2014 to 31 March 2015.
6.
6.1
Since the election of the new council, there were numerous

challenges at the Municipality, particularly with councillors staging
walk-outs at council meetings based on various disagreements. The
municipal council had also failed to have a meeting for at least two
consecutive quarters. Disagreements amongst councillors and
political indifferences had caused critical issues to be neglected
such as the annual report 2010/11.
6.2
Following the resistance to deal with the Municipal Managers

contract, an unlawful meeting was also held on the 20th June 2012
by certain councillors at which the Mayor and Speaker were
purportedly removed from office and new office bearers were
elected.
6.3
This meeting also purported to appoint the Municipal Manager as

well. The MEC instituted High Court litigation to restore the state of
legality. Judgment was delivered granting the MEC relief, declaring
3075
the contract of the former Municipal Manager void and all

resolutions passed by the council from the 20th June 2012 to the
date of the order null and invalid. The delay in respect of the High
Court matter resulted in the perpetuation of unlawfulness and
instability, which was contrary to the constitutional imperatives of a
democratic and accountable government.
6.4
Subsequent to the meeting held on the 20th June 2012, the

Department was informed that the NFP and IFP led council were
refusing or neglecting to notify other councillors, particularly the
ANC, of council meetings that were due to be held, being of the
view that their numbers were sufficient to constitute a quorum. That
only changed when the ANC councillors were notified of meetings in
August 2012. It was clear that service delivery and functionality
were being seriously compromised, as a result of the instability and
dysfunctionality of the council. The unlawful meetings were also
indicative of the failure of council to fulfill its executive obligation to
govern lawfully.
7.
Terms of Reference of the Ministerial Representative at

Imbabazane Municipality
7.1
The terms of reference for the Ministerial Representative were as

follows:
To ensure that the municipal council meets regularly and in

line with section 18(2) of the Local Government: Structures
Act (Act 117 of 1998), or as often as was necessary to
conduct council business, in keeping with councils Standing
Rules and Orders and all applicable legislation, particularly,
the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act.
Revise councils Standing Rules and Orders and Roles and

Responsibilities of office bearers, the Municipal Manager and
any other senior official, to ensure good governance and
legality at all council meetings.
Monitor and assess the adherence to policy, principles and

frameworks applicable to council and the administration.
3076
Address challenges in respect of adherence to such policy,

principles and frameworks by reviewing, amending and
ensuring adoption and implementation thereof.
Ratify all decisions of the municipal council and its

committees, prior to implementation; ratify all decisions taken
by the Municipal Manager and managers directly accountable
to the Municipal Manager in terms of the delegated or original
authority.
Review any decision of the municipal council, its committees

and that of the Municipal Manager or managers directly
accountable to the municipal manager for the purposes of
ensuring legality.
Devise a turn-around strategy for the Municipality including a

strategy to promote good governance.
Ensure
implementation
administration,
expenditure,
a
all
of
system
council
to
governance
resolutions
control
systems
and
and
by
approve
the
all
procedures
including appropriate councillor oversight mechanisms.
Ensure implementation of financial systems, policies and

procedures, review the organizational structure of the
Municipality, and undertake all steps of section 54A and
section 56 of the Systems Act.
8.
Presentation on Municipal Recovery Plan of Imbabazane Local

Municipality
8.1

Committee on the municipal recovery plan. The presentation
focused on the five key performance areas of the five-year Local
Government Strategic Agenda, namely, institutional development
and municipal transformation; financial viability and management;
good governance and public participation, basic service delivery
and local economic development.
3077
9.
Financial Viability and Management
9.1
The Municipality has reviewed and implemented credit and debt

management policy adopted by the council in May 2014. Bills of the
municipality are sent to consumers on a monthly basis, and the
Revenue Unit has managed to increase the collection rate. The
deviation register and report have been tabled periodically to the
council for condonation.
The municipal procurement plan has been developed, and all
supply chain management decisions has been reviewed. Section 71
reports have been tabled as required by the Municipal Finance
Management Act (Act 56 of 2003), and all creditors were paid within
30 days. Lastly, the audit committee meetings have been convened
periodically and all expenditure were properly authorized and
monitored within the budget allocation.
10.
10.1
The Municipality has developed a system of reporting for portfolio

