42
PRESENTATION TO PARLIAMENTARY PORFOLIO COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE & MILITARY VETERANS MILITARY OMBUD: LT GEN (RET) T.T. MATANZIMA 12 MARCH 2014
PRESENTATION TO PARLIAMENTARY PORFOLIO COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE &
MILITARY VETERANS
MILITARY OMBUD: LT GEN (RET) T.T. MATANZIMA12 MARCH 2014
MILITARY OMBUD
SCOPE
1. Background2. Mandate 3. Performance/Statistics4. Operational Challenges5. Legislative Challenges6. Conclusion
2
MILITARY OMBUD
BACKGROUND
• The concept of the Military Ombud was first contemplated in the late 1990’s as:
a) An independent, external mechanism to deal with the complaints and grievances of members and former members of the SANDF; and
b) A place for the public to lodge complaints about the conduct of soldiers.
• The White Paper on Defence (May 1996) advocated for the creation of the post of Military Ombud.
3
MILITARY OMBUD
BACKGROUND CONT.
• As there was no Military Ombud a Senior Legal Administration Officer in the Office of the Public Protector was responsible for dealing with complaints from SANDF members. This proved to be largely ineffective.
• Minutes of proceedings of the Joint Standing Committee of Defence of June 1998, show a premium was placed on the urgency of establishing such an Office.
4
MILITARY OMBUD
BACKGROUND CONT.
• In April 2006, a Bill entitled “South African Military Ombud” was tabled and withdrawn.
• A Military Ombudsman Bill was introduced to the National Assembly in Jan 2011.
• The Military Ombud Bill as amended and in its present form was introduced in Sept 2011.
5
MILITARY OMBUD
BACKGROUND CONT.
• The Office was established with the promulgation of the Military Ombud Act 4 of 2012 and the swearing in of Lt Gen (Ret) T.T. Matanzima, May 2012.
• The Military Ombud has relocated to its new premises in Centurion which was officially opened on 14 May 2013.
6
MILITARY OMBUD
BACKGROUND CONT.
• The Office has completed its first recruitment phase with all successful candidates having reported for duty before the end of the 2012/2013 financial year.
• The Director Intake, 3 Intake Officers, 2 Analysts and 2 Investigators started operating in March 2013.
• The second recruitment phase began in May 2013.
• The Chief Director Operations and Director Investigations joined during August 2013 and September 2013 respectively.
7
MILITARY OMBUD
BACKGROUND CONT.
• This phase was completed and all successful candidates reported for duty on 1 October 2013.
• A further 3 intake officers, 3 analysts and 2 investigators, as well as some admin support staff, joined operations on 1 October 2013.
• Prior to the staffing of the office, the Ombud appointed a law firm to attend to the complaints that were streaming in.
8
MILITARY OMBUD
BACKGROUND CONT.
•The third recruitment phase is currently underway with advertisements having been posted on national newspapers in December 2013. The next line of interviews will be held early March 2014.
•The current strength of the office is 44 staff members. The current total structure provides for 89 positions.
9
MILITARY OMBUD
BACKGROUND CONT.
10
MIL OMBUD ORGANISATION
MIL OMBUD
D/MILOMBUD
CORPORATE OPS
INTAKE AND ANALYSIS
LEGAL
COMMUNICATION
CORPORATE SUPPORT
HR FIN
LOG ICT
POL, STRAT& PLAN
RECEPTION & SECURITY
INVESTIGATIONS
R & D
OPERATIONS
MILITARY OMBUD
MANDATE
• The Military Ombud Act empowers the Military Ombud investigate complaints by:
a) A member regarding his or her conditions of service;
b) A former member regarding his or her conditions of service;
c) A member of the public regarding the official conduct of a member of the Defence Force; or
d) A person acting on behalf of a member.
