SCOPA questions dept’s discipline

ACTING economic development, environment and tourism (Ledet) head of department (HOD), Solly Kgopong, was in the hot seat before the standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) last week.

Kgopong’s report hit a snag when it transpired that the department and Scopa members were using two different document bundles to refer to during the hearing.

The mistake was discovered when some names mentioned in answer to a question did not match the answers that Scopa members had in their bundle.

During the year ending on March 31 2013, Ledet was involved in several litigations: 12 cases were finalised in favour of the department and six in favour of the applicants. Kgopong said there was a reasonable prospect for resolutions in favour of Ledet in 11 pending cases.

He said the department was prone to litigation as it is by nature a regulatory authority. Unforeseen circumstances such as accidents and damages caused by animals also gave rise to litigations.

The department had to answer questions about non-compliance with treasury regulations, leadership and governance issues, expenditure and revenue management, financial and performance management and failure to reach their targets.

Three of six legislature resolutions were not implemented and three were only partially implemented by the department.

Of the 18 issues raised by the Auditor General (AG) for the financial year ending March 31 2013, 16 were resolved and two remained.

From the time the report to Scopa was submitted in August 2013, certain issues were updated as progress was made. Some 21 officers were charged before disciplinary hearings.

Scopa members asked why many officials were only given written warnings, even for issues that were highlighted by the AG for the third time. Kgopong said some officials left the department and no action were taken against them.

The department was cautioned to prepare thoroughly before coming to Scopa and asked to submit the correct documents before February 14.

According to the office of the AG, the department has the potential to obtain a clean audit as the quality of its financial statements has improved the last three years, but the department’s biological assets register needed attention.