committees, municipal public accounts committees, executive
council and the council. It has also developed and reviewed a
system of delegation in terms of section 59 and framework of roles
and responsibilities in term of section 53 of the MFMA. The
Ministerial Representative has also considered all decisions of the
management committee, portfolio committees and the council for
ratification.
11.
Institutional Development and Municipal Transformation
11.1
The Municipality has appointed the municipal management with

effect from 1st February 2014. It has also reviewed appointments of
managers directly accountable to the Municipal Manager and
appointed General Manager of Corporate Services with effect from
1st September 2014. Reviewed all Human Resource appointments
and finalised placement of employees into new municipal structure
or organogram. Lastly, it has finalised the appointment of acting
Chief Finance Officer and acting General Manager responsible for
Technical and Infrastructure Development.
3078
12.
12.1
The Municipality has reviewed the Integrated Development Plan

(IDP) and aligned the key performance indicators to organisational
performance scorecard. In addition, it has developed and
implemented the reporting mechanisms of the performance
information.
13.
13.1
The member of Democratic Alliance raised concerns with regard to

the manner in which the intervention was issued. Some of the major
concerns raised related to the non- implementation of projects
during the period of intervention and the municipal requirement for
the current councillors to repay monies committed by the previous
councillors.
14.
14.1
The Inkatha Freedom Party member raised concerns with regard to

the justification of the intervention and extension. The major
concerns raised related to the manner in which section 56
managers
have
been
recruited
and
appointed,
municipal
requirement for current councillors to repay debts committed by

previous Councillors and the dismissal of municipal employees.
15.
15.1
The member of the National Freedom Party raised concerns with

regard to the intervention. The major concerns raised related to the
report of the Ministerial Representative on projects implemented by
the Councillors and implementation of decisions by the Ministerial
Representative.

16.
3079

Whip)
16.1
The African National Congress member expressed support and

welcomed the progress made in the Municipality in terms of section
139(1)(b) of the Constitution. The major progress reported included
improvement of political relations among councillors, reconciliation
during the strategic planning workshop held in February 2014 and
the restoration of political stability and governance.
17.
Opinion of
the Representative of
South African Local
Government Association
17.1
The senior official of the South African Local Government

Association tabled on behalf of office bearers, support of the
request to extend the intervention. The Association welcomed the
progress made by the Ministerial Representative, more especially
with regard to governance, municipal administrative and political
stability and the processes around restructuring and municipal
amalgamation.
18.
Opinion of Organised Labour
18.1
The representative of the organised labour submitted a joint opinion

of the IMATU and SAMWU supporting and welcoming the progress
made since the intervention began. The progress welcomed by the
organised labour included the development of human resource
policies; filling of critical municipal positions and the alignment of
key performance indicators of the integrated development plan with
service delivery budget implementation plan.
19.
19.1
The Committee has observed and noted that the KwaZulu-Natal

Affairs has failed to comply with the resolution passed by the NCOP
during the Fourth-Parliament, which required the Department to
table quarterly progress reports in respect of the intervention issued
in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution in Imbabazane
Local Municipality.
3080
19.2
The Committee has also noted that on 20 March 2013, the

Provincial Executive Council resolved to intervene at Imbabazane
Local Municipality in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution
and assumed the functions specified in terms of section 51, 54A
and 56 of the System Act.
19.3
On the 04th December 2013, the Provincial Executive Council noted

progress and the challenges which remained. On that basis, it
resolved to extend the intervention in terms of section 139(1)(b) of
the Constitution at the Municipality, until 30th September 2014. The
intervention was further extended on 10th September 2014 until
31st March 2015 due to outstanding key intervention priority areas.
19.4

priority areas which becomes justification for the request of the
extension of intervention until March 2015 related to the strategic
and municipal transformation, financial viability, good governance
and public participation, local economic development.
19.5
Despite the progress made in respect of financial viability, good

governance and public participation, the Committee has further
observed crossed-cutting challenges facing the Municipality within
the period of the extension of intervention.
19.6
These cross-cutting challenges include appointment of the general

staff members; ward committee support; community safety survey;
scamming of service providers; concerns raised by the AuditorGeneral on the performance of the Municipality; availability of
traditional leaders in council meetings; observations of rules and
orders; poor planning and forecasting by the Municipality; looming
tension between the political and administrative structures and the
institutional capacity due to challenges faced by the Municipality on
filling of critical positions.

