1
VOLUME I
DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY HELD IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
INSETA EMPLOYER 5
and
SHIRLEY ANNE STEENEKAMP EMPLOYEE
B E F O R E: ADVOCATE N CASSIM – CHAIRMAN 10
PRESENT: MR GERRIT PRETORIUS – FOR EMPLOYER
MS RUTH EDMONDS – FOR EMPLOYEE
15
Date: 6 July 2009
CHAIRMAN 1Your full names for the record.
MS STEENEKAMP Shirley Anne Steenekamp.
CHAIRMAN Do you have any objections in taking the 20
oath?
MS STEENEKAMP No I don’t.
CHAIRMAN Do you swear the evidence you’ll give will
1 Tape 1 – Side 1 – ETS00172
2
be the truth, nothing but the truth, so help
me God?
MS STEENEKAMP So help me God.
CHAIRMAN Yes, thank you. Please proceed.
MS EDMONDS Thanks. Shirley I’ve got the charges in 5
front of me. I’m not sure where they appear
in, alright, don’t look at your own
documents.
MS STEENEKAMP Ok.
MS EDMONDS Don’t. Just wait until the INSETA’s witness 10
bundle is ready please. They appear
individually don’t they, the charges? If
you look at page 698, which is the first
page in that paginated bundle, that’s the
first complaint against you. 15
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS Now you havent actually ever been asked to
plead to any of the charges against you.
Are you guilty or not in regard to this
charge? 20
MS STEENEKAMP Not guilty.
MS EDMONDS Well in fact, let’s deal with all the
charges. Are you guilty of any of the
charges or any element of the charges
3
against you?
MS STEENEKAMP Not guilty of any of them.
MS EDMONDS Thank you. Just have a look at that first
complaint please. What role do you play in
the tender process, or did you play, until 5
your suspension in the tender process at the
INSETA?
MS STEENEKAMP I was a member of evaluation committees by
virtue of the fact that I am a manager in
INSETA. 10
MS EDMONDS Ok. Are you a Supply Chain Management
official?
MS STEENEKAMP No I’m not.
MS EDMONDS Are you an other role player?
MS STEENEKAMP I would be a manager in the INSETA and that 15
would be my role in the evaluation committee
only.
MS EDMONDS Alright. The allegation as we know, because
you’ve had the benefit of hearing it, the
evidence is that your son Piers Steenekamp 20
had some sort of private or business
interest in a contract or one of,
specifically one of these four contracts, or
all four of these contracts referred to in
4
this charge, and that you nonetheless
participated in the evaluation and the
tender process when that contract was
awarded to the body or institution that
Piers allegedly had an interest in. 5
MS STEENEKAMP He has no prior ---
MS EDMONDS Alright, no, no. You aware that that’s what
this is all about?
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, yes.
MS EDMONDS Ok. Then lets just break that down a little 10
bit. Piers Steenekamp relationship to you?
MS STEENEKAMP He’s my son.
MS EDMONDS And how old is he?
MS STEENEKAMP He will be turning 36 on the 18th of July.
MS EDMONDS Who is he employed by? 15
MS STEENEKAMP He’s currently employed by the ADVTECH
group.
MS EDMONDS And we’ve heard mention of the ADVTECH group
in the course of Dr Konar’s evidence.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. 20
MS EDMONDS Did you participate in the evaluation panels
that considered the tenders in 1.1, 1.2, 1.3
and 1.4?
MS STEENEKAMP Yes I did.
5
MS EDMONDS And you see that your close family member
had an interest in the contracts to be
awarded is your son, Mr Piers Steenekamp,
who is the operations director of IMFUNDO.
Who is IMFUNDO? 5
MS STEENEKAMP IMFUNDO is one of the subsidiaries within
the holdings company, ADVTECH, and was a
subsidiary company.
MS EDMONDS So it’s in the ADVTECH stable?
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. 10
MS EDMONDS Was Piers Steenekamp the operations director
of IMFUNDO at any of the relevant times in
relation to the four tenders mentioned?
MS STEENEKAMP No he was not.
CHAIRMAN Sorry, he was not a? 15
MS STEENEKAMP No, he was not.
MS EDMONDS He was not the operations director of
IMFUNDO ---
MS STEENEKAMP No.
MS EDMONDS At any time relevant to the awarding of 20
these tenders and at any time relevant to
you participating in the evaluation panel in
relation to these tenders.
MS STEENEKAMP He was not operations director of IMFUNDO at
6
any stage of the evaluation or rewarding of
any of these tenders. And neither was he an
employee of CCI.
MS EDMONDS Alright. Well let’s go into that. That’s
not what you charged with and strictly 5
speaking I need not take it any further.
I’m just a little concerned if I don’t take
it any further that something will be made
of his relationship to any of the parties
who did benefit, or any of the bodies that 10
may have benefited from any of those
tenders. Have a look first then at the
first contract, the institutional support
contract. To whom was that awarded?
MS STEENEKAMP The first one was awarded to the Corporate 15
College International, CCI.
MS EDMONDS And Corporate College International, what
is, does it have any relationship with
ADVTECH?
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. It’s a subsidiary company within the 20
holdings company ADVTECH. Within the
ADVTECH stable.
MS EDMONDS And does Piers Steenekamp have any
relationship with CCI?
7
MS STEENEKAMP No, he does not.
MS EDMONDS At the time of the tendering process and the
awarding of the contract did he have any
relationship with CCI?
MS STEENEKAMP No, he did not. 5
MS EDMONDS At the time of the tendering process and the
awarding of the contract, what was his
position within ADVTECH?
MS STEENEKAMP He worked in a division called the tertiary
division which was totally separate from CCI 10
or IMFUNDO or IIE.
MS EDMONDS Let’s not worry about IMFUNDO or IIE. We
talking about IIE at this stage. Sorry, CCI
at this stage.
MS STEENEKAMP CCI. 15
MS EDMONDS Did he have, you say he didn’t have any
relationship with CCI, that he was employed
by the tertiary division.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS Which also did not have any relationship 20
with the CCI.
MS STEENEKAMP No, it did not.
MS EDMONDS What did the tertiary division do at the
time, and we’ll deal with, well in fact deal
8
with it all. What did it do at the time?
MS STEENEKAMP The tertiary division had various roles.
The role that he was allocated to was to
look after certain coordination of
learnerships for the ISET SETA. And also --5
-
MS EDMONDS What was the ISET SETA?
MS STEENEKAMP ISET SETA is the information technology
SETA. And also for the Gauteng shared
services. They were part of the providers 10
of an IT solution in the learnership. So
that’s where he was working. And the
tertiary division also looks after internal
staff training within the entire ADVTECH
group related to IT solutions. 15
MS EDMONDS So did the tertiary division have any
interest in the institutional support
contract referred to in 1.1?
MS STEENEKAMP No, they did not.
MS EDMONDS And did Piers Steenekamp have any interest, 20
whether private or business in the
institutional support project mentioned in
1.1?
MS STEENEKAMP No, he did not.
9
MS EDMONDS Go on to 1.2 please. That’s the national
skills fund tender. You see that?
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS To whom was that tender awarded?
MS STEENEKAMP 1.2, the tender was submitted and various 5
service providers submitted tenders, but
that was cancelled. 1.2 was cancelled. But
one of the applicants for that tender was
CCI.
MS EDMONDS And we’ve just heard what Piers Steenekamp’s 10
relationship with the CCI is.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS Or was at the relevant time.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS Did Piers Steenekamp have any interest, 15
whether private or business, in the contract
in the national skills fund project
contract?
MS STEENEKAMP No, he did not.
MS EDMONDS 1.3, the second evaluation? 20
MS STEENEKAMP That was the tender then that was accepted
and that went through with the full
evaluation committee and recommendations
from that committee. So it’s linked to 1.2.
10
As I say, 1.2 was cancelled and we went back
to tender. It had to be re-tendered.
MS EDMONDS But your response in regard to ---
MS STEENEKAMP Same.
MS EDMONDS 1.2 and 1.3 then is? 5
MS STEENEKAMP My son has no interest, personal or business
interest, in 1.2 or 1.3.
MS EDMONDS And 1.4, the FAIS fit and proper tender?
MS STEENEKAMP He also has no personal or business
interest. Or had no personal or business 10
interest at the time the tender was awarded.
MS EDMONDS To whom was the project given?
MS STEENEKAMP The project was given to the IIE.
MS EDMONDS Which stands for?
MS STEENEKAMP The Independent International Education 15
group. And it is also a subsidiary within
the holdings company ADVTECH. One of the
brands.
MS EDMONDS And did Piers Steenekamp have any personal
or business interest in IIE at the time? 20
MS STEENEKAMP No he didn’t. No, he did not.
MS EDMONDS Does he at this stage?
MS STEENEKAMP No, he does not.
MS EDMONDS At that stage for whom was he working?
11
MS STEENEKAMP He was working for the tertiary division of
ADVTECH performing the functions I have
spoken about in terms of learnership support
for the ISET SETA and Gauteng shared
services. 5
MS EDMONDS The IIE subcontracted a component of the
project to another ADVTECH body. Who was
that?
MS STEENEKAMP IMFUNDO.
MS EDMONDS And was Piers Steenekamp involved with 10
IMFUNDO at that time?
MS STEENEKAMP No, he was not.
MS EDMONDS Did he become involved with IMFUNDO at any
time subsequent to the tender process and
the awarding of the tender? 15
MS STEENEKAMP After the tender was awarded, about a month
or 6 weeks, I’m not sure of the exact time
frames, he was transferred to IMFUNDO to
provide logistical curriculum support to the
project. 20
MS EDMONDS But at the time of the tender process and
the awarding of this tender he was not
involved in IMFUNDO?
MS STEENEKAMP He was not. No, he was not.
12
MS EDMONDS You did nonetheless declare an interest on
each of those four occasions in each of
those four projects. Why was that?
MS STEENEKAMP I just felt because it was the ADVTECH
holdings company I felt to be absolutely 5
sure that there would be no doubt of the
integrity of the process. I submitted a
declaration of interest to the committee, to
the evaluation panel as well as an offer for
recusal. 10
CHAIRMAN Where do I find that declaration of
interest?
MS EDMONDS They actually in amongst the tender
documents to which Konar referred.
MR PRETORIUS It’s common cause that they --- 15
MS EDMONDS But it is common cause that they, that a
declaration was ---
CHAIRMAN Ok, but just point it out to me at some
stage. That’s fine. Carry on.
MS EDMONDS There’s just such masses of documents in 20
regard to these charges that we’ve tried to
find documents actually to assist you. But
we did understand that that was common
cause. I’m not going to deal with that any
13
further. Can you have a look at the second
charge please which will appear at page 171.
You already said that you are not guilty of
that charge.
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct. 5
MS EDMONDS Let’s break that down then please to its
component parts. When did Kim Pretorius
commence employment with the INSETA?
MS STEENEKAMP Mike Abel signed her letter of appointment,
I speak under correction, but I think it was 10
31 August 2006, and she commenced employment
1 October 2006.
MS EDMONDS And when was the position advertised?
MS STEENEKAMP The position was advertised towards the end
of June, beginning July 2006. 15
MS EDMONDS Is Ms Pretorius related to you in any way?
MS STEENEKAMP Not at all.
MS EDMONDS Was she and has she ever been related to you
in any way?
MS STEENEKAMP Not at all. 20
MS EDMONDS How did Ms Kim Pretorius come to apply for
the position of skills development
administrator?
MS STEENEKAMP She had moved in a circle of friends of one
14
of my children and ---
MS EDMONDS Which one of your children was that?
MS STEENEKAMP One of my sons. I have two sons and three
daughters.
MS EDMONDS Which son was that? 5
MS STEENEKAMP The second eldest.
MS EDMONDS What is his name?
MS STEENEKAMP Jacque Steenekamp. And when the position
became available, I knew she was looking for
a position to apply for from discussions 10
that had been had about any posts coming up
that I know of in the public service,
anywhere, SAQA, any of my related friends,
wherever. When the post was advertised by
Mr Setlakalani Mokau who was the senior 15
assistant to Mr Phakama Nkosi ---
MS EDMONDS Let me ask you to pause there for a moment.
One of the aspects of the charge against you
is that the position hadnt been advertised
internally or externally. Is that correct? 20
MS STEENEKAMP It was advertised on the website, on the
INSETA website. And the documentation
should be with the corporate services
division.
15
MS EDMONDS And the website, is that an internal or an
external website?
MS STEENEKAMP It’s internal and external people can access
the website. The website, it would have
been advertised there. 5
MS EDMONDS Alright. So Kim Pretorius was in your
youngest son’s circle of friends at the
time.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS She came to hear of the position through you 10
and she applied for the position. Did you,
you’re accused of procuring her appointment.
And I’m not entirely sure what sinister
undertones there are in the use of the word
there, but did you in fact procure --- 15
MS STEENEKAMP No.
MS EDMONDS The appointment of Ms Pretorius?
MS STEENEKAMP No, I did not. We received the CVs, the
short list of CVs from the corporate
services division. And Ms Tumi Peele, Ms 20
Viola James and I conducted the interview
for various applicants. We then conducted a
second round with two or three that were
suitable and Ms Kim Pretorius was found to
16
be the suitable candidate. Her paperwork
was then submitted to the corporate services
division.
MS EDMONDS And who in fact appointed her?
MS STEENEKAMP Mr Mike Abel. 5
MS EDMONDS And did you do anything untoward in ensuring
that Ms Pretorius obtained the position?
MS STEENEKAMP Not at all. The questions, the procurement
process for any staff member follows a
strict process. Questions are drawn up 10
prior to the interviews and the evaluating
or interviewing committee decides who will
ask which question. And you ask the same
question to each candidate and you score on
a sheet. Those sheets are then given to the 15
corporate services division who takes the
process forward. So there is no
differentiation, no change in questioning at
all. Each candidate is asked the same
question in the same way by each panel 20
member.
MS EDMONDS Now Tumi Peele and Viola James you say were
your co-panellists.
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct.
17
MS EDMONDS We havent certainly heard any evidence from
them to implicate you in any untoward
conduct on that panel. Did you tell them
that they had to mark in her favour
preferentially over any other candidate? 5
MS STEENEKAMP Not at all.
MS EDMONDS We are then, alright, you are accused that
to your knowledge Ms Kim Pretorius was
involved in a personal relationship with
your son at the time of her being procured, 10
or lets just use obtained, employed with the
INSETA. Is that correct?
MS STEENEKAMP That’s not correct, no.
MS EDMONDS You are also accused of signing off on a
performance appraisal of Ms Pretorius 15
without a declaration that she was known to
you. On 4th February 2008, without
disclosing your relationship with Ms
Pretorius, you recommended to Mr Mike Abel
that Ms Pretorius be moved to the ETQA 20
division as a junior consultant with the
effect from the beginning of March 2008 and
that she receives the concomitant salary
increase. You see that? Is there any
18
element of truth there?
MS STEENEKAMP No, there’s, well, let me just say that it’s
not because of any personal relationship at
all that Ms Pretorius’s recommendation went
to Mr Abel. It was at the request of Mr 5
Abel that we had a look at both Ms Pretorius
and Ms James.
MS EDMONDS And when was that request made?
MS STEENEKAMP That was October 07. Yes. October 07.
MS EDMONDS Just have a look please, because the dates 10
are significant, at page 934 of that bundle,
there an email, sorry, at the bottom ---
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS Addressed from you to Mike Abel dated the 4th
February 2008. And it reads, “Dear Mike, 15
over the past 4 months, since the 6 monthly
performance appraisal process, I have as per
our discussion, I have been monitoring Kim
Pretorius’s performance in terms of the
increased roles etc.” You see that? 20
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct.
MS EDMONDS Do you recall writing that memo?
MS STEENEKAMP I recall writing that, yes.
MS EDMONDS And what was the reason for writing that
19
email? You did start to explain it.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS If you would just continue in the context of
that email and of the date obviously that’s
referred to there. 5
MS STEENEKAMP Right. This was a couple of months after Mr
Abel had requested that I have a look
particularly at Kim and Viola James for
promotion in October 07. The context there
was that they, particularly Kim, had been 10
undergoing significant victimisation by the
corporate services manager.
MS EDMONDS Who was that?
MS STEENEKAMP Mr Phakama Nkosi.
MS EDMONDS Yes. 15
MS STEENEKAMP Victimisation and harassment. And Mr Abel
dealt with the issue outside of me being
involved at that stage. Mr Nkosi went
straight to Mr Abel together with Kgomotso
and Mr Abel dealt with the issue there. 20
Called me in afterwards and said we need to
move Kim Pretorius very very urgently. But
I’d like to know that if we move her to the
ETQA, and at that stage I had, I was looking
20
after a variety of divisions, if we move
her, that she’s up to the post. Able to do
the job. And Viola James similarly had been
performing very well. And that was the
instruction from Mr Abel in October 07. So I 5
evaluated them and reported back to him and
I actually have the Viola James document
here and the Kim document to show there was
no differentiation or favouritism at all.
MS EDMONDS Now we do know, if only because of Dr 10
Konar’s rather unsavoury delving into Ms
Pretorius’s private matters on her computer,
but we certainly would have disclosed it in
any event that Ms Pretorius, at some point
after December 2000 and? 15
MS STEENEKAMP 7.
MS EDMONDS Became involved with your older son Piers
Steenekamp.
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct.
MS EDMONDS And indeed has since had a baby by him. 20
MS STEENEKAMP That is correct.
MS EDMONDS We also know that by March apparently she
was pregnant with his baby.
MS STEENEKAMP That is correct.
21
MS EDMONDS Now I don’t know whether that is in dispute,
but perhaps lets just have a look at the,
and I find it most distasteful to have to
have a look at Ms Pretorius’s private
emails. But since it does go to show the 5
timing, if you forgive me, just bear with me
Mr Chairman, there’s a specific one that I
was looking at earlier on today. There it
is. Page 877. Although Mr Konar could no
doubt have extracted this document with its 10
appropriate date he for some reason elected
not to do so. And I’m going to argue just
precisely why that election was made at the
end of the matter. But if you see 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7 paragraphs down, in fact the 15
second paragraph from the bottom.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS It’s a private email addressed by Ms
Pretorius to somebody, we don’t know whom,
and I don’t want to know whom. She says, “I 20
have been seeing Piers, my bosses son, since
beginning December.” That would be then
2007.
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct.
22
MS EDMONDS You say that the request, and indeed that’s
born out by the email to monitor her
commenced 4 months earlier than your email
addressed to Mr Abel on the 4th of February.
So we talking about January, December, 5
November, October. “I’ve been seeing Piers,
my bosses son, since beginning December. I
have known him for 2 years because I was
seeing his brother then. Now things have
progressed rapidly. I am 3 months pregnant 10
already.”
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS So the earliest this could be is late
February, early March.
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct. 15
MS EDMONDS Now, and it really does give me cold shivers
to read other people’s private emails in
this way and deal with it in this way. At
the time that this email was written, were
you aware of a relationship between Piers 20
Steenekamp and Ms Pretorius?
MS STEENEKAMP Not at all.
MS EDMONDS At the time that this email was written and
indeed at the time that your email in
23
February was written, were you aware that Ms
Pretorius was pregnant with your grandchild?
MS STEENEKAMP Not at all.
MS EDMONDS At what time did you become aware of the
relationship and the pregnancy? 5
MS STEENEKAMP It was closer to when Easter was in that, in
2008. I’m not quite sure when. And then it
was still disputed and the paternity tests
only came, I think end of May, beginning
June to prove paternity. So only at that 10
stage was it confirmed to me. But I was
told that there was a possibility that there
was ---
MS EDMONDS When was that?
MS STEENEKAMP That was more or less around the Easter 15
weekend of 2008. Which would have been
around end of March, somewhere there.
Beginning April. I’m not sure of the exact
dates of the Easter weekend.
MS EDMONDS Why would you not have known of your son’s 20
relationship with Ms Pretorius?
MS STEENEKAMP My son doesn’t live with me. He had his own
flat.
MS EDMONDS How old is he again?
24
MS STEENEKAMP He’s 35 now, turning 36. He’s a man. I do
not know who my sons are involved with and
what they are doing on a daily basis. I
certainly don’t know who their girlfriends
are or who they not. And any personal 5
relationships and issues of that sort, I’m
not aware of that.
MS EDMONDS I have no doubt that it will be put to you
that it is absurd for you to suggest that if
Ms Pretorius was working in the INSETA and 10
that she, that you were monitoring her
performance closely and that she had been
introduced to the INSETA through you because
of her relationship or her previous
relationship with your younger son’s circle 15
of friends, that it would be absurd that the
probabilities are, must be that you were
aware of a relationship between her and your
son.
MS STEENEKAMP Not at all. I was not aware at all. It was 20
a terrible shock to me when the issue was
disclosed.
MS EDMONDS Why was it a shock to you?
MS STEENEKAMP My son ---
25
MS EDMONDS And I know this is unpleasant and personal,
but unfortunately the INSETA has elected to
bring us to this.
