DAFF: Now Failing at the Very Basics

We all know the levels of incompetent leadership at the Fisheries Department mean that it is unable to deploy fisheries patrol and research vessels, or allocate fishing quotas in time. But it is increasingly apparent that DAFF is now unable to even ensure that fishing seasons commence on time any more. 

The West Coast Rock Lobster fishing season starts on 15 October each year. The TAC this year was announced on 6 November. 

The abalone season commences on 1 November. By mid-December, the Department refused to inform the SA Abalone Industry Association of the catch limits for the final season of the current long term period! Then, with less than 24 hours' notice, abalone zonal representatives were summonsed to the Department's offices in Cape Town on 19 December where the TAC was announced. Without consultation, the Department summarily reduced the TAC by more than 30% from 150 tons to 96 tons. 

The inability to ensure proper consultation with industry bodies throughout the season and the increasing inability to ensure that fishing seasons commence timeously, are only further indications of a department in complete meltdown. 

FRAP: Seriously What are the Options?

The Fisheries Department's ardent arrogance and contemptuous incompetence has confirmed what Feike has been for more than 12 months now. This bunch of hapless cadres led by the most incorrigible of Ministers could never have lawfully and timeously allocated fishing rights even if an Idiot's Guide to Allocating Fishing Rights was tailor drafted for them 3 years ago!

I recall being telephoned while on an overseas assignment for the European Union in March 2011. The caller was one Selby Bokaba - the Fisheries Minister's then spokesperson. Dear Selby bemoaned the fact that a recent blog article referred to the Minister as either "dishonest" or "incompetent" or "both"! Selby wanted to know if I could meet at the Minister's office at 120 Plein Street to instead discuss how we could work together "rather than against each other". My first meeting upon returning to SA was at 120 Plein Street and to this day, I cant recall the discussions we had without giggling! I had to answer questions such as what does "WWF" stand for. Could abalone not be found in Kwa-Zulu Natal? Then the Minister's complaint was that the staff at DAFF were all trying to make her fail and that is why she was not succeeding.  BLA BLA BLA. I nonetheless agreed that I would try and assist. Suffice-it-to-so, it was like trying to firm up a pap snoek. It was my fault for even thinking they could be helped. 

Its the 27th of December 2013. More than 1000 fishing rights across 8 commercial and artisinal fishery sectors terminate in less than 5 days. More than 7000 jobs will be lost with many having been shed already already due to the complete lack of communication by the Department and the resulting uncertainty. (Note the silence from the ANC-aligned unions like FAWU looking after the workers' rights).  

The Department is continually "rumoured" to state that fishing rights will be allocated before 31 December 2013. But that is only a rumour. They are cowards. They are unable to face the SA fishing industry with honesty and integrity as these are values and virtues none of these officials possess. How could these officials not even allocate fishing fishing rights in tiny sectors like KZN Prawn Trawl where only 1 (YES 1) right holder operates or in the mussel sector where a maximum of 7 rights can be allocated? This is incompetence on a grand scale. 

But even if fishing rights are allocated today, it will be too late. For one, there still is no gazette stipulating the proposed grant of fishing right fees. In terms of section 25(1) of the Marine Living Resources Act, 18 of 1998, a fishing right can only be granted or issued issued against the payment of the fees determined by the Fisheries Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance.

In other words, a fishing right CANT be granted or issued until and unless the Minister of Fisheries, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, has determined the "grant of right" fees provided for under section 25(1). 

And in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, read with the applicable regulations, the gazette stipulating these fees MUST first be published for comment or consulted on publicly first for a period of not less than 30 days. Which means further, that before any fishing right can be granted or issued the Fisheries Minister, in consultation with the Finance Minister, must publish for comment for a period of not less than 30 days, a gazette proposing the various fees for the granting of fishing rights in each of the 8 sectors. Once this comment period expires, the Minister of Fisheries, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, must then gazette the final fees gazette. This cannot realistically take place before the middle of March 2014 given that Ministers (such as the Finance Minister) are on annual leave until mid-January and then of course the treasury is fully committed to preparing the annual budget for delivery in early February 2014.

Any attempt to grant or issue a fishing right before this occurs, will be illegal and immediately reviewable. 

