Subscribe

DOC DG lied to Parliament

Farzana Rasool
By Farzana Rasool, ITWeb IT in Government Editor.
Johannesburg, 07 Nov 2012
Communications DG Rosey Sekese is said to have provided false information about signing a performance agreement with the DOC.
Communications DG Rosey Sekese is said to have provided false information about signing a performance agreement with the DOC.

Criminal charges could be laid against Department of Communications (DOC) director-general Rosey Sekese for providing false information to Parliament.

The Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Communications requested advice from the Constitutional and Legal Services Office of Parliament on how to proceed with the matter, when it found that Sekese provided misleading evidence about signing a performance agreement with the DOC.

The auditor-general, in the 2011/12 annual report, found the DG had not signed a performance agreement with the DOC, according to the committee meeting minutes.

Members questioned Sekese on the matter during meetings with the committee on 10 and 16 October. She stated during the meetings that she had a signed performance agreement, but this was disputed by deputy communications minister Stella Ndabeni.

The committee concluded that the statement made by the DG was false and intended to mislead Parliament.

Criminal offence

Presenting to the portfolio committee, the Parliamentary legal adviser provided an analysis of the relevant provisions in the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act.

Providing false and misleading information to Parliament is a criminal offence in terms of the Act.

According to the Act, if prima facie evidence exists, a criminal charge could be laid with the SA Police Services. The Act makes provision for the imposition of a fine or for a period of imprisonment.

The advice to the committee was that the DG be called before it to give an account of the matter. She could be requested to provide documentary evidence that she had a signed performance agreement.

The meeting minutes reflect that members said the issue of misleading Parliament and providing false information is extremely serious.

No consequences

The committee has to establish if there was a wilful intent to mislead Parliament or not, since the DG could have been under the impression that she had signed the performance agreement, but the agreement did not reach the office of the minister for some reason, according to the legal advisor.

If Sekese is unable to explain the discrepancy, the committee could refer the matter to communications minister Dina Pule. The committee could submit a report to the National Assembly on the matter.

Members pointed out that Pule is responsible for ensuring that performance agreements with her subordinate officials are in place.

They added that the performance agreement set out what was required of an official. If there is no performance agreement with the DG of a department, the entire department could get away with failing to perform.

There would be no consequences for officials who had failed to carry out their duties and responsibilities. Fruitless and wasteful expenditure would be incurred if non-performing officials were paid settlement agreements to leave the department.

According to the meeting minutes, committee chairperson Eric Kholwane said if Sekese lied to the committee, her credibility has suffered, even if the offence is legally considered to have been minor. As a result, the committee would question the veracity of the department's entire annual report.

Members said the only option available to Pule is to take disciplinary action, coupled with the laying of a criminal charge and dismissal.

Share