MS STEENEKAMP My son has a fiancé. And ---
MS EDMONDS Did he at the time that he was, well, did he 5
in December 2007 have a fiancé?
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, he did.
MS EDMONDS Was that Ms Pretorius?
MS STEENEKAMP No, it wasn’t.
MS EDMONDS How long has been involved with this fiancé? 10
MS STEENEKAMP They’ve been together for 10 years.
MS EDMONDS Are they still affianced?
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, they are.
CHAIRMAN In any event, you wouldn’t have encouraged
Piers because she already had an affair with 15
Jacque.
MS STEENEKAMP She didn’t, Mr Chair, she didn’t have an
affair with him. She was, it was more a ---
CHAIRMAN Friend.
MS STEENEKAMP In a friendship circle, yes. So she really 20
didn’t have an affair with Jacque. She got
to know him. They might have gone out once
or twice but it wasn’t an affair.
MS EDMONDS It wouldn’t have been an affair in any
26
event.
MS STEENEKAMP No.
MS EDMONDS He wasn’t, Jacque was not involved, neither
was she.
MS STEENEKAMP Jacque and her might have gone out a few 5
times, but it wasn’t an affair per se. I
don’t know the depth of that relationship
either Mr Chair.
MS EDMONDS Can we move on from ---
CHAIRMAN Yes. 10
MS EDMONDS This rather distasteful aspect of the
company’s case.
CHAIRMAN Complaint number 3.
MS EDMONDS Yes, complaint number 3, if you wouldn’t
mind just going to that and the Respondent’s 15
bundles of documents please Ms Steenekamp.
You acted contrary to the interests of the
INSETA by falsely denying to third parties
that INSETA ETQA had backlogs and insisted
that Mr Paul Kruger of Moonstone should 20
retract a critical article which was
circulated on the 9th October 2008. Now
we’ve had the benefit of seeing Dr Konar’s
wisdom on the subject. Perhaps we can just
27
go on to it please. Did you deny falsely
that there were backlogs, did you deny
falsely, sorry, did you falsely deny to
third parties that the INSETA ETQA had
backlogs? 5
MS STEENEKAMP No, I did not.
MS EDMONDS What did you deny to Mr Paul Kruger of
Moonstone?
MS STEENEKAMP The Moonstone article was ---
MS EDMONDS Alright, and I’m not sure Mr Chairperson how 10
much detail you need. Perhaps, would you
just tell us what Moonstone is please?
MS STEENEKAMP I’m not sure what Moonstone is. They’re
more of a compliance body to check FAIS fit
and proper compliance of brokers and report 15
compliance with the requirements for fit and
proper to the Financial Services Board.
They also applied to the ETQA, Education,
Training, Quality Assurance division of
which I was the senior manager, for 20
accreditation to deliver education and
training. However ---
MS EDMONDS What was in this article?
MS STEENEKAMP In this article there was a whole lot of
28
stuff for brokers because they seem to be
some kind of a members compliance body.
MS EDMONDS By stuff you mean what? Information?
MS STEENEKAMP Information about FAIS and things. And then
right at the end of the document, of the 5
Moonstone article, or they call it Moonstone
Monitor, it’s like a monthly thing, Mr
Kruger raised the issue of, and I actually
have a copy, I will find a copy.
MS EDMONDS Which we can print out. 10
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS We’ve got it on the computer, but we can
print it out. But basically ---
MS STEENEKAMP He said that he’d heard from industry
sources that we had verification backlogs. 15
MS EDMONDS That is significant.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS So just repeat that please.
MS STEENEKAMP He said he had heard from industry sources
that we had verification backlogs. 20
MS EDMONDS Alright. So you emphasises the word
verification.
MS STEENEKAMP That’s right.
MS EDMONDS In relation to backlogs.
29
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS Is it correct that there were verification
backlogs?
MS STEENEKAMP No, it is not correct. At the time that Mr
Paul Kruger published his Moonstone Monitor 5
article, we had absolutely no verification
backlogs and a verification schedule can be
presented to the Chair to prove that. We
had brought out a circular ---
MS EDMONDS Alright, just hold there for a moment. Did 10
you refer to any other backlogs?
MS STEENEKAMP No. In my mind he had referred in his
Moonstone Monitor particular to verification
which is a process of checking assessment
and moderation and if we happy with it we 15
can upload credits and give them a
certificate or a statement of credits. So
it’s a very definite component of work
related to brokers getting their FAIS fit
and proper credits. 20
MS EDMONDS So what is the significance of Mr Kruger
reporting generally, how does this monitor
come out? On the internet?
MS STEENEKAMP I’m not sure.
30
MS EDMONDS How did you become aware of his statement?
MS STEENEKAMP It was sent to us. And I then referred it
to Mr Abel who read it and then Mr Abel
asked me to write a response to Mr Kruger
based on the factual evidence that we had of 5
verification not being in backlog at all.
MS EDMONDS Now if Mr Kruger in his Moonstone Monitor
was telling the industry that your
verification process had backlogs, what
impact would that have in the industry? 10
MS STEENEKAMP It would create enormous fear amongst the
many many brokers who needed at that stage
to have their credits registered with the
FSB by 31 December 2008. That date has
since changed --- 15
MS EDMONDS If their credits were not, well if the date
had not changed then their credits would not
have been registered. What impact would it
have had on those businesses?
MS STEENEKAMP They would have then lost their jobs. They 20
wouldn’t have been licensed, they would have
lost their jobs. And through writing that
article he created a lot of panic.
MS EDMONDS How do you know he created panic?
31
MS STEENEKAMP We started receiving a lot of emails from a
variety of brokers and other providers.
These emails were responded to by various
members of the ETQA division. Amongst
others Ms Neesha Naidoo, Adeline Singh, 5
Tamara Ntombela.
MS EDMONDS Ok. Have a look at page 950 please. And
lets start a little earlier than Mr Konar,
or he thought it was important to include
the contents of the various emails. Perhaps 10
you would start with what Mr Kruger says in
5.2.
MS STEENEKAMP Shall I read that?
MS EDMONDS Just read what he says to you.
MS STEENEKAMP Mr Paul Kruger of Moonstone wrote Ms 15
Steenekamp as follows. Subject, Moonstone
Newsletter. “Hi Shirley, before I tread on
toes again, would you kindly confirm that I
may use the following exert from your mail
to set the record straight in our 20
newsletter?”
MS EDMONDS Now that’s Mr Konar’s underlying ---
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS Underlying. It wasn’t in your original
32
email. Go on.
MS STEENEKAMP “The facts are that INSETA ETQA has no
backlogs at all. We are right on target and
on track with the verification schedule and
within the agreements we have with our 5
education and training providers re their
schedules for verification. It may be good
for you to read the actual notice sent out
and not to erroneously conclude that INSETA
has verification backlogs. INSETA has a 10
right to identify strategic interventions,
and currently this strategic intervention is
focused to ensure that all learners who were
enrolled with providers have their
achievements recorded and uploaded in time 15
for them to have assurance re their FAIS
credits. We are thus working with all those
providers who submitted any applications for
verification, scope extensions, assessor and
moderator registrations to be assisted 20
soonest so that there are no learners who
will not have received feedback re their
FAIS status by end October 2008.” He then
goes on to say, “I would then like to add
33
that this means that the onus is on the
service provider to ensure that details
listed by you above is submitted to INSETA
in time. Kind regards. Paul.”
MS EDMONDS Right, and then you respond, just read the 5
content of your email. “Thank you for the
mail.”
MS STEENEKAMP “Dear Paul. Thank you for the mail. It is
not a matter of treading on toes. That
would be a different context. The issue is 10
that we would appreciate a retraction and
apology from Moonstone. What was stated in
the Moonstone newsletter was not correct and
was unsubstantiated and based on hearsay.
This has caused INSETA a lot of damage as we 15
have had negative responses from the sector
as a result of this paragraph in Moonstone
newsletter. You may be willing to reveal
your source of the hearsay so that the
INSETA can take the issue up directly with 20
the person, people involved. I will be
prepared a brief note re the process this
far in terms of INSETA ETQA activities which
I will gladly forward to you in the new
34
week. I am out of town until Monday 27th
October 2008. Kind regards. Shirley
Steenekamp.”
MS EDMONDS Now it was suggested by Mr Pretorius last
week when dealing with the charges against 5
you that your tone was unprofessional and
bullying in persuading Mr Kruger to retract
and apologise. That is in fact the email
that you wrote.
MS STEENEKAMP That is correct. 10
MS EDMONDS And in response to that we have his response
at 951. And if you wouldn’t mind just
reading the portion of the email that is
repeated here by Dr Konar.
MS STEENEKAMP “The intention was never to cast aspirations 15
on the competence of INSETA. If this
resulted, please accept my sincere apology.
A retraction was published last Thursday
using details from your initial response.
Thank you for offering to draft a note on 20
the progress. It is always welcome to get
the info from the people involved. Kind
regards. Paul.”
MS EDMONDS Right, well hopefully that deals with that.
35
Shall we go on to the next charge? Charge
4, Ms Opperman. You allowed Ms Rina
Opperman to post an assessment guide on
INSETA’s website which she had developed
while working for LearnSys. Perhaps before 5
we go any further on this, and so that I
don’t forget to get it on record, how long
have you been working at the INSETA?
MS STEENEKAMP I started on the 1st of February 2003.
MS EDMONDS And in what capacity did you start? 10
MS STEENEKAMP I started as the skills development manager.
Then I was requested by the then CEO of
INSETA, Mr Neelius Volschenk on the 15th of
June 2003 to take over the ETQA division
because Mr Glen Edwards who was the current 15
incumbent at that time was moving to our
first FAIS project to manage that. I was
the ETQA manager from 15 June 2003 until 1
December 2004. After which I was moved back
to the skills development division when the 20
then CEO’s contract was not renewed and Mr
Phakama Nkosi became the acting CEO. I was
then brought back to skills development,
worked in skills development until June
36
2007. At which stage Mr Edwards was again
requested to move into the FAIS project,
FAIS number two, of which the IIE was the
successful bidder. And also because we were
facing a SAQA audit and the division had all 5
but collapsed. Our SAQA audit took place,
1, 2, 3, 4 September 2007. At that stage I
was then looking after the skills
development division as well as the ETQA
division. And soon after that I had to 10
start looking after the learnerships
division because the manager had resigned
and the next incumbent resigned after 3
weeks. So that’s been my history.
MS EDMONDS I want to go into that in some detail, 15
including the, your performance ---
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS And the response of the INSETA and the board
and SAQA etc etc to your performance over
that period. But prior to commencing 20
employment with the INSETA, what was your
employment history? What are your
qualifications? Where had you worked
previously?
37
MS STEENEKAMP I have been in education and training most
of my working life. I started as a teacher.
Then I moved into the technical college
sector and became a head of department for
part time studies in East London. From 5
there I was appointed as the development
director of the technical college where I
worked and I was then seconded to the then
head office, the House of Assembly, pre 94.
In 1990, in fact, to become an inspector of 10
education. And also to keep the portfolio
of development of technical colleges as an
institutional type in South Africa. Amongst
other things, work that I did was to raise
money for them with big corporates and also 15
to do a lot of research into the technical
college movement. I was then seconded to
the national department of education. And
from there, and that was where we ---
MS EDMONDS In what capacity? 20
MS STEENEKAMP There I was a deputy director in a group of
25 people. And my particular portfolio
there was to work with technical colleges as
well as curriculum development. And became
38
directly involved then, that was at the cusp
of 94 as we were looking towards the new
policies and became part of a lot of the
various committees, bodies and policy
writing teams for what we have as our 5
current suite of legislation. From there I
was requested to become the executive
director of what was called the Vocational
Education Development company. A Section
21, not for profit company. Very much what 10
the SETA construct is now where you have,
you’ve got government, business and labour.
People on the board and our prime function
was to do research, present research reports
and also development for the college sector. 15
From the I became principal of two colleges
and then was appointed managing director of
a small company within a bigger company, the
Adcorp Group, as a matter of fact, and had
my own consultancy as well. And then I was 20
appointed to the SETA. I’ve served ---
MS EDMONDS And you’ve been there for 6 six years now.
MS STEENEKAMP 6 years, yes. And I served on, I was one of
the original members of the SAQA board.
39
MS EDMONDS SAQA being the South African Qualifications
Authority.
MS STEENEKAMP South African Qualifications Authority. I
served on the board ---
MS EDMONDS Why did you depart the board of SAQA? 5
MS STEENEKAMP We could only serve two terms. I was
requested to serve an additional term by the
Minister of Education then, Naledi Pandor,
because we were busy, they were looking at
new legislation and the review, NQF review. 10
So I served an additional two thirds of a
term until a new board could be established.
I also served on the Certification Council
of South Africa which is the Technikon,
council for Technikon quality assurance etc. 15
And also served as vice chairperson of the
Soshanguve Technical College as well as a
member of the writing teams, as I said, of
quite a bit of the legislation that we have.
MS EDMONDS And I know, although other people may not be 20
privy to this, that an attempt at taking
disciplinary action against you was taken at
some point in the course of your employment
with the INSETA. What was the basis and
40
outcome of that?
MS STEENEKAMP The charges were dropped. That was in
relation to an anonymous letter submitted to
Council about the then acting CEO, Mr
Phakama Nkosi. The allegations were found 5
to not have merit and I was requested ---
MS EDMONDS The allegations against you?
MS STEENEKAMP Against me. And I was requested to return
as the skills development manager to INSETA.
MS EDMONDS 2--- have there ever been any complaints, 10
have you ever lost out on a performance
bonus? Has there ever been any comment
about your performance, either positive or
negative?
MS STEENEKAMP I’ve always only had very very positive 15
comment and never lost out on a performance
bonus. Have had, in fact the SAQA audit
report, which could be made available to
this committee, the auditor writes that one
of the strengths of the SETA is the ETQA 20
manager, which was me. And that is very
rare ---
MS EDMONDS When was that?
2 Tape 1 – Side 2 – ETS00172
41
MS STEENEKAMP That was, the audit was conducted 1st to the
4th of September 2007. And at that stage I
was managing three divisions and was lumped
with 80 % of the projects because there was
just, everybody was leaving and there was 5
just nobody else. So until we had a new
skills development manager appointed, and
until I could nominate Ms Tumi Peele, and
groom her to become the learnerships manage
which I did. And then Ms Neesha Naidoo as 10
well to become the assistant ETQA manager to
assist with the workload. I carried that
load.
MS EDMONDS Now, alright, lets go on then please to the
next complaint against you, which is that 15
contained in complaint 4 at 1167 of the
paginated bundle. You allowed Ms Rina
Opperman to post an assessment guide on
INSETA’s website which she developed while
working for LearnSys (Pty) Ltd training as 20
Prior Learning Centre in respect of which
Prior Learning Centre had the copyright, and
not taking steps to recognise and protect
the copyright of Prior Learning Centre. Is
42
there anything contained in there that is
correct?
MS STEENEKAMP No, there’s not.
MS EDMONDS Tell us what happened with Ms Rina Opperman
and the work that she developed whilst 5
working for the INSETA. Let’s just deal
with dates here so that the Chairperson is
aware of how swiftly the INSETA acts on what
it believes to be charges of misconduct.
When does this relate to? 10
MS STEENEKAMP 2004.
MS EDMONDS Thank you. Tell us please about Rina
Opperman and the work that she developed and
why she developed and who had ownership of
it. 15
MS STEENEKAMP Rina Opperman had worked for, or with Karen
Deller and left them beginning of May 2004.
We were running the first FAIS project with
Glen Edwards as the manager of the project.
The project was based on exactly the same 20
format we have now. And then Mr Chris Kemp,
who was our INSETA Council chairperson and
worked and currently still works for Mutual
& Federal, approached our then CEO, Mr
43
Neelius Volschenk, and requested that a
pilot project be conducted for fifteen
senior managers of Mutual & Federal to get
their FAIS credits. We went to quotation
because we, Mr Volschenk set aside R100 000. 5
We asked for three quotations and Ms
Opperman was appointed by Mr Volschenk to
develop a customised recognition of prior
learning assessment tool for Mutual &
Federal. She was appointed in about June, 10
July 2004, and the assessment tool was then
developed. It was her own work and all
contracts that people signed within SETA
have a copyright clause that anything
developed is INSETA’s copyright. Those 15
contracts are managed by
PriceWaterhouseCoopers as our INSETA project
office. In that way it was no different to
any other project. And in fact, the
copyright of what she designed and developed 20
was INSETA’s copyright. And she delivered
the assessment tool. I was then moved back
at 1 December 2004 to the skills development
division. And in January 2005 the INSETA
44
project office then places the project and
the material and everything on the INSETA
website then for generic public use for
which people don’t have to pay. And that
was then under the then ETQA division, under 5
Mr Glen Edward’s control or management.
MS EDMONDS So Mr Edwards placed it on the website.
MS STEENEKAMP He would have been the ETQA manager, but in
fact the project office together with the
ETQA would then give permission for it to be 10
placed on the website. Yes.
MS EDMONDS So if a third party believed that it was the
owner of the copyright, what responsibility
did you have to protect that copyright?
MS STEENEKAMP I have had no responsibility and still would 15
not have responsibility for a contracted
project to INSETA where it’s very clear all
work done is copyrighted to INSETA and for
free to the entire sector should anybody
want to make use of anything designed and 20
developed.
MS EDMONDS So if Ms, what would her name be?
CHAIRMAN So as I understand your evidence, you saying
that, what they accusing you of cannot be
45
well founded because in any event the
copyright belonged to INSETA. The contract
says so.
MS STEENEKAMP It belongs to INSETA by contract. Yes.
CHAIRMAN Alright. I understand what you saying. 5
MS EDMONDS And then indeed Ms Deller, she’s from the
Prior Learning Centre who made the
complaint, appears to have been of the same
view because at page 1175, the last
paragraph, just read what she says in her 10
email to you.
MS STEENEKAMP She says “Hi”, the last paragraph, “I know
Rina now works for you and I wish her the
best of luck. However, it is not acceptable
for her to steal intellectual property from 15
one employer and pass it off as her own to
another employer. I will consult with our
attorney and take it up with her directly.
There is not reason to get you involved and
I apologise for doing so.” 20
MS EDMONDS Thank you. Right, 1184, the fifth complaint
against you. Now I’m rather confused that
there is such a charge and I still don’t
really understand it. I certainly don’t
46
believe that there’s been any evidence to
support it. But what was your relationship
with Mr Abel?
MS STEENEKAMP I was and still am an employee of the INSETA
and he was the CEO of INSETA. My 5
relationship to him was as any other
employee under his direct management and
supervision.
MS EDMONDS Who did you report to?
MS STEENEKAMP Directly to Mr Abel as my supervisor. 10
MS EDMONDS Were you entitled to report to somebody else
so that the INSETA wasn’t worried about you
having a close working relationship with
him?
MS STEENEKAMP No, I was not. He was in my letter of 15
appointment to the senior management
position, I’m instructed to report directly
to him and only to him. We were no allowed
to report to Council or anybody else. Only
to the CEO. 20
MS EDMONDS Can we go on to the final charge then
please, which is at 1185. You published
potentially disparaging and defamatory
information and allegations in respect of
47
service providers of INSETA and broker
companies operating within the insurance
industry in respect of obtaining FAIS
credits in terms of FAIS legislation thereby
bringing INSETA into disrepute and exposing 5
it to potential damages, claims for
defamation. Are you guilty of any aspect of
that charge?
MS STEENEKAMP No, I’m not.
MS EDMONDS You have been sued for defamation. 10
MS STEENEKAMP As a second Respondent together with the
INSETA by the Damelin School of Banking and
Insurance.
MS EDMONDS And is your defence in that suit any
different from that of the INSETA? 15
MS STEENEKAMP Not at all. No, it’s not. My defence is
exactly what INSETA’s defence is.
MS EDMONDS Which is that it’s not defamatory.
MS STEENEKAMP That it’s not defamatory and is in fact a
public interest issue. 20
MS EDMONDS And who is in fact paying your fees, your
legal costs in that suit?
MS STEENEKAMP The INSETA.
MS EDMONDS Now perhaps we can go into the background of
48
that lest the INSETA think that it actually
ought to be found guilty of defamation and
this record be used by Damelin to assist it
in those proceedings. Did you publish any
allegations as alleged? 5
MS STEENEKAMP No, I did not publish any allegations.
MS EDMONDS We know that an article was published of
which Bruce Cameron was the author and that
there was correspondence by way of email
between yourself and Bruce Cameron. How did 10
you understand those emails?