19.7
3081
Furthermore, the Committee has observed and noted the action

plan developed by the Municipality in order to deal effectively and
sufficiently with general challenges and outstanding intervention
challenges.
19.8
The Committee therefore, welcomed the municipal action plan focus

on aligning the strategic interventions to performance agreements
and hold the leadership and local government practitioners
accountable, for implementing the strategic interventions
20.
Committee Recommendations to the National Council of

Provinces
20.1
Having conducted the oversight visit to Imbabazane Local

Municipality in response to the request of the extension of
intervention terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution, the
Select Committee recommends to the Council as follows:
20.1.1
The NCOP approves the notice of request of the extension

of intervention in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the
Constitution, until March 2015.
20.1.2
The Ministerial Representative should fast-track
the
implementation of the municipal action plan in order to deal

with the cross cutting challenges faced by the Municipality.
20.1.3
The KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Department of Cooperative

report on the intervention in Imbabazane Local Municipality
to the NCOP by April 2015.
20.1.4
On cross-cutting issues with regards to women and youth

3082
5.

AFFAIRS, ON THE OVERSIGHT VISIT TO UMVOTI
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, DATED 11 NOVEMBER
2014
1.
Background
1.1
On the 17th July 2013, the Provincial Executive Council resolved to

intervene at Umvoti Local Municipality in terms of section 139(1)(b)
of the Constitution, and assumed the functions specified in terms of
section 51 of the Local Government: Municipal System Act (Act 32
of 2000). Then on the 04th December 2013, the Provincial Executive
Council noted progress and some challenges which still remained.
The critical challenges that are still prevalent included the election of
the office bearers in respect to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, and
the establishment and effective functionality of section 79 and 80
committees and the Local Labour Forum. On that basis, it resolved
to extend the intervention until 30 September 2014. The intervention
was further extended on 10 September 2014 until 31 March 2015,
due to the current challenges that existed.
1.2
On the 9th September 2014, the MEC for Cooperative Governance

and Traditional Affairs in KwaZulu-Natal, tabled to the Office of the
Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), a notice
of the request for extension of intervention in terms of section
139(1)(b) of the Constitution at Umvoti Local Municipality.
1.3
The Chairperson of the NCOP subsequently referred the notice of

intervention in terms of Rule 101 to the Select Committee on
Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, for consideration
and report. On the 23rd October 2014, a multi-party delegation of the
Committee conducted an oversight visit to the Umvoti Local
Municipality.
3083
2.
2.1

Municipality, in order to solicit their opinion with regard to the
request for the extension of intervention in the Municipality in terms
of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution, and also to report back to
the NCOP in terms of Rule 101.
3.
Overview of the Oversight Visit to Umvoti Local Municipality
3.1
On the 23rd October 2014, the delegation of the Select Committee

on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs had interaction
and consultative meeting with the internal and external stakeholders
of the Municipality. The stakeholders the delegation interacted with
included the Speaker, Chief Whip, senior official of the Provincial
Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, the
Ministerial Representative and representatives of the Organised
Labour and Ward Committee members, youth organisation, women
and members of municipal political parties.
4.
Presentation on the Justification for Request of Extension of

Intervention in Umvoti Local Municipality
4.1

Traditional Affairs briefed the Members of the Select Committee on
the background of the constitutional intervention and the resolution
of the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Executive Council, dated 10
September 2014, to extend the intervention in terms of section
139(1)(b) of the Constitution. Its presentation focused on the
background, reason for the intervention and the terms of reference
of the Ministerial Representative in Umvoti Local Municipality.
3084
5.
Context
5.1
On the 17th July 2013, the Provincial Executive Council resolved to

intervene at Umvoti Local Municipality in terms of section 139(1)(b)
of the Constitution, and assumed the functions specified in terms of
section 51 of the Local Government: Municipal System Act (Act 32
of 2000).
5.2
Then on the 04th December 2013, the Provincial Executive Council

noted progress and some challenges which still remained. On that
basis, it resolved to extend the intervention until 30 September
2014. The intervention was further extended on 10 September 2014
until 31 March 2015, due to the current challenges that existed.
6.
6.1
Since November 2012, there were continuous political struggles in

the Umvoti Council, stemming from political differences and power
plays, which led to a total collapse of governance structures,
resulting in the Municipality being unstable and dysfunctional. This
was evident from the numerous walk-outs in council which rendered
the meetings not to quorate, wherein critical matters were to be
tabled, including the passing of the budget, Auditor-Generals report
and IDP matters. There were also unlawful removals of office
bearers, legally flawed election of office bearers and reported acts
of violence and intimidation at the Municipality.
6.2
The state of dysfunctionality at the Municipality had also resulted in

