‘Nothing prevents watchdog oversight’

Agriculture Department seeks to set aside findings of auditor general

NOTHING prohibits the legislature’s watchdog from having oversight over the disputed financial statements of the provincial Agriculture Department who is embroiled in a court battle to review and set aside findings of the auditor general.

The standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) has sought legal advice whether the discussion of the 2016/17 and 2017/18 annual reports is sub judice following the department’s court action against findings of the auditor general.

Economic Opportunities MEC Beverley Schäfer spokesperson Bianca Capazorio previously said the 2016/17 and 2017/18 annual reports had been tabled but that the reports were discussed in the legislature and deemed sub judice due to the court action.

But ANC members of Scopa and the legislature’s legal advisor, advocate André le Roux, disagree.

At a meeting last week, Le Roux said: “I cannot from the facts and law stated above, discern any reason for taking the position that there is a real and demonstrable risk that the administration of justice will be prejudiced by this committee engaging with the subject matter of the application.”

Le Roux further noted that the papers filed of record in the (court) application are in the public domain.

“It should be clear, from the case law discussed, that the media will be free to disseminate, publish and comment on this information without fear of violating the sub judice rule. How can it be then, that the media and the general public may discuss and comment on a matter of import to the functioning of the provincial government, but the committee may not engage (on behalf of the public that it represents) on the same matter that falls squarely in the scope of its oversight obligations?” he said.

The matter between the auditor general and the department boils down to a difference in interpretations between the department and the auditor general regarding the latter’s findings in respect of the department’s classification of certain payments made to entities involved in farmer settlement and disaster relief projects in the province involving R266 million.

The auditor general’s office requested the department alter its recordings of payments of R266m to Casidra and Hortgro, from transfer payments to goods and services, before it could give an opinion on the department’s 2016/2017 and 2017/18 audit.

Politicians, however, were caught in a tit-for-tat argument as ANC MPLs Carol Beerwinkel and Nomi Nkondlo and DA MPLs Daylin Mitchell and Mathlodi Maseko. The ANC’s contention was that the head legal services in the office of Premier Helen Zille, Lucas Buter, should not be allowed to present the department’s case.

DA MPL and deputy chief whip Dennis Joseph said both sides of the story should be heard as the committee will make a final determination.

Le Roux reiterated that he suggested that an official from the department be present.