MS STEENEKAMP I understood over a period a time, we, Mike
Abel, myself, Gerry Anderson and other
respondents had been copied in over a period
of time with correspondence between Mr Bruce 15
Cameron and other people, such as Mr Peter
Todd of ABSA Brokers for example. He, as I
say, he had copied us in on those pieces of
correspondence for whatever reason. He then
sent Mr Abel and me the email from a person 20
calling himself or herself Tinker Bell. And
I think that was, there was evidence that
was led. And the Tinker Bell letter is
exceptionally defamatory I would say. And
49
he asks Mike and me to comment. Mike’s
request to me was always to discuss the
issue with him. To prepare a draft response
and he would look at it and then it would
be, he would give the ok and it would be 5
sent. Which is exactly what happened in
this instance to Mr Bruce Cameron in
response to the Tinker Bell letter. But it
followed a series of correspondence over a
period of time between Mr Cameron and other 10
people.
MS EDMONDS Did you understand that your comments
directed to Mr Cameron were intended for
publication by Mr Cameron.
MS STEENEKAMP Not at all. No. I considered them part of 15
a series of correspondence and responding to
questions that he posed to us and through Mr
Abel, who was or press officer, the approval
given to send it to Bruce. At no stage did
I even consider that Mr Cameron would 20
publish these in an article or that they
would be intended to be circulated to
anybody else but the respondents of, that I
sent the response, the email to.
50
MS EDMONDS Had Mr Cameron alerted you to the fact that
he was requesting your comment for the
purposes of publication and intended to
identify you as a representative of the
INSETA entitled to make such comments, would 5
you have made such comments?
MS STEENEKAMP I would not have made such robust comments.
The truth remains of what was there and is
there. And that is the truth. We have the
documents to prove it. I might have 10
tempered my language a little bit better if
I had known. But I firmly believed that
this was a series of correspondence. It had
been in discussion with Mr Abel who actually
had said, we need to name and shame. The 15
time has come. Because it was going out of
all proportion and I never though that Bruce
Cameron at any stage would publish that. We
also have the INSETA indemnity clause which
I would have thought would have --- 20
MS EDMONDS Where does the indemnity clause appear?
MS STEENEKAMP At the end of every email that we sent. And
it would have been at the end of my email to
Mr Cameron as well.
51
MS EDMONDS Now you say that the content of your
comments to Mr Cameron were correct.
MS STEENEKAMP 100 % correct. In fact, all the documents
related to that, were given to the INSETA
Council as well as to the Financial Services 5
Board. And quite a few of the documents
have also been given to the South African
Qualifications Authority to show the size
and scale of the cheating that was
happening, the plagiarism, the fraud that 10
was happening.
MS EDMONDS When were those documents made available to
SAQA and ---
CHAIRMAN This will be cheating and plagiarism by who?
MS STEENEKAMP By the actual brokers --- 15
MS EDMONDS I’m going to deal with that.
MS STEENEKAMP We had started a, after our SAQA audit, our
SAQA auditor required us to do more in depth
verification of what was being taught,
assessed and moderated by our variety of 20
education and training providers.
MS EDMONDS Required us, being whom?
MS STEENEKAMP The ETQA division.
MS EDMONDS For which you’re responsible.
52
MS STEENEKAMP For which I was responsible.
MS EDMONDS Go on.
MS STEENEKAMP She had found significant gaps in some of
the reports that had previously been
submitted and done. She had read them and 5
was hugely concerned about what she was
reading by, amongst others, people like Dr
Des Leatt and Nathan Seotsanyana, who were
verifiers and who were finding these things.
MS EDMONDS What were these things? 10
MS STEENEKAMP The fact that the providers were not showing
due diligence in checking for plagiarism,
copying, fraud. That the companies were
overriding decisions made by the ETQA
division about withholding the credits and 15
saying they had to be reassessed. And the
fact that the brokers themselves were
attempting to cheat and plagiarise and the
providers own response was not often very
astute. Based on that we started with an 20
intensive verification process and I have
hundreds of verification reports to verify
the fact. We then, the ETQA division then
decided end of July, beginning August ---
53
MS EDMONDS Perhaps this is the appropriate moment.
What is the responsibility of the ETQA
division and therefore of the head, the
accountable person being the head of that
department? What was your responsibility? 5
MS STEENEKAMP A SETA is an organisation that has two major
roles. The one is to receive the grant
money, levy money, and pay out mandatory
grants to the companies that submit
workplace skills plans and training reports 10
to show they’ve implemented their workplace
skills plan. That is the one component.
Another very equal and important component
of a SETA is to be re-established, or
established and then re-established by the 15
South Africa qualifications authority as an
Education Training Quality Assurance body.
The peers of any ETQA would be, for example,
the Higher Education Quality Council of the
Council of Higher Education. 20
CHAIRMAN So really monitor and assess ---
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
CHAIRMAN Education programs.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
54
MS EDMONDS And ... (inaudible) ...
MS STEENEKAMP And we are the certifying body. And we are
equivalent to Umalusi Joint Matriculation
Board, Higher Education Quality Council.
That’s the jury of my peers. So we have to 5
make sure that when any education and
training is presented, that it’s done
without, that there’s no cheating, the
papers aren’t leaked, all of the things that
I have mentioned. In verification that’s 10
what we check. We will go in and we will
ask for the moderators report, the assessors
report, we will have a look across a sample
of learners files and work. And we have
picked up across, not only one, but many 15
many providers elements of that to a lesser
or greater degree. Of cheating and
plagiarism. We have also picked up to a
lesser or greater degree the fact that some
companies when show what was happening, 20
chose to ignore the INSETA ETQA reports and
in fact went to other providers to try and
circumvent our processes and get their
brokers given credits anyway. We’ve also
55
had numerous providers write to the INSETA
ETQA saying that the companies are bullying
them to just give credits at any cost. And
these were a whole lot of ---
MS EDMONDS By the companies, who you talking about? 5
MS STEENEKAMP Levy paying stakeholders, for example, ABSA
Brokers, AFBOB.
MS EDMONDS You mean companies in the sector?
MS STEENEKAMP In the sector, yes.
MS EDMONDS Who are required to comply with the INSETA -10
--
MS STEENEKAMP Requirements.
MS EDMONDS Education and training qualifications.
MS STEENEKAMP That is correct. So at the end of July ---
CHAIRMAN Sorry, you were giving examples, like ABSA 15
Brokers. Who else?
MS STEENEKAMP ABSA Brokers, AFBOB, PSG Konsult for
example.
CHAIRMAN Yes, I understand.
MS STEENEKAMP Liberty. 20
CHAIRMAN Yes. Momentum.
MS STEENEKAMP Momentum.
MS EDMONDS Sanlam.
MS STEENEKAMP Sanlam, yes. A variety. And Hollard, yes.
56
What we then decided as an ETQA division is
to have a national range of workshops. So
we went to every province with a division
and I asked each divisional member to
prepare a set presentation. My colleagues 5
prepared a presentation that we presented to
all providers, education and training
providers. As well as to the HR and
training directors of all the companies. In
which we presented the findings of our 10
verification program over a period of time.
MS EDMONDS Let me stop you there for a second. Was
that prior to or post the article by Bruce
Cameron?
MS STEENEKAMP Prior to. Prior to. We told them we are 15
finding cheating, plagiarism. We used
examples of where people were just out, as
my team would say, to make a quick buck etc.
So this was common knowledge, it was in the
public arena. We also presented a document 20
to Mr Mike Abel to present to our INSETA
Council who have a fiduciary responsibility
as a Council to an ETQA as well to present
to the Council these findings.
57
MS EDMONDS Just explain that. What is the fiduciary
responsibility as a Council to the ETQA?
MS STEENEKAMP They are effectively the Council that is
responsible for the ETQA activities in the
SETA. The final Council to whom we should 5
be able to report. And from whom we should
get guidance and support when these things
are uncovered, discovered. And their role
then is not that of a member’s association
or looking after their members. 10
MS EDMONDS Well what are they obliged to do?
MS STEENEKAMP They are obliged to support and act as a
university senate would act, for example,
should cheating or plagiarism be found. Or
to act as the board of Umalusi would act 15
when there’s schools found leaking papers,
matriculants cheating etc. That’s their
role. To support that function of being a
regulator.
MS EDMONDS Are they entitled to cover up or hide the 20
fact that there has been inappropriate
conduct ---
MS STEENEKAMP Not at all.
MS EDMONDS In the sector?
58
MS STEENEKAMP Not at all. The SETA ETQA Council is
required to report these instances to SAQA.
To the South Africa Qualifications
Authority.
MS EDMONDS Alright. So now we know what everyone’s 5
responsibilities were. We know what and
are, and we know what your role in all of
this was. But specifically we dealing with
this last charge against you which was that
you allegedly, sorry, you published 10
potentially disparaging and defamatory
information and ---
CHAIRMAN I understand your version is you say the
contents were true and you never expected it
to be published. 15
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct.
CHAIRMAN You may have been more circumspect if you
knew it was going to be published.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS Let’s just deal with that circumspection as 20
well though. Can you give us the context in
which you made use of that intemperate, and
we’ve admitted to intemperate language and
we are happy to apologise to the INSETA for
59
such intemperate language and undertake to
be more cautious in the future. But what
was the circumstances surrounding that
nature of language?
MS STEENEKAMP We had, in July 2008, a series of anonymous 5
letters written and sent to every CEO of
every insurance company. To the CEOs of all
the banks, to SAQA, to the Department of
Labour, to whoever out there, the skills
development facilitators as well as to all 10
the external education and training
providers. These anonymous letters
contained a lot of persona information and a
lot of defamatory information ---
MS EDMONDS Personal information about whom? 15
MS STEENEKAMP About me, for example, and Mr Abel.
MS EDMONDS Of what sort of nature?
MS STEENEKAMP For example it contained, one of the letters
contained a private letter that Mr Abel had
written to one of our past Council members, 20
Mr Charles Wells, dealing with the time when
I was suspended because of Mr Phakama Nkosi.
And it was actually Council minutes as well
saying she’s poor, she doesn’t have this,
60
she’s getting a divorce, whatever. It was
very very personal.
MS EDMONDS Alright, go on. So there were a series of
anonymous letters.
MS STEENEKAMP Then there were two --- 5
MS EDMONDS Sent all over the place.
MS STEENEKAMP Sent all over. Then there were two Nose
Week articles that were published. Also
very defamatory and incorrect to which our
Council responded that we were not allowed 10
to correct the facts and they weren’t going
to correct the issues either. They wanted
it to run its course.
MS EDMONDS So Council didn’t come to your support.
MS STEENEKAMP Didn’t come at all. We were also at that 15
stage being, one of the issues, the
Moonstone Monitor, a lot of the providers
were getting nervous, the brokers. And then
Mr Leon Liedeman, whom I believe is the
writer of the anonymous letters, in July I 20
had had to write him a letter on the 14th of
July after numerous incidents that happened.
Amongst others he was, we had a fraud
investigation into Mr Liedeman’s business.
61
He was putting dummy learners on registers,
trying to get money from the SETA for the
dummy learners. He was allowing whole scale
cheating to happen. He was putting people
into programs and not finishing the work on 5
the programs. The people were not getting
their credits. It was a terrible terrible
mess.
CHAIRMAN So he was running a scam?
MS STEENEKAMP He was running a total scam. I then wrote 10
him a letter on the 14th of July, and I have
a copy of that, to say to him I was
necessitated to give him notice that I was
going to require SAQA to de-accredit him
within a period of 3 months unless he 15
complied with certain conditions. I gave
one of my staff members to be a curator to
him to assist him and guide him in every way
possible so that he wouldn’t be de-
accredited. On the 15th of July a Nose Week 20
reporter phoned me and that’s where this
started. I refused to speak to the
reporter. I spoke to Mr Abel, told him what
had happened, and that’s when the anonymous
62
letters and all of that started. But by the
time the Bruce Cameron article was written,
I was emotionally and mentally very very
drained, very exhausted and ---
CHAIRMAN And you felt that your employer wasn’t 5
backing you up while you were doing your
job.
MS STEENEKAMP I felt the employer wasn’t backing me up and
I had in fact requested report. I’d even
asked them for the minutes of all Council 10
meetings to that I could then set the record
straight myself if nobody could assist me.
But as I say, that is probably no excuse for
using robust and intemperate language but I
was very very traumatised. 15
MS EDMONDS Thank you. I have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN When were you suspended?
MS STEENEKAMP 12th of December 2008.
CHAIRMAN And you’re on a contract at work?
MS STEENEKAMP No, I’m a staff member. 20
CHAIRMAN So you’re a permanent employee?
MS STEENEKAMP Permanent employee.
CHAIRMAN Yes, thank you. Mr Pretorius, can we take a
5 minutes adjournment?
63
HEARING ADJOURNS FOR SHORT BREAK
HEARING RESUMES
CHAIRMAN 3Ms or Mrs?
MS STEENEKAMP Ms.
CHAIRMAN Ms, yes. Ms Steenekamp, you still under 5
oath.
MR PRETORIUS You testified that INSETA is like Umalusi or
the Higher Education Council. Did I
understand you correctly?
MS STEENEKAMP The ETQA function of the SETA. 10
MR PRETORIUS Ok, well that’s the reported function of the
SETA.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS And you were in charge of the ETQA function
of SETA for most of the time. 15
MS STEENEKAMP Half half. I was, yes, not for the whole
time I’ve been there. About 3 years of my
time in the SETA.
MR PRETORIUS Well in 2008 you were.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. 20
MR PRETORIUS You knew that Mr Bruce Cameron was a well
known journalist.
MS STEENEKAMP I knew that Mr Bruce Cameron was a
3 Tape 2 – Side 1 – ETS00172
64
journalist who wrote in Personal Finance,
yes.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. And the Personal Finance is published
widely.
MS STEENEKAMP That is correct. 5
MR PRETORIUS Yes. What do you think the reaction would
be if the person in charge of Umalusi were
to tell a well know journalist that teachers
cheat, plagiarise, copy, bribe and do
virtually anything else in getting the 10
matriculation results?
MS STEENEKAMP In fact they do report in the newspaper.
And not even senior managers of Umalusi, but
deputy or assistant managers report on
schools, name the schools etc. So that sort 15
of reporting is common place. As do
universities, as does the Higher Education
Quality Council.
MR PRETORIUS That is specific in instances. I’m asking a
question, if it’s generalised as you did, to 20
say that the company’s, brokers and
compliance officers are so desperate to
achieve their credits that they will cheat,
plagiarise, copy, bribe and do virtually
65
anything else to get their credits for
Umalusi. What do you think the response
would be?
MS STEENEKAMP I think that if there is factual information
before such a statement is made and the 5
statement can certainly be backed up with
factual information across a range of
companies and providers and brokers which
caused a lot of concern to the ETQA of the
INSETA. 10
MR PRETORIUS And you knew of this since the audit in
2007?
MS STEENEKAMP I became the ETQA manager in June, 15th of
June 2007. I took over a totally
dysfunctional ETQA division. I was also the 15
skills development manager at the time. And
a SAQA audit is an exceptionally
interrogative audit. In fact, it’s not only
of the ETQA function of the SETA, but the
audit is really of all the functions within 20
a SETA. We started looking at the issues,
when I say we, Neesha Naidoo, myself and Mr
Abel, in terms of where the SETA’s ETQA
found itself in July 2007 and realised there
66
was a lot of work to do. So in August 2007
I published, if you want to use the word, or
promulgated, which is our right of an ETQA,
five notices or little internal regulations
to all 211 education and training providers, 5
as the first attempt to start rectifying the
challenges and the problems we were seeing.
Those, the implementation date for those was
made 1 January 2008. So they were given a
period of time to start fixing, cleaning up 10
their house. In 2008 we then started on the
intensive verification to get a sense of
what was actually happening through our
education and training providers and the
size and scale of the problems that we were 15
seeing. And many of these problems were
reported to us. If you have a look at Mr
Clive Le Meme, Dr Konar uses his
documentation as an example where Mr Clive
Le Meme actually refers to the whole scale 20
cheating and plagiarism. And he was one of
the moderators of one of our providers. So
we would get a lot of complaints from the
providers and from the companies themselves
67
about the things happening. As well as
between provider to provider. One jealous
provider attacking another provider. So
that, so we then put steps in place to
address that. We reported to Council, we 5
asked for a report. Mr Abel did in fact by
---
CHAIRMAN Sorry, where is all this going? Is this
part of the answer Mr Pretorius?
MS STEENEKAMP This is my answer. 10
MR PRETORIUS Well I asked a question, this is part of the
answer. I asked a simple question ---
MS STEENEKAMP What did we do to correct it? Did we know
about it? Yes, we did. We did a lot to
correct it. We reported to Council on 15
numerous occasions written reports submitted
to Council our concerns and these were not
dealt with.
MR PRETORIUS The written concerns, did you inform Council
that there were specific or many companies 20
and brokers that cheated, plagiarised,
copied and bribed?
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, we did.
MR PRETORIUS Do you have copies of those reports?
68
MS STEENEKAMP I will certainly get them. I can show you.
They on my computer. The INSETA, however,
if I can give you the two dates of the
meetings, it might be useful for Mr
Patterson to get them. We prepared a very 5
very lengthy solid report for Council that
was due to be discussed on the 18th of
September 2008.
CHAIRMAN But sorry, I don’t understand, this was your
responsibility. Companies cheating. 10
MS STEENEKAMP But ---
CHAIRMAN So why didn’t you address, why didn’t you
see those companies and take action against
them?
MS STEENEKAMP We did. But we also had to report that to 15
the INSETA Council.
CHAIRMAN But which companies you took action against?
MS STEENEKAMP Well we didn’t take, sorry, let me retract.
CHAIRMAN Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP We didn’t take action against the companies. 20
We accredited education and training
providers. And in our reports to those
education and training providers we set out
numerous corrective actions.
69
CHAIRMAN No, but if somebody is whole scale cheating,
you simply say you no longer accredited.
MS STEENEKAMP No, you can't do that. There’s a process
that has to be followed as per the SAQA act
and Regulation 1127. 5
CHAIRMAN You put them on terms?
MS STEENEKAMP You put them on terms. You have to report
to SAQA. SAQA can de-accredit. We can't.
We have to recommend and we have to provide
significant evidence before we can de-10
accredit in case they want to take us to
court.
CHAIRMAN But as I understand, the evidence is
available. You can reach a conclusion and
say whole scale cheating unless you have the 15
evidence.
MS STEENEKAMP We had the evidence.
CHAIRMAN Now that evidence, where will I find that
body?
MS STEENEKAMP I’ve got it with me. I can provide that and 20
certainly make lots of copies. It was,
however, given to the Council as well. On
the 18th of September and ---
CHAIRMAN Should I not be looking at that Mr ---
70
MS STEENEKAMP And on the 2nd of October we did a
significant set of documents for Council as
well. As well as changes to our policies
for assessment, accreditation and
moderation. 5
MR PRETORIUS What steps do you take to de, what would you
call, de-list, de-credit?
MS STEENEKAMP De-accredit.
MR PRETORIUS De-accredit PLC.
MS STEENEKAMP Prior Learning Centre were an example of a 10
company and we found that there was a lot of
irregularity. First step is you would ---
MR PRETORIUS No, no. I asked what you did, not what you
would have done. What did you do to de-
accredit PLC? 15
MS STEENEKAMP We didn’t have to de-accredit Prior Learning
Centre. They were the company. The
education and training provider that
uncovered the first cheating and plagiarism
during the time that Mr Glen Edwards was the 20
ETQA manager in 2006. I was the skills
development manager. I was not the ETQA
manager at that stage.
MR PRETORIUS DSBI?
71
MS STEENEKAMP Damelin School of Banking and Insurance, we
took all the steps necessary right up to the
reports to SAQA with the assistance of
Deneys Reitz, Mr Derek Wanblad, and due to
private negotiations between the CEO of 5
INSETA and Damelin School of Banking, they
then agreed to come into line. So the de-
accreditation process then was not
necessary.
MR PRETORIUS PSG Konsult? 10
MS STEENEKAMP PSG Konsult similarly. We identified the
issues. We had meetings with them. We also
always send our verification reports to the
companies whose learners have been sent to
those providers. We had more than one 15
meeting with PSG and I in fact have the
emails from them in which they say we are
very sorry, we will correct it and fix it.
And on a follow up meeting, if they have not
corrected it, that would then be the first 20
step.
MR PRETORIUS Did they correct it?
MS STEENEKAMP I was suspended prior to being able to see
whether they were going to correct the
72
challenges.
MR PRETORIUS When did you raise it with them the first
time?
MS STEENEKAMP This issue was raised with PSG, and I’m just
trying to think across a variety of 5
verifiers, I raised it the first time. I
did a verification with them, I’d have to
look at the exact date, I think it was July
or August 2008. And they then put steps in
place. I didn’t sign off the verification 10
at that stage. Went back to them later and
they still hadnt corrected it. And then I
was suspended.
MR PRETORIUS Santam?
MS STEENEKAMP Santam I addressed with the then skills 15
development facilitator. This happened
during Mr Glen Edwards time so I ---
MR PRETORIUS That was in 2000 and?
