Your enquiry that you forwarded to my email on Friday, 6 October 2023 has astounded me, in that;
- Youincorrectly aver that we refused to answer your questions in the previous week, when in actual fact:
- Weprovided answers to your questions and where necessary, requested you to clarify your questions, which we are entitled to do, if your questions are ambiguous in nature;
- We specifically requested you to proceed with the publication of thearticle, this past Sunday, on condition that you included our response to your enquiry, that contained our questions as well, which you failed to respond
- Wealso raised the concern that your paper has a tendency of not publishing our response, if such response does not suite your paper, and expressed our reservation for the short notices that you always give us to respond to your questions, which we find By way of illustration, you sent us the enquiry on Friday last week at midday and expected our response by Saturday the following day when ordinarily, we would be out of office and should we have failed to squeeze in time to respond to your enquiry, we have no doubt that you would have gone ahead with the publication and misled the public that you gave us time to comment, but we failed to do so and this you would have said without saying that you gave us a short notice. In future, we request you to give us reasonable notice to respond to your enquiries.
- The report that you have in your possession is confidential and was meantfor the Office of the MEC and it would be interesting to know how you managed to get hold of it.
We therefore wish to place the important facts on record, which will address the entire report that you forwarded, and which show that what the administration did, could have avoided the allegations that are contained in the report, without admitting that those allegations are entirely accurate.
1. Facts placed on record;
- Appointmentof the Chairperson of the Shared Audit Committee:
The request to appoint Mr. G Higgins, as the Chairperson of the Audit Committee was recommended by the HOD, for the approval of the MEC for Finance, and this happened in the past financial year. A subsequent reminder was sent to the Office of the MEC and the approval is still awaited to date.
It should be borne in mind that the Interim Chairperson, who has been recommended, was supported by Financial Governance and the HOD, because of his track record and experience.
1.2 Appointment of the Chief Audit Executive (CAE);
The position on the appointment of the CAE is as per our response of last week which we briefly repeat as follows “The chairperson of the Audit Committee, Mr. Higgins, was part of the entire recruitment process, until the motivation thereof was provided to the Executive Authority (EA) in January 2023, for approval”. Such approval is still awaited from the Office of the EA.
1.3 Efficiency of the Internal Audit Section;
Upon the resignation of the former CAE, the administration fast tracked the advertisement of that post. All the processes were followed and a recommendation of the suitable candidate has been made to the MEC and is currently awaiting her approval, since January 2023. If the approval was duly granted, then, there would have been stability and efficiency in that unit would have been enhanced.
Grievance and disciplinary process in deserving cases, are normal and would not have the effect of hampering the efficiency of the unit.
During the 2022/23 financial year, the Office of the HOD has on numerous occasions engaged the Office MEC to facilitate the mandated meeting between the Audit Committee and the Honourable MEC and this could not be realised, as those efforts from the HOD’s office did not result in a successful appointment being secured from the MEC’s office.
2. Comments on the contents of the report in question
- The Audit Committee (the Committee) is pleased to present itsreport regarding the review of the issues raised to the Honourable MEC by members of staff of the Internal Audit Function:
Our Comments:
As stated above, we confirm that we supported the entire Audit Committee to meet with the MEC and to that extent, numerous requests were made to the office of the MEC during of 2022/2023 financial year and regrettably, those requests did not result in any meeting being secured from the Office of the MEC.
This meeting that was held with the MEC in June 2023, was held in the absence of the HOD.
2.2 (2.1 of the Background in the report);
Our comments to the paragraph as it appears in the report:
We have already stated that numerous requests were made to the Office for the MEC, for the Audit Committee to meet with the MEC, by the Office of the HOD, during 2022/2023, which did not yield the required results, as those requests did not secure the meetings from MEC’s Office and the meeting that took place occurred in the absence of the HOD.
Issues that the 6 members raised, were properly addressed to the satisfaction of the officials concerned and the further escalation of the same issues, demonstrated different views on the part of those members and in any event, the issues that they raised, without commenting on the substance of those issues, are labour related issues, which should have been dealt with in a legally prescribed manner.
It is necessary to mention that one of those officials, has already launched a dispute, which is presently at the bargaining council. It will therefore not be prudent to express views on that matter at this stage.
2.3 (2. Legislative Framework) Our Comments:
Relevant provisions that are quoted under the legislative framework, in this report, do not extend to labour issues that have been raised at grievances. The others that are falling within the ambit of the legislative framework, were necessitated by the leaks of confidential information that occurred which behoved the then Acting CAE, Mr. Maqabe, to introduce stricter measures, to curb the leaks which proved effective.