the presence of SAPS at council meetings, to dissipate the chaos
that prevailed at most meetings, and a request from the Municipal
Manager to close the municipal offices until 18 July 2013.
6.3
The Municipal Manager had also advised that there had been acts
of violence at the Municipality, which included a group of people
who were walking in and out of the offices, and making political
statements to staff members and passing threatening words of
violence. An exchange of firearms had been seen inside the
3085
municipal offices. Staff members were unable to move from one

office to another, as they feared to walk across unknown people
who sat in the premises from morning until noon.
6.4
The
challenges
impacted
negatively
compromised the functionality of
on
the
administration,
the Municipality and the
achievement of critical statutory obligations. That fostered a culture

of distrust and disharmony resulting in a negative impact on
councils obligation to provide democratic and accountable
government to the local community. The Municipal Manager had
also indicated that some staff members were also politically
affiliated, and that was also causing pressure and internal fights. It
was clear that service delivery and functionality were being
seriously
compromised
as
result
of
the
instability
and
dysfunctionality of the council.
6.5
The lack of stability and political tensions had also skewed the
adherence by council to the principle of legality, which was
indicative in the unlawful decisions taken at certain meetings. As a
result of the unlawful decisions taken, the Municipality has been in a
state of confusion, without any clarity as to whom the Speaker was
and who legitimately constitutes the executive committee as a result
of court actions. The unlawful election of the executive committee,
Mayor and Deputy Mayor as well as the removal of the Speaker and
the election of a new Speaker, was indicative of the failure of
council to fulfill its executive obligation to govern lawfully.
7.
Terms of Reference of the Ministerial Representative at Umvoti

Local Municipality
7.1
The Ministerial Representative was appointed to achieve the

following terms of reference:
To undertake all fiscal and financial management functions at

the Municipality, including him being a signatory on the
municipal banking account;
To ratify all decisions of the municipal council and its

committees, prior to implementation;
3086
To ratify all decisions taken by the Municipal Manager and

managers contemplated in section 57 of the Local Government:
Systems Act (Act 32 of 2000), in terms of delegated or original
authority;
To undertake all steps in terms of section 54A and section 56 of

the Act;
To devise a turn-around strategy for the Municipality;
To ensure implementation of council resolutions by the

administration;
To implement a system to control and approve all expenditure;
To implement all governance systems and procedures including

appropriate councillor oversight mechanisms;
To ensure implementation of financial systems, policies and

procedures;
and
ensure
implementation
of
the
Local
Government: Municipal Property Rates Act (Act 6 of 2004);
To set out a specific strategy for addressing the municipalities

financial
problems,
including
strategy
for
reducing
unnecessary expenditure and increasing the collection revenue;
To prepare the adjustment budget for the 2013/2014 financial

year;
To review the organizational structure of the municipality; and
To implement the findings of any forensic investigations

undertaken by the Municipality or the MEC in terms of section
106 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, including
criminal, disciplinary and civil action.
8.
Reasons for Request of Extension of Intervention
8.1

Traditional Affairs reported that, although substantial progress has
been achieved in terms of the recovery plan, the political structures
of the Municipality still remained in a state of chaos. For example, in
respect of litigation matters, the Departments legal representatives
sent correspondence to the parties in the legal matters requesting
that the matter be settled out of court. A draft settlement proposal
was drafted for acceptance by the parties to the litigation, along the
lines of the above request. All parties to the litigation dispute and
3087
political parties represented in Council were engaged on various

occasions by the Department and the Ministerial Representation.
Despite the engagements, the parties to the dispute have still not
accepted the settlement proposal in writing.
8.2
Although the settlement proposal has not been finalized pending

acceptance by the parties, the Ministerial Representative had
received letters from three major political, parties all agreeing to
settle the matter in the council chamber. A meeting was then
scheduled for the 10th October 2014, at which councillor Yengwa
from the IFP was elected as the Speaker of Council. Due to a walkout, the meeting could not proceed to elect other office-bearers as it
could no longer quorate. The meeting was postponed to re-convene
on the 17 October 2014.
9.
Presentation on the Municipal Recovery Plan and Turn-Around