MS STEENEKAMP 6. However, I inherited a little end of the
tail of the Santam issue. Had a meeting 20
with the then skills development facilitator
of Santam, of which I have the letter and it
was given to Mr Patterson to give to the
INSETA Council as well. All those
73
documents. And they promised, and I have
copies, they promised to correct all the
issues and in fact promised to put steps in
place to correct what had been found and to
deal internally with the brokers who had 5
cheated and plagiarised.
MR PRETORIUS Leon Liedeman & Associates? They were the
black sheep. They ---
MS STEENEKAMP I wouldn’t say they were the black sheep.
What happened with Mr Leon Liedeman, and I 10
have got hundreds and hundreds of emails to
show the care taken with Mr Liedeman,
endless care to assist him. However, he
refused to be supported. He refused any
assistance and help and became exceptionally 15
belligerent and threatening to the point
that he threatened not only Mr Abel and me
for our personal safety, in an email, but
also threatened other learners in emails
with what he would do to them and their 20
personal safety. And I have those emails
which were handed to Deneys Reitz as well.
MR PRETORIUS Masifunde?
MS STEENEKAMP Masifunde, I was suspended before we could
74
finalise dealing with them. We had worked
out, and I have that in email, quite a
significant plan of remedy with Masifunde
pending which they would have then faced the
de-accreditation. 5
MR PRETORIUS So am I then correct Ms Steenekamp, with the
exception of Leon Liedeman, all the other
providers were, had either rectified the
problem or undertaken to rectify the
problem? 10
MS STEENEKAMP The initial findings they had offered to
fix.
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP However, in the later verification reports
before I was suspended, and unfortunately I 15
was suspended before those could be
addressed, the problems were not dealt with.
And in the latest verification reports
coming through towards end of November,
October, November, in those periods of time, 20
there was significant non compliance again.
We presented, that’s the report we presented
to the INSETA Council then to ask them for
remedy and assistance. To speak to the
75
sector and to take a stance of the senior
governors that they were of the SETA ETQA
function to assist us.
MR PRETORIUS So Council were apprised of the difficulties
--- 5
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, they were.
MR PRETORIUS In the sector.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, they were.
MR PRETORIUS They were apprised of the fact that some of
the institutions were taking active steps to 10
address the problems.
MS STEENEKAMP Some of the institutions had told us they
were taking active steps. We would then
receive or were waiting to receive their
remediation reports or remediation plans. 15
I’m not there to comment on that at the
moment.
MR PRETORIUS But as of October, what you knew is that
except for Mr Liedeman who threatened you,
the others were at least telling you they 20
were assisting or attempting to rectify the
problem.
MS STEENEKAMP No, the were not. What I said is they, when
we first discovered it we noted it to them
76
and asked them for remediation plans and to
put plans in place. Let me give you the
example of PSG Konsult, after that still had
not ---
MR PRETORIUS Well let’s get, when did you raise it the 5
first time with PSG Konsult?
MS STEENEKAMP As I say I will have to check the date of
the verification reports.
MR PRETORIUS Roughly.
MS STEENEKAMP Roughly July 2008. But previous to that 10
there had been other reports to them that
I’m not accountable for. However, in as
late as November 2008, PSG Konsult was
continuing. For example, PSG Konsult.
MR PRETORIUS Well we talking about 14 October now. 15
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS So take it the position is 14 October. 14
October you knew that PSG Konsult were
addressing it.
MS STEENEKAMP No. PSG Konsult had been requested to 20
provide us with a remediation report.
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP After that they had not yet addressed it
when we received their documentation. But
77
the statements as of that date were 100 %
true.
MR PRETORIUS No. As at 14 October 2008 Ms Steenekamp, as
far as PSG Konsult Academy is concerned, you
asked for rectification and at worse they 5
hadnt come back to you.
MS STEENEKAMP They had not rectified it as of that date at
the evaluation on the 2nd of August, or 7th of
August, despite requests. So that statement
is exactly correct. 10
MR PRETORIUS They had indicated to you that they would.
MS STEENEKAMP They had not by 7th of August and again in
November. So as of that date of that
article, or of those, that internal email,
they had not yet provided sufficient 15
evidence that they were going to fix what
they had said they would fix.
MR PRETORIUS They had said they would fix. Correct?
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct.
MR PRETORIUS Each one of them except Mr Liedeman had at 20
14 October 2008 said they would fix.
MS STEENEKAMP Some had not said they would fix it to me.
MR PRETORIUS Well, but they said to someone else.
MS STEENEKAMP They had said.
78
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP To ---
MR PRETORIUS So what we know is that at 14 October 2008,
that each of them, and exclude Mr Liedeman
for the moment, I have no instructions on 5
that, that they would fix it.
MS STEENEKAMP And they had not fixed it ---
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP Up to and including that date. On
verifications based after they had said they 10
had fixed it despite repeated attempts to
get them to send us their remediation
reports and how they were going to remedy
it. So as of that date, on the 14th of
October, they were still perpetuating the 15
same issues and errors that they had been
perpetuating before.
MR PRETORIUS Where do we find in your email to Mr
Cameron, and you refer to the article. You
knew there was an article being written. 20
MS STEENEKAMP No, I did not know Mr Cameron was going to
be writing an article on the date I
responded to the Tinker Bell letter.
MR PRETORIUS Didn’t Mr Abel copy you with the precise
79
wording of the article?
MS STEENEKAMP Well after the email was sent in response to
the Tinker Bell letter.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. And you incorporated portions of the
email in his version of the article to be 5
published.
MS STEENEKAMP I was out of town, out of the country when
he wrote that particular document. But at
the date of writing, which is the charge, I
had no understanding whatsoever that Mr 10
Cameron was going to publish any article
based on what I was writing in response to
his email to a closed respondent group.
MR PRETORIUS Ms Steenekamp, do you really want the
Chairman to believe that when a journalist 15
ask you for comment on this that he’s not
going to write about it?
MS STEENEKAMP I would like the Chairman to believe that
because Mr Cameron had been involved in a
series of communication, with amongst 20
others, Mr Peter Todd of ABSA, and other
companies on which we were copied. And at
no stage prior to that did any article
appear despite the fact that the emails that
80
were being sent were dated back to
September.
CHAIRMAN Surely he’s then working on a paper. Why’s
he doing all the ... (inaudible) ...
MS STEENEKAMP If I could give a bit of background, if I 5
may, without taking too much time. Mr
Cameron himself had written the exams, the
FAIS fit and proper exams in 2004. Mr
Edwards, who was the FAIS project manager in
2008 requested Mr Abel’s permission to visit 10
Mr Cameron to ask him to have a look at our
current FAIS project. It was hugely
successful. A lot of people were achieving
credits etc, and Mr Abel also then asked us
just to invite him to be a guest speaker at 15
a function. The first time we met, that I
met Mr Cameron, Mr Edwards knew him very
well up until that stage. The first time I
met Mr Cameron, he, before we could ask him
to be our guest speaker, he told us about 20
the numerous complaints he was receiving
from many many people, as well as other
providers about what was happening in the
field and he asked Mr Edwards, in fact, who
81
he still believed to be the ETQA manager, to
confirm or deny that there was a lot of
cheating and a lot of nonsense going on. He
had already had prior information at that
stage. And at no stage prior to me writing 5
that letter, I thought I was responding to a
closed respondents group, did I believe that
Mr Cameron would print an article. Now
whether Mr Pretorius wants to believe that
or not, that is the truth. 10
MR PRETORIUS Page 1207 Ms Steenekamp.
MS STEENEKAMP 1-2?
MR PRETORIUS 0-7. That is the email which Mr Abel sent
to you?
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. 15
MR PRETORIUS You received that email?
MS STEENEKAMP When I got back into town, yes.
MR PRETORIUS When did you get back into town?
MS STEENEKAMP I can't remember the exact date. I was out
of town at the time of this particular 20
email. I can check for you and certainly
come back.
MR PRETORIUS I’d like to know when you came back. And
it’s clear from this that Mr Abel knew that
82
Mr Cameron was writing an article.
MS STEENEKAMP I think Mr Abel only knew, and I can't
answer for Mr Abel, that would be hearsay,
but Mr Abel only knew that the article was
going to be written well after the Tinker 5
Bell letter had been sent to us by Mr
Cameron. And we responded as we had
responded to him on other previous emails
for which there had been no publication.
CHAIRMAN But then did you get hold of Mr Cameron and 10
say don’t publish this. I’ve given it to
you in the context of private ---
MS STEENEKAMP Mr Abel and Mr Edwards apparently did.
MR PRETORIUS Well what this says to you, and we don’t
know when you received it, you will come 15
back to us on this, “Please see my version
to Bruce Cameron which I hope he will use.”
MS STEENEKAMP Ok, I’ve read that. I’ve seen that, yes.
But I didn’t write that.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. Mr Abel wrote it to you Ms Steenekamp. 20
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. Yes.
MR PRETORIUS And you knew quite clearly that Mr Cameron
was writing an article about this and what
you provided them was griss to the mill for
83
a journalist.
MS STEENEKAMP No Mr Pretorius. I deny that.
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP I stick by what I have said. I responded to
Mr Cameron the way we had previously 5
responded to queries, questions from Mr
Cameron and Mr Julies Cobbett.
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP In fact I think I returned on the day the
Personal Finance article appeared. So it 10
would have been the Saturday after this.
MR PRETORIUS You, on page 1195 in your intemperate email
to Mr Cameron, you say in the first
paragraph 3, that we have called a halt to
the unscrupulous activities with the result 15
on personal attacks.
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct.
MR PRETORIUS What attack did PLC make on you?
MS STEENEKAMP Prior Learning Centre?
MR PRETORIUS Yes. 20
CHAIRMAN Sorry, where you reading from Mr Pretorius?
MR PRETORIUS Page 1195, paragraph 3, the last sentence.
The top paragraph 3.
MS STEENEKAMP I think you need to read that email, Mr
84
Pretorius, in it’s context. I say that
there are three issues that need to be
clarified.
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP Then I raise those issues. 5
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP Then I say we have confirmed we have
evidence of the brokers who represent the
following companies have cheated and
plagiarised. Which we have. 10
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP Then we say the providers involved. We do
not say in the email that each of those
providers personally attack us. The email
reads in a particular way. However, we 15
certainly have a lot of evidence of
Masifunde. We have evidence not provided to
Dr Konar of Leon Liedeman. We have evidence
not provided to Dr Konar of Damelin. And
Prior Learning Centre, we have evidence of 20
Prior Learning Centre writing directly to
SAQA with a lot of inaccurate statements.
And that was early in the year in 2008 to
undermine and damage the reputation of the
85
INSETA ETQA. So if we wanted to take it
that far. But that was not the intention of
the statement there.
MR PRETORIUS On page 1196, the next page.
CHAIRMAN Sorry, just if you look at 1195, who’s 5
writing there, the providers involved with
these companies are PLC, DSBI? Who’s
writing them?
MS STEENEKAMP I wrote that.
CHAIRMAN I see. 10
MR PRETORIUS The email goes from 1195 to 1196.
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct, yes.
MR PRETORIUS On 1196 in the middle of the page, paragraph
3, the next one, the last sentence of the
second paragraph. INSETA’s intervention to 15
curb these criminal activities have resulted
in the personal attacks being made on Mike
and me.
MS STEENEKAMP That is correct.
MR PRETORIUS And we know Mr Abel has elected to resign 20
and there was uncontradicted evidence of at
least an inappropriate tender awarded to
Professor Gool.
MS STEENEKAMP I cannot comment on that Mr Pretorius.
86
MR PRETORIUS No. Well you sat in this, you heard the
evidence, you heard what Mr Gerber said.
That it’s the first time and only time in
the whole 2 years he’s been involved that
that occurred. 5
MS STEENEKAMP I would elect not to comment there ---
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP Because I wouldn’t know what to say. I was
not part of that tender process at all.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. Again, what criminal activities did 10
PLC involve themselves with?
MS STEENEKAMP There was also cheating, and ---
MR PRETORIUS PLC cheating?
MS STEENEKAMP Not PLC, their learners Mr Pretorius.
MR PRETORIUS No, you say --- 15
MS STEENEKAMP The providers involved, I’m talking, right
at the top there, I say there are brokers.
There are brokers who have cheated,
plagiarised etc.
MR PRETORIUS No. You say the companies, brokers and 20
compliance officers. Now lets deal with
PLC.
MS STEENEKAMP Well the company, PLC is an education and
training provider in my terminology.
87
MR PRETORIUS Alright.
MS STEENEKAMP Companies would be something different.
MR PRETORIUS Alright. Then let’s look at paragraph 2.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS If you want to make the distinction. 5
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS The providers who deliver the programmes to
the brokers and the companies will do
anything to get business.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. 10
MR PRETORIUS They will cheat, lie, be unethical.
MS STEENEKAMP I have ---
MR PRETORIUS Alright, now we know the providers. Now
what did PLC do?
MS STEENEKAMP Well I have documented evidence which I’m 15
more than happy to provide of how they
undermined processes for Mutual & Federal.
MR PRETORIUS How did they cheat, lie and unethical.
MS STEENEKAMP Their learners.
MR PRETORIUS No, no. You say they are, the providers. 20
MS STEENEKAMP Who deliver, will do the brokers.
MR PRETORIUS No, please Ms Steenekamp. We dealing with
the providers.
MS STEENEKAMP Right, yes I am.
88
MR PRETORIUS I’m dealing with PLC.
MS STEENEKAMP Prior Learning ---
MR PRETORIUS Where did PLC cheat, lie and be unethical?
MS STEENEKAMP With Mutual & Federal for example Mr
Pretorius. 5
MR PRETORIUS When?
MS STEENEKAMP I’ll have to check the date. I’ll get the
emails for you.
MR PRETORIUS Which year? 2006?
MS STEENEKAMP No, 2008. 10
MR PRETORIUS 2008.
MS STEENEKAMP They started, they uncovered it in 2006.
However, they never ---
MR PRETORIUS Sorry, who uncovered what?
MS STEENEKAMP An assessor in Prior Learning Centre. 15
MR PRETORIUS So an assessor in PLC uncovers unethical
behaviour and you accuse PLC of being
unethical.
MS STEENEKAMP No. Could I continue? Prior Learning
Centre as the organisation undermined 20
ethical administration, assessment and
moderation of learning delivered to Mutual &
Federal and to Santam as late as 2008.
MR PRETORIUS How?
89
MS STEENEKAMP To the point that Mutual & Federal
disengaged Prior Learning Centre from a
future, any future contracts.
MR PRETORIUS How did they do that?
MS STEENEKAMP They allowed learners to submit learning and 5
work that was not authentic, that showed
direct evidence of cheating and plagiarising
and numerous others. But I would suggest Mr
Pretorius that the ETQA division could draw
the verification reports and then you would 10
be able to read what Prior Learning Centre
was allowing to happen.
MR PRETORIUS And they the same organisation that alerted
you to precisely those elements.
MS STEENEKAMP Alerted Mr Edwards in 2006 to those 15
elements. Those staff members, however,
since left Prior Learning Centre. Prior
Learning Centre had a very large staff
turnover which was one of our major
concerns. 20
MR PRETORIUS Now could we just go to page 1179 to 1182.
That’s the INSETA Code of Conduct.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS Now the Financial Services Board took an
90
immediate interest in the email that you
sent.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS How did the FSB get a copy of your email?
MS STEENEKAMP Which email are you referring to Mr 5
Pretorius?
MR PRETORIUS The email of the 14th October 2008.
MS STEENEKAMP They were sent ---
MR PRETORIUS On page 1195.
MS STEENEKAMP They were sent the Tinker Bell letter by 10
whoever Tinker Bell was by Mr Cameron. And
I responded to the same group which included
Mr Gerry Anderson.
MR PRETORIUS So you published your email to Mr Cameron, a
well know journalist, and to the Financial 15
Services Board.
MS STEENEKAMP I did not publish that. I sent an email
response to the same group of respondents
that Mr Cameron had sent his queries to when
he wrote the email saying, “Mike and 20
Shirley, these are serious allegations.”
Our CEO as the press officer felt it prudent
to respond, which we did. And we sent it to
the same respondent group that Mr Cameron
91
had sent his email to.
MR PRETORIUS Dr Des Leatt, who’s he?
MS STEENEKAMP Dr Des Leatt is a retired ex INSETA employee
who on occasion has done contract work for
the INSETA. 5
MR PRETORIUS Mr Abel received a letter from the FSB on
the date of the 16th of October. You’ll find
a copy on page 1192 to 1194.
MS STEENEKAMP 1192. Yes.
MR PRETORIUS Was this letter responded to? 10
MS STEENEKAMP Yes it was. And unfortunately Dr Konar
wasn’t given the response to this letter.
MR PRETORIUS Do you have a copy of the response?
MS STEENEKAMP I do somewhere in this pack.
MR PRETORIUS I’d like to see the copy of the response. 15
MS STEENEKAMP I would have to find it for you and present
it to you. It’s somewhere in here.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. And that was a complete response?
MS STEENEKAMP A complete response to every element and in
fact it was given to Mr Abel to send on as 20
the CEO. I drafted the letter. I would
have to find it. It is here. And I speak
under correction but I think it was also
sent to Mr Tetiwe Jawuna, a copy of that.
92
But I speak under correction. But a full
response was written and sent by Mr Abel’s
office.
MR PRETORIUS Now we have the situation that we have the
INSETA with the CEO, Mr Abel and you as the 5
head of the ETQA. With Mr Abel’s son being
involved through a company with the ADVTECH
group and your son being with the ADVTECH
group. Correct?
MS STEENEKAMP I can only say my son is an employee of the 10
ADVTECH group. Mr Greg Abel’s involvement
with the ADVTECH group I cannot answer for
that.
MR PRETORIUS Well you emailed a lot of information to Mr
Greg Abel. 15
MS STEENEKAMP I emailed information requested by Mr Greg
Abel, as I emailed similar information to
numerous providers, as did my colleagues.
And in fact, here’s a letter, I’d like to
hand this up to Ruth if you think it’s 20
appropriate, for example, from Mr Glen
Edwards to his friend asking for help to set
up a provider base. And this wasn’t
something we did only for Mr Abel. We did
93
it for everybody as a public entity
requesting our assistance and help.
MR PRETORIUS Mr Greg Abel is the son of the CEO which,
and in fact you gave certain documents to Mr
Mike Abel to take to Greg Abel. 5
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, I did.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. And you were aware that through FIN-IQ
he had a link to the ADVTECH group.
MS STEENEKAMP We were aware when the actual tender
document was submitted to us of the 10
cancelled tender, that there was an element
of whatever shareholding between FIN-IQ and,
I’d have to check the documents, CCI I
think. I’m not sure.
MR PRETORIUS No, you’re right. 15
MS STEENEKAMP But not ADVTECH. I think it was CCI.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. And CCI is part of the ADVTECH group.
MS STEENEKAMP They’re a subsidiary company within the
holdings company. You’re correct.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. And your son may be in the tertiary 20
division as you said, was also an employee
in the ADVTECH group.
MS STEENEKAMP He is an employee, yes.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. And he’s now the operations director
94
of IMFUNDO.
MS STEENEKAMP No, he’s not. He has been moved, his
position is not strictly a line function
position in the old terminology. But more
of a staff function position and he is back 5
at head office doing a program, I don’t know
what they would call it, but internal, they
changing all their IT systems and he’s
involved there in putting together group
wise IT programs and training. 10
MR PRETORIUS How long was he operations director of
IMFUNDO? Which period to which period?
MS STEENEKAMP I speak under correct again. I’ve said I’m
not 100 % sure of the date. Round about
September, October, I’m not sure, I would 15
have to check on that, of 2007. And up to
and including, Mr Pretorius you will not
believe me but I actually don’t know. I
don’t want to lie on tape. But I think it
was round about, I’m not sure, December. If 20
I’m saying December I might be wrong. I
don’t know.
MR PRETORIUS December 2008 or 2007?
MS STEENEKAMP 2008. Could have been November, I’m not
95
sure.
MR PRETORIUS Yes, no. I’m not going to, so your ---
MS STEENEKAMP They move around ---
MR PRETORIUS Your recollection is ---
MS STEENEKAMP They move around in the company so I’m not 5
sure.
MR PRETORIUS Your recollection is he was operations
director from approximately September,
October 2007 to approximately December 2008.
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct. 10
MR PRETORIUS Roughly a year.
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct.
MR PRETORIUS Coincidental that he was moved from
operations director of IMFUNDO after you
were suspended and the whole thing exploded. 15
MS EDMONDS That’s not what the evidence says.
MS STEENEKAMP No, I really don’t think there’s any link.
MR PRETORIUS You say it’s coincidence.
MS STEENEKAMP Mr Pretorius I would really say I cannot see
a link. I do not believe and only ADVTECH 20
would be able to answer that question. I
cannot. But I can assure you I would not be
able, I don’t know.
MR PRETORIUS The complaint was, from Tinker Bell, inter
96
alia, that there was nepotism as far as
Piers Steenekamp is concerned and Greg Abel
was concerned.
