Ministry

A complaint was received by Ministry and referred to the National Commissioner, indicating the Division Inspectorate mishandled the service complaint levelled by Mr Adams and inappropriately handed multiple dockets to the Investigating Directorate against Corruption (IDAC).

“The purpose of the information note is to provide a response to the allegation that one, the Division Inspectorate was complicit and irregular in the handling of these service complaint levelled by Mr Adams, and two, to reflect on an averment that the Division Inspectorate irregularly handed seven dockets to the Investigating Directorate against corruption, IDAC.”

Lieutenant General PAJ Jacobs in a memo dated 1st November requested a report on a complaint received from a Member of Parliament, showing passing of the complaint through to the National Commissioner and issues of complicity and irregular handling by the Division Inspectorate regarding Mr Adams' complaint and referral of seven dockets to IDAC against corruption.

“‘Good morning, Major General Sebula. Ministry has received this complaint from a Member of Parliament. In order for the Ministry to respond accordingly, please furnish this office with a report in responding to this complaint and the details of the investigating officer who was assigned to investigate those cases. Your report is expected by Monday, 4th of November.’ ... The purpose of the information note is to provide a response to the allegation that one, the Division Inspectorate was complicit and irregular in the handling of these service complaints levelled by Mr Adams, and two, to reflect on a averment that the Division Inspectorate irregularly handed seven dockets to the Investigating Directorate against corruption, IDAC.”

The Chairperson questions why Advocate Johnson did not write back to the Ministry to confirm that there was no section 27 referral and therefore no action could be taken, despite accepting there was nothing in the Minister's letter.

“If you accept ... there was nothing whatsoever in the Minister's letter, what stopped you from writing back to the Ministry and saying we do not have a section 27 referral, therefore we cannot do anything about this?”

The Ministry is purportedly referring a matter under section 27 and Mr Nkabinde is the person actually purporting to refer the complaint.

“it is the Ministry that is referring and purporting to refer in terms of section 27. And if you were going to ask for a section 27 affidavit, it is from Mr Nkabinde that you ask for because he is the one that is purporting to refer”

The Chairperson questions ADV Johnson why he did not write back to the Ministry to clarify there was no section 27 referral and thus no action was possible, suggesting fear of the Minister as a possible reason.

“what stopped you from writing back to the Ministry and saying we do not have a section 27 referral, therefore we cannot do anything about this? ... Were you fearful of the Minister?”

Ethics officers have a dual mandate to advise on disclosures and to verify those disclosures, creating a potential conflict of interest as they are officials within the Ministry and are asked to verify disclosures of their colleagues for potential corrupt conduct.

“this is a role that has a dual mandate, both to advise on disclosures and to verify those same disclosures, and so there is a potential conflict there in terms of independent scrutiny, and the reality is these are also officials who are based within the Ministry, and so these would be your colleagues that you are being asked to verify their disclosures to determine whether they are engaging in potentially corrupt conduct”