Then of course the Department's workforce is presently on leave! For any fishing right to be utilised, one needs a fishing permit. The Department's contingency plan was clearly that they would go and leave and screw the fishing industry. How does a department close during such a time of crisis? Who is going to process and issue more than 1000 fishing permits should fishing rights be granted today? - Nevermind the law and what section 25 requires! And what about right holders who have held rights over the past 8 years who are suddenly not granted fishing rights! What happens to the jobs they sustain, the investments they have made and the servicing of debt obligations? How are these to be dealt with within hours before 31 December when the department has had 8 years to get its house in order and prepare for this rights allocation process? 

Increasingly, right holders' only option will be to approach the High Court for urgent relief forcing the Fisheries Minister to allow them to continue fishing until such time as fishing rights are properly allocated. Understanding that the costs of doing so may be prohibitive for a single right holder, our advice is that right holders in the same sector make joint applications, allowing for the sharing of initial costs.  

Applications for exemption are quite frankly a waste of time and effort as it is unclear that one can even apply for an exemption from the provisions of section 13(1) of the Marine Living Resources Act, which clearly states that no person may perform any activity under the MLRA without a permit issued under section 13. Accordingly, one needs a section 13 permit to perform any activity authorised under section 81 (the exemption). 

A FRAP OF A FAILURE

Well, Friday the 20th has come and passed. The department closes its doors on Tuesday, 24 December 2013 for the holiday season but still not a single fishing right of the more than 1000 than ought to be allocated BEFORE 31 December 2013, has been allocated. 

It has of course been patently clear for months now that the department's promises that it would be able to allocate fishing rights by September 2013 and then "before" the rights expire on 31 December 2013 were just more false promises. 

The SA Tuna Association today received written confirmation from the department that fishing rights will in all likelihood not be allocated by 31 December 2013 and that fishing boats must simply return to port by midnight on 31 December 2013. 

Even if fishing rights are miraculously issued between Monday 23 December and Tuesday 24 December 2013, no "right holder" will be able to go fishing on 1 January 2014 as the department has still not gazetted the fees for the granting of fishing rights and fishing permits must still be applied for and issued under section 13 of the MLRA. Fishing permits take at least 7 working days to issue. And of course for a valid and lawful grant of fishing right gazette to be adopted, a draft must first be published for public comment. And both the draft and final gazettes can only be published with the concurrence of the Finance Minister. 

So while incompetent and arrogant departmental officials will no doubt be partying the night away on 31 December 2013, with salaries having been electronically transferred to their bank accounts thanks to us poor taxpayers, more than 1000 right holders and 5000 workers will be facing 1 January 2014 with no fishing rights, tied up boats and the prospect of losing everything that has been worked for over the past  8 years of long term fishing rights. 

Postscript: Members of the ANC's Military Veterans of which the incompetent Desmond Stevens is a member, invaded DAFF's offices on 19 December 2013 demanding that certain lucrative compliance-related contracts handed to them previously be re-allocated to them. Of course, we should be asking (as we had previously back in 2010), why is the ANC's Military Veterans the recipients of lucrative compliance tenders? Do we pay taxes solely to benefit the ruling elite and party? 

The Silence of the FRAP continues!

There are less than 20 days to go to 31 December 2013 when some 1000 fishing rights in 8 commercial and artisinal fishing sectors automatically revert back to the SA government, summarily leaving 1000 quota holders without fishing rights and threatening more than 5000-6000 direct jobs. 

Is this Tina Joemat-Pettersson's new year's present to the fishing industry? Both the Minister and her staff have repeatedly promised that fishing rights would have been long allocated by now. In fact, the department's most recent and current timetable on the allocation of fishing rights continues to state that all fishing rights would be allocated by September .... 2013!! 

Perhaps what is most telling BUT concerning is the loud silence on the status of the allocation process. DAFF and its Minister refuse to issue a single press statement or provide any assurance to very distrusting and worried fishing industry. 

For one, the Fisheries Department has still not published its promised "grant of fishing rights fees"! Remember this promise which was made back in September when they decided to zero-rate the application fees because they ran out of time? Before, the final fees can be published (which can only occur with the concurrence of the Finance Minister), they must first be published for comment in terms of South African law. And, after the burial of President Mandela on Sunday, Ministers start their annual leave. Where is the draft Grant of Fishing Fishing Right Fees gazette, DAFF? Tick, tick, tick. 