MS STEENEKAMP I cannot answer for Greg Abel. But as far
as Piers Steenekamp is concerned I deny any 5
nepotism whatsoever.
MR PRETORIUS That wasn’t my question Ms Steenekamp. The
question is that was what Tinker Bell said.
MS STEENEKAMP That’s what Tinker Bell said.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. And now we find that in December 2008 10
your son is no longer the operations
director of IMFUNDO. Correct?
MS STEENEKAMP I can't ---
MR PRETORIUS Approximately.
MS STEENEKAMP I can't say December. 15
MR PRETORIUS No, approximately.
MS STEENEKAMP It could have been later. We’d have to find
out when he was moved. But it’s certainly
not coincidental.
MS EDMONDS If Mr Pretorius is going to make anything of 20
this I would like the witness to be given
the opportunity to ascertain exactly when
the move was made by Mr Steenekamp.
MR PRETORIUS She can ---
97
MS EDMONDS Before we move on from this while it’s still
in everybody’s, fresh in everybody’s minds.
MR PRETORIUS Ms Steenekamp while we break you can find
out precisely when your son ---
MS STEENEKAMP My son will not be available telephonically 5
now. He goes to Kung Fu and Thai Chi until
8 o' clock in the evenings.
MR PRETORIUS Well we will then deal with it after 8 o'
clock. In respect of the first complaint,
you declared the potential conflict of 10
interest.
MS STEENEKAMP I declared interest as per our Supply Chain
Management manual. And also offered to
recuse myself as is required in our Supply
Chain Management manual in accordance with 15
the PFMA.
MR PRETORIUS Page 734 for example is one.
MS STEENEKAMP 734.
MR PRETORIUS 734.
MS STEENEKAMP Just a moment. I just want to find that. I 20
have it.
MR PRETORIUS That’s where you declared ---
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS The interest and there you said, “My son, P
98
Steenekamp works for ADVTECH. He has no
interest and neither do I in this tender.”
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct.
MR PRETORIUS The PFMA requires not only that you declare
your interest but you don’t withdraw. 5
MS STEENEKAMP I offered to recuse myself Mr Pretorius.
And as per Mr Adie Gerber’s testimony ---
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP It was noted that the Council member in fact
requested me to remain because of my 10
technical expertise and ---
MR PRETORIUS In one tender.
MS STEENEKAMP No.
MR PRETORIUS His evidence, Dr Konar’s evidence was in one
tender Ms Steenekamp. 15
MS STEENEKAMP Mr Pretorius, in the tenders everybody knew
my son worked in ADVTECH. I offered to
recuse myself. At no stage did anybody in
the evaluation committee feel that I was
posing any threat. I am a normal member of 20
the evaluation committee with one vote. I
have no seniority in the committee. I have
no better vote than anybody else. I had
declared interest. I had checked it with
99
our corporate services manager who protects
Supply Chain and PFMA as well as with the
independent auditors of the process, our
project office. And based on that the
declaration and on their advising to the 5
rest of the committee, I then remained. I
had no interest and I would certainly have
recused myself. In fact, I didn’t have to
be there at all. I had no interest to be
there and didn’t necessarily want to be 10
there other than fulfilling a function.
MR PRETORIUS You knew that if there was a conflict, not
only did you have to disclose but you had to
withdraw.
MS STEENEKAMP I have said I offered to withdraw. I --- 15
MR PRETORIUS We know Mr Gerber, sorry to interrupt you,
we know Mr Gerber said in one instance.
MS STEENEKAMP At that stage he was being questioned about
the FAIS project particularly. And a person
would have to look at the record. But there 20
was absolutely no hidden agenda whatsoever.
Everybody knew who my son worked for. I
declared it regularly. I was more than
happy to leave the venue should I be
100
required to do so. And in fact always wrote
all my comments on my sheet so that it would
be open to scrutiny.
MR PRETORIUS And part of the difficulty, at some stage
there was a controversy that people out 5
there believed that IMFUNDO would be the
sole assessment provider.
MS STEENEKAMP How they came to that conclusion Mr
Pretorius, we do not know. We repeatedly
attempted to correct it, but we believe it 10
is based on the anonymous letters as well as
a group calling themselves the Western Cape
Forum which we regularly interacted with who
erroneously put out that message. And we
corrected that repeatedly and I have 15
numerous emails to that effect to numerous
providers to say no, they are not, in fact
they are not a provider.
MR PRETORIUS IMFUNDO is not a provider?
MS STEENEKAMP IMFUNDO was the logistical partner. 20
MR PRETORIUS What does a logistical partner do?
MS STEENEKAMP The IIE is the official provider.
MR PRETORIUS Sorry, what does a logistical partner do?
MS STEENEKAMP Well I’m not 100 % sure of everything they
101
had to do. If I may ---
MR PRETORIUS Just tell me what a logistical partner ---
MS STEENEKAMP What we planned ---
MR PRETORIUS Sorry, let me finish. What a logistical
partner will not do. 5
MS STEENEKAMP What we planned in the project was that the
IIE would deliver for us exam venues,
invigilators, assessment tools, moderators,
marking schedules, registration facilities,
courier services, all of those things. 10
Curriculum design, learning material design,
recognition of Prior Learning assessment
tools. A range of issues in the project.
IIE as the academic arm, amongst others they
are City Campus or Varsity Colleges I think, 15
Rosebank, Vegas School of Advertising, they
looked after the academic side. As I
understand it, IMFUNDO had to source the
experts from the industry to set the papers.
Had to find out how many people were 20
registering, provide the registration
services, and based on that procure the
number of venues, number of invigilators,
have the number of papers printed, have them
102
couriered. That’s logistics.
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP And make sure that editing was done and that
it was all correct. So that’s logistics as
far as I understand logistics to be. 5
MR PRETORIUS You have extensive experience in this area,
as you’ve testified about. If we go to,
we’ll deal with, come back later with
precisely what IMFUNDO did or didn’t do.
Kim Pretorius. You knew that she had social 10
contact with your son Jacque.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, I did.
MR PRETORIUS You knew about Easter 2008 that she probably
bore your grandchild.
MS STEENEKAMP I wouldn’t say I knew that she probably 15
bore, we were waiting for paternity tests to
be conducted. So the extent of the
paternity was only revealed after the
paternity test. And I chose not to make any
judgements at any stage until I knew for 20
sure that there was paternity confirmed.
CHAIRMAN Yes, but once she says look, this child
belongs to, this is the father then the
probability ---
103
MS STEENEKAMP She also sent emails Chair to other people
in the SETA saying, this person whose
photograph is here, for example, could be
the father. So I don’t know. I don’t, I
really, and that was the issue. My son 5
didn’t want to shirk his responsibility as
painful as this may be. However, it needed
to be clarified.
MR PRETORIUS You must have known before Easter 2008 that
your son was in a relationship with Kim 10
Pretorius.
MS STEENEKAMP Mr Pretorius I did not. When I was informed
by my son it was a shock to me. And I don’t
know if I’m charged as a parent but it was,
it was a shock. 15
MR PRETORIUS Well Sharon Snell, she testified about it,
if you go to page 947, about the difficulty
she had with you. In this context, that you
denied to Mr Abel that your son had a
relationship with Kim Pretorius. 20
MS STEENEKAMP I’m just trying to find the sentence.
MR PRETORIUS It’s the fourth bullet in the middle of the
page. “I’ve already discussed with you my
concerns about the rumours that Shirley son
104
had a relationship with Kim Pretorius for a
long time and that he may well be the father
of the child. In this regard you informed
me that you recently approached Shirley and
she denied this.” 5
MS STEENEKAMP Mr Abel only approached me after the event.
I’m not responsible for what Sharon wrote to
Mike. Sharon enjoyed a particular level of
seniority and confidence with Mr Abel that
most other people in the SETA did not. Mr 10
Abel also chose not to always inform other
staff members what was being said between
himself and a particular staff member. So I
cannot comment on that. I only know that
when I finally had the issue discussed with 15
me by Mr Abel, it was after the event.
MR PRETORIUS 4Did you ever deny to Mike Abel that your son
had a relationship with Kim Pretorius?
MS STEENEKAMP I did not deny to Mr Abel. The facts were
already there. Mr Abel understood my 20
particular pain about the issue.
MR PRETORIUS When was that?
MS STEENEKAMP I cannot recall Mr Pretorius.
4 Tape 2 – Side 2 – ETS00172
105
MR PRETORIUS Was it after Easter? You said it’s after
the event. I don’t know what the event was.
MS STEENEKAMP I cannot recall exactly when Mr Abel spoke
to me about Ms Snell’s letter. But it was
quite a while after Ms Snell’s letter to Mr 5
Abel which was not the 19th of December.
MR PRETORIUS Was the discussion you had about Kim
Pretorius after Easter 2008?
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, it was.
MR PRETORIUS After Easter 2008 you still were involved in 10
planning out Kim Pretorius’s career at
INSETA.
MS STEENEKAMP We would have to call Mr Abel to testify.
MR PRETORIUS Well you welcome to.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. But at the time that we had to move Kim 15
or were requiring to move Kim to the ETQA,
there was a huge staff shortage. It had
been identified as a resource shortage by
SAQA. We had signed a joint implementation
plan with SAQA between Mr Abel and Sam 20
Isaacs, the CEO of SAQA. And we had
requested additional resources. So you must
understand that our ETQA was tiny ETQA as
far as staff were concerned with huge
106
responsibility. And so when we needed to
bring in more staff, Mr Abel requested me to
relook Kim’s movement up to the ETQA based
on the fact that she had qualified herself
in certain areas of ETQA and she was very 5
good in systems. The ETQA needed to address
the issues urgently to get support for Mr
William Fisher in the division and that is
why. So Mr Abel would testify that it was
on his instruction that we reactivate it, 10
the move of Ms Pretorius to the ETQA
division. However, she is not family, she
is not blood relative and there would have
been no nepotistic actions in moving a staff
member with skill to service a division that 15
needed resourcing.
MR PRETORIUS Who is, and we now know, the bearer of one
of your grandchildren.
MS STEENEKAMP It still does not make her a family member
Mr Pretorius. 20
MR PRETORIUS I take it your, you also tell your daughters
in law they not family members.
MS STEENEKAMP Mr Pretorius, I find that inappropriate.
MR PRETORIUS No.
107
MS EDMONDS This is actually offensive.
MS STEENEKAMP I’m finding this very personal.
MR PRETORIUS Well that’s precisely what you said.
MS STEENEKAMP Very personal.
MR PRETORIUS No, let’s deal with it Ms Steenekamp. 5
MS EDMONDS But I’m objecting please Mr Chairperson.
It’s irrelevant to the charge against Ms
Steenekamp.
MS STEENEKAMP I don’t have daughters in law.
MS EDMONDS And it’s wrong in law quite frankly. 10
MS STEENEKAMP I don’t have a daughters in law.
MR PRETORIUS Yes, well, you would then on what you now
said, tell your daughters in law they not
family.
MS STEENEKAMP My sons in law certainly are family but 15
because they are married to my daughters.
Ms Pretorius is not married to my son. It’s
an exceptionally painful issue.
MS EDMONDS That’s the best Mr Pretorius can do.
MR PRETORIUS You are Ms Steenekamp, the one that had 20
planned the career for Kim Pretorius while
knowing that she is the bearer of one of
your grandchildren. I assume you have more.
MS STEENEKAMP Mr Pretorius I did not plan her career. In
108
consultation and on instruction from Mr Abel
I reactivated the motivation for Ms
Pretorius to be moved to a division where
her skills were desperately needed so that
the ET --- 5
CHAIRMAN Can I just enquire, was that a promotion for
her?
MS STEENEKAMP I would have been a promotion post.
CHAIRMAN She would have earned more money.
MS STEENEKAMP She would have earned a little bit more 10
money. Whatever, I didn’t decide on the
scales of that. It was a reactivation of
the promotion that she would previously have
got should she have moved at the stage when
Viola James was promoted. So it was no more 15
promotion than what was mooted at that stage
in 2007, early 2008. It was a similar post.
It was just reactivating.
CHAIRMAN In retrospect it obviously looked bad among
the other staff. Why didn’t you ask Mr Mike 20
Abel to do that?
MS STEENEKAMP I didn’t think that it would look bad
amongst the other staff Mr Chair. I really
didn’t. I thought that Ms Pretorius’s
109
issues, whatever they might be, she was on
maternity leave at the time, and I’m naïve
enough to believe that office gossip should
be contained and I do not lend my ears to
office gossip as Ms Snell testified. If it 5
was happening behind my back I certainly was
unaware of it. I was acting on instruction
from my CEO who wanted to look at the most
cost effective and realistic way of
addressing a staff shortage in the division. 10
CHAIRMAN Why didn’t you simply say to him that he
must deal with it?
MS STEENEKAMP He would have dealt with it.
CHAIRMAN Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP He would have --- 15
CHAIRMAN Why did you get involved?
MS STEENEKAMP On his instruction to activate the position
and Mr Abel is the person that appoints
people into the position. So he would have
got involved in the appointment. And it was 20
not something that was not happening in the
SETA with other staff at the same time as
well. So it was nothing unusual for a staff
member, and Ms Pretorius is not my family.
110
And she is not by marriage. Our HR policy
is very clear. I was not acting outside of
the HR policy. I was acting on instruction
of my CEO.
CHAIRMAN As we sit today when you look back, would it 5
have been better if somebody else dealt with
it?
MS STEENEKAMP Well knowing now that there was all this
scandaling going on behind the scenes of
which I was totally unaware, I would have 10
preferred Mr Abel. But I presume Mr Abel
would have dealt with it anyway. But I
would have presumed it would have been
better if Mr Abel had done that himself.
But I had not had the opportunity of 15
expressing that opinion to him at the stage
when he raised the issue of moving Kim
Pretorius.
MR PRETORIUS You performed the assessments on Ms
Pretorius. Well according to Ms Pretorius 20
she was involved with your son Piers since
middle of November 2007.
MS STEENEKAMP December 2007.
MR PRETORIUS Well, at page 929 if you have a look at the
111
email.
MS STEENEKAMP I havent, to be honest Mr Pretorius, I could
really not read those emails.
MR PRETORIUS Page 929 Ms ---
MS STEENEKAMP I found them terrible. 5
MR PRETORIUS Ms Steenekamp, page 929.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS The sixth paragraph.
MS STEENEKAMP I see there she writes there, sober and
serious man, seeing a nice and completely 10
sober since middle November. However as far
as I am concerned, it started in December.
I don’t know. I cannot comment ---
MR PRETORIUS December 2007?
MS STEENEKAMP I cannot comment on Ms Pretorius’s dates, 15
time frames written in her email. All I can
say to you is I found out after the event.
And when I conducted Ms Pretorius’s
performance appraisal, I did it as part of
my role and function for all staff in the 20
three divisions I was responsible for.
MR PRETORIUS Without disclosing that she had a
relationship with your son Piers and that
there was at least a suspicion that she’d
112
born his child.
MS STEENEKAMP At that stage there was no disclosure that
there was a relationship and at that stage
there was no suspicion that there was a
child on the way in February 2008. I ceased 5
to become her manager on the 1st of March
2008 when Mr Dumisani Kweyama became the SD
manager and Ms Sharon Snell was Dumisani’s
direct senior.
MR PRETORIUS Will you please look at page 896. 10
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS Who signed as supervisor?
MS STEENEKAMP 896, oh sorry, I’ve got 906. That is
correct, that’s me.
MR PRETORIUS That’s you. 15
MS STEENEKAMP That is me.
MR PRETORIUS The date?
MS STEENEKAMP That is the 11th of the third. And we
conducted the interviews in February. Then
the staff member has to complete their side 20
of it and we finally sign it off and give it
to corporate services who then manages it
further from there and either disputes the
findings with Mr Abel, and we have the
113
documentation to show the process, Mr
Phakama Nkosi then takes it out of the hands
of the line manager and he manages the
process further and a decision is made
between corporate services and the HR REMCO 5
about what bonuses people get.
CHAIRMAN How much staff do you have there?
MS STEENEKAMP How many staff did I have reporting to me at
that time or ---
CHAIRMAN No, no. The total staff at --- 10
MS STEENEKAMP Of the SETA?
CHAIRMAN Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP I speak under correction Chair, but I, full
time staff when I was suspended I think was
about 22 or 24. I speak under correction. 15
We’d have to check the ---
CHAIRMAN Thank you.
MS STEENEKAMP They didn’t all report into me.
CHAIRMAN Yes.
MR PRETORIUS Just another aspect, on page 752, that’s 20
part of the CCI tender which you adjudicated
upon which Dr Des Leatt is put forward as a
white female.
MS STEENEKAMP I was part of the panel and we all knew Des
114
Leatt. So we do not write ---
MS EDMONDS What is the relevance of this?
MS STEENEKAMP Or project office doesn’t write everything.
MS EDMONDS Mr Chairperson?
CHAIRMAN I really don’t know. Mr Pretorius? 5
MR PRETORIUS Well ---
MS STEENEKAMP The project office does not record
everything ---
MS EDMONDS No, no, sorry but ---
MR PRETORIUS The relevance is that she sat on the tender 10
of CCI who is part of the ADVTECH, which is
clearly an incorrect statement for BEE ---
MS EDMONDS Is she charged with that Mr Chairperson? In
which case I would have prepared myself to
deal with it. But I don’t understand that 15
there any charges of that nature.
MR PRETORIUS It’s in the evidence of Dr Konar. He
referred to it. It’s contained in his
summary.
MS EDMONDS In these charges Mr Chairperson. 20
MR PRETORIUS It relates to the charge that she had a
conflict of interest with IMFUNDO and
ADVTECH.
MS EDMONDS Well I’m very intrigued to, does she need to
115
go on with this evidence? I cannot see how
it’s relevant?
CHAIRMAN Mr Pretorius, what’s the relationship?
MR PRETORIUS Its just that when she deals with the tender
of a company in CCI, there’s an obvious 5
mistake that did not get picked up.
MS STEENEKAMP If I may say Mr Pretorius, the project
office does not minute everything that is
said. We know Dr Leatt, we knew that this
was an inaccuracy and certainly this is 10
applicable CVs. But if you read further in
the document which I will go through tonight
and certainly present it, it is in no way
linked to ADVTECH or CCI’s BEE credentials.
In fact, Ms Sandy Mey later on goes on to 15
say these are people who were prepared or
applicable but once, should they get a
tender or get the contract, they would then
decide who to use. So it’s only presenting
to the SETA the sorts of people who could be 20
applicable. And we certainly have Mr Des
Leatt, Dr Des Leatt’s evidence showing that
he was quite happy to in fact be an assessor
for CCI. And in fact I think he was used.
116
But we all knew him so ---
MR PRETORIUS Oh. If that, well will you please go to
page 764. That’s an email from Dr Des
Leatt.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, I’ve read this. 5
MR PRETORIUS Yes. He’s quite happy to do an assessment
for CCI.
MS STEENEKAMP He submitted to Mr Karel Smit ---
MS EDMONDS Chairperson sorry, it is late ---
MR PRETORIUS She --- 10
MS EDMONDS Sorry, I am addressing the Chairperson. It
is late, this is irrelevant. Why do we have
to keep going over this? It’s got nothing
to do with any of the charges.
CHAIRMAN Was, is there a credibility issue Mr 15
Pretorius?
MR PRETORIUS Credibility issue. She’s just testified
that Dr Des Leatt was very happy to be an
assessor for CCI.
CHAIRMAN Yes. 20
MR PRETORIUS This email is quite the contrary. He said
he would never be because it’s not a
credible program.
MS STEENEKAMP There is another email, I think you
117
referring to this page, there is one where
Dr Leatt submits to Dr Karel, to Mr Karel
Smit.
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP Actually submits his CV and says I am 5
interested should I be needed.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. And ---
MS STEENEKAMP He was not used, however, at that stage. I
don’t know the nitty gritties of who they
used, who they didn’t. That fell outside of 10
the minutia that I would have had to deal
with. That would have been dealt with by
somebody else.
MR PRETORIUS Ms Steenekamp you said that Dr Des Leatt was
happy to be at CCI. This email shows quite 15
the contrary. In fact what he says, that he
would have refused to be one because he did
not regard the IMFUNDO program a credible
program.
MS STEENEKAMP These are two totally different programs. 20
CCI was a learnership, wealth management
level 5 learnership. And the IMFUNDO IIE
program was a totally different contract to
design recognition of Prior Learning exams
118
for FAIS requirements. And the learning
group, everything, are two totally separate
different issues. But, however, if I may
say for Dr Leatt, if it’s an issue of
credibility, I have emails where Dr Leatt in 5
fact billed INSETA for cutting and pasting
thirteen verification reports which I had to
address with him and for which he had to re-
invoice us and apologise. So where
credibility comes I would go a little bit of 10
a way with checking Dr Leatt’s own
credentials.
CHAIRMAN Thank you. Continue Mr Pretorius.