11
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION PER COMPLAINTS’ CATEGORY FY 12/13
12
CATEGORY WITHIN MANDATE
NO MANDATE
TOTAL RECEIVED
TOTAL FINALISED
Promotion, Demotion and Rank Review
62 5 67 25
Utilisation 31 8 39 19Service benefits 67 5 72 20ETD 7 2 9 5Remuneration 24 3 27 13Grievance / Discipline
0 1 1 1
Service termination 49 32 81 21Other 7 3 10 0Total 247 59 306 104
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED IN FY 12/13
13
GENDER RACECATEGORY M F U A C I W UPromotion, Demotion and Rank Review
57 10 0 53 1 1 10 2
Utilisation 34 5 0 26 0 0 12 1Service benefits 54 15 3 36 3 0 28 5ETD 7 2 0 5 3 0 1 0Remuneration 25 2 0 18 O 0 8 1Grievance / Discipline
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Service termination 68 13 0 61 5 0 11 4Other 7 1 2 4 1 0 2 3Total 253 48 5 203 14 1 72 16
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED IN FY 12/13
14
COMPLAINANTCATEGORY MEMBER FORMER PUBLICPromotion, Demotion and Rank Review
64 1 2
Utilisation 28 7 4Service benefits 28 37 7ETD 9 0 0Remuneration 25 2 0Grievance / Discipline
1 0 0
Service termination 18 58 5Other 5 1 4Total 178 106 22
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED IN FY 12/13
15
OFFICERS OTHER RANKS REMAINDER
CATEGORY GEN SNR JNR WO NCO CIV UPromotion, Demotion and Rank Review
1 9 5 10 22 16 4
Utilisation 1 6 0 2 18 7 5Service benefits 0 9 3 5 29 18 8ETD 0 2 2 0 5 0 0Remuneration 0 7 1 3 13 2 1Grievance / Discipline
0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Service termination 0 10 5 2 46 12 6Other 0 2 0 1 0 5 2Total 2 45 16 23 134 60 26
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED IN FY 12/13
16
SERVICES AND DIVISIONSCATEGORY J OPS ARMY SAAF NAVY SAMHSPromotion, Demotion and Rank Review
0 27 11 8 11
Utilisation 0 18 3 6 6Service benefits 2 42 5 8 9ETD 0 2 1 0 4Remuneration 0 14 2 1 5Grievance / Discipline
0 0 0 0 1
Service termination 2 44 15 4 7Other 1 2 4 0 0Total 5 149 41 27 43
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED IN FY 12/13
17
SERVICES AND DIVISIONSCATEGORY CCS HR LOG FMD DEF INTPromotion, Demotion and Rank Review
4 0 0 6 0
Utilisation 1 1 0 0 1Service benefits 0 0 1 2 0ETD 0 0 0 0 0Remuneration 1 1 1 0 0Grievance / Discipline
0 0 0 0 0
Service termination 3 1 1 2 2Other 0 0 0 0 0Total 9 3 3 10 3
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED IN FY 12/13
18
SERVICES AND DIVISIONSCATEGORY DLSD DEISM PUBLIC UPromotion, Demotion and Rank Review
0 0 0 0
Utilisation 0 0 1 2Service benefits 0 0 3 0ETD 2 0 0 0Remuneration 0 0 0 2Grievance / Discipline
0 0 0 0
Service termination 0 0 0 0Other 0 0 3 0Total 2 0 7 4
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION PER COMPLAINTS’ CATEGORY FY 13/14 (UP UNTIL 31 JANUARY 2014)
19
CATEGORY BROUGHT OVER 12/13
WITHIN MANDATE
NO MANDATE
TOTAL RECEIVED
TOTAL FINALISED
Promotion, Demotion and Rank Review
42 34 3 79 53
Utilisation 20 26 1 47 22
Service benefits 52 51 9 112 52
ETD 4 4 0 8 5
Remuneration 14 22 3 39 19
Grievance / Discipline
0 4 0 4 0
Service termination
60 56 5 121 57
Other 10 17 8 35 16
Total 202 214 29 445 224
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED IN FY 13/14
20
GENDER RACECATEGORY M F U A C I W UPromotion, Demotion and Rank Review
27 10 0 18 5 0 3 11
Utilisation 23 4 0 21 0 0 3 3Service benefits 48 14 0 30 8 0 7 17ETD 2 2 0 3 0 0 0 1Remuneration 19 6 0 15 3 2 4 1Grievance / Discipline
3 1 0 2 0 0 2 0
Service termination 49 12 0 28 4 1 4 24Other 21 2 2 7 0 1 0 17Total 192 51 2 124 20 4 23 74
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED IN FY 13/14
21
COMPLAINANTCATEGORY MEMBER FORMER PUBLICPromotion, Demotion and Rank Review
29 6 2
Utilisation 14 5 8Service benefits 18 28 16ETD 4 0 0Remuneration 18 5 2Grievance / Discipline
4 0 0
Service termination 22 39 0Other 11 9 5Total 120 92 33
