‘Invasive’ SAA vetting questioned

Seven executives resigned due to personal nature of security process

THE State Security Agency’s (SSA) vetting processes undertaken at SAA in 2016 came under scrutiny at the Zondo commission yesterday.

The inquiry heard how SAA executives were subjected to invasive and personal questions by the SSA as part of the agency’s “efforts to protect access to classified information”.

SSA evaluator and analyst Nokunqoba Dlamini took the stand at the inquiry yesterday. The inquiry is probing aviation-related testimony this week.

The commission’s evidence leader Kate Hofmeyr said in 2015 discussions between the then minister of state security David Mahlobo and former finance minister Nhlanhla Nene, it was decided SAA executives had to be vetted in line with SSA’s mandate.

Dlamini told the inquiry that legislation governing the SSA required that executives of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) should be vetted before they occupy a position.

This was to protect the state from individuals who were not qualified or dangerous in handling sensitive classified state information.

When the decision to vet the officials was taken, a list was sent by Nene’s office to SSA and it consisted of 13 executives who had to be checked.

Dlamini, who was the project manager of the SSA vetting project, noted the list had been extended to include SAA support staff.

A total of 118 SAA employees were subjected to the vetting process.

Hofmeyr and the chairperson of the state capture inquiry, Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, pressed Dlamini on whether she or her staff had evaluated whether all those individuals who had to be subjected to the vetting process had actual access to sensitive information.

Dlamini was unable to answer this and insisted the vetting was standard.

Hofmeyr questioned Dlamini on why the SAA board had not been subject to the vetting process as they, along with SAA executives, would have access to classified information. Dlamini said, ideally, the board should have been vetted but her department followed the briefing provided which did not include the board.

“Yes, they should have been vetted,” she said.

The SSA’s vetting process includes four stages; the administration phase, the interview phase, the polygraph phase and the analysis stage.

Hofmeyr questioned Dlamini on the personal nature of the interview questions posed to SAA employees. Some of the questions asked included: Whether your family, brother, sister and parents abused drugs; you are the type of person who is impulsive, you are a member of a political party and about your role in a political organisation and then you are asked about your personality.

Hofmeyr asked Dlamini if the questions were extremely personal and she responded: “Yes, I accept that these questions are deeply personal”.

Seven executives resigned based on the questions and personal nature of the process.

Dlamini admitted the staff members who were subject to the vetting process were never told of the outcome directly, which is not in accordance with legislation.

Then acting SAA chief executive Musa Zwane had personally assured her he would give his staff feedback on the results.

Dlamini also claimed as part of the report she complied after the vetting process, the project had led to a R2 billion revenue turnover for SAA.

This shocked Zondo and led to Dlamini backtracking on her claim.