The Department of Sport, Arts and Culture keeps getting the same audit findings, year after year. But nobody has been held responsible.
On Friday, the department’s chief audit executive admitted her unit has not recommended consequence management for the repeat failures.
Committee chair Joe McGluwa warned that the department’s mixed messages could land it before Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA).
DA MP Leah Ruth Potgieter put the department on the spot before the Portfolio Committee on Sport, Arts and Culture.
She compared the department’s annual report with the Auditor-General’s findings. The AG flagged repeat non-compliance, weak controls, unreliable evidence and failures in oversight.
“So which picture should we rely on as the portfolio committee, with regards to how the department is being run? Because these are two very different pictures being presented to us,” she said.
Acting director-general Vincent Campbell said there was no conflict.
“Although we had running battles initially when we discussed the audit matters, ultimately we signed off the management report from the AG. So I don’t think there’s any conflict here,” he said.
But Potgieter was not satisfied.
“Why are the same governance failures recurring? And who exactly are you holding accountable?” she asked.
Chief audit executive Sunita Ramanand said her unit only points out problems.
“We just highlight the non-compliance. But we have not recommended any consequence management in respect of those non-compliance issues. Can I ask why not?” Potgieter said. She noted the findings had been coming up for three years.
“We would have to look at it going forward, in terms of the impact of these non-compliances,” Ramanand said.
CFO Israel Mokgwamme then revealed that the department had taken one of the AG’s findings to National Treasury.
The finding is on transfer payments. Mokgwamme said it had come up for the third year in a row.
“It’s more of a difference of opinion in terms of the definition of what is really non-compliance,” he said.
The department now makes entities, federations and beneficiaries sign a Section 38 certificate. In it, they confirm the money will be used for its intended purpose.
Mokgwamme said Treasury agreed with the department.
“The letter from National Treasury agreed with us in terms of the way we define our transfer payments,” he said.
He said the department would share the letter with the committee. It has also asked to meet the AG before the end of October to settle the matter.
Potgieter was confused.
“Are you saying to me that National Treasury issued you a letter stating that they don’t agree with the AG’s report?” she asked.
“Why was the AG’s report then presented as is, if there’s a disagreement? I’m not quite understanding why we’d be given a picture that’s not completely accurate.”
Mokgwamme said the report was accurate. The AG had seen the letter before signing off.
“The letter is not on the overall audit report. It’s on the transfer payments,” he said.
Potgieter said that still did not explain the rest.
“Let’s take the transfer payments out. Let’s talk about the misstatements, the non-compliance with legislation. Why is it that no consequence management or interventions have taken place?. I’m not going to continue giving my child my card if they keep abusing it. So at what stage are you going to actually start implementing this? Because nobody will learn if there are no consequences,” she said.
Mokgwamme said the department was tightening checks on performance information.
“We cannot allow a situation where, come the audit, what has been submitted gets queried. It must be queried earlier,” he said.
Potgieter said plans were not the same as accountability.
“Whilst they receive these letters and everybody’s putting these things in place, nobody’s actually been held accountable,” she said.
She said the AG had told the committee to oversee consequence management in the department.
“We can’t oversee what isn’t happening. It can’t be that we sit here now, years after the fact, and we say, well, we’ll implement consequence management at a future date. At what stage is that triggered?” she asked.
Campbell then said consequence management had in fact been applied in a case the AG raised.
“There was consequence management that was implemented under the procedure,” he said.
That drew a sharp response from McGluwa.
“Mr Campbell, are you in disagreement with what the AG presented to us?” he asked.
Campbell said he was reflecting on what the AG had recommended on consequence management over time.
McGluwa was not having it.
“It has been reported that there’s no consequence management. You are presenting the contrary here today. You know what that means? It will force us to have a conversation with SCOPA,. That’s what that means. It’s very serious,” he said.
Earlier, McGluwa had asked Director-General Dr Cynthia Khumalo how highly she regarded the meeting.
He listed the department’s troubles over the past year.
“We had so many forensic probes for this financial year. We had the national school sports. We had the Bloemfontein chaos of students. We have the State Theatre. We have the issue where a bonus was paid to a CEO,” said McGluwa.
Yet the department’s annual report, he said, showed no disciplinary hearings.
Campbell said he had only meant the one case the AG raised the day before.
Potgieter said one case missed the point.
“When I talk about consequence management, that includes interventions. It includes things where you capacitate your staff members. It’s not always ending up in a disciplinary hearing. But consequence management has to follow. Otherwise you wouldn’t find yourself in a place where you have material non-compliance on a repeat cycle,” said Potgieter.
“I don’t think it should get to the point where the AG tells you who you need to discipline. This should be done in the normal day-to-day running of the department. It’s why you find a breakdown across the department’s entities, because it’s not being dealt with,” she said.
She then asked whether anyone faced consequences for irregular expenditure.
Mokgwamme pointed to R5.1 million in irregular spending on a travel company appointed in 2022.
The bid evaluation committee passed over the top-ranked bidder and chose the second one instead. It said the first bidder had quoted far too low.
Mokgwamme said the old rules allowed that, if the reasons were recorded and could stand up in court. But the rules had since changed, and departments had to appoint the top-scoring bidder.
“Those members of the evaluation committee were found not to have applied their minds properly. And then they were also taken for training, to make sure that in future they don’t repeat the same mistake,” he said.
“So they basically didn’t apply the correct legislation?” Potgieter asked.
“100%,” Mokgwamme said.
“Fantastic,” Potgieter replied.
Later in the meeting, Ramanand said two forensic cases had been referred for disciplinary action. One has been finalised and the other is still under way.
