Address by Public Protector Adv Thuli Madonsela to The National ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

withdrawal from Cuba until the date he transferred toCorrectional Services;(b) The Director-General of the Department should investigate thereasons why the case was not dealt with properly and take thenecessary action against any person who may have failed to actas required by law and policy; andThe Director-General of the Department should ensure that theComplainant is provided with a letter of apology for the prejudice hesuffered as a result of the conduct of the Department in this matter(i)“A missed opportunity” is the report of the Public Protector interms of section 182(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic ofSouth Africa, 1996, and section 8(1) of the Public Protector’s Act,1994.(ii)The report communicates the Public Protector’s findings anddirectives on remedial action following an investigation into acomplaint lodged by Mr S Mdluli on 15 February 2011, allegingprejudice suffered by Cathula Mining CC (his company) as a resultof maladministration involving unjustified refusal of the Departmentof Mineral Resources (formerly Department of Minerals andEnergy) to grant its application for mineral prospecting rights. TheComplainant alleged that he submitted an application for mineralprospecting rights in May 2005, to which he did not receive arefusal letter and that upon enquiring he was told to re-apply. Hefurther alleged that he submitted another application on 1510
September 2005 which was rejected and another in 2007 to whichhe was told that the mineral rights had been granted to a thirdparty. He allegedly appealed to the Minister of Mineral Resourcesand his appeal was rejected.(iii) The Public Protector considered and investigated the followingissues:(a) Was the Department’s handling of the Complainant’scompany’s applications improper?(b) Was the Minister’s handling of the Complainant’s company’sappeal improper?(iv)(c) If the answer to any of the above issues is in the affirmative, itmust be established whether the Complainant was prejudicedby the improper conduct or maladministration.The Public Protector makes the following findings:(a) Was the Department’s handling of the Complainant’scompany’s Applications improper?(aa)The Department failed to provide the Complainant withtimely, accessible and accurate information regardinghis company’s first and second applications; and(bb)The Department’s conduct violated section 195(1)(g) ofthe Constitution which provides that publicadministration must be governed by democratic valuesand principles enshrined in the Constitution including11
Page 1 and 2: Address by Public Protector Adv Thu
Page 3: The allegation pertaining to unfair
Page 7 and 8: issued, a meeting was held with the
Page 9: (d) Was the Complainant prejudiced
Page 13 and 14: (c) Did the Complainant suffer prej
Page 15 and 16: (c) Alleged incomplete and non-oper
Page 17 and 18: Phase 3 tender. This is in contrave
Page 19 and 20: escalated enormously. The conduct w
Page 21 and 22: sustainable services are not delive
Page 23 and 24: municipality or municipal entity, a
Page 25 and 26: Municipality’s payroll section. E
Page 28: (a)The Municipal Manager should ens
Page 31 and 32: (ii) The Speaker of the Nala Local

Address by Public Protector Adv Thuli Madonsela to The National ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?