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED IN FY 13/14
22
OFFICERS OTHER RANKS REMAINDER
CATEGORY GEN SNR JNR WO NCO CIV NRPromotion, Demotion and Rank Review
1 3 4 1 15 12 1
Utilisation 1 6 0 2 10 9 0Service benefits 0 6 1 4 20 22 8ETD 0 0 0 0 4 0 0Remuneration 0 6 4 2 8 4 1Grievance / Discipline
0 2 0 0 2 0 1
Service termination 0 2 3 2 42 7 5Other 0 3 3 1 10 6 2Total 2 28 15 12 110 60 18
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED IN FY 13/14
23
SERVICES AND DIVISIONSCATEGORY J OPS ARMY SAAF NAVY SAMHSPromotion, Demotion and Rank Review
0 19 6 3 4
Utilisation 0 10 4 1 5Service benefits 0 34 7 0 1ETD 0 0 1 0 3Remuneration 0 12 3 1 7Grievance / Discipline
0 4 0 0 0
Service termination 0 40 9 4 7Other 0 12 1 1 2Total 0 131 31 10 29
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED IN FY 13/14
24
SERVICES AND DIVISIONSCATEGORY CCS HR LOG FMD DEF INTPromotion, Demotion and Rank Review
3 1 0 1 0
Utilisation 0 0 0 0 0Service benefits 0 0 0 0 0ETD 0 0 0 0 0Remuneration 0 0 0 0 0Grievance / Discipline
0 0 0 0 0
Service termination 0 0 0 0 0Other 0 0 1 0 0Total 3 1 1 1 0
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED IN FY 13/14
25
SERVICES AND DIVISIONSCATEGORY DLSD DEISM PUBLIC UPromotion, Demotion and Rank Review
0 0 0 0
Utilisation 0 0 3 4Service benefits 0 0 15 5ETD 0 0 0 0Remuneration 0 0 1 1Grievance / Discipline
0 0 0 0
Service termination 0 0 0 1Other 0 0 0 8Total 0 0 19 19
MILITARY OMBUDOPERATIONAL CHALLENGES
•Finalising the case load accumulated during FY 2012/13.•Empowering newly appointed staff with the uniqueness of the military environment in order to operate efficiently.•The lack of a case management system results in non-value adding labour.•Lack of fully functioning ICT capacity.•Cementing new operating procedures to finalise complaints.•Complainants are uninformed in the role and functioning of the Ombud.•Lack of optimally functioning grievance process in the DOD.
26
MILITARY OMBUD
LEGISLATIVE CHALLENGES
Who can Complain?•Section 1 of the Act does not define a “complaint” or a “complainant” •This poses a difficulty for actual complainants and for the long term functioning of the office and brings uncertainty as to who can be regarded as a complainant in terms of the Act.• Section 4 of the Act states that a member may lodge a complaint. The term “member” is defined in section 1 of the Act as bearing the same meaning as that of section 1 of the Defence Act of 2002.
27
MILITARY OMBUDLEGISLATIVE CHALLENGES
Who can Complain?•Section 1 of the Defence Act refers to a member in relation to the Defence Force as any officer and any other rank and to any person of a visiting force and civilians employed under that visiting force. •“Defence Force” is defined in the Defence Act as the South African National Defence Force as contemplated in section 11 and includes any portion of that Force, with section 11 making reference to regular force members and reserve force members. Notably members of the erstwhile statutory and non-statutory forces are excluded from this section.
28
MILITARY OMBUD
LEGISLATIVE CHALLENGES
Who can Complain?•Section 4 (1) (c) of the Act refers to a complaint lodged by a member of the public regarding the official conduct of members of the Defence Force. •The omission to define the words “official conduct” may seem to incorporate a broad range of issues within the administration of the Department of Defence, i.e. maladministration, undue delay, abuse of power, etc.
29
MILITARY OMBUD
LEGISLATIVE CHALLENGES
Who can Complain?•Currently, this section is interpreted as indicated above and includes a complainant who may have a complaint against a member of the Defence Force who, in terms of a law or an inter state agreement, is stationed for peace keeping purposes in another state. •Section 4 (1) requires sufficient clarity.