2.4 Scope of review (3) Our Comments:
The scope of review does not provide an authoritative basis for that and in the circumstances, is not warranted.
2.5 (4. Issues identified by the Staff) Our Comments:
Uncertainty and fears that are alleged, are baseless and the points that follow thereafter, are at best, perceptions or rumours, which cannot be entertained. What is important to gather from the issues raised under this caption, is that the junior personnel want to dictate how management should manage the unit and if they do not get what they want, they then fabricate what does not exist.
They also, have an unfortunate sense of entitlement to position of senior management that become vacant and this state of affairs was created in certain platforms, which should have not been the case and hence this disgruntlement on the part of the junior officials.
We can say that the department has the best interest of each employee at heart and the HOD has been very vocal in showing that this is the case in the department, but this has to be done within the prevailing laws of the country.
2.6 Issues identified by the Acting CAE Our Comments:
We agree with the comments of the then Acting CAE, except for the one that follows which is worded along these lines “Due to the independence threat by selecting a sample which included the Acting CAE, there was an intention to charge Mr Kanone, including amongst others insubordination”.
In this regard, the then Acting CAE, Mr. Maqabe was not quoted accurately, as the insubordination of Mr. Kanono had nothing to do with the sample of the audit related S&T. For the record, this was related to the recruitment audit project, where Mr. Kanono was also a candidate and his involvement in the audit of that position that he had an interest in, would have been a subjective audit in nature. Mr. Kanono failed to obey and carry out lawful instructions by the relevant authority at the time when Mr. Maqabe was acting CAE. The details will not be disclosed, as this is an internal matter and must be ventilated at the relevant forums properly.
We still say that the delay in the finalisation of the recommended candidate, contributed to the teething problems in this regard.
2.7 (6. Issued identified by the HOD) Our comments:
We agree with the HOD.
2.8 Matters of concern identified by in the review Our Comments:
The Audit Committee had a meeting with the staff members and there was no hindrance from the HOD’s side.
We still require your paper to give the answers on the questions we posed previously.
2.9 (9. Recommendations) Our Comments
- The appointment of the permanent CAE be finalized assoon as possible once any related grievance process or other Human resource processes have been completed;
Our comments:
The appointment of the CAE should not wait for the finalisation of the grievance, as that on its own, will suggest that the recruitment process of which Mr. G Higgins was part of, was flawed, which is not the case.
2.9.2 The acting CAE must have sufficient capacity to dedicate to the responsibilities of CAE, this includes review and management of the internal audit function within Treasury;
Our Comments:
The grievance of Mr. Kanono can run for a long period, if after the arbitration, there would be a review of the award, if it is not favourable to the aggrieved employee. This will delay the filling of the position for possibly years, which cannot be desirable as it will create difficulties for the department.
2.9.3 The role of the Deputy Director be reinstated on the organizational structure and appropriate funding in terms of Compensation of Employees be found.
Our Comments:
The position was reinstated, and the assistant directors are acting on rotational basis.
2.9.4 As far as possible, rotation of the Assistant Directors as Deputy Directors be allowed in terms of the Public Services Act.
Our Comments:
This has been given effect to.
2.9.5 For any employees whose equipment has been confiscated, replacement equipment should be sourced for them to fulfil their functions that they are employed to do.
Our Comments
This matter has been attended to.
2.9.6 The administrative matters be dealt with as soon as possible so that the clarity and stability be restored to the unit.
Our Comments:
This is done promptly and any allegation to the contrary, would be false.
2.9.7 All documentation required for the staff to perform against the plan be provided to the staff.
Our Comments
This has always been done.
2.9.8 The Acting CAE must ensure that the methodology, processes and procedures of Internal Audit are in compliance with the IIA Standards and followed
Our Comments
This has been always the case and when the acting CAEs guided according, there was resistance.
2.9.9 The audit of Subsistence and allowance is completed as soon as possible.
Our Comments:
The review indicated is allocated to independent person and it almost finalised.
2.9.10 Mediations or other engagements are held so that the relationship between the CAE, HOD and staff can be rebuilt
Our Comments
The matter has been addressed.
2.9.11 Communication protocols of resolving these matters are identified and included in the relevant charters
Our Comments
This matter is governed by the Public Service Act and cannot be as recommended, as this recommendation is contrary to that Act.
2.9.12 Consideration of a shared internal audit function to mitigate these risks.
Our Comments:
This is the stance of the Province and we are conducting the analysis at this stage.
3. Question that we directed to your office for clarity
We further believe that you will have the courtesy of responding to the questions that we previously directed to your email, regarding this enquiry and for the reasons that we advanced.
We trust you will publish the article with our comments, as revised herein. Issued by:
Mr. Tshidiso Mokokoane
