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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

made, the Department’s failure to institute a disciplinary hearingagainst him regarding those allegations subsequent to his return toSouth Africa and the withdrawal of his Cost of Living Allowance(COLA), (estimated to be USD 42 896), which he was entitled to asa designated official posted in Cuba.(iii) The Public Protector considered and investigated the followingissues:(a)(b)(c)(d)Did the Department withdraw the Complainant from a foreignposting in Cuba and was such withdrawal procedurallyflawed and improper?Was the delay by the Department to hold a disciplinaryhearing to deal with the allegations against the Complainantprior to his resignation unreasonable and improper?Was the Department’s decision to withhold the Complainant’sCost of Living Allowance due to him by virtue of being postedat the Cuban Foreign Mission after withdrawing him improper?If the answer to any of the above issues is in the affirmative,was the Complainant prejudiced as envisaged in section6(4)(a)(v) of the Public Protector Act?(iv) The investigation was conducted by way of telephonic and writtencorrespondence with officials at the Department of Home Affairs(the Department) and the perusal of documents received.Applicable legislation, policies and relevant prescripts were alsoanalysed and applied. Subsequent to the provisional report being6
issued, a meeting was held with the officials from the Departmentregarding the provisional findings made.(v) The Public Protector made the following findings:(a) Did the Department withdraw the Complainant from aforeign posting in Cuba and was such withdrawalprocedurally flawed and improper?(aa) The Department withdrew the Complainant from a foreignposting in Cuba.(bb) The withdrawal was in violation of Clause 5.3 of its contractwith him, which required that he be withdrawn on therecommendation of the host country or the Head of theMission.(cc) The conduct of the Department was improper as envisagedin section 182(1)(a) of the Constitution and constitutesmaladministration in terms of section 6(4)(a)(i) of the PublicProtector Act;(b) Was the delay by the Department to hold a disciplinaryhearing to deal with the allegations against the Complainantprior to his resignation unreasonable and improper?(aa) The Department delayed to hold a disciplinary hearing todeal with allegations of misconduct against the Complainant.(bb) The delay was in violation of Paragraph 7.2(c) of the PublicService Disciplinary Code and Procedures which requiresthat the disciplinary hearing be held within a maximum periodof 60 days.7
Page 1 and 2: Address by Public Protector Adv Thu
Page 3: The allegation pertaining to unfair
Page 9 and 10: (d) Was the Complainant prejudiced
Page 11 and 12: September 2005 which was rejected a
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?