The Department of Defence has been accused of deflecting responsibility for deficiencies in its planning and expenditure.
The department on Wednesday provided responses to budget review recommendations made by its portfolio committee, which was left widely dissatisfied.
While the discussion touched on financial matters, the committee demanded answers on controversial South African National Defence Force (SANDF) projects and the establishment of the board of inquiry into Exercise Will For Peace 2026.
Projects Kgala and Zingisa
Among others, the committee were expecting to hear feedback on the disciplinary actions related to irregular expenditure tied to the SANDF’s deal with Cuba. The Department of Defence (DoD) spent R1.7 billion on Project Kgala, and the committee had given the department until 30 January to provide written feedback.
Committee questions included Project Kgala’s predecessor Project Thusano, with the committee curious about whether a dispute on the findings made by the auditor-general of South Africa (AG) was submitted.
The department told the committee that the matter was still under review and that the review would only be completed by May, following which remedial actions would be considered.
Committee members had also been waiting for details on Project Zingisa since November, with the department explaining that the project was still in the “conceptual” phase and had not yet commenced.
“Comprehensive information covering the scope, timelines, governance arrangements, and other pertinent matters will be provided once the conceptualisation and feasibility process is finalised.
“At that point, the DoD will provide a structured update to Parliament, stakeholders and the public,” the presentation stated.
Project Zingisa is a roughly R250 million deal that is expected to see the Chinese military refurbish the SANDF’s mission deployment site in Bloemfontein.
‘A defence force that is disciplined’
The DA’s Chris Hattingh said he was “not satisfied” with the department’s “disappointing” approach to the budget review process.
“We need the truth, the whole truth, and it is not forthcoming.
“When there is really no way to deflect a question, they follow the now standard process — by stating that they will share with the committee the information, but in a closed meeting. In the past 20 months there were two [closed meetings],” Hattingh told The Citizen.
He said the department simply noted their challenges but made no commitment to fixing them.
“Instead of clear action and accountability, it relies mostly on process, future reviews and delayed decisions.
“The billions of Thusano irregular expenditure have been reported by the AG since 2021, and nothing has been done on it as required by the PFMA.
“Instead, the renamed Cuban obsession project Kgala is following exactly the same path. In several cases, action only happened after strong pressure from Parliament.”
Hattingh expressed concern that oversight was being ignored, stressing that the country needed “a defence force that is disciplined” rather than one paralysed by inaction.
Excuses and resources
The committee had also requested engagements between the department, the AG and the State Security Agency over the special defence account.
The matter was not actioned by the department as it said it was first waiting for the committee to address the State Security Agency on the matter.
On a proposed closed policy discussion, the department said the date scheduled clashed with Armed Forces Day later in February, and the department “was in the process of requesting” a rescheduling.
The committee had previously asked about troop resources, and the department reported that R64 million had been made available to so far procure 1 790 tents, 239 portable toilets and 1 826 stretchers.
Additionally, the R64 million will go toward 2 810 bulletproof jackets, nine storage containers and aid mission sustainment and force protection.
An asset register was requested by the committee, and the department confirmed that it was presented to the AG.
The committee concluded by instructing the department to return with more detailed responses.
‘A simple answer’
Deputy Defence Minister Bantu Holomisa was standing in for Minister Angie Motshekga, who was dealing with a family bereavement.
The committee asked for clarification on the role of General Rudzani Maphwanya, who is five years above retirement age, but for whom no authorisation for an extension of service was allegedly submitted.
Holomisa explained that he did not have the power to answer those questions, perpetuating the department’s tone of delay.
“Write a letter or summon the minister of defence to come and explain why this gentleman is still commanding our troops, yet, in terms of the law, should have been at home,” said Holomisa.
Regarding the recent naval drill that saw the controversial participation of Iran, the EFF’s Carl Niehaus was bemused by multiple government entities’ failure to have a decisive plan of action.
Niehaus questioned why a board of inquiry was necessary when the matter required “a simple answer” from the minister as to why the president’s instruction was not followed.
“The President’s own law advisors are not clear on that instruction because now, the law advisors have to be brought back in to establish whether it is possible for the minister to appoint such a board of inquiry.
“This just compounds the disaster that this whole diplomatic mess was. It extends the period of uncertainty and speculation,” said Niehaus.
Written by Jarryd Westerdale for The Citizen and republished with permission. The original article can be found here.
