WeeklySA_AdminSTATUS: Department of Sport, Arts and Culture “takes exception” to criticism of its portfolio’s recent report to Parliament…
By Edward Tsumele
The Department of Sport, Arts and Culture has challenged the critical views of the parliamentary portfolio committee officials who recently dismissed its overview report.
Embattled Dr Cynthia Khumalo, deputy director-general of the department, was responding to criticism of her and her officials following their appearance before the portfolio committee on sport, arts and culture on September 20.
During their presentation, Khumalo’s overview of the department’s performance was dismissed by members on the grounds that it was not a true reflection of the department’s state of affairs.
However, the portfolio committee has reiterated its unhappiness despite her protestations, pointing at perennial issues of under-spending and half-completed projects, as examples of sloppiness by the department in managing budgets allocated for arts development.
In a stinging rebuke of the department on the day, several portfolio members expressed did not hold back in venting their frustration at the quality of her presentation, describing the report as “rubbish”, “scary”, “wish-washy” and “fraudulent”, before sending her and her entourage – including Acting Director-General Vusi Ndima – packing.
The committee officials then instructed them to go back to the drawing board and return once they have collated a proper assessment of the department activities for the under reporting.
On Monday, Khumalo took umbrage to the committee’s criticism, arguing that her report was not fraudulent. Her defence, via a communique, was rather extraordinary, given the procedures and protocols governing report-backs by government officials before Parliament. However, the media release indicated that a “detailed response addressing this matter has been sent to the Portfolio Committee.”
In the media release released by her department this week, Khumalo’s bone of contention is the description of her representation as fraudulent – something she said she took strong exception to.
The department currently is yet to fill the position of Director-General, with Ndima and Khumalo alternating in acting capacity from time to time. The report that was presented before Parliament as an overview of the department’s work was delivered by Khumalo as Acting Director-General and therefore de facto the accounting officer for the department.
“The Department of Sport, Arts and Culture (DSAC) has noted with concern allegations and media reports that it tabled a supposedly fraudulent report to the Sport, Arts and Culture Portfolio Committee that sat on the 20th of September 2024.
“The Department, while appreciating the role of the Committee in taking a firm stance (sic) holding the DSAC to account, and exercising oversight over its work, takes exception to the accusations and media reports as an inaccurate reflection of the tabled report.
“The Deputy Director-General, Dr Cynthia Khumalo vehemently disputes the narrative that she presented a fraudulent report to the Portfolio Committee on Sport Arts and Culture. This narrative is damaging to the reputation of the Department and that of its Ministry. A detailed response addressing this matter has been sent to the Portfolio Committee,” the statement reads.
Contacted for comment, Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Sport, Arts and Culture’s media liaison officer, Sibongile Maputi, declined to comment, saying: “It is not a practice for committee chairs to comment on what government officials say in private.”
Instead, he referred this publication to a statement on the matter by the Portfolio Committee issued in September, adding: “Our statement, as well as the website story, was never disputed. The facts in it remain unchallenged, and the committee position”.
Maputi was referring to a committee statement which partly read: “The Portfolio Committee on Sports, Arts and Culture had said the incident to send the Department back on account of ill-preparedness was unfortunate but necessary”.
In the statement, the committee chairperson, Mr Joe McGluwa, said it was against the spirit of accountability that the Department sent something to the committee “and presented something else to the committee”.
The committee’s statement continued: “The committee needed to set an example quite early in its term of office. It was unfortunate that the departmental officials had to be sent back on account of inconsistencies in their own presentation and what they claimed to be their performance.
“We do not take kindly to this kind of behaviour as it is tantamount to fraud and misleading the legislators who in the end must motivate for the budget of this department. We are not about to compromise on accountability; in fact, the committee is visiting some of the projects where sums of money had been reportedly spent in the first week of October.
“Sending the officials was painful but a necessary step the committee will do again if misrepresentation of fact happens. This committee is not about to go soft on its responsibility of playing the oversight role, no matter what and who is involved,” Mr McGluwa said.
On Friday, the committee refused to accept a presentation from the department as it was fundamentally different from what had earlier been submitted. The committee demanded an explanation for “the disparity”, and a thorough analysis of the information and the departmental annual performance plan.
Mr McGluwa said the committee members were responsible public representatives, and that how the state finances were spent should be accounted for.
The committee will undertake official oversight visits to assess the governmental projects, including the Sarah Baartman Heritage site in the Eastern Cape. “We will not compromise on our oversight role, whoever is involved; our people must experience service delivery beyond the paper presentation,” McGluwa added.
Reacting to the furore, Freddie Nyathela, president of South African Roadies Association (SARA) and one of the department’s fiercest critics, called for an inquiry into the issue.
“In SARA’s view; Section 17 (2) (d) (e) of Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act (Act 4 of 2004) inquiry (complaint) should be urgently instituted by Parliament to decisively deal with these serious allegations,” he said. – CityLifeArts
