<\/p>\n
The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) head Andy Mothibi has flagged serious deficiencies in the implementation of consequence management following investigations into misconduct linked to the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF).<\/p>\n
Mothibi said they found that the disciplinary sanctions don\u2019t meet the wrong-doing by implicated officials.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are really concerned about the trend that we are seeing,\u201d Mothibi said.<\/p>\n
He made the observation during the meeting of the standing committee on public accounts when the government\u2019s forensic investigative and litigation agency was briefing on its investigations at the UIF earlier this week.<\/p>\n
The public purse watch body heard that the SIU investigated allegations of maladministration in the irregularly-awarded media buying tender where the UIF appointed five service providers for media campaigns during the Covid-19 pandemic and made R6.1 million payments.<\/p>\n
National acting chief investigating officer, Zodwa Xesibe, said the media houses had submitted sole mandate letters stating they have a sole mandate to sell campaigns, airtime and to negotiate overall partnership on behalf of their radio stations.<\/p>\n
\u201cTheir letters further indicated that they are not sole source service providers in the media industry, but within their media houses.<\/p>\n
\u201cBased on the letters sent to UIF by the five media houses, it became evident that that they did not regard themselves as sole source service providers but instead as having sole mandate in terms of their products,\u201d Xesibe said.<\/p>\n
She said the recommendation by the UIF’s bid adjudication committee, in which members of the media houses described as sole service providers in the media space, was misleading and the payments made to the entities of R6 144 351.68 amounted to irregular expenditure.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the media there are many media houses that could provide the media services,\u201d Xesibe said as she explained how the contract ended being a closed tender and awarded to the five companies.<\/p>\n
Xesibe said based on the findings, the SIU referred evidence pointing towards misconduct against nine officials, ranged from assistant director up to the UIF commissioner.<\/p>\n
Three of the officials were slapped with written warnings, three others received final written warnings and the remaining three were issued final written warnings and docking of a month\u2019s salary.<\/p>\n
No action was taken against the service providers after the SIU found that they had rendered the services and that the amount they charged was below the market rate.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe could not find wrong on the entities. We could not falter them in the process so there was no referral for blacklisting,\u201d Xesibe added.<\/p>\n
ActionSA MP Alan Beesley expressed disbelief and frustration at the outcomes, highlighting a systematic issue within the government sector regards consequence management.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is a massive issue in the government sector. There is no consequence management,\u201d Beesley said.<\/p>\n
He charged that the Auditor-General and the SIU kept on highlighting the lack of consequence management.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are two reasons. People (presiding over the disciplinary hearings) have their own skeletons. There is no time to have independent disciplinary boards,\u201d Beesley said.<\/p>\n
Mothibi concurred with Beesley\u2019s assessment regarding the failure to impose appropriate sanctions.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe independence of the disciplinary proceedings, we agree, lends itself for consideration. We will single this out for engagement with the Department of Public Service and Administration and possible as part of the overall mechanism in the Presidency of monitoring implementation of the recommendations.<\/p>\n
Mothibi said the independence of the disciplinary process should be looked into.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is a risk that we will continue to see this trend manifesting,\u201d he warned.<\/p>\n
Mothibi said in instances where they were dissatisfied with the outcome of the disciplinary process if the sanctions did not fit the seriousness of the offence, the SIU should consider exploring options to challenge the decisions legally.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe option we have is to review the disciplinary process outcomes,\u201d said Mothibi. <\/p>\n
He noted with concern that the lesser sanctions imposed on officials were not confined to the UIF only.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThere are also other state institutions. In some institutions they go to the extent that they don\u2019t agree with our recommendation to institute disciplinary hearing,\u201d Mothibi said.<\/p>\n mayibongwe.maqhina@inl.co.za<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) head Andy Mothibi has flagged serious deficiencies in the implementation of consequence management following investigations into misconduct linked to the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF). Mothibi said they found that the disciplinary sanctions don\u2019t meet the wrong-doing by implicated officials. \u201cWe are really concerned about the trend that we are seeing,\u201d […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[3288,11759,15350,11712,17839,77,4656,7359,11285],"class_list":["post-233630","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-politics","tag-actions","tag-alarm","tag-consequence","tag-disciplinary","tag-ineffective","tag-management","tag-raises","tag-siu","tag-uif"],"yoast_head":"\n