Members of the media,
Government Officials good morning.
Kindly receive our heartfelt gratitude for honouring our invitation to this media briefing. We are not accustomed to convene media briefings to clarify the inaccuracies and misrepresentation of facts that are common place about the Limpopo provincial government.
However, the allegations levelled against our government in the Sunday newspaper with regard to the misleading accusation that there is effective frustration and hampering of corruption investigations into top civil servants dictated otherwise.
Ordinarily, Chapter three of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa enjoins the three spheres of government; namely national, provincial and local to, among other things, “co-operate with one another in mutual trust and good faith by, informing one another of, and consulting one another on, matters of common interest, co-ordinate their actions and legislation with one another and adhere to agreed procedures…”.
Public representatives have an obligation to protect the Constitution which is the supreme Law of the country and therefore alleged accusations in the Sunday paper in question borders on inferring that Premier Cassel Mathale has contravened the Constitution by allegedly frustrating and hampering the probe of corruption cases of senior officials in government.
For the record, the allegations leveled against the Premier are incorrect, misleading and devoid of the truth. It is common cause that the disciplinary processes and procedures relating to labour relation cases of senior government officials in Limpopo, which are matters of common interest between the national intervention team and Limpopo provincial government have to be dealt with in terms of pieces of legislation such as the Labour Relations Act, Public Service Act and Public Service Regulations in the interest of ensuring that there is fair labour practice as enshrined in the Constitution.
Disciplinary processes and procedures
It is prudent to outline the applicable disciplinary processes and procedures in the Public Service to forge a common understanding on how labour relations matters are dealt with in respect of members of senior management:
-
Allegations of misconduct that warrant investigations are presented to the Executive Authority to, among other things, get authority to conduct investigations and further obtain authority for suspension, where there is a need.
-
If the authority to suspend the official is granted, pending investigations the said official will be duly informed of the intention to suspend and give him/her reasonable opportunity to respond on why he/she should not be suspended.
-
After the official shall have presented his/her version, the Executive Authority will evaluate same and take a decision on whether to suspend or not. It is important to note that suspension, as an element of justice can only be imposed if the official concerned, may interfere with witnesses and hamper with due processes of investigations.
-
Whether suspended or not an investigation will be conducted to establish if there is a prima facie case to answer and the investigation report will be compiled with recommendations on the allegations and that report will be presented to the Executive Authority for a decision.
-
The Executive Authority decision will be implemented and if the decision is that disciplinary process should be instituted the process will then start.
-
Charges of misconduct will be drafted, signed and served to the affected officials.
Allegations contained in the newspaper in question are generally not reflective of what the Law provides. Before any decision to charge an official can be taken, it is important that the processes and procedures outlined above are followed.
A case in point is the fact that the newspaper in question alleges that, “the Premier allegedly requested forensic report before he could take action against the officials. The Treasury’s intervention team refused to give him the forensic reports as they feared this could compromise the investigations.”
It is doubtful that the intervention team can say this given that they are government officials who are acquainted with the disciplinary processes and procedures. Added to this misleading statement, the newspapers further states that “action must also be taken against senior officials who were on bid adjudication and evaluation committees. There are a number of them, from director upwards. But the Premier does not want to act.”
Obviously, it is common knowledge that the Executive Authority of a respective department is responsible for disciplinary actions against other officials in that department except Accounting Officers who are also HoDs as provided for in the law.
To say that the Premier does not want act on line department officials is clearly intended to assassinate the character of the Premier and vilify him without factual basis. We want to put it on record that the allegation reports, if any, of the five HoDs have not been submitted to the Premier and to say that the Premier does want to act is totally baseless and unfounded. Obviously the newspaper allegation that the Premier does not want to take action against the officials because he want to protect his own interests is a true reflection of malice.
Enquiries:
Tebatso Mabitsela
Head of Government Communication
Cell: 072 263 0563