So what happens in 20 days' time on 1 January 2014? There cannot be a "roll-over" of fishing rights. Section 18 of the Marine Living Resources Act does not permit this. What is a great sadness is how the insistence on "transformation" (well, actually cadre deployment of appallingly unqualified and unskilled but loyal ANC members to the top management posts at the Fisheries Department) has retarded the lawful and constitutionally mandated transformation of fisheries management in South Africa. The 2013 right allocation debacle only takes us back to the previous century and the chaos that defined every annual allocation in the late 1990's. Make no mistake, this retardation and chaos will clearly benefit certain persons and that is becoming increasingly clear. 

And to think the Department only had 8 years to prepare for this allocation process.  

"DOCKED VESSELS": Is Sekunjalo Really Vindicated?

On 5 December, shortly after the Public Protector released her final report entitled "Docked Vessels" on the R800 million vessel management tender awarded to the Sekunjalo Marine Services Consortium ("Sekunjalo"), Sekunjalo Investments Limited, which is entirely related to the Consortium issued a statement saying it was vindicated. That people such as the DA's Pieter van Dalen had "pilloried" the company in the media suggesting that the company lacked the expertise to undertake the tender and that Sekunjalo had been involved in "corrupt practices". 

Sekunjalo's statement continued by stating that these "defamatory statements had been thoroughly debunked by the Public Protector".

What is a plainly clear is that perhaps Sekunjalo did not actually read the Public Protector's report before issuing the statement. The "defamatory statements" had certainly not been debunked by the Public Protector. In fact, rather than being "vindicated" Sekunjalo has a lot of questions to answer. Here are 4 key ones. (Of course, the continued failure to address these 4 questions can only result in certain reasonable conclusions and inferences being drawn). 

First up of course is what is common cause and not up for debate. Sekunjalo was the beneficiary of an illegally awarded R800 million vessel management tender in late 2011. The illegality of this award was conceded immediately by the Fisheries Minister when she failed to oppose the urgent review application by Smit Amandla. Similarly, Sekunjalo immediately folded and refused to contest the tender award in open court where the eyes of the public would have been firmly studying the evidence that would show the vulgar illegality of the tender award. Which company that did no wrong so quickly hands back an R800 million tender? 

How did Sekunjalo come to score this tender given the fact that before the sudden and inexplicable appearance of the hapless Joseph Sebola on the bid evaluation committee, Sekunjalo scored significantly less than Smit Amandla? 

Secondly, the Public Protector confirmed that Sekunjalo lacked the expertise and skills for the vessel management tender. The Public Protector states says the following on this score - 

"Regarding Mr Joseph Sebola's alleged irregular scoring of SMSC 5/5 on everything which did not have the relevant experience while scoring Smit Amandl a 1/5 which had (10) years of experience in conducting the exact service in question, I make the following findings-"

Of course the Public Protector was not remiss in finding that Sebola's conduct was highly questionable given the fact that Sekunjalo readily admitted that it did not have the skills and capacity to undertake the tender but would poach the retrenched Smit Amandla staff once granted the tender! 

Thirdly, why did the Fisheries Minister suddenly deploy a lowly director from Pretoria - Joseph Sebola - who did not know the difference between a snoek and an abalone, let alone the difference between the bow and the stern of a vessel, to head the fisheries department on a temporary basis during this critical tender evaluation period? Sebola had no experience or knowledge when it came to the complex field of vessel management, maintenance and deployment. But he happily scored Sekunjalo top marks lifting them from near the bottom of pile to the only bidder to breach the 80 point evaluation cut-off! How lucky for Sekunjalo that Sebola came around! 

The Public Protector has requested that Sebola's conduct be investigated by the DG of DAFF but dont hold your breath that anything materialises here. The DG answers to the Minister and presumably wants to keep her job. Ultimately, we will be seeking the intervention of the Public Service Commission to interrogate Sebola's conduct. For one, a lifestyle audit is required in order to determine if his conduct was influenced by anything more than gross stupidity. 

Fourthly, the allegations of collusion and/or bid rigging by Sekunjalo and its related bidding parties have been submitted to the Competition Commission for investigation as it this institution that has the authority and expertise to investigate such allegations. 