Strategy
9.1

Committee on the municipal recovery plan in relation to the request
of extension of intervention. The presentation focused on the five
key performance areas of the five-year Local Government Strategic
Agenda,
namely,
institutional
development
and
municipal
transformation; municipal financial viability and management; good

governance and public participation, basic service delivery and local
economic development.
10.
Institutional Development and Transformation
10.1
The Municipality has reviewed its staff establishment and has

aligned it with the IDP. The challenges however were the placement
of staff at senior management level. Most critical positions have
been filled with relevant and adequately qualified and experienced
personnel. The position of the Technical Director has been
approved for advertisement.
3088
10.2
The audit committee members have been shortlisted, however,

there was still a challenge in ensuring effective communication with
staff. However, disciplinary matters have been attended to and the
Municipality has commissioned a forensic investigation.
11.
Financial Viability and Management and Revenue Collection
11.1
The verification and valuation roll has been successfully finalised

and the exploring of alternative income streams like vehicle testing
station project, has also been identified. However, the challenge
was increasing the collection to at least 80%, and curbing loses due
to theft.
11.2
The Municipality was still in the process of acquiring a new financial

system that would ensure accurate financial reporting. However,
conditional grants have been cash backed and ring-fenced. The
supply chain management processes have also been reviewed.
12.
12.1
The Municipal Speaker has been elected to deal with some of the
governance
matter.
However,
the
outstanding
governance
challenge has been to elect the Deputy Mayor and the Mayor. The
new Standing Rules and Orders have been developed, work
shopped and adopted by the council. The terms of reference for all
governance statutory and administrative structures have been
compiled and adopted by the council.
12.2
The roles and responsibilities for all governance structures, office

bearers, Municipal Manager and senior managers have been
compiled and adopted by the Council. The delegation of authority
framework has been compiled and adopted by the Council. The
code of conduct by all councilors and staff has been signed by all
staff and councilors. The Municipality has reviewed the ward
committee policy framework.
3089
13.
13.1
The Municipality has ensured the finalization and adoption of local

economic
development
participation
in
the
strategy.
provincial
It
has
also
initiatives
of
ensured
the
establishing
developmental agencies. Further, it facilitated the formation of

co-operatives and access to the markets and benefits to initiatives
like small town rehabilitation, as well as the corridor development.
14.
Basic Service Delivery
14.1
The Municipality has established landfill site and introduced waste

management opportunities. It has implemented rural roads
rehabilitation project, and eradicated the backlogs on electricity
access and introduction of alternative energy. An infrastructure
maintenance plan was compiled to ensured smooth implementation
of planned capital projects.
14.2
The resuscitated of blocked projects to ensured new projects are

implemented especially in rural areas has begun. Further, all nonperforming projects and contracts has been reviewed. It has made
guaranteed that all technical positions were filled with suitably
qualified personnel. Support to all demands of township residence,
farm dwellers and other possible hot spots have been provided.
15.
Operation Clean Audit and Governance
15.1
With regard to clean audit and governance, annual financial

statement and draft annual reports were compiled and submitted to
the Office of Auditor-General by the 31st August 2013. Monitoring
and updating of GRAP compliant asset registry was done monthly.
15.2
Preparation and submission of credible section 71 monthly reports

was done, and the queries of Auditor-General was timeously
attended. Equally important, staff and councillors were appraised of
operation clean audit and governance.
3090
16.

Outstanding Intervention Matters in Relation to Request of
Extension of Intervention
16.1
The critical issues which remained outstanding are as follows:
The election of the executive committee and two office

bearers (Mayor and Deputy Mayor).
Formation of section 79 and 80 committees and Local Labour

Forum.
Implementation of the recommendations of the forensic

investigation reports.
Filling of vacant positions at senior management levels.
17.
17.1
The councillor of the Democratic Alliance welcomed the request of

the extension of intervention and the progress made in respect of
the implementation of municipal recovery plan.
18.
18.1
The Inkatha Freedom Party councillor, welcomed the request of the

extension of intervention and the progress made by the Ministerial
Representative.
19.
19.1
The councillor of the National freedom Party welcomed the request

of the extension of intervention, and emphasised that the
Municipality would not function well in the absence of the formation
of section 79 and 80 committees.
20.