30
MILITARY OMBUD
LEGISLATIVE CHALLENGES
A reasonable time to lodge a complaint?•Section 7 (2) (c) of the Act provides the Ombud with a discretion to refuse to investigate a complaint if it was not lodged within a reasonable period of time. As a result what is considered to be reasonable is within the power of the Ombud to regulate. •In view of the nature of the investigations conducted the following is considered to be reasonable :
31
MILITARY OMBUDLEGISLATIVE CHALLENGES
A reasonable time to lodge a complaint?a) A member or former member must lodge a compliant
within 180 days from the day on which the complainant became aware of the act or omission complained of.
b) A member of the public must lodge a complaint about the official conduct of a member within 90 days from the day on which the member of the public became aware of the act or omission complained of.
c) A complaint lodged after the prescribed time periods may be condoned by the Ombud if adequate reasons are provided for non-compliance with the above (reference will be made to the relevant sub-regulation)
32
MILITARY OMBUD
LEGISLATIVE CHALLENGES
A reasonable time to lodge a complaint?•In the absence of Regulations to give effect to this the Ombud currently accepts all jurisdictional matters, including those from members of the previous statutory and non-statutory forces. The difficulty experienced is that of locating the required evidence, information and relevant witnesses to assist a complainant who may have a complaint that dates as far back as 1945.
33
MILITARY OMBUD
LEGISLATIVE CHALLENGES
Independence and Impartiality•Independence is key to ensuring the efficiency, effectiveness and credibility of the institution. The Ombud’s independence is one of its main strengths and a source of trust . As a result the Ombud should have both institutional and operational independence.
34
MILITARY OMBUDLEGISLATIVE CHALLENGES
Institutional Independence •Currently the budget of the office is ring-fenced within the defence budget. Therefore funds cannot be managed independently from the Department of Defence. •This creates several difficulties as the Office is not in complete control of its budget as it has to comply with and be accountable to the departmental process structures for all resource requirements.•The submissions made to the Defence Review of 2011 requested that the Ombud be the accounting authority for the Office and further that the Office be registered as a PFMA Schedule 3 Entity.
35
MILITARY OMBUD
LEGISLATIVE CHALLENGES
Institutional Independence •Parliament’s Analysis of the Military Ombuds Bill of 2011, as compiled by the Research Unit in July 2011, indicated that section 9 places an onerous obligation on the Military Ombud and as a result a suitably qualified and experienced person as chief executive officer of the Military Ombud should be appointed to assist the Ombud subject to his or her direction and supervision in the performance of all financial and administrative functions in terms of the Act.
36
MILITARY OMBUD
LEGISLATIVE CHALLENGES
Institutional Independence •These significant suggestions speaking to the independence of the Ombud were however not all taken further. •As a result of the difficulties experienced as far as the institutional independence of the Ombud is concerned, steps have been embarked on to address the organisational and other requirements for the registration of the office as a Schedule 3 Entity.
37
MILITARY OMBUD
LEGISLATIVE CHALLENGES
Operational Independence •Section 6 (5) (b) of the Act states that after investigating a complaint the Ombud must recommend an alternate resolution to the Minister.•The recommendations route taken in the Act leaves the Ombud powerless with regard to the inability to enforce his recommendations. This is proving to be an obstacle in the effectiveness of the Ombud as, once approved by the Minister, the perception exists that implementation of recommendations are negotiable.
38
MILITARY OMBUD
LEGISLATIVE CHALLENGES
Operational Independence •No mechanism exists to have the Department of Defence account for the non-implementation of recommendations. •Another mechanism that is sure to guarantee independence of the Ombud is the capacity to undertake investigations under own initiative which currently section 6 of the Act does not make provision for.
39
MILITARY OMBUD
LEGISLATIVE CHALLENGES
Operational Independence •This ensures an Ombud who is proactive and who can act or pursue issues without having to wait for a complaint to redress wrongs as well as systemic issues which may be inherent in the system.
40
MILITARY OMBUD
CONCLUSION
On a point of information, the Regulations are in its draft stages, comment and legal analysis have been received from the Chief State Law Advisors and it is hoped to be finalised as soon as possible.Despite the challenges highlighted above, we are grateful for the support and co-operation of the SANDF/DOD.We are confident that the Office is fully operational and it can only get better from here.
41
MILITARY OMBUDCONCLUSION CONT.
A quote from the Handbook for Ombuds Institutions for the Armed Forces,
“Ombuds Institutions play a crucial role in ensuring the armed forces operate with integrity and in a manner which is both accountable and transparent. By handling individual complaints, as well as through the exploration of thematic and cross-cutting issues, ombuds institutions help to prevent human rights abuses, eliminate waste and malpractice and contribute to the overall good governance of the security sector.”
42