It is therefore not entirely clear how Sekunjalo considered that the final report vindicated it and its related bidders. At least these four important issues require further examination, investigation and answer. 

This is perhaps why Sekunjalo's Chairman, Iqbal Sekunjalo, panicked and fired the editor of the Cape Times daily newspaper last week Friday. The newspaper had the audacity to splash the Public Protector's findings on its front page on the Friday morning following the release of the Docked Vessels Report, placing much of the above issues firmly into the public spotlight. 

It was also reported that Surve then had a lawyer's letter dispatched to his own newspaper and threatened it and its staff with litigation if they did not apologise! There can be little doubt that such conduct is grossly despicable and a direct threat to media independence and democracy.

"DOCKED VESSELS": Public Protector Damns Fisheries Minister

On 5 December 2013, the Public Protector finally published her damning report on the illegal R800 million vessel management tender allocated to the Sekunjalo Marine Services Consortium ("SMSC") by the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and her department in November 2011. 

What follows is the official Executive Summary of the Report published by the Office of the Public Protector. The full report is accessible on the public protector's website or from Feike.

What is plainly apparent from the final report, is that - 

1. The Minister and her department insisted on allocating an illegal tender to Sekunjalo Marine Services Consortium in November 2011 despite a legal opinion and a forensic audit report by PWC that warned against the tender allocation; 

2. The Minister's subsequent and inexplicable conduct resulted in South Africa's fleet of patrol and research vessels being seriously damaged by an incompetent and incapable Navy, consequently resulting in no patrols and research for a period of some 20 months, which in turn has cost South Africa dearly because of unquantifiable poaching and a loss of research data; 

3. The Bid Evaluation Committee was entirely comprised of persons with who lacked the skills or understanding to evaluate such a complex tender. The BEC's lack of expertise is best epitomised by the conduct of one Joseph Sebola who decided to score Sekunjalo 5/5 for all scoring criteria and Smit Amandla 1/5 despite its track record and expertise in the field in question; and

4. The Minister is guilty of a criminal offence in that she sought - via the Office of the Minister of Justice - to unlawfully halt and interfere with the investigation. This is a fact supported by a letter sent by the Minister of Justice to the Public Protector. This is a criminal offence under the Public Protector Act. On this score alone, the Fisheries Minister ought to be sacked and criminally charged. The Democratic Alliance has indicated that it will be pursuing criminal charges against the Minister of Fisheries. 

So while we are all extremely relieved and even grateful for this damning report, the tragic reality is that Tina Joemat-Pettersson and her band of cadres have successfully decimated South Africa's marine ecology in less than 5 years of shocking mis-governance. She has proactively destroyed and ruined South Africa's has billion rand fleet of patrol and research vessels; She has ensured that as a coastal state our oceans have been freely open to poachers and our billion rand fishing industry has had to survive on ad-hoc research led by the fishing industry. Our once internationally acclaimed research capacity has been decimated. How many billions of rands worth of tooth fish, sharks, hakes, orange roughy, pilchards, tunas, swordfishes and other species have we lost as a result of Tina Joemat-Pettersson and the consequences of the illegal tender to Sekunjalo? Sadly, we will never know. 

Executive Summary

(i) "Docked Vessels" is my report as the Public Protector issued in terms of section 182 (1) (b) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 and section 8(1) of the Public Protector Act.

(ii) The report communicates my findings and appropriate remedial action following an investigation into a complaint lodged on 19 February 2012, by the Democratic Alliance Member of Parliament, Honourable Mr. P Van Dalen, (the Complainant), who requested my office to investigate allegations relating to the improper award of an R800m tender for the fisheries patrol services to Sekunjalo Marine Service Consortium (SMSC). He further requested my office to investigate the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF)'s alleged subsequent failure to re-advertise the tender which meant that it was unable to fulfil its mandate to do scientific surveys, anti-poaching patrols and inspections of fishing trawlers for illegal activities. He further alleged that the failure seriously jeopardi ses the research and protection of the country's fishing resources, and has far reaching economic consequences. The Complainant also requested a determination regarding the propriety of scoring allocating one of the bidders the score of 1 (very bad) on all the criteria and the one with least experience with the highest score of 5 (excellent) by one of the Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) members (Mr Joseph Sebola). My office also received a substantially similar complaint from Mr Paul Maclons, the Managing Director of Smit Amandla Marine (Pty) Ltd.

