The State Information Technology Agency (SITA) says it played a limited and advisory role in the procurement efforts for ICT equipment for the two Commissions of Inquiry set to get under way.
This, after it was approached for assistance by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DJCD), which is overseeing the commissions.
SITA is the government procurement arm responsible for developing, operating and/or maintaining ICT services consumed by government departments.
The two commissions − Khampepe Commission and Madlanga Commission − were established by president Cyril Ramaphosa in May and July, respectively.
This week, it emerged that several factors contributed to delays in the commencement of the commissions, including the procurement of ICT tools. The delays led to the suspension of Jabu Hlatshwayo, deputy director-general for ICT and CIO of the justice department.
SITA has sought to clarify its role in the procurement process, saying this is “to avoid any possible misrepresentation of facts and risk of undermining public trust in the integrity of government processes”.
In a statement, SITA says it was formally approached in writing by the DJCD on 15 August with a request to procure and deliver ICT equipment by 22 August − a turnaround time of just seven calendar days.
“The equipment requested spanned six distinct categories, each requiring specification, sourcing and compliance with procurement protocols.
“SITA responded on the same day to the justice department, acknowledging the urgency but highlighting that the request came at extremely short notice, making it impractical to execute within the stipulated timeframe whilst remaining compliant with the regulatory framework on procurement.”
Delving deeper into why this would prove difficult and therefore unable to proceed, SITA states its procurement processes are governed by legislation, including the Public Finance Management Act, National Treasury regulations and internal policy frameworks.
These require bid specification development, evaluation and adjudication, contract award and supplier engagement.
“These stages are essential to ensure transparency, fairness and compliance. Attempting to bypass them − even under pressure − would expose SITA to irregularities and audit risks.
“While emergency procurement provisions do exist, it is up to the department requiring the service to follow National Treasury’s Practice Note that defines an emergency procurement request.”
Given the constraints, SITA says it advised the department to invoke its internal procurement mechanisms to meet the urgent need. This was not a refusal to assist − it was a responsible recommendation aligned with legal and regulatory obligations, it notes.
“SITA remains fully committed to supporting all government departments, including the Department of Justice, with technical expertise, procurement support and infrastructure delivery. However, this support must occur within the bounds of law and policy.
“In the circumstances, SITA could not have delivered on the request from the justice department given the timeframes presented by the client – it was more about short notice and compliance than SITA’s shortcomings.
“SITA will continue to uphold the principles of transparency, accountability and service excellence, and we remain available to assist departments in planning and executing ICT procurement with the necessary foresight and compliance. Procedural integrity must not be confused with institutional failures,” concludes the statement.
Share