MR PRETORIUS The Moonstone article ---
CHAIRMAN Is that count 3? 15
MR PRETORIUS That’s count 3, was on page 1066, you’ll
find ---
CHAIRMAN Page?
MR PRETORIUS 1066.
CHAIRMAN Thank you. 20
MR PRETORIUS In fact this is what you said, the article
itself, page 1068 is the article. Now just
to explain the NLRD, what is that?
MS STEENEKAMP The National Learner Record Database.
119
MR PRETORIUS Yes. And what is that?
MS STEENEKAMP It’s one of the components, one of the three
components for which the South African
Qualifications Authority is responsible and
in which every single learners learning 5
record for official registered
qualifications would be recorded. Not for
non formal programs, but for formally
recognised and registered qualifications on
the NQF and learning records would be 10
presented on the NLRD.
MR PRETORIUS Then on page 1068, in the middle of the
page, you have a lever arch file on the
second binder.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes I have. 15
MR PRETORIUS It says after SAQA, it says before the
information. Do you have that sentence?
MS STEENEKAMP I’m just checking here. We are currently
experiencing ---
MR PRETORIUS You’ll see deputy director NLRD in the 20
middle of the page printed in bold. Just
below that.
MS STEENEKAMP Oh yes, Yvonne Shapiro.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. There you see SAQA and then it has
120
before the information. “Before the
information can be placed on the National
Learners Record Database, the course
material and the whole process has to be
verified by INSETA.” Correct? 5
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. “Sources in the training field say
there are instances where this verification
has fallen behind, which means that folk who
attended training still has no official 10
proof that they comply with the fit and
proper requirements.”
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, that’s what he’s saying.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. And then he refers in the light of the
above backlog. What role does certification 15
play in the verification process?
MS STEENEKAMP Once we have verified that the assessment
and the moderation was fair, valid,
relevant, authentic, practicable etc, all of
which are SAQA requirements, we will then 20
tell the provider that they may either then
upload the learning achievements on to our
database because the SETA would then put it
onto the NLRD. Or if we find that there are
121
problems in those areas, we will ask them to
either reassess, re-moderate or redo
elements of it before they then finally
upload to us and we then place it on the
National Learner Record Database. 5
MR PRETORIUS And the certification is the end process of
verification.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, that is correct. If we are totally
satisfied, if it’s a full qualification we
certificate. If it’s a part qualification 10
or a learning program comprising a set
number of unit standards, one we have
verified the provider may print a statement
of credits. The SETA does not print
individual statements of credits other than 15
when it’s a direct project funded by the
SETA.
MR PRETORIUS And you had no difficulties with the backlog
of certification?
MS STEENEKAMP Verification backlogs is what I addressed in 20
the Moonstone article with Mr Paul Kruger.
MR PRETORIUS We’ve just established Ms Steenekamp that
certification is part of the verification
process.
122
MS STEENEKAMP No, it’s not part. It’s a separate process
after verification. Certification doesn’t
naturally follow onto verification. I’ve
said you will not certificate if it’s not a
full qualification. In the case of FAIS, 5
none of them get certificates from INSETA.
They get statements of credits from their
providers.
MR PRETORIUS Well ---
MS STEENEKAMP Because it’s small groups of, it’s either 15 10
or 30 credits or 60 credits of 120 credit
qualification.
MR PRETORIUS On 1065 Mr Anderson was involved. And Mr
Abel sent, and you look at 1065 ---
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, I’ve got it. 15
MR PRETORIUS ... (inaudible) ... Mr Anderson.
MS STEENEKAMP I have it.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. And Mr Abel sent to you on the 13th of
October an email and asked you to deal with
it. Correct? 20
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, that’s correct.
MR PRETORIUS And then on page 1066 a copy of the email
which you sent on the 11th of October, just
before 2 o' clock in the afternoon.
123
MS STEENEKAMP Just a moment, I’m just trying to find ---
MR PRETORIUS It’s just above the ---
CHAIRMAN ... (inaudible) ... yes.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. You’ll find it on the third paragraph.
It’s got Kobus Serfontein and then a lot of 5
things and then it says from Shirley
Steenekamp, mail to, sent 11 October 2008,
1:53pm, to Kobus Serfontein ---
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, I’ve got that.
MR PRETORIUS And Albert Marais. 10
MS STEENEKAMP I’ve got that. Yes.
MR PRETORIUS And it says, “I’ve received information for
a workshop that will be conducted by
Moonstone as per the email. I also read
further and was shocked to read the 15
exceptionally incorrect and unsubstantiated
comments about INSETA’s inability to verify
learners work on time and the alleged
backlogs.” What do you mean by verify
learners work? 20
MS STEENEKAMP Verification. The verification process.
MR PRETORIUS The work of learners. There’s a process and
there’s learners work. It’s two different -
--
124
MS STEENEKAMP Verification involves looking at the
assessment and moderation of learners work
that has been submitted as evidence that
they should be passed or failed, to use old
language. The verifier is like your chief 5
examiner and then like, for example, in our
more common terminology, a dean of a faculty
or the joint matriculation board or one of
those organisations. So verify learners
work, verification, it involves all of that. 10
MR PRETORIUS Yes. And you say there were no backlogs.
MS STEENEKAMP No verification backlogs.
MR PRETORIUS Ok.
MS STEENEKAMP At the time of Mr Paul Kruger’s article.
And we have the verification schedules which 15
were managed by Ms Adeline Singh to prove
that. And we can certainly draw the
verification schedules as evidence to show
that.
MR PRETORIUS Can you please turn to page 1078. 20
MS STEENEKAMP 1?
MR PRETORIUS 0-7-8.
MS STEENEKAMP 0-7-8. Yes.
MR PRETORIUS That’s an email which Mr Anderson sent at
125
the bottom ---
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS To Mr Abel copied to Tetiwe Jawuna,
Stephanie Mackenzie, Wendy Hatting, Retha
Stander, Charene Nortier. 5
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS There was a meeting held on the 16th of
September 2008.
MS STEENEKAMP I’m not sure. I just want to read this one.
It could have been referring to a meeting 10
that Mr Abel had with Mr Anderson.
MR PRETORIUS You didn’t attend that meeting?
MS STEENEKAMP I attended one, but I don’t think it was
this one being referred to. No.
MR PRETORIUS Well, I don’t think your recollections 15
correct. Will you please go to the second
paragraph, paragraph 1.
MS STEENEKAMP Ok. Ok, yes I was in that one.
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP There was a separate one that they had, this 20
one, at their offices yes.
MR PRETORIUS So we had at this meeting with Mr Anderson.
He, you say that IMFUNDO was not the service
provider. The service provider is in fact
126
IIE.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. They are the education and training
provider.
MR PRETORIUS And IMFUNDO is restricted to the logistical
side of the planned national summative 5
assessment.
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct.
MR PRETORIUS Then alleged conflict of interest, Mr Abel
assured them there was no substance in the
allegation conflict of interest between 10
INSETA and IMFUNDO.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS Then 4, Backlog and Verification /
Certification. It’s deal with as one issue.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. 15
MR PRETORIUS Could you please read out for the record
what Mr Anderson wrote to Mr Abel on that
issue.
MS STEENEKAMP I will do that. Mr Anderson is conflating
two separate issues but I will read it. 20
MR PRETORIUS Sorry Ms, will you please read out and then
you can comment Ms Steenekamp.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. “Backlog in
Verification/Certification. On this issue
127
which has also been raised by industry
whereby it appeared to a number of providers
that their learners will not receive the
verification/certification from INSETA
timeously. The current fit and proper 5
determination required qualifications/credit
certificates to be submitted to the FSB by
31 December 2008. Ms Steenekamp affirmed
that there was a backlog in processing the
verification/certification by INSETA. But 10
that processes have been put in place
whereby such backlog will be cleared by 1
December 2008.” I am saying again Mr
Pretorius, there were backlogs in
certification. Our verification backlogs 15
had been dealt with very promptly and we had
direct solid evidence of that. Date of
request for verification, date of
verification conducted and date of report
sent. And I do not keep that schedule. One 20
of the staff members who is now this SD
manager keeps that schedule. So I couldn’t
have done anything different to that
document. Mr Anderson himself is not
128
totally au fait with the terminology.
However, we have many many examples of the
reasons for certification backlogs and I
would be more than happy to hand them to Ms
Edmonds to hand up to the chair to show that 5
the providers, in fact, were the people that
were responsible ultimately for the fact
that learners were not getting their
statements of credit not certificates.
MR PRETORIUS Go to page 1100. 10
CHAIRMAN 1-1?
MR PRETORIUS 0-0.
CHAIRMAN It’s 1100?
MR PRETORIUS 1110. That’s an email which you sent on the
7th of November 2008 to Leana du Plessis and 15
Neesha Naidoo.
MS STEENEKAMP 1110?
MR PRETORIUS 1100.
MS STEENEKAMP Oh sorry. Yes.
MR PRETORIUS The second paragraph, “The ETQA division has 20
a very significant challenge in that the
flow of certificates is just not happening
through William.”
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct.
129
MR PRETORIUS “The division is suffering major
reputational damage as a result of this.”
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct.
MR PRETORIUS “May I request that either Precious, or, if
you think that the young lady Tswene, from 5
IMFUNDO, that recently did the FAIS project
uploads can be utilised and trained. We
will then contract her. Please advise. I
believe that we have a full time person for
at least 2 months now to give every one of 10
the some 15 000 odd certificates done.”
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS “Please help us here.”
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. That refers to certification. And if I
could just give you two examples of why 15
there was this backlog, and I’ve got the
documents once again. Unfortunately Dr
Konar was not given the documents and Dr
Konar did not question us before this was
put together. The Financial Planning 20
Institute which is one of two professional
bodies in the industry, had some eight and a
half thousand odd learners for whom they had
not requested verification and then wanted
130
to certificate. When they requested
certificates, these were for whole
qualifications, not for FAIS. We found they
had not had their learning verified.
Adeline Singh and Tamara Ntombela then were 5
allocated to conduct the verification and
found significant challenges in that the
Financial Planning Institute had offered any
unit standards that they felt like offering,
instead of those in the registered 10
qualification. So I then sat with the
Financial Planning Institute and tried to
map learning outcomes to the incorrect unit
standards to try and salvage the process.
Part of the hold up was the eight and a half 15
thousand learners whose IDs were incorrectly
loaded. They didn’t have assessors and
moderators. Another example would be, and I
have the documents, Prior Learning Centre,
Ms Karen Deller, with 8 000 learners where 20
she offered incorrect unit standards to
companies and learners, and I have the
documents, where this was pointed out to her
and we then used Deloitte to assist them to
131
fix it after my intervention. And I can go
on and on. The IISA, 35 000 learners.
Intech, 5 600 learners. And in each
instance INSETA provided the remedy, the
solution and hence our request to have more 5
staff to deal with these huge issues that we
were coming to the fore.
MR PRETORIUS 1104. Where Neesha Naidoo on the 27th of
November regarded the certification backlogs
as a desperate situation. Correct? 10
MS STEENEKAMP That is correct. We were very very
desperate because the system was giving
challenges. Deloitte was the outsourced
partner for our IT system and our upload
system. Secondly our providers, and as I 15
say, I will hand it up to Ms Edmonds to hand
in, numerous reports which had also been
submitted to Council on the 2nd of October
and 18th of September. The same challenges.
So the certification issue is a separate 20
issue from verification. Totally separate
issue. Verification in the Moonstone
Monitor referred to FAIS credits which are
different to full qualifications for which
132
certificates are given.
CHAIRMAN Can I just see this in context. Is the
complaint that she should have said to
Kruger we having problems with
certification, not with verification? 5
MR PRETORIUS Yes well, I’m going to argue whether the
case ---
CHAIRMAN I mean isn’t it a simple answer Mr
Pretorius.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. 10
CHAIRMAN Your complaint is really why you being
critical about the article ---
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
CHAIRMAN When she simply said look, we’ve done our
verification. We having problems with 15
certification. These are the problems.
MR PRETORIUS It is the difference between reaction when
she writes to Bruce Cameron, which is a
journalist who is going to publish something
and someone in the industry who was trying 20
to assess and she attacks and says, I want
and demand an apology and a retraction, when
there is a problem. Well she now says well,
he had the wrong label.
133
CHAIRMAN Yes, but all that she had to say to him,
look Mr Kruger, we having problems with
certification because some of the problems
are not in our hands, learners come and they
give, they write the document number and the 5
wrong ... (inaudible) ... and the whole
system gets clogged up because we can't
issue a certificate with the wrong ID
number.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. 10
CHAIRMAN Otherwise X will get a certificate where it
really was intended for Y.
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
CHAIRMAN I think I’ve got enough facts from you just
to argue that. 15
MR PRETORIUS Yes, we’ll argue that.
CHAIRMAN Why didn’t you do that? You such an
intelligent lady. Why didn’t you just ---
MS STEENEKAMP I answered ---
CHAIRMAN Write to him. The impression I’m getting is 20
that you thought you’re indispensible to
this organisation.
MS STEENEKAMP Mr Chair I answered the Moonstone article
which spoke about verification which had
134
become quite an issue.
CHAIRMAN Yes, but why didn’t you write to him and say
look, verification is sorted out. It’s
really ... (inaudible) ...
MS STEENEKAMP I’ll tell you why. Because I felt that that 5
would not be an appropriate response to give
to Moonstone who was not an accredited
provider, had applied to be one and it would
not have been an appropriate response to the
Moonstone Monitor article that, around the 10
verification. The verification had become
the issue that providers were worried about.
CHAIRMAN The more I hear you, the impression I get,
so many senior people in our country think
they are indispensible. 15
MS STEENEKAMP I’m not indispensible.
CHAIRMAN That’s the impression I get, really.
MS STEENEKAMP I’m really not indispensible.
CHAIRMAN It’s not something that I’d like to dismiss
you for. 20
MS STEENEKAMP No.
CHAIRMAN But people start running organisations like
they own it, you know.
MS STEENEKAMP No Mr Chair, I am certainly ---
135
CHAIRMAN Instead of having the humility and saying Mr
Kruger, you know, you just got the wrong end
of the stick here. People run organisations
like they own it. Like if they leave this
organisation will collapse overnight. 5
MS STEENEKAMP I don’t believe that Mr Chair.
MS EDMONDS Sorry Mr Chair, but the emails don’t
indicate that she was riding rough shard
over Kruger. She was very polite. This is
how Pretorius, Mr Pretorius wants you to 10
read those emails, but it is quite clear ---
CHAIRMAN But you’ll argue that.
MS EDMONDS Yes.
MR PRETORIUS Yes, that’s a question for argument.
MS EDMONDS Yes. But it’s also evident, but I’m 15
interrupting you here and forgive me because
I’m not sure that this is fair to Ms
Steenekamp because that is not the tone of
the emails. And Mr Kruger doesn’t respond
to them in that way. Neither do other 20
service providers in the industry.
CHAIRMAN But his response is a very responsible
response. He doesn’t strike me as a person
that’s trying to take advantage of the
136
situation. But look, let’s look at ---
MS EDMONDS What you don’t have before you ---
CHAIRMAN Yes?
MS EDMONDS Is the document which he published within
the industry on the basis of hearsay 5
evidence which incorrectly stated that there
were certification backlogs which he didn’t
pass by Ms Steenekamp first and which
created hysteria in the industry.
CHAIRMAN Well where’s that document? 10
MS EDMONDS We said we will provide it to you.
MR PRETORIUS It is there. It’s 1066.
MS STEENEKAMP It’s the verification thing and I responded
purely and certainly not because I’m
indispensible. 15
CHAIRMAN 1066. Let’s just look at that. 1066.
MS STEENEKAMP We spoke about verification and I responded
to that.
MR PRETORIUS Or 1068. One of the two Mr Chairman. The -
-- 20
CHAIRMAN Now it seems to me ---
MR PRETORIUS Its’ 1068 sorry.
CHAIRMAN Yes. Where it says, “Before the information
can be placed on the National Learners ---
137
MR PRETORIUS Yes, 1068.
CHAIRMAN Yes. Now who is writing this?
MS STEENEKAMP 106.
CHAIRMAN No, 1068. Ms Steenekamp, who’s writing
that? 5
MS STEENEKAMP Let me just quickly get to the page.
CHAIRMAN That’s, it starts off by ---
MS STEENEKAMP This is the Moonstone Monitor.
CHAIRMAN Yes. “It appears that there’s another
problem which may lead to disappointment for 10
many who address their enquiries to SAQA.
Before the information can be placed on the
National Learners Records Database, the
course material and the whole process has to
be verified by INSETA.” 15
MS STEENEKAMP It’s verified ---
CHAIRMAN “Sources in the training field say there are
instances where this verification has fallen
behind which means that folk who attend the
training still has no official proof that 20
they comply with the fit and proper
requirements.”
MS EDMONDS And that’s the ---
MS STEENEKAMP That’s the issue.
138
CHAIRMAN Yes, but now what, if you don’t get your
certificate the same applies.
MS STEENEKAMP They not going to get a certificate Mr Chair
because they only doing certain unit
standards for fit and proper. 5
CHAIRMAN Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP INSETA does not provide, that is the
provider.
CHAIRMAN Yes, but all his complaining is about, and
I’ve read this, all his complaining is about 10
if somebody goes to the course, doesn’t get
a result. He comes home ---
MS STEENEKAMP But they loose their jobs.
CHAIRMAN I said to my son, but look, I’ve paid for
this course, show me something. 15
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
CHAIRMAN But he’s gone for the course, he’s
undertaking ---
MS EDMONDS It’s a national requirement. They will
loose their jobs if they do not have that 20
qualification or those qualifications by
that date. That’s the panic that it caused.
MS STEENEKAMP I never saw certificate anywhere in
Moonstone Monitor. I responded to his issue
139
of verification. They wouldn’t have gotten
a certificate anyway.
CHAIRMAN Can you just show me your response please?
MR PRETORIUS I think that’s 1066.
MS EDMONDS That’s 1066. 5
CHAIRMAN I mean, I don’t see what he’s writing wrong
here. He’s got it wrong, you right. You
must say look, you got it wrong in the
following respects. 1065 is your response?
MS EDMONDS 1066. 10
CHAIRMAN 1-0?
MS EDMONDS 1066.
CHAIRMAN Yes.
MS EDMONDS And there’s nothing intemperate about it.
CHAIRMAN You talking about the one at 1:55? Is that 15
right? 1:53pm. Is that the one?
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS EDMONDS Yes, that’s right.
CHAIRMAN Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP 1-0? 20
CHAIRMAN No, but look at this here. I think, I know
what I’m saying. I have received
information for a workshop that will be
conducted by Moonstone as per the email. I
140
also read further and was shocked to read
the exceptionally incorrect and
unsubstantiated comments about INSETA’s
inability to verify learners work on time,
and the alleged backlogs. This is 5
absolutely untrue and we would appreciate to
be informed about who the source of such
incorrect ---” I mean, all I’m saying is
why don’t you get, say to Mr Kruger look,
there’s a problem here? 10
MS STEENEKAMP I do say to him we are right on track with
verification. They would not have received
a certificate. The learning they were doing
was not certificate worthy. So I’m saying
Mr Kruger raises the issue of verification 15
Chair.
MS EDMONDS Sorry Mr Chairperson, can I also just, that
isn’t the charge against Ms Steenekamp. The
charge against her ---
CHAIRMAN I’m making a general --- 20
MS EDMONDS No.
CHAIRMAN I’m making a general observation.
MS EDMONDS No. But Mr Pretorius is now trying to twist
the nature of the charge against ---
141
MR PRETORIUS But ---
MS EDMONDS No sorry, let me finish please, against Ms
Steenekamp. The charge itself is as it
reads here, that she acted contrary to the
interests of INSETA by falsely denying to 5
third parties that INSETA ETQA had backlogs.
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS EDMONDS Now she didn’t falsely deny and the tone
with which she addressed Mr Kruger is not an
issue before you. That’s not the charge 10
with which she’s been charged. And it’s not
what I’ve set out to prepare for. She is
charged with falsely denying to third
parties that there, and she’s saying I
didn’t. I denied that there were 15
verification backlogs. What the INSETA is
saying is that she denied that there were
any, any backlogs at all and that’s why
they’ve tried to introduce this
certification and create the type of 20
confusion that they have apparently
successfully created.
CHAIRMAN Why have they successfully created it?
MS EDMONDS Because certification, no, no, please Mr
142
Pretorius.
MR PRETORIUS I’ve said nothing.
MS EDMONDS Yes, but you keep on going oh, oh, and
wanting to interrupt.
MR PRETORIUS I don’t interrupt. 5
MS EDMONDS But in effect you doing so by making a noise
while I’m trying to address the Chair. The
fact is what she was charged with and what
we prepared ourselves for is not the way in
which she had elected to deal with Mr 10
Pretorius. The fact is what she was charged
for was that she had allegedly falsely
denied that there were backlogs. She says,
all I denied was that there were backlogs in
verification because there were no backlogs 15
in verification. I did not deny that there
were any other backlogs. There were
backlogs in certification. But because Mr
Pretorius and his client and his attorney
and Dr Konar all misunderstand the process, 20
they conflate them both and accuse her of
falsely denying that there were backlogs in
certification. Which she never denied
falsely or otherwise. And that is the
143
charge which she is required to meet.