(iii) On 15 March 2012 and after the commencement of my investigation a further complaint was lodged by Smit Amandla, the company that had held the contract for 12 years, alleging that the Hon Minister Joemat-Pettersson had arbitrarily terminated its services at the end of the contract in retaliation to Smit Amandla's whistle-blowing on the SMSC award, and in contravention of the contract provision that provided a 3 month handover period be observed. Smit Amandla alleged that this would have an adverse impact on its employees and on a smooth handover. lt further alleged that the SA Navy did not have the necessary competencies and human resources for this undertaking. 1 met with Ms Manana of Smit Amandla on 28 March 2012 who requested me to ask the Minister to withdraw the 30 day notice and abide by the 3 months' notice that was in the original contract that had expired, a request 1 duly acceded to without success .

(iv) As the investigation progressed, media reports regularly alleged that the patrol fleet was lying unattended to on account of the SA Navy's alleged lack of competencies and capacity to undertake the responsibility at the required magnitude and later that the vessels had been damaged by disuse.

(v) As the investigation drew towards a conclusion, the investigation team was approached by a whistle-blower who alleged that DAFF had irregularly contracted with a company for the refurbishment of its vessels that had lost seaworthiness due to lying idle and lack of maintenance. 1 decided to defer this to an offshoot investigation. Accordi ngly, no determination is made in this report on this allegation.

(vi) On being approached on the original complaint DAFF did not deny awarding the said tender irregularly to SMSC. DAFF went further to cancel the tender and committed itself to re-advertising the tender as soon as possible.

(vii) When I approached Minister Joemat Pettersson, in writing on 29 March 2012 asking her to reconsider a one month handover period from Smit Amandla to the SA Navy as impractlcal, and to consider Smit Amandla's request that the three month period allegedly in the original contract be adhered to, Minister Joemat- Pettersson refused. The request included the need for a proper assessment of the SA Navy's readiness for the task in question. Minister Joemat-Pettersson contended that all was in place for a smooth handover and that she would provide me with a progress report, which to this end was never provided.

(viii) On analysis of the complaints the following eight (8) issues were considered and investigated:

(a) Was DAFF's irregular award of the R800 million tender for the crewing, management and maintenance of the research and fisheries patrol services, an act constituting improper conduct and maladministration?

(b) Did Mr Joseph Sebola irregularly score SMSC 5/5 on everything, which did not have the relevant experience, while scoring Smit Amandla 1/5 on everything despite its (10) years' of experience conducting the exact service in question, and if so, does the action constitute improper conduct and maladministration?

(c) Did the award of the patrol vessels tender to SMSC by DAFF in spite of the fact that Premier Fishing (a subsidiary of the Sekunjalo Group) has fishing rights accord SMSC the role of referee and player, and if so, did this create a conflict of interest for SMSC, and accordingly, an act of maladministration by DAFF?

(d) Did the submission of four (4) tenders on the same bid by the entities (Premier Fishing, Premier Fishing Consortium, Sekunjalo Limited and SMSC) which fall under the Sekunjalo Group constitute collusive tenderi ng? lf so, did DAFF's entertainment of these bids constitute improper conduct and maladministration?

(e) Did DAFF's failure to re-advertise the tender result in its inability to conduct scientific surveys, anti-poaching patrols and inspections of fishing trawlers for illegal activities, and if so, does this constitute improper conduct and maladministration?

(f) Did DAFF irregularly terminate Smit Amandla's services by ignoring a 3 month handover period and awarding the servlce to the SA Navy which did not have the necessary competencies, and if so did such action constitute improper conduct and maladministration?

(g) Was Minister Joemat-Pettersson's rejection of the request to defer her planned abrupt handover to the SA Navy an imprudent act whlch resulted in lack of proper patrols and deterioration of patrol vessels resulting in millions of Rand in refurbishment costs and rampant poaching? lf so, does her action amount to fruitless and wasteful expenditure and accordingly, constitute improper conduct and maladministration?

(h) Did DAFF irregularly contract a company that had been part of the SMSC, Nautic, to repair its vessels that had become unseaworthy at a cost exceeding R30m, and if so, does such action constitute improper conduct and maladministration?

