Dlamini derailed Sassa grant plans — Magwaza
• Agency head claims social development minister decided in 2015 to create payment workstreams that would report directly to her
Social Development Minister Bathabile Dlamini knew in July 2015 about the inability of the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) to take over the payment of social grants. This is according to Sassa CE Thokozani Magwaza in an affidavit filed in the Constitutional Court on Friday.
Social Development Minister Bathabile Dlamini knew in July 2015 about the inability of the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) to take over the payment of social grants.
This is according to Sassa CE Thokozani Magwaza in an affidavit filed in the Constitutional Court on Friday.
Magwaza approached the court last week, claiming Dlamini had lied in her affidavit in which she explained why she should not be held personally responsible for the grants fiasco. In her affidavit, Dlamini placed the blame at Magwaza’s feet.
In an attempt to clear his name and set the record straight, Magwaza has now told the court that Dlamini had “derailed” Sassa’s plans to take over the grant payments.
He said Dlamini wrote to then Sassa CE Virginia Petersen in 2015, informing her about her decision to appoint workstreams that would report directly to the minister so she could “retain direct control of the implementation process”.
He said the workstreams were given a broad mandate to take over the implementation of the project and that Sassa was instructed “not to interrupt them or delay them”.
“Since July 2015, the minister understood the issues, was in control of the process and knew or ought to have known of all developments in this important process and matter,” said Magwaza.
In March 2017, Business Day reported how Dlamini and a few hand-picked advisers had emerged as the clique that constructed the illegal new contract with Cash Paymaster Services (CPS). Department officials and Sassa were excluded from the process.
This suggested the delay in solving the crisis in grant distribution was engineered by a group of consultants acting at Dlamini’s behest.
Dlamini has claimed that she was informed only in October 2016 that Sassa would not be able to take over the payment of social grants on April 1 2017.
Magwaza told the Constitutional Court that at a Sassa executive committee meeting in February 2017, Dlamini told him to focus his energies on the dayto-day operations of the agency. She said the workstreams would sort out the plans for future payment of grants.
He said he was informed that the first time Sassa’s executive interacted with the workstreams was in October 2016.
Magwaza was only officially appointed Sassa CE in November 2016. He had previously been a director-general in the social development department.
In the affidavit, Magwaza also claimed that Dlamini had lied about being at a meeting with him and the Government Printing Works.
In her affidavit, Dlamini also alleged she had held a telephone conference with Magwaza in October 2016 in which she urged him to report to the Constitutional Court that Sassa would not be able to take over the payment of grants in 2017.
The CE said he had told Dlamini he would not be able to file a meaningful affidavit with the court by December 2016 because he had taken office as CEO only in November.
Magwaza said the moment he was appointed, he took steps to engage the Treasury, the department and the South African Reserve Bank and was optimistic that a solution would be found in which Sassa — with assistance from other government agencies — would be in a position to pay grants.
“In retrospect, it was the minister who was determined that an internal solution will not be found,” Magwaza said.
He said Dlamini was opposed to using local banks and the South African Post Office to pay grants.
Magwaza said he used December 2016 and January 2017 to familiarise himself with all legal opinion obtained.
“I have difficulty understanding why the minister was adamant that CPS be used,” he said.
Magwaza has also denied that Dlamini engaged with Sassa on possible options and interim agreements, and that it was decided that CPS was the least risky option to ensure the uninterrupted payment of grants.