MR PRETORIUS It’s a question for argument. I mean the
FSB also had the same difficulty.
MS STEENEKAMP Mr Chair, if I may just take you further
down in the email. I do in fact then alert 5
Mr Kruger, Albert Marais in fact, who is Mr
Kruger’s colleague, to the fact that you may
also wish to be reminded, especially
providers mentioned in your mail such as PSG
Konsult Academy that INSETA ETQA has quality 10
assurance standards that have to be met.
And that failure of any provider to comply
with the assessment and moderation practices
required of them as per their signed codes
of conduct with INSETA will significantly 15
disadvantage their enrolled learners. So I
do address the issue you raise. Not by
certificate because they wouldn’t have got
certificates. But I say to him, there are,
however, other challenges. Then I say 20
providers may be required to reassess and
re-moderate learners work because of non
compliance with quality assurance standards.
This will be the only reason that a learner
144
may not be awarded the credits they require
for the FAIS licenses by 31 December. So in
fact I do tell him that.
CHAIRMAN Yes thank you. Thank you for pointing that
out to me. Who is Mr, who is this person 5
you addressing it to?
MS STEENEKAMP Mr Albert Marais.
CHAIRMAN Yes, who is he?
MS STEENEKAMP He’s Paul Kruger's, he’s the head of
Moonstone and Paul Kruger's colleague. 10
CHAIRMAN Oh yes, you told me Moonstone, you gave me
an idea of what they are. Yes fine. Thank
you Mr Pretorius, please continue.
MR PRETORIUS Will you please turn to page 465.
CHAIRMAN Are you now at count, complaint number 4? 15
MR PRETORIUS Yes. I’m dealing with IMFUNDO.
CHAIRMAN Yes.
MR PRETORIUS And that would be count, relating to count
2. It would be, Mr Chairman, you will have
to go to Mr Abel’s documents. 20
MS EDMONDS I didn’t bring those.
CHAIRMAN In 2 or you going to ---
MR PRETORIUS No, I’m going to Mr Abel’s file. File 2 of
Mike Abel for the document.
145
MS EDMONDS This is complaint 1.
MR PRETORIUS It relates to complaint 1, yes.
CHAIRMAN Thank you. Can I just ask you on complaint
1. I’ve made a note, file number 2 of Mike
Abel, page? 5
MR PRETORIUS 465.
CHAIRMAN 465. Can I just ask you, complaint 1, when
you sat on the tender committee, who else
sat with you there?
MS STEENEKAMP There are numbers of people, if I could hand 10
up a document.
CHAIRMAN Just what you can recall. That’s fine.
MS STEENEKAMP If I can hand up a document. It would be
three or four or five other people. The
project office would have to give that to 15
us.
CHAIRMAN But they senior people?
MS STEENEKAMP They all managers, same as me.
CHAIRMAN In your category?
MS STEENEKAMP The fact that I had a title senior manager, 20
I can assure you Mr Chair, did not indicate
seniority on those panels at all. It’s that
I have more than one division reporting into
me. But I had no seniority.
146
CHAIRMAN And none of the people objected that you sat
or that your son was indirectly, and I use
the work indirectly working for ADVTECH?
MS STEENEKAMP Not at all.
CHAIRMAN None of them complained? 5
MS STEENEKAMP Nobody complained at any stage.
CHAIRMAN And Deloittes knew you were sitting there?
MS STEENEKAMP Project office knew I was sitting there.
They are the external auditors as well as
our corporate services manager knew I was 10
there, knew that my son worked in the
ADVTECH group.
CHAIRMAN Yes, thank you.
MS STEENEKAMP If I may, I’ll just hand this up as an
example of the sorts of people. This is an 15
earlier and a later one. Of the sorts of
people that would sit. These aren’t
necessarily them but those are the sorts of
committees.
CHAIRMAN Page 465. 20
MR PRETORIUS 465 of Mr Abel’s file.
CHAIRMAN Thank you.
MR PRETORIUS This is another document that we can make,
Chairman this is copies of it. Now this is
147
a contract between INSETA and ADVTECH
trading as IMFUNDO. Correct?
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, yes.
MR PRETORIUS If you turn to page, and this is for
logistical services? 5
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS If you turn to page 477 you will see the
date of signature is in October 2007.
MS STEENEKAMP I’m just looking. Just a moment.
MR PRETORIUS 477. 10
MS EDMONDS I don’t have these documents because I
didn’t bring Abel’s files with me.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS And your recollection and subject to
correction at that stage when your son is 15
the operations director of IMFUNDO.
MS STEENEKAMP He would have been probably moved by them.
But I’m not sure. I’ll find out the exact
dates of movement.
MR PRETORIUS It deals with far more than logistics Ms 20
Steenekamp. If you go to Annexure A,
deliverable 1 is the development of
assessment instruments.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. IMFUNDO did not develop them.
148
Industry specialists developed them.
IMFUNDO’s logistical role would have been to
source industry specialists.
MR PRETORIUS What is the, to whom is the contract?
MS STEENEKAMP We’d have to, which contract? 5
MR PRETORIUS This contract, page 465.
CHAIRMAN Is that not IMFUNDO’s?
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS IMFUNDO, yes.
CHAIRMAN Industry of resourcing trading as IMFUNDO. 10
MR PRETORIUS It’s IMFUNDO’s contractual obligation to
deliver that deliverable.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP It is their contractual obligation but they 15
did not develop it. Industry specialists
were sourced to develop it in terms of the
project. You have to read the contract in
light of the actual project that was
submitted to Council in April of 2008 to get 20
the flow of what was the intention and who
had to do what in the contract.
MR PRETORIUS Well let’s see what page 467 Ms Steenekamp,
clause 6.1.
149
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. 5Page 4-6?
MR PRETORIUS 467.
MS STEENEKAMP I’ve got it.
MR PRETORIUS Clause 6.1.
MS STEENEKAMP I don’t have that. 5
MR PRETORIUS Page 467.
MS STEENEKAMP I’ve got 467.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. Bottom of the page, clause 6.1.
MS STEENEKAMP Clause 6.1.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. IMFUNDO hereby agrees to provide 10
services to INSETA relating to the delivery
of the FAIS fit and proper project
encompassing, and then you have to go to
page 470 to get the deliverables.
MS STEENEKAMP I’m not sure why these don’t follow. 15
MR PRETORIUS Because the page is wrong. I’ll take you to
page 470.
MS STEENEKAMP Ok.
MR PRETORIUS You’ll find clause 6.1.1 to clause 6.1.5 Ms
Steenekamp. 20
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS To design the assessment tools. It had
nothing to do with logistics.
5 Tape 3 – Side 1 – ETS00172
150
MS STEENEKAMP The logistics involve there was to, they did
not design it. They not industry
specialists. They had to appropriate
industry specialists for all the categories
to design those tools. That was the 5
logistics they were responsible to do.
MR PRETORIUS IMFUNDO was, Ms Steenekamp you can argue as
long as you want to. The contractual
obligation was IMFUNDO, whether they
subcontracted by somebody else, it’s their 10
obligation, they the contracting party which
you say is logistical. I would say to you
that it is patently wrong and a
misconstruction of the contract. 6.1.2,
page 470. 15
MS STEENEKAMP 6.1.2.
MR PRETORIUS 6.1.2.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, I’ve got it.
MR PRETORIUS Page 470. Designed for RPL assessment
tools. Nothing to do with logistics. 20
CHAIRMAN Mr Pretorius, that you can deal with in
argument.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. No, I just want to get ---
CHAIRMAN Yes.
151
MR PRETORIUS Design of RPL assessment, nothing to do with
logistics. Correct?
MS STEENEKAMP Well if it’s in a contract like that but not
in a project.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. 5
MS STEENEKAMP The two have to be read together.
MR PRETORIUS Finalisation of the curricula under
direction of INSETA for three examinations
stipulated above. Nothing to do with
logistics? 10
MS STEENEKAMP I would differ Mr Pretorius in the
interpretation and how the project rolled
out. That’s why I’m saying I would really
differ with you. But if you reading it like
that, it was IMFUNDO’s responsibility. But 15
I would differ with how the project rolled
out logistically.
MR PRETORIUS Developed appropriate learning material for
the relevant curricula during deliver in
2008? Nothing to do with logistics. 20
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS They a service provider, IMFUNDO. Same as
6.1.5. That is logistical support.
Providing logistical support for the writing
152
of national assessments.
MS STEENEKAMP I hear what you saying Mr Pretorius and I
can agree with how you reading it. I am,
however, saying the way the project rolled
out and the way the project motivation was 5
written is that the service provider
logistically had to get people to do the
work and make sure it was in on time. So it
was ---
CHAIRMAN I’m completely lost here. Mr Pretorius, I 10
see the contract. The contract is with
IMFUNDO. Is it your case that the witness
should have recused herself?
MR PRETORIUS No, no. Well apart from that, the witness
later on, we’ll deal with that later, 15
falsely denied that IMFUNDO was a service
provider.
CHAIRMAN Well the contract is quite clear what ---
MR PRETORIUS Well she denied that. When she’s confronted
with that and people say that it’s a service 20
provider, she then says IMFUNDO is not a
service provider.
MS STEENEKAMP They are a service provider Mr Pretorius.
I’ve never said they were not a service
153
provider.
MR PRETORIUS Well ---
MS STEENEKAMP I’ve said the service they provided was
logistics. And in the role out of that
project they did not design curricula 5
learning material or RPL assessments. They
logistically brought in 15 or 20 people from
the industry.
CHAIRMAN It doesn’t matter. They’ve got a contract -
-- 10
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
CHAIRMAN With INSETA.
MS STEENEKAMP I’ve never denied they had a contract.
CHAIRMAN And the contract says what their obligations
are and what their rights are. And any 15
third party will look at the contracts.
There’s no point in denying in something ---
MS STEENEKAMP No, I’m not denying ---
CHAIRMAN What the contract provides for.
MS STEENEKAMP Chair, I’m not denying it. 20
MS EDMONDS She hasn’t denied it.
CHAIRMAN But there you say that, the problem you
saying is later that she denies it to other
people.
154
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
CHAIRMAN Is that the complaint?
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
CHAIRMAN You’ll argue that Mr Pretorius.
MR PRETORIUS I will in fairness show her where she does. 5
CHAIRMAN Yes, I understand. Thank you.
MR PRETORIUS Ms Steenekamp, if I could just ---
CHAIRMAN Complaint number 4?
MR PRETORIUS Complaint number 4.
CHAIRMAN Are you pursuing that Mr Pretorius? That’s 10
the contractual right to copyright.
MR PRETORIUS The evidence has been led on that and Ms
Steenekamp said I’m going to wait, well,
again just the tone on complaint number 4,
if you deal with that, on page 1183. 15
CHAIRMAN I think there’s something in the copyright
law too that says if I’m working for you and
I develop something, it belongs to you.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. On page 1183, just ---
CHAIRMAN Page? 20
MR PRETORIUS 1183.
CHAIRMAN Yes.
MR PRETORIUS Where you write to Rina Opperman dated 2005.
“Though I must pass it on to you from our
155
dear friend. Please lets talk so that we
can make sure she does not get her way.”
MS STEENEKAMP Ms Karen, I cannot remember the context of
this. However, I will say that Ms Karen
Deller had a history of certain actions with 5
people, other providers, people, staff
members who had left her. So I cannot
recall the context of this particular issue.
But as I say, Ms Deller certainly did not
always behave in a way that was 10
complementary to her previous contracted
staff.
MR PRETORIUS On the verification, if you go to page 1211.
CHAIRMAN 1211?
MR PRETORIUS Paragraph 2 deals with delays in 15
verification.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. Now number 2, ok. Could I respond?
MR PRETORIUS Yes. That’s why I’m asking, putting it to
you.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. I have read Ms Deller’s document with 20
interest and will be handing up to Ms
Edmonds a full response. In fact Ms Karen
Deller had four verification visits in a
year. We have the reports. She disliked
156
Adeline Singh’s verification report
intensely, hence a bit of a delay. I also,
she also says variously that, “I told
Shirley”, the last sentence of paragraph 2,
“this in numerous emails, all ignored”. My 5
records will show from my computer that I
sent Ms Deller two hundred emails from
January to November 2008. That’s nearly one
per working day. And I’ll also hand up
numerous documents to counter Ms Deller’s 10
statements where she actually acknowledges
that she lost stuff, should have taken more
care and says, “Thank you, we have a
solution.” And if I may read it and I’ll
pass it up to Ms Edmonds, “No stress at all. 15
It is good that you reminded me though as we
have not actually followed up ---
CHAIRMAN Sorry, the date of that please?
MS STEENEKAMP This is 22 January 2008. And we had
numerous of these. 20
CHAIRMAN Ok.
MS STEENEKAMP Literally two hundred.
MR PRETORIUS Well we talking now a year later, almost 8
December 2008.
157
MS STEENEKAMP Well ---
MR PRETORIUS Sorry please, sorry Ms Steenekamp, let me
finish. Could you please deal with, she
said that I begged for a verification visit,
begged for months, had one a month ago. So 5
that must be about November.
MS STEENEKAMP Ms Deller had a verification visit in April,
in July, in October and in November. And we
have the verification reports to prove it.
We also have emails to prove that when we 10
wanted to conduct verification Ms Deller
went on holiday, then was away, then was not
available, then we had to change dates. And
I will have all of those emails provided.
MR PRETORIUS Well, I look forward to seeing that. 15
MS STEENEKAMP I have them in fact if I had time to look.
MR PRETORIUS Yes, you’ll have time to look for it Ms
Steenekamp.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS You’ve referred to many documents and we’ll 20
deal with them when you have made them
available.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS Paragraph 4.
158
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS “INSETA unilaterally announces that there
will be no more oral/open book/portfolio
only assessments because INSETA has picked
up plagiarism.” And in brackets, “They 5
didn’t pick it up and the number who cheat
is small. The only way to get credits via
the online multiple choice assessments
conducted by the RPL provider that won the
tender, IMFUNDO.” 10
MS STEENEKAMP That’s not true Mr Pretorius. We have, I
have emails to Ms Deller which I will also
provide to you where she asks, what must I
do. And I say please continue to offer your
learners your own, your solution and I 15
explain it further to her. So that is
absolutely not true.
MR PRETORIUS Yes, well we’ll look at those emails.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS And do you, you havent disputed that the RPL 20
provider is IMFUNDO.
MS STEENEKAMP Not the only provider. There are numerous
providers. But Ms Deller had a financial
interest in undermining every other RPL
159
provider in the sector, which she did on
many occasions. So the ---
CHAIRMAN So she has an interest in ---
MS STEENEKAMP She has an interest and she regularly
resorted, not only with our SETA, but with 5
many other SETAs, to blackening SETAs,
blackening providers names, blackening
assessors and moderators names etc. So she
has, and that is why Mutual & Federal also,
because of her unscrupulous behaviour 10
decided to let her contract go.
MR PRETORIUS You referred to Clive Le Meme.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS He in fact complained ---
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. 15
MR PRETORIUS That he refused to certify or to give credit
and you overruled him.
MS STEENEKAMP No. Mr Le Meme came on, after we had been
to the skills factor/ICC ---
MS EDMONDS Sorry, again I’m a little confused about 20
where we going with this. I’m not aware of
any charge relating to this.
MR PRETORIUS The start of the supporting documentation in
charge 3.
160
MS EDMONDS By how does it relate to charge, there’s a
huge amount of supporting documentation
which relate to absolutely nothing. So that
is ---
MR PRETORIUS Well if we do it the long way, if you refer 5
to page 1120 ---
MS EDMONDS I did object Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRMAN 1120.
MR PRETORIUS I will deal with it. Page 1120.
CHAIRMAN What is it you want to deal with the 10
relevant ---
MR PRETORIUS It’s the first paragraph. What does it
refer?
MS STEENEKAMP “Please find attached this complaint.”
“Good morning Dr Konar.” 15
MR PRETORIUS Page 1120, at the bottom of the page. “Dear
Sharon.”
MS STEENEKAMP “Dear Sharon.” Yes.
MR PRETORIUS Would you like to read it.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes. “The reports in Personal Finance, I 20
recently, I was recently ---”
MR PRETORIUS And the first, there’s two reports in the
Personal Finance.
MS STEENEKAMP Sorry.
161
MR PRETORIUS The first one, 25 October is the one that Mr
Cameron, according to you without you
realising that he used what you said,
published in the personal finance.
MS STEENEKAMP In fact if I may correct there, the Personal 5
Finance article never used any of that email
written with the names. If you would read
Mr Cameron’s article you will it’s an
innocuous article with confirmations of
certain things. But that’s just by the way. 10
If I may refer to Mr Clive Le Meme.
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP Mr Clive Le Meme became an assessor
moderator for this particular provider at
some stage after my last verification visit. 15
What Mr Clive Le Meme does not know
obviously and does not give Dr Konar are our
many reports in which we say to the skills
factor, you are in danger of being de-
accredited. And in fact where Neesha 20
Naidoo, my colleague, and I write, and
Adeline to say we can only sign off one
group. I certainly wasn’t the major role,
major mover and shaker. My staff were. So
162
Mr Le Meme is uninformed and provides
incomplete information to Dr Konar, when in
fact the skills factors verification reports
which he would not have got, but Nelly
Nadioo would have, show a totally different 5
picture. And in fact show that the ETQA
division had said to Ms Naidoo, unless she
changes what she’s doing we will have to de-
accredit her. And I have documents. Here
she writes back to us, for example, 27 10
September, she will provide us with an
improvement plan which she never did.
Here’s one from Neesha to say only this
group can be uploaded.
MS EDMONDS Chair I’m still absolutely bemused as to 15
what this has to do with the charges with
which my client is charges.
CHAIRMAN Well I think she’s adequately explained it
Mr Pretorius.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. No I’m not dealing with that. 20
CHAIRMAN What does CCM stand for Ms Steenekamp? I
see he’s got a cum laude in CCM.
MS STEENEKAMP I’m not sure.
MR PRETORIUS Now page 1072 is a copy of a letter from the
163
FSB to Mr Isaacs of the South African
Qualifications Authority.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS And it says that “The office of the
Registrar has received information from 5
several stakeholders in the financial
services industry that the INSETA is in a
process of implementing “national summative
assessments”, and these assessments will
only be valid and credits will only be 10
awarded if they are completed through
IMFUNDO, the particular service provider.”
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS “The perception has been created that there
has been consultation with FSB in this 15
regard, and that it’s an attempt to align
with the process of the FSB.” You see that?
MS STEENEKAMP This was responded to in a letter, fully
responded to, submitted to Mr Abel and Mr
Abel’s office sent it off with the correct 20
Mr Andersons’ or Gerry Andersons’
misperceptions there and we believe the
author of the document is Wendy Hattingh
who’s husband serves on the INSETA Council.
164
And also that the many providers that he
refers to, you’re right there, are in fact
people who have a direct interest in
undermining another organisation such as
ADVTECH. 5
MR PRETORIUS Yes. Well ---
MS STEENEKAMP And we correct Mr Anderson’s perceptions in
a letter sent from Mr Abel’s, but
unfortunately that’s not added to Konar’s
report. 10
MR PRETORIUS Well you can give us a copy of that letter
as well. What we do know ---
MS STEENEKAMP I’m sure the SETA would have ---
MS EDMONDS Mr Chair, the reason why there aren’t any of
these documents is because they are 15
irrelevant to the charges against my client.
And I was not going to burden as the INSETA
and Mr Konar felt was necessary at this
hearing with millions of irrelevant
documents. But if Mr Pretorius persists in 20
asking irrelevant questions then I will
introduce all of these irrelevant documents
in re-examination.
MR PRETORIUS Page 1078, Ms Steenekamp, we’ve dealt with
165
this previously. But this is the email that
Mr Anderson wrote to Mr Abel and which he
says “1. The role of IMFUNDO.” And in the
first paragraph he puts this particular
problem to you and the response is as 5
follows. “In response to this you and Ms
Steenekamp indicated that IMFUNDO was not a
service provider, that the service provider
is in fact IIE and that the role of IMFUNDO
was restricted to the logistical side of the 10
planned national summative assessment.”
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS And we know what the contract says.
MS STEENEKAMP We know what the contract says Mr Pretorius.
But as I’ve explained, the IIE is the 15
education and training accredited service
provider. IMFUNDO is the logistical partner
and in a role out of the project they
contracted accredited people to design the
various components. And that was their 20
logistical role. However, Mr Edwards and
the IPO were the responsible implementers as
well of the project. So I didn’t think we
had anything untoward amongst the people
166
involved in the role out of the project.