(ix) The investigation included correspondence, perusal and analysis of documents, telephonic and face to face interviews with officials of DAFF, Sekunjalo Investment Company and Smit Amandla and the South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA). Informal discussions with industry role players such as officials from SAMSA and the Chairman of the Sekunjalo Group enriched the investigation team's appreciation of the configuration of the industry and histories of the role players involved in the impugned tender. Relevant legislation and prescripts were also sourced and considered.

(x) A week before releasing this provincial report, 1 received a letter from the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (Minister of Justice), attaching a letter from Minister Joemat-Pettersson requesting the Minister of Justice to intervene in this investigation and that of the NPA, which she labeled unnecessary despite having cooperated throughout the investigation and twice agreeing to defer the processing of the new tender until having had sight of this provisional report. 1 consider Minister Joemat Pettersson's action as conduct constituting interference with my investigation and an attempt to incite the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to undermine the independence of two constitutional bodies. Such conduct, in my considered view is at odds with section 181(4) of the Constitution which states that 'no person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of these institutions (this refers to Chapter 9 institutions)' .

(xi) I make the following findings:

(a) Regarding DAFF's irregular award of the R800 million tender for the crewing, management and maintenance of the research and fisheries patrol services, an act of maladministration, I make the following findings:

(aa) DAFF's immediate admission that the tender was irregularly awarded and proceeding to cancel it and commit to advertise the process anew was proper;

(bb) The award of the tender (MLRF 088) to SMSC was not in compliance  with DAFF's Supply Chain Management requirements and processes and was therefore improper. The absence of legal and financial experts on the BEC rendered the subsequent award of tender (MLRF 088) to SMSC ill-advised, and thus constitutes maladministration.

(cc) DAFF in awarding the tender (MLRF 088) to SMSC failed to deal with apparent issues of conflict of interest and omissions by SMSC, and this amounts to maladministration.

(b) Regarding Mr Joseph Sebola's alleged irregular scoring of SMSC 5/5 on everything which did not have the relevant experience while scoring Smit Amandl a 1/5 which had (10) years of experience in conducting the exact service in question, I make the following findings:

(aa) The allegation that Mr Sebola scored 1/5 to SMSC and 5/5 to Smit Amandla is substantiated and so is the allegation that of the two, it was Smit Amandla that had done the exact work specified in the tender for over ten (10) years; and

(bb) Mr Sebola's conduct was, in the circumstances, irrational, subjective and biased, it thus constitutes improper conduct and maladministration.

(c) Regarding the award of the patrol vessels tender to SMSC by DAFF in spite of the fact that Premier Fishing (a subsidiary of the Sekunjalo group) had flshing rights accorded SMSC the role of referee and player and that this possibly creating a conflict of interest for SMSC and,accordingly, an act of maladministration by DAFF; I make the following findings:

(aa) The allegation that the Department's award of the contract to SMSC placed the company in the position of referee and player thus creating a conflict of interest is substantiated. Whilst it is true that there are safe guards put in place to limit the role of the management company in the patrol and the research vessels, and that thus reduced the conflict of interest, it is not eliminated.

(bb) The conduct of DAFF in awarding SMSC a tender placing SMSC in this position constitutes improper conduct and maladministration.

(d) Regarding the submission of four (4) tenders on the same bid by the entities (Premier Fishing, Premier Fishing Consortium, Sekunjalo Limited and Sekunjalo Consortlum) which fall under the Sekunjalo Group constitute collusive tendering, I make the following findings:

(aa) The allegation that the submission of four tenders on the same bid by the Sekunjalo Group entities has not been denied by any of the parties. I however have decided to refer the decision on whether or not the conduct constituted collusive to the Competition Commission.

 (bb) I am therefore unable to find improper conduct or maladministration an DAFF's part in this regard.

(e) Regarding DAFF's alleged failure to re-advertise the tender resulting in its inability to conduct scientific surveys, anti­ poaching patrols and inspections of fishlng trawlers for illegal activltles; I make the folJowlng findings:

(aa) The allegation that DAFF failed to timely advertise the tender is substantiated, however its failure is partly justified in that lt needed to identify and address the systemic administrative failures that led to the aborted tender process and to wait for the conclusion of the investigation .

