Acting appointments open door to abuse

Dear Corruption Watch,

We read a lot about jobs for pals in the public service. Some of them are “acting appointments” that seem to last forever. I have reason to believe that many such appointments are made to circumvent the full hiring process, which might determine that the candidate is not qualified and opens up these appointments to corruption. Are there limitations to the length of time someone can serve in an acting capacity? Are there any limitations to the number of people in one organisation who can serve in an acting capacity? — Full-timer

Dear Full-timer,

You are right to be concerned. Although it is no doubt necessary to have acting appointments from time to time, they can be abused.

As you suggest, they can be used to avoid a full hiring process to keep a friend in the position. The process necessary to appoint someone permanently is generally more rigorous than that needed to appoint someone in an acting position. Because acting appointments often have to be made urgently, there is sometimes no formal hiring process at all. A full hiring process could reveal that the person was unqualified for the job, or that there were more qualified people available. Appointing someone in an acting post and delaying filling the post permanently to keep that person in the position is a form of corruption. The Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act says corruption involves giving any person “gratification” for illegal or dishonest reasons. It defines gratification to include “any office, status, honour [or] employment”.

Also, acting positions can be abused by keeping someone in a position because it is easier to remove them. In the public service, it is difficult to remove someone from a permanent position. Restrictions on removal are important to ensure some degree of independence and prevent interference from political actors. Acting appointments often lack the same protection and can be made and withdrawn at the whim of the responsible officer.

The recent saga concerning the national director of public prosecutions is an example. After Menzi Simelane was suspended from this post at the end of 2011, the president appointed Nomgcobo Jiba in an acting capacity. When the Constitutional Court confirmed in October 2012 that Simelane had been illegally appointed, the president still did not make a permanent appointment. It was only after he was taken to the Constitutional Court that he appointed a permanent national director of public prosecutions at the end of August 2013, nearly a year after the post became vacant. In court papers, the president confirmed that an acting national director lacks the same structural protection and independence as a permanent appointee.

Many statutes do limit the period that a person may serve in an acting position. The South African National Parks Act, for example, only allows an acting CEO to serve for six months. However, many other statutes place no limit on the length of time a person may act for. That obviously opens the position up to the two types of abuse that have been discussed here.

There are no limits on the number of people who may be acting at any one time. Such a limit could be counterproductive because there may well be situations in which it is necessary to have a lot of people in an acting capacity for a short period. It would be more productive to limit the time for which any person may serve in an acting post.