MR PRETORIUS Ms Steenekamp you referred to various
documents ---
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS That you want to refer to. You are welcome 5
to get information from your son as to
precisely when he was operations director.
MS STEENEKAMP I could ask him to get an official letter
rather. I don’t want to presume for my son
Mr Pretorius if I may. I’m going to request 10
my son to get an official letter from the
ADVTECH group as to how his role is
performed and when he was reallocated into
the training component of the new IT system
for ADVTECH. They’ve just recently 15
restructured ---
MR PRETORIUS Well ---
MS STEENEKAMP Which might have, in your opinion, have been
coincidentally at the time that the project,
that FAIS had ended. But the INSETA Council 20
has just recently awarded IMFUNDO again and
IIE for the role out of 2009. So they are
certainly still continuing with the project
up to 31 December 09. And I don’t believe
167
there was coincidence, but if I may provide
a formal letter rather than give hearsay.
MR PRETORIUS The letter will be hearsay without him
testifying. But all I’m interested is when
he was appointed --- 5
MS STEENEKAMP I will have to request ---
MR PRETORIUS Ms Steenekamp, just let me finish. When he
was appointed and became operations director
of IMFUNDO and when he was no longer or
moved to a different position. We have your 10
dates and it contradicts what you said
previously in your evidence.
MS STEENEKAMP I said it’s approximate dates Mr Pretorius.
MR PRETORIUS Yes, no, we know what you, it’s on record
what you said previously with regard to 15
dates. And you said that you replied to the
letter of the FSB.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS Which I would like to see that copy please.
MS STEENEKAMP I will sit with Ms Edmonds and go through 20
all the documents that we need to prove that
Dr Konar certainly had a very one sided
input.
CHAIRMAN Can I suggest that we do that now. How long
168
will it take?
MR PRETORIUS I’m quite willing to ---
CHAIRMAN I’d like to finish this hearing.
MS EDMONDS Yes.
MR PRETORIUS So would I. 5
MS EDMONDS So would I.
MS STEENEKAMP But I don’t have everything with me. I’ve
got a lot but I don’t have ---
CHAIRMAN Well let’s see what you have. What you
don’t have then you can --- 10
MS EDMONDS We don’t need everything. Just, it really
is irrelevant. If there’s two things that
Mr Pretorius wants is when did your son
become the IMFUNDO operations director and
when did he cease to be IMFUNDO. 15
CHAIRMAN That’s a phone call.
MS EDMONDS And that’s a phone call.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS And you can make that phone call. Hopefully
he’ll give up his Thai Chi for 2 seconds. 20
MS STEENEKAMP His phone will be off.
MS EDMONDS And if there’s a response to the FSB, if we
can have that. If we can stand down for 5
minutes to do that.
169
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP FSB, I will look. I hope I brought it with
me but other than that I can show you
certainly on my computer.
MS EDMONDS Yes, that’s fine. 5
HEARING ADJOURNS FOR SHORT BREAK
HEARING RESUMES
CHAIRMAN Are you in a position to proceed?
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
MS EDMONDS Yes. I havent read these documents but I'm 10
happy that we proceed.
MR PRETORIUS I just have a couple of questions of ...
(inaudible) ... Ms Steenekamp, you off the
record told us you weren’t able to speak to
your son but you were able to speak to his 15
boss. And we know that he in the
reorganisation stopped being the operations
director of IMFUNDO in March 2009.
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct.
MR PRETORIUS When did he become the operations director? 20
MS STEENEKAMP She’s not 100 % sure of the date. She will
check. But she thinks, if she recalls, it’s
somewhere midway in October. Somewhere
there, but she will, she can't confirm
170
either but she’ll have to check.
CHAIRMAN So he’s no longer from March 2009 and you
say mid October 2000 and?
MS STEENEKAMP 2008. Sorry, 2007.
MR PRETORIUS 2007. Mid December 2007. What you then, 5
and I don’t want to waste time, furnished us
with, let me just identify it, it’s a copy
of the letter which we already have of the
FSB dated 16th October 2008. Is that
correct? 10
MS STEENEKAMP That is correct. If I may just clarify
them. These are the drafts that I wrote for
Mr Abel.
MR PRETORIUS Yes, I’ll get to that. We’ll go through it
and you’ll get an opportunity. Then the 15
next one is an email which you sent to Mr
Abel dated 1st November 2008.
CHAIRMAN Sorry what date?
MR PRETORIUS 2 November 2008.
CHAIRMAN Yes. 20
MR PRETORIUS In which you take issue with the FSB, the
stance of FSB which you described as, you
are the guilty party until proved innocent.
Correct? Paragraph 4.
171
MS STEENEKAMP Paragraph 4, I’m just looking, is it the 25th
of September document?
MR PRETORIUS No, the 2 November 2008. It will be the
fourth document in the ---
CHAIRMAN Sorry Mr Pretorius. Should we number these? 5
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
CHAIRMAN I lost the ---
MR PRETORIUS The last three were C30 something.
CHAIRMAN These documents, I’ve also received those.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. 10
MS EDMONDS C31 would have been the last document.
CHAIRMAN So I’ll mark this C32, 33 and then those
documents you now referring to, C34.
MR PRETORIUS C34. Yes, C34 onwards. It started off, ten
it’s the 16th October. C34. 15
CHAIRMAN Yes, 34.
MR PRETORIUS In the bundle that I gave you there’s a
photocopy then attached to the 16th of
October FSB letter, there’s an email dated
the 2nd of November 2008. 20
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, yes. I’ve got that.
MR PRETORIUS And paragraph 4 you said that the response I
will send to Gerry, that’s Mr Anderson.
MS EDMONDS Will that be C35?
172
MR PRETORIUS It’s all part of C34, numbered 1 to
whatever. You say will be framed with
parameters on which we function as a QA body
for the sector and not as a guilty party
until proved innocent. That’s the stance of 5
the FSB letter.
CHAIRMAN ... (inaudible) ...
MR PRETORIUS Yes, well let’s number them then we know
what we have. The email will be 4.
CHAIRMAN You reading from paragraph? 10
MR PRETORIUS Paragraph 4 of the email of the 2nd of
November which will be paginated page 4. We
paginating our papers.
CHAIRMAN Yes, thank you. Can't we rather make it 35,
36. It might be easier. 15
MR PRETORIUS Alright. We’ll make it then 34, then it will
be 35.
CHAIRMAN So paragraph 4 at page 37.
MR PRETORIUS 36, 37, 38. I get to page 51.
MS EDMONDS Did you number that? 20
MR PRETORIUS Yes. Then just for record purposes I’ll
refer to it, page 37 was the email. Page 38
is then a draft response which you furnished
to Mr Abel to reply to the letter of the
173
FSB.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS I don’t want to spend much time on that but
I’m going to argue that the tone and content
of this letter is far more appropriate if 5
you wanted to respond to Mr Cameron knowing
that he’s going to write an article. This
is if you now want to respond, what you
should have said to Mr Cameron. Any comment
on that? 10
MS STEENEKAMP I would like to say again that I did not
know that Mr Cameron was going to write an
article. There had been numerous pieces of
correspondence between the INSETA and Mr
Cameron prior to the article, none of which 15
he wrote in an article. However, this is a
different type of response and it’s not in
response to an anonymous letter at all.
CHAIRMAN What is this I see on page 40, the release
statements of Peter Torre. What is that? 20
For the 25th October, Personal Finance,
article 7. Mr Torre provided before the 25th
of October a report in Personal Finance with
all the evidence and copies.
174
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MR PRETORIUS It refers back to the article and we’ve got
a copy of the article that appeared in the
Personal Finance. So this deals with the
letter which the FSB wrote in response --- 5
CHAIRMAN I see.
MR PRETORIUS To the email which Ms Steenekamp sent ---
CHAIRMAN I see.
MR PRETORIUS Which led to the Personal Finance. So
there’s an interaction between this and the 10
Personal Finance article. Then on page 48
Ms Steenekamp, there’s a copy of the FSB
letter dated 2nd of September. And then
again on page 50 and 51 your draft response
to Mr Abel. 15
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, that’s correct.
MR PRETORIUS Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further
questions.
CHAIRMAN Yes, thank you.
MS EDMONDS I doubt that I have anything in re-20
examination but, sorry Mr Chair, did you
want to ask something before I re-examine?
CHAIRMAN No I’m fine, thank you. No.
MS EDMONDS You stated under cross examination that the
175
issue in regard to Santam’s compliance or
failure to comply had been addressed by your
predecessor and you inherited it when you
took the department over. Do you recall
that? 5
MS STEENEKAMP Yes I do.
MS EDMONDS You say that you gave the details of the non
compliance to Mr Patterson to give to the
CEO of Santam. Why did you do that?
MS STEENEKAMP No, not to the CEO of Santam. At one stage 10
the Council, INSETA Council was having a
meeting.
MS EDMONDS Yes.
MS STEENEKAMP And wanted to know whether I had supporting
documents regarding the various companies, 15
which learners had cheated or plagiarised.
I then provided copies to Mr Patterson of
everything that we had to give to the INSETA
Council.
MS EDMONDS That’s Mr Patterson of Deneys Reitz --- 20
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct.
MS EDMONDS Who’s the attorney in this matter.
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct.
MS EDMONDS So the obligation lay with him to bring that
176
information to the attention of the Council.
MS STEENEKAMP The information was requested. I submitted
it to Mr Abel to give to Mr Patterson in
that meeting. I wasn’t part of that
meeting. 5
MS EDMONDS And also the request which you received from
Mr Liedeman which do not form part of the
bundle of documents. The personal threats.
Those too were provided to Deneys Reitz.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, they were. Mr Derek Wanblad has the 10
full suite of all emails and documents
relating to the Mr Leon Liedeman case.
MS EDMONDS Do you have any idea why those documents do
not form part of the bundle of documents
that Mr Konar prepared for this hearing? 15
MS STEENEKAMP No, I don’t.
MS EDMONDS But Deneys Reitz was aware of those threats
made against you and Mr Abel personally.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, yes. There’s also a police incident
report that Mr Abel and I made a statement 20
at a police station based on our feelings
after receiving that email. Which we also
gave to our INSETA Council.
CHAIRMAN All this would have been avoided if the
177
Constitutional Court didn’t abolish ...
(inaudible) ...
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
CHAIRMAN The threat of being locked up is what we,
you know if people don’t ... (inaudible) ... 5
MS EDMONDS Do you want to comment on it?
MS STEENEKAMP I ---
MS EDMONDS No, you don’t Ms Steenekamp.
CHAIRMAN This all happened while your attorneys
friends were running the Constitution. 10
MS EDMONDS My friends have never been in charged of the
Constitution. That day is yet to come. The
email that you responded to, Bruce Cameron’s
email, did you respond to that as a personal
response or did you discuss it with anybody 15
before sending it to Bruce Cameron?
MS STEENEKAMP I discussed it with Mr Mike Abel.
MS EDMONDS Who as we all know was the CEO.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS And the? 20
MS STEENEKAMP Also the media officer as per the documents
also submitted to the hearing and Tetiwe
Jawuna’s own requirement that all such
issues be submitted to Mr Abel.
178
MS EDMONDS And he, as we know, resigned from the INSETA
as CEO and his resignation was accepted by
the INSETA. That’s a matter of record.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes.
MS EDMONDS You state that you declared an interest in 5
terms of the Supply Chain Management policy
and offered to recuse yourself in regard to
the first complaint against you.
MS STEENEKAMP That’s correct, yes.
MS EDMONDS Just for clarification, did you or your son 10
in fact have any interest in any of those
contracts?
MS STEENEKAMP Absolutely not. He was an employee of the
tertiary division and I have also no
interest whatsoever. 15
MS EDMONDS In those circumstances was there any
requirement on you in terms of the PFMA or
the Supply Chain Management policy to recuse
yourself or stand down from the tender
committees? 20
MS STEENEKAMP No there wasn’t. Our Supply Chain
Management policy is very clear that should
you offer to recuse yourself and the
materiality is not considered to be
179
significant, that in fact the panel can say,
ask you to remain. Which happened in every
instance. And I took guidance from our
corporate services supply chain manager as
well as from the INSETA project office who 5
were the external monitors of the process.
I have a copy of the Supply Chain document
with me.
MS EDMONDS Just have a look at the document 947 in the
bundle of documents. It’s the last page of 10
file 1, Shirley Steenekamp.
MS STEENEKAMP Which page?
MS EDMONDS 947, it’s the last page.
MS STEENEKAMP Right, I have it.
MS EDMONDS By the 19th of December 2008 it’s common 15
cause both you and Mr Abel were suspended.
MS STEENEKAMP That is correct.
MS EDMONDS I think it is on record that Dr Konar agreed
that that email could not possibly have been
addressed on that day and the date appears 20
to have been changed automatically by the
system.
MS STEENEKAMP That is correct.
MS EDMONDS So we don’t know when it was sent.
180
MS STEENEKAMP No.
MS EDMONDS Dr Konar didn’t give us any evidence in that
regard and it’s contents are, we don’t know
when it was sent. But in any event, even if
that date is correct, it is more than, well 5
it’s approximately a year after Ms Pretorius
allegedly commenced a relationship with your
son.
MS STEENEKAMP Yes, if that date would be correct.
MS EDMONDS And just for clarification again, because it 10
appears that there remains some confusion,
deliberate or otherwise, at the time that
you activated Mike Abel’s plan to promote
Kim Pretorius, were you aware of a
relationship between her and your son and/or 15
were you aware of the fact that she was
pregnant with your grandchild?
MS STEENEKAMP This would be when she was going to go to
the ETQA division?
MS EDMONDS At the time that you activated his proposal. 20
Well let’s just go back to that email.
MS STEENEKAMP We never activated it. We ---
MS EDMONDS At the time that you attempted to activate
the suggestion made by Mike Abel.
181
MS STEENEKAMP If it is in August 08, round about there,
yes, then I was aware that she was the
mother of my grandson. If it’s referring to
the 07 request and the early 08, no, I was
not at that stage aware that she was 5
involved or the mother of my future
grandson.
MS EDMONDS Have a look at 896. At the time, have you
got that document?
MS STEENEKAMP I have it in front of me. 10
MS EDMONDS At the time that you signed that document
were you aware of the relationship and/or
the child?
MS STEENEKAMP No, I was not.
MS EDMONDS Page 764, you got that? 15
MS STEENEKAMP I have it.
MS EDMONDS You testified that there is a confusion in
this email and in the bundle of documents as
they are talking about two completely
different contracts. 20
MS STEENEKAMP That is correct.
MS EDMONDS Do you have any idea, can you explain to the
Chairperson why this confusion might have
arisen in the context of Dr Konar’s
182
investigation?
MS STEENEKAMP I think Dr Konar might have conflated two
separate issues between CCI and the IMFUNDO
program. Not all the emails appear to be
here. In other documents that I’ve read, in 5
the other files that havent served here,
I’ve seen emails where Dr Leatt positively
responds to Karel Smit and says he would be
happy to submit his CV for future work.
I’ve also, however, seen where he does not 10
want to do IMFUNDO work. But those are two,
as I say, two totally separate issues.
MS EDMONDS Have you seen evidence of this confusion
anywhere else in Dr Konar’s report?
MS STEENEKAMP Throughout the reports I’ve seen that he 15
conflates issues that are not logically
sequenced or even have anything to do with
each other. And he has a very one sided
input of information that is not
sufficiently complete. 20
MS EDMONDS Do you have any idea why he did not approach
PriceWaterhouseCoopers in regard to some of
the aspects including the conflict aspect?
MS STEENEKAMP I have no idea why he didn’t.
183
MS EDMONDS Just have a look at page 1066 please.
MS STEENEKAMP I have that.
MS EDMONDS At the top a portion of the document in
response to your email to Kobus Serfontein
who you say is whom? 5
MS STEENEKAMP Kobus Serfontein is involved with PSG
Konsult Academy. But in the Moonstone
document they also seem to have some
connection to PSG Konsult.
MS EDMONDS Ok. 10
MS STEENEKAMP And in the Moonstone article they refer to
PSG Konsult.
MS EDMONDS You not only have the apology from Kruger,
but what hasn’t been brought to the
attention of the Chairperson is Mr 15
Serfontein’s response to your letter, to
your email which the Chairperson felt might
have been a little too strong. Can you
please just read Mr Serfontein’s email into
the record. 20
CHAIRMAN Which page is that?
MS EDMONDS 1066. It’s the first portion of an email.
It starts at the top, from Kobus Serfontein,
PSG Konsult to Shirley Steenekamp, Albert
184
Marais, cc Mike Abel, Gerry Anderson.
MS STEENEKAMP It says, “Dear Shirley. Thank you for
brining this to our attention. We were not
aware of this communication and regret that
Moonstone has used our name in this 5
communication which may lead to indicate
that we support the viewpoints that the
verification has fallen behind. PSG Konsult
Academy has always had good support from
INSETA ETQA with recent verification visits 10
in July and then again, 7 October 2008. We
would like to distance ourselves from the
remarks and viewpoint that there exists a
backlog from INSETA ETQA as we have
experienced the opposite. Kind regards. 15
Kobus Serfontein.”
MS EDMONDS We’ve been referred to various emails from
Dela Tacola. You’ve testified that she has
reasons to vilify you and other service
providers. You havent heard any evidence 20
from Dela in these proceedings have you?
MS STEENEKAMP No, I have not.
MS EDMONDS Thank you Mr Chair.
CHAIRMAN Yes. Thank you. Have you got any other
185
witnesses?
MS EDMONDS That is the case for Ms Steenekamp.
CHAIRMAN The employee’s case.
MS EDMONDS Yes.
CHAIRMAN Do you want to argue now or later? When do 5
you want to argue?
MS EDMONDS Not now. I would be doing my client a great
disservice.
MR PRETORIUS I’ve spoken to Mr Patterson. You’d prefer
some time on Thursday. I don’t know how Ms 10
Edmonds’ dates ---
MS EDMONDS It doesn’t, it rings badly with me. I’ve
got an urgent that I’ve got to do and then I
think I’ve got a meeting in the morning.
Should we not do it in writing and then we 15
can argue it if Nazeer wants to hear
argument.
MR PRETORIUS He wants to hear argument. We can put it in
writing as well.
CHAIRMAN It’s up to you. Whatever you people want to 20
do. Writing.
MR PRETORIUS I’ve had something ---
MS EDMONDS No, Thursday I’m not available.
MR PRETORIUS From Wednesday to Friday next week, it’s
186
fallen through so ---
CHAIRMAN Next week?
MR PRETORIUS We can do it sometime next week. Where you
placed next week?
CHAIRMAN I can do it next week Wednesday, the 15th. 5
MS EDMONDS I’ve got a meeting at 12 o' clock on
Wednesday.
CHAIRMAN Yes, well if we start at 9 we will be done
by 11.
MS EDMONDS Yes. 10
MR PRETORIUS Yes, alright.
CHAIRMAN 9 to 11?
MR PRETORIUS Wednesday 9 to 11. Alright.
MS EDMONDS Thank you.
CHAIRMAN Will you let me have something in writing 15
before that?
MR PRETORIUS Yes. Ruth ---
MS EDMONDS Yes, can we exchange then beforehand?
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
CHAIRMAN In the course of this week? 20
MR PRETORIUS Well let’s do it on Monday.
CHAIRMAN 13th.
MR PRETORIUS 13th. That’s fine. Monday the 13th.
MS EDMONDS Is it possible that we just do it in the
187
normal course? Let me have yours and I can
respond to yours and you can reply to mine
if need be.
MR PRETORIUS I’ll try before Monday but I, on the latest
on Monday. Gives you reasonable time. Let 5
me see whether I can get them to you on
Friday.
MS EDMONDS That would be great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN I take it that this is the entire dispute
between these parties. No other disputes? 10
MR PRETORIUS Yes. That I’m aware of.
MS EDMONDS That you dealing with. I’ve referred a
dispute to the CCMA in regard to unfair
suspension which is being heard on the 27th
of this month. 15
CHAIRMAN You don’t want me to deal with that? I
don’t know, I’m asking you, Mr Patterson?
MS EDMONDS I don’t have an objection.
CHAIRMAN There’s a lot of duplication. Well talk
about it. 20
MR PRETORIUS Yes.
CHAIRMAN I mean at the end of the day it’s INSETA ...
(inaudible) ... the board must understand
their funds must be better spent. You know,
188
I understand they give you instructions Mr
Patterson, but somebody must tell them.
MR PATTERSON I’m not shy Mr Cassim generally speaking.
CHAIRMAN If you resolve the matter with Mr Patterson
it will include those issues I take it Ms 5
Edmonds.
MS EDMONDS Yes. Well if we resolve which ---
CHAIRMAN If you resolve this issue it will resolve --
-
MS EDMONDS If the matter becomes settled? 10
CHAIRMAN Yes.
MS EDMONDS Then it must become settled in its entirety.
Certainly.
CHAIRMAN Yes.
MR PRETORIUS Yes. 15
HEARING ADJOURNS