Premier
With reference to his statement in the House during the sitting of 14 November 2024, where he confirmed receiving a whistleblower’s report by email on 17 October 2024 and forwarding it for investigation on the same day:
- (a) To whom was the whistleblower’s report emailed for investigation, (b) what are the specific (i) scope and (ii) timelines of the investigation, (c)(i) who are the officials responsible for investigating these allegations, (ii) what are their names and (iii) what are their designations, (d) what progress has been made in the investigation to date and (e) when can the final outcome of the investigation be expected;
- considering the seriousness of the allegations against the implicated officials, whether he is willing and prepared to initiate lifestyle audits for senior officials from director level up to the Head of Department (HOD); if not, why not; if so, what are the (a) details of the process, (b) timelines and (c) criteria for such audits?
- (a) The mail was addressed as follows: “Hello everyone”, and was sent very widely, to some 42 addressees. Amongst others, the email was sent to myself and the Minister of Mobility, but was also sent to MPPs Bans, Constable, Jacobs, Kamfer, Lekker, Marais, Petrus, Stephens, and Sayed. The mail was also sent to several members of national parliament, including national Ministers McKenzie, Majodina, and Lamola.
I cannot speak for how any of these other addressees may have responded to this report. I immediately ensured that the Provincial Forensic Services received the report with a request that it be investigated.
(b, c, d and e) Provincial Forensic Services (PFS) assessed the allegations and noted that they are of a general nature which focuses on relationships rather than specific acts, irregularities or incidents. The identity of the person who wrote to us is unknown, but PFS requested additional details from him/her on 19 November 2024 by writing to the email address from which the allegations were received. PFS went further by providing the contact number and email address of an investigator with whom they could liaise or meet. To date, the writer has not responded to PFS by email or telephone. Additionally, PFS was able to examine some of the initial claims made, and was able to determine these as false.
Ultimately, PFS determined that insufficient information was provided by the writer in respect of acts, incidents or irregularities to serve as a basis for a forensic investigation, and the allegations could therefore not be further progressed.
- (a) (b) (c) Lifestyle Audits may be initiated by the relevant Accounting Officer in accordance with departmental protocols and where sufficient basis has been established. These are done in accordance with the relevant department’s Ethics Management Strategy, which encapsulates the guidelines provided by the Department of Public Service and Administration.
It should be noted that there are specific triggers that must give rise to lifestyle audits being considered by the relevant Accounting Officer. These include red flags from non-disclosures in the financial disclosure process, either reflecting non-disclosure or undeclared wealth.
Based on the report of PFS, together with the analysis of financial disclosures, this threshhold has not been met.