Whip)
20.1
The African National Congress councillor, welcomed the request of

the extension of intervention and the progress made in respect of
the implementation of municipal recovery plan, facilitation of public
3091
participation and further requested the continuous support of the

national and provincial government to build the municipal capacity
in terms of section 64 of the Constitution.
21.
Opinion of the Representative of Organised Labour
21.1
The representative of South African Municipal Workers Union

(SAMWU) expressed support to the request of the extension of
intervention. However, the Union representative raised concerns
and challenges with regard to the wage-gap between management
and line managers, the payment of councillors at the level of grade
3 and employees on category 3, downgrading of the Municipality
from level 3 to level 2 and lack of functional Local Labour Forum.
22.
Opinion of the Representative of the Ward Committee Members
22.1
The representative of the Ward Committee members welcomed the

request for the extension of intervention, and further emphasised
the
importance
of
social
cohesion
and
implementation
of
programmes to deal with challenges related to women and youth

healthy life style, as well as the environment.
23.
23.1
The Committee has observed and noted that the KwaZulu-Natal

Affairs has failed to comply with the resolution passed by the NCOP
during the Fourth-Parliament, which required the Department to
table quarterly progress reports in respect of the intervention issued
in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution in Umvoti Local
Municipality.
23.2
The Committee has also noted that on 20 March 2013, the

Provincial Executive Council resolved to intervene at Umvoti Local
Municipality in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution and
assumed the functions specified in terms of section 51, of the
Municipal System Act.
3092
23.3
On the 04 December 2013, the Provincial Executive Council noted

progress and the challenges which remained. On that basis, it
resolved to extend the intervention in terms of section 139(1)(b) of
the Constitution at the Municipality, until 30 September 2014. The
intervention was further extended on 10 September 2014 until
31 March 2015, due to the outstanding key intervention matters.
23.4

priority areas which becomes justification for the request of the
extension of intervention until March 2015 related to the strategic
and municipal transformation, municipal financial viability, good
governance and public participation, local economic development
and basic service delivery.
23.5
The Committee has noted and welcomed the progress made by the
Municipality in implementation of municipal recovery plan and its
alignment with governance, institutional development, revenue
collection,
service delivery and operation
clean audit
and
governance.
23.6
Despite the progress made in respect of the implementation of

municipal recovery plan, the Committee has observed and noted
that the Municipality required the extension of intervention as
requested by the Provincial Executive in order to deal with the
outstanding intervention matters such as the election of executive
committee,
formation
of
section
79
and
80
committees,
implementation of the recommendations of forensic investigations

and the filling of vacant positions at senior managerial level.
23.7
The Committee has further observed, noted and welcomed the

support of all political parties of the justification to request extension
of intervention, so as to deal effectively and efficiently with the
outstanding governance matters more especially the election of the
Deputy Mayor, the Mayor and formation of section 79 and 80
Committees.

23.8
3093
Furthermore, the Committee noted and welcomed within the spirit of

cooperative governance and inter-governmental relations, the
oversight role played by the South African Local Government
Association and the part played by the Provincial Monitoring Task
Team on the interventions in the KwaZulu-Natal Province.
24.
Committee Recommendations to the NCOP
24.1
Having conducted the oversight visit to Umvoti Local Municipality in

response to the request of the extension of intervention terms of
section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution, the Select Committee
recommends to the Council as follows:
24.1.1
The NCOP approves the notice of request of the extension

of intervention in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the
Constitution in Umvoti Local Municipality, until March 2015.
24.1.2
The Ministerial Representative should fast track the

processes of implementing the recommendations of the
forensic investigations and prioritise the filling of vacant
positions at senior managerial level in the Municipality.
24.1.3
The KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Department of Cooperative

report on the intervention in Umvoti Local Municipality to
the NCOP by April 2015.
24.1.4
On cross-cutting issues with regards to women and youth


Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Tuesday, 11 November 2014]

No 912014] FIRST SESSION, FIFTH PARLIAMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

Transmission of Bills for concurrence............................................ 2948

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform ......................... 2948

Ad hoc committee to consider report on security upgrades at

National Council of Provinces

[Tuesday, 11 November 2014

Message from National Assembly to National Council of

Bills passed by National Assembly and transmitted for

Rates and Monetary Amounts and Amendment of

Taxation Laws Amendment Bill [B 13B 2014]

Tax Administration Laws Amendment Bill [B 14

The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Report of the Communal Property Associations for 2012-2013,

(b) Report of the Communal Property Associations for 2013-2014,