REPORT
Prepared for the Hon Mr Tokyo Sexwale
Premier of the Gauteng Province
Inquiry into the Conduct of the Gauteng Director General In terms of section 27 of the Public Service Act, 1994
Reference: Bongani Aug Khumalo
Date: 29 December 1997
FINAL REPORT
Signed by: Bongani Aug Khumalo
On the Appointment of the Premier of Gauteng to carry out an Inquiry into the Conduct of the Director General of the Gauteng Province, Mr Vincent Mntambo.
INTRODUCTION
On 26 October 1997, the Premier of Gauteng, the Honourable Mr Tokyo Sexwale, appointed Mr Bongani Aug Khumalo, Executive Director, Human Resources, Eskom, to carry out an investigation into the conduct of the Director General of the Gauteng Province, Mr Vincent Mntambo. A copy of the memorandum which had been the basis of the deliberations on the conduct of the Director General in the course of his work (prepared in terms of the unamended Public Service Act) was availed to the Inquiry, and is attached hereto as Annexure 1. The said deliberations formed part of the Gauteng provincial council on 22 October 1997.
The focus of the Inquiry was on the role of the Director General in respect of the issues relating to:
As part of its brief, the Inquiry was to produce a report which would include recommendations as to:
The original requirement was to complete the assignment within two weeks a period of two weeks following the institution of the Inquiry, but time was renegotiated with the Premier in view of the seriousness of the issues at hand.
METHOD AND PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION
The Inquiry studied all relevant legislation, media reports, correspondence and other documents and interviewed a number of witnesses. The following persons were interviewed by the Inquiry:
Ms Jesse Duarte, Member of the Executive Committee (MEC) for Safety and Security, Gauteng Province;
Mr Dan Mofokeng, Member of the Executive Committee (MEC) for Housing and Land Affairs, Gauteng Province;
Mr Vincent Mntambo, Director General, Gauteng Province;
Mr Enos Ngutshane, Head of Department (HOD) for Housing and Land Affairs; and
Ms Ilva Mackay-Langa, Chief Director, Premier's Office
Discussions were also held with Mr Lulamile Walter Mbethe, Commissioner, Gauteng Public Service Commission.
All the witnesses interviewed and all the persons consulted in the process provided useful supporting and other relevant documents. As pointed out above, these were thoroughly analysed and otherwise used as part of the evidence brought before the Inquiry.
MEC Dan Mofokeng had made a written submission prior to his interview with the Inquiry.
The services of the Gauteng Public Service Commission (GPSC) were utilised where relevant and necessary.
INVESTIGATION OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENT
It is an observation of the Inquiry that one of the major causes of the problems being experienced in terms of the role and conduct of the Director General of the Gauteng Province in relation to Heads of Department (HODs) and MECs is the lack of clarity within the present legal framework, organisation structure and lines of authority. (See Organogram/Illustration 1)
It is important for it to be borne in mind that this factor is not unique to Gauteng, but is prevalent in other provinces as well, though it is handled differently from province to province, dependent on personalities involved and attendant interpersonal dynamics.
Technically speaking, Mr Mntambo is an able and experienced professional, and would have a potential to become a more effective and competent Director General if it was not for his belief as to his power, prerogative and scope versus those of his political counter-parts, actually his political super-ordinates, the MECs. If he ever had them, somewhere along the line he seems to have lost the commitment and loyalty towards some of the government officials and certain non-politicians in the structure. There is an unfortunate reality of a power contest between the Director General and at least some of the MECs. This state of affairs is a serious cause for concern in a provincial government that is functioning well.
The Director General had very definite views regarding the suspension of Mr Enos Ngutshane, HOD for Housing and Land Affairs. He could have counselled and couched MEC Dan Mofokeng and made sure that his political principal's actions were legally and procedurally beyond question. Because of the strained relations and low levels of trust and loyalty, this was not done effectively. The tone, tendency and emotion of his communication on the suspension of Mr Ngutshane presents him as somebody whose objectivity has become impaired instead of an advisor seeking to make sure that the matter is handled fairly and properly. On the other hand it would be fair to observe that his advice appears not to have been taken seriously enough or heeded at all. This eventually can again be attributed to the severe breakdown of trust and mutual respect which at the time was taking the form of an adversarial relationship between the MEC and the Director General.
As a general comment, the Inquiry warns that care must be taken to clarify the roles of the employed or non-political government officials otherwise known as bureaucrats (managers/executives) vis-a-vis the roles of the elected members of government or politicians. There tends to be diminished discipline and temptation on the part of the non-politicians or senior management government officials (bureaucrats) to stray into the arena of leadership instead of staying in their territory where they must ensure effective management in support of the strategic and policy leadership being provided by those whose role it is to do so (the politicians).
The Inquiry was unable to find a proper, formal job-output-model, clearly spelling out what the work of the Director General was, including his role as head of Corporate Services. There was also no performance contract formalised between the Premier (and the MECs) on one had and the Director General on the other. Such a performance contract would also have included those outputs that the Director General would deliver in respect of the MECs of Gauteng. In that way, with reference to the relevant legislation all confusion regarding roles and functions would have been alleviated.
FINDINGS
Having thoroughly analysed all the evidence before it and interviewed all relevant witnesses and assessed the information from such interviews, the Inquiry made the following findings:
CONCLUSION
Although no sufficient grounds exist for a case of misconduct to be brought against the Director General in terms of the specific allegations against him, there remains a serious concern about his almost dysfunctional relationship with the political branch and certain employees of the provincial government. It is a situation which cannot and should not be tolerated and warrants urgent creative and decisive attention. Care should be taken for lack of sufficient grounds to bring a case of misconduct not to be taken to mean absolute innocence.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In the light of the foregoing findings and conclusion and in an attempt to achieve a constructive solution to the complex and urgent problem at hand, the Inquiry recommends: