An internal audit has uncovered significant flaws and irregularities in the recruitment process for the deputy director of communication at the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF).
The audit, covering May 8-20, 2024, has raised concerns about the hiring procedures, highlighting an urgent need for reform towards a fair and transparent recruitment process.
Before his suspension last September, UIF commissioner Teboho Maruping received complaints from unions regarding alleged irregularities in hiring practices under the oversight of advocate Mzie Yawa, the chief director of corporate services.
Maruping noted several irregularities upon reviewing the submissions related to appointments and subsequently requested an internal audit.
Notably, the audit did not identify any single individual responsible for the discrepancies.
Responding to enquiries about the appointment of the deputy director of communication,
Yawa, now acting in Maruping’s position, stated: “Regarding your inquiry on the appointment of the deputy director: communication, we wish to inform you that a grievance process, in terms of our policies, is already underway to determine whether there is merit in the complaint of non-appointment by one of the candidates.
“In view thereof, we propose not to divulge more information on the issue or deal with the matter in the media. We are confident that the appointment in question complies with applicable legislation, regulations, and policies.”
The internal audit report, seen by Sunday World, highlights critical issues within the recruitment and selection policy.
It particularly points out the absence of a clear process for addressing errors in candidates’ information identified after interview notifications.
This omission undermines the recruitment process’s integrity, leaving room for errors and inconsistencies.
Complications further arise when appointed panel members decline their roles or when labour representatives fail to attend key sessions.
The lack of clear guidelines for these situations raises questions about the recruitment framework’s robustness and its capacity to handle unexpected challenges.
The audit also scrutinises the integrity of the candidate evaluation process, revealing multiple discrepancies in candidates’ work experience documentation.
Inconsistencies exist between information on official forms and candidates’ CVs. For instance, Ms ZP Matsila’s Z83 form did not match her CV details. Similar inconsistencies were noted for Ms L Maseko and others.
In Maseko’s case, “the number of work experiences indicated on the face of the Z83 is 8 years; however, the recounted number of work experiences as per the CV amounts to 10 years 8 months”, the report states.
Such disparities question the reliability of the evaluation process and raise the need for immediate corrective action.
Further doubts are cast on the interview and selection process. While the UIF commission
approved a four-member panel; the minutes from the selection process indicate only three members were present, suggesting poor coordination and communication.
Critically, the report criticises the subjective nature of the final candidate recommendation, highlighting potential bias. It notes: “The belief and entrustment of candidate No. 2 as heads and shoulders above
Other interviewed candidates by the chairperson imply personal opinions may have influenced decisions over objective criteria. This underscores the need for an unbiased selection process.”
The scoring matrix, vital to the selection process, also faced scrutiny.
The report highlights the absence of clear guidelines for score adjustments, leading to significant discrepancies in candidates’ scores.
“There is no indication of whether the scores of a tie of 49 points indicated in the chairperson score sheet and the latest submission of filling of vacant post to UIF were agreed upon with other panel members.”
Individual reports from panel members further contradicted the chairperson’s preferred candidate, deepening doubts about the process’s integrity.
As the audit report notes: “The individual reports from the two panel members are contradicting the chairperson’s reports on the preferred candidate, highlighting inconsistencies.”
