Dipuo Letsatsi-Duba’s bid to paint herself as a victim of poor advice and lack of resources falls flat

To be fair, Letsatsi-Duba admitted to Justice Raymond Zondo that in hindsight, the committee she chaired between May 2014 and March 2017 had “failed to exercise our oversight”.  

But she also had difficulty explaining why she had not supported calls by the opposition to hold an inquiry into the Gupta family and their influence on Eskom during her tenure, even though she and the ANC majority in the committee were aware of the allegations and credible media reports of rampant corruption at state-owned enterprises (SOEs). 

Letsatsi-Duba was appearing in an evening session as part of the commission’s probe into the failures of parliamentary oversight, and how it  aided and abetted State Capture. The theme of oversight failure has been running for the past few weeks. 

Evidence leader Advocate Alec Freund’s line of questioning started with the governing party’s “study groups” – preceding portfolio committee meetings – and how it could be deemed inappropriate to caucus via the groups, which would include ministers and directors-general, who would then have to be held to account in the portfolio committee meetings. 

“At first I was a little uncomfortable with the approach, as it might appear we were trying to caucus before the committee meetings, but that has been the practice all along,” said Letsatsi-Dube, also the former State Security minister. 

She agreed with Freund that the practice was “inappropriate”, saying it would place the ANC at an “advantage over other political parties”.  One of the purposes of the study groups was to “interrogate party deployees, to get facts”, she added. 

“To me, personally, I don’t think that ANC study groups are necessary.”

Freund said that from previous testimony given at the commission, his impression of the study groups was that they were used to make decisions on what approaches would be adopted in portfolio committee meetings. 

“I agree,” offered Letsatsi-Duba. 

Zondo asked: “Is it your understanding that within the ANC, the general understanding is that you have to act in accordance with decisions taken in the study group?”

“Yes.”

“Would they act in accordance?” asked the chair. 

“Yes.” 

“Were there times that the ANC members deviated from those study group decisions when in portfolio committee meetings?”

“There would not have been such,” said the former minister. 

She told Freund that the oversight tools necessary for the committee were insufficient and, as a result, it had to rely on annual reports for information. 

Using Eskom as an example, she said the committee was refused the utility’s “shareholder compact” because it contained commercially sensitive corporate information that could end up in the hands of “the competition”. 

Eskom told the committee that it was governed by the Companies Act, “which precluded such disclosure”, according to Letsatsi-Duba.

“Do you accept that the portfolio committee has a constitutional right and obligation and also under the rules of the National Assembly to summons persons to answer questions and to require them to answer under oath?” asked Freund, to which Letsatsi-Duba answered in the affirmative.  

“So there would be nothing to prevent your portfolio committee from requiring an entity like Eskom to furnish whatever information you thought was necessary in order to execute proper oversight?”

“I agree,” answered Letsatsi-Duba. “But remember when we were requesting Eskom’s plan, we were told flat they can’t give it to us because of the Companies Act.”

Freund responded: “I am grappling with you about what should be the appropriate response of your committee when you are confronted by them saying what they did. What competitors does Eskom have? I thought it was a statutory monopoly?”

“Yes, it is a monopoly.”

“Their excuse to the committee carries no water,” said Freund. 

“It carries no water,” repeated Letsatsi-Duba. “Eskom is a pure monopoly company.”

“So we agree that their excuse was unacceptable?” asked Freund. 

“It was unacceptable.”

He said the committee had the power to compel the power utility to produce the information it needed. 

“Yes, we had the power, but I don’t know if you are familiar with how the portfolio committees are run. Time is very limited. In the next meeting, when we are able to follow up on the issue, we have another entity [that we have to deal with]. By the time we come back to Eskom, we are almost towards the end of the year.”

Letsatsi-Duba said there were “so many matters to deal with”. 

“In my thinking, we need a small team as part of the committee which will be able to assist with the research and also to follow up on issues which were raised in the committee.”

Unfortunately, the parliamentary legal services brought in all the other issues to say we needed a House resolution, that public enterprises has no authority, and so on and so on. And, my initial thought was to say this is not a small matter to deal with, we need to get legal advice, not on the merits of the case, but on the processes, to say if we call the Guptas, what are the processes to follow. We don’t have capacity in terms of legal and all other requirements to deal with the issues in a proper manner.