confidential in parliamentary reply
27 July 2006
The statement by the democratic alliance on the suggestion to parliament by
the Department of Social Development (DSD) for names of 1 792 guilty parties to
be kept confidential refers.
The DSD wishes to clarify that it only recommended to parliament to apply
discretion in the formulation and publication of the reply. The DSD considered
parliamentary protocol regarding rules on the form and content of parliamentary
questions. For example, names may only be introduced if strictly necessary to
render the question intelligible.
Secondly, there is the question of the matter being sub judice because the
legal process is not complete. We needed to take into account that:
* not all of these officials were convicted in a court of law
* some if not most of these officials are to be subjected to further
disciplinary action within their work environments
* some of them have indicated a willingness to co-operate with the justice
system in the ongoing investigations, and we had to consider the broader
investigation which is being conducted.
The DSD has never hidden information on people who defraud the social grants
system. Media advisories are issued each time there is a court appearance by
the public servants and others, and the information, including names, is always
available for public scrutiny in the courts.
The DSD therefore rejects insinuations that the request for discretion was
done in order to protect the public servants from exposure or
embarrassment.
The legal process is continuing and the arm of law is strengthened by the
investigations and work of the Special Investigation Unit (SIU). The DSD
supports the SIU and the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) to ensure
that the right grant is paid to the right person at the right time.
Enquiries: Lakela Kaunda
Cell: 082 782 2575
Issued by: Department of Social Development
27 July 2006
