of investigations
24 August 2007
A few national newspapers carried a story relating to apparent
investigations of "tender irregularities" within the department by the Auditor
General (AG). Let me state outright that I do not know of any investigation by
the AG against me in the department. The Head of Department (HOD), Mr Malele
Petje confirms the same.
Furthermore, it is common knowledge that the AG audits departments every
year. In this instance, an engagement letter has been issued by the AG to both
the HOD and audit teams as a common practice detailing scope of work to be
covered in the audit processes. The scope covers mainly conflict of interest
matters. The audit is in fact a follow-up of the report on the same matters
released by the AG a few years ago. This is not just an audit of the Gauteng
Department of Education but of all departments in both provincial and national
governments.
I reiterate that this is a normal process. The HOD has already provided
responses to the AG and I believe the AG is in the middle of the audit
exercise. The submission of all relevant documents is a necessary and normal
occurrence and nothing peculiar because there happens to be entities sampled
with apparent association to me or other officials in the employ of the
department or government. It is necessary that legislative, policy and
regulatory compliance be checked and verified.
That is exactly what the AG is doing and I and the department fully support
this process and have been collaborating with the AG. I and the department are
not in any position to disclose or comment on the responses provided to the AG
on audit queries raised since such remain privileged information until such
time the AG concludes the audit exercise and issues the Annual Report with
Audited Financial Statements for tabling in the Gauteng Legislature. There is
to the best of my and the HOD's knowledge no management letter issued yet by
the AG for the audit process for the financial year 2006/07.
I wish also to point out that various types of investigations are carried
out at any given time by the department and or on behalf of the department.
Such may include testing of allegations (establishing prima facie evidence)
based on whistle blowing or written allegations; internal audit investigations
for regularity and performance as well as forensic investigations. The latter
two types take place under the oversight of the HOD as an Accounting Officer.
The former is the responsibility of any manager with oversight over staff.
Managers carry out these types of investigations from time to time. In all
instances, the outcomes of investigations must be reported to the HOD, with
recommendations. I am on record saying that I have been reliably informed that
the Chief Director: Districts, Mr Thami Mali, questioned some officials with
the view to obtaining information and records about me relating to my recent
trip to Russia with the Premier, Mr Mbhazima Shilowa. This un-mandated action
by a public servant at his post level or rank against the elected and political
representative is deplorable and reflects arrogance, ill-discipline and
recklessness of the worse kind ever.
I can confirm that I have been made aware about instances where the same
Chief Director: Districts has taken action or caused action to be taken without
the knowledge of the HOD or myself, despite the claims in the report he has
submitted to the HOD and me following my instruction. This is what I will
continue to condemn and will task the HOD to deal with. The untouchable
behaviour cannot be condoned and will have to stop forthwith regardless of who
the personality is.
Having said that, I wish to state that I am convinced about an attempt to
cast aspersions on me as MEC and perhaps the department regarding oversight
capabilities, accountability, efficiencies of financial controls and the
effectiveness of leadership. The department has received unqualified audit
opinions in the previous four years consecutively. The leadership of the
department is sound and highly effective. Quite clearly, some officials are not
comfortable with this achievement and would wish to write conclusions for the
AG on the current audit exercise. Similarly, they would prefer assuming
authority they do not have in the type of investigations alluded to earlier.
They also need to be educated about the difference between an engagement letter
and an investigation in the process of audit. I can only conclude that their
motivation is to create an aura of importance for themselves which is derived
out of the quest for power and self-centeredness.
Now in so far as allegations of impropriety against the Chief Director:
Districts, Mr Mali that I have raised in my interviews with the media, I will
follow the necessary processes available within government to investigate and
if need be, seek the support from the relevant external agencies of government.
I wish to reassure the citizens and stakeholders in education, particularly in
Gauteng that the development and future of our children is in good hands. The
resources allocated by the province are utilised optimally and efficiently in a
pro-poor targeted way and put children first.
For more information contact:
Kate Bapela
Department of Education
Tel: 011 355 0732
Cell: 083 447 6505
Issued by: Department of Education, Gauteng Provincial Government
24 August 2007