(f) Regardlng DAFF's alleged irregular termination of Smit Amandla's services by ignoring a 3 month hand-over period and awarding the service to the SA Navy which allegedly did not have the necessary competencies, and if so, dld such action constitute improper conduct and maladministration1 1 make the following findlngs:

(aa) The allegation that DAFF irregularly terrninated Smit Amandla's contract by ignoring the 3 month handover period notice is not substantiated because the original contract requiring the 3 month handover period had lapsed and the arrangement was an a month to month basis.

(bb) However, in view of the fact that the reasons for a prudent handover period persisted, the abrupt handover was ill advised. The conduct of Minister Joemat-Pettersson and DAFF in this regard is improper and constitutes maladministration.

(g) Regarding Minister Joemat-Pettersson' s rejection of the request to defer her planned abrupt handover to the SA Navy an imprudent act which resulted in lack of proper patrols and alleged deterioration of patrol vessels amounting to millions of Rand in refurbishment costs and that this amounts to fruitless and wasteful expenditure and accordingly, improper conduct and maladministration, 1 make the following findings:

(aa) The Minister's rejection of a request to defer her planned abrupt handover to the SA Navy which led to alleged Jack of patrols and deterioration of patrol vessels was imprudent and led to fruitless and wasteful expenditure and;

(bb) The actions of the Minister constitute improper conduct and maladministration.

(h) Regarding DAFF's alleged irregular award of a contract for the repair of its unseaworthy vessels, returned by the SA Navy, at a cost exceeding R30m, I intend to:

Reserve my findings pending a full offshoot investigation on this matter.

(xii) Appropriate remedial action to be taken on my findings of maladmlnistration and as envisaged by section 182(1) (c) of the Constitution is the following:

General Comments:

Cognizance is taken of the fact that at the time of commencement of the investigation into the allegations against DAFF, it had already revoked the contract it had awarded to SMSC and DAFF is commended for immediate withdrawal of the tender in response to Smit Amandla's justified legal action.

 (a) To consider taking disciplinary action against the Minister for her reckless dealing with state money and services resulting in fruitless and wasteful expenditure, lass of confidence in the fisheries industry in SA and alleged decimation of fisheries resources in SA and delayed quota allocations due to lack of appropriate research.

The Director General: National Treasury

(a) To ensure that the Chief Procurement Officer assist the Accounting Officer of DAFF by reviewing each stage of the bidding process to ensure that SCM statutory and regulatory requirements are complied with before the bid is awarded.

The Minister: DAFF

(a) To ensure that the already advertised tender for the services of a ship manager for the crewing, management and maintenance of the research and fisheries patrol vessels is finalised and the contract awarded within 60 days from the date of the final report.

The Dlrector General:DAFF

(a) To ensure that the relevant legislation, SCM policies and prescripts are complied with, including in the appointment of the BSC, BEC and BAC members in the processing of this tender;

(b)To investigate and, if warranted, take disciplinary action against Mr Sebola in respect of his conduct referred to in the findings made in this report.

The Competition Commission:

(a) The Competition Commissioner is requested in terms of section 6(4)(c) to investigate the alleged collusive conduct and advise DAFF for future purposes.

Sunday Times Reveals Preliminary Sekunjalo Tender Findings

The Sunday Times today revealed that the Public Protector's preliminary investigations and findings into the R800 million Sekunjalo Tender debacle has confirmed what Feike has been saying for months now. That the Minister of Fisheries, Tina Joemat-Pettersson, is simply unfit to hold public office.


According to the Sunday Times,

"The preliminary report, titled "My Way or No Sea Patrols", investigated the "irregular" awarding of an R800-million tender two years ago to Sekunjalo Marine Services Consortium, led by businessman Iqbal Survé.

The report, which will be made public on Thursday, says:

• The awarding of the contract - to manage the department's fleet of research and patrol ships - to Sekunjalo Marine Services Consortium was improper and constituted maladministration;

• The tender award process showed evidence of collusive tendering and/or bid rigging by the Sekunjalo consortium; and

• The department awarded the contract, in November 2011, without dealing with concerns raised by its own senior legal counsel and independent auditors.

The report urges Zuma to consider disciplinary action against Joemat-Pettersson and says the department should investigate the "suspicious" conduct of a senior official and member of the bid adjudication committee."

We now await the final report, which should be published on Thursday according to the Sunday Times.