The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

The Democratic Alliance notes the announcement by the Minister of Home Affairs that a settlement with Gijima has been reached, and that the company has been reinstated as the contractor to implement the long-awaited “Who Am I Online” system.

Many questions remain unanswered.

Two reports commissioned by Ministers of Home Affairs have been kept under wraps. The first report, by the Office of the Auditor-General, was apparently delivered to the Ministry of Home Affairs in February 2009, but has never been made public. This is despite calls for disclosure of the contents of the report by the DA, the ID and by the parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs.

The second report is by academic Harvey Wainer, and was, we are told, delivered to Minister Dlamini-Zuma in 2009. It, too, has never been made public.

In December last year, the DA submitted applications, in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000, for copies of the two reports. No response has been forthcoming. Questions have now been submitted for written response by the Minister.

On 13 April 2010, Home Affairs sent a letter to GijimaAst cancelling the deal, telling parliament, at the time, that "the supplier for the 'Who am I Online' project had failed to perform and deliver in accordance with the contract".

South Africans have already paid almost R400 million and will potentially fund an additional R2.5 billion for a project that:

(a) was awarded under circumstances that have been the subject of two forensic audits, the results of which have never been made known; and
(b) has not delivered any measurable results.

This is in addition, of course, to the settlement amount which has not been made known, but which has been rumoured to be in the region of R2 billion.

The DA will continue to utilise all tools at its disposal, including submitting additional questions for written reply by the Minister and requesting a presentation by the Minister on the subject, to uncover the true facts behind the awarding of this contract, its subsequent cancellation and now reinstatement, not to mention who will be held responsible for the expenditure, over 18 months, on a contract that was never, in fact, considered valid.