1. OVERVIEW ON THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION:SAHRA
DEPARTMENT OF ARTS AND CULTURE
9/14/2018
OVERVIEW ON THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION:SAHRA
Acting Director-General : Arts and Culture
Date: 14 MARCH 2017

2. DEPARTMENT OF ARTS AND CULTURE
9/14/2018
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Purpose
Mandate of SAHRA( Sec 36)
Background
Findings on the MOU entered into with the Heritage Foundation
Findings on the Payments made by SAHRA to the Heritage Foundation
Conclusion

3. Purpose
To present to the Portfolio Committee an overview on the Heritage Foundation Forensic Report conducted by South Africa Heritage Resources Agency.

4. Introduction   
The Department received a query from the Freedom Front Plus regarding the condition of the Anglo Boer War forts around Pretoria.
The maintenance of graves of cultural significance are a responsibility of the SAHRA in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999
A formal communication was forwarded to SAHRA to investigate and attend to the concern

5. Mandate of SAHRA on Burial Grounds and Graves  
Sec 36. of the NHRA states as follows:
(1) Where it is not the responsibility of any other authority, SAHRA must conserve and generally care for burial grounds and graves protected in terms of this section, and it may make such arrangements for their conservation as it sees fit.
(2) SAHRA must identify and record the graves of victims of conflict and any other
graves which it deems to be of cultural significance and may erect memorials
associated with the grave referred to in subsection (1), and must maintain such
memorials.

6. Background   
UBAC (Pty) Ltd was appointed to conduct a forensic investigation into funds allocated to “The Heritage Foundation” for the period 2011 to 2013.
The Heritage Foundation is a duly registered and incorporated section 21 company, its main objective is the conservation of heritage resources which is an important chapter of the South African history and of special cultural significance to the Afrikaans section of the South African Community.
Funds totalling R 2,250, were transferred from SAHRA to The Heritage Foundation for the restoration, conservation, and management of identified burial and memorial sites in terms of an MOU signed by the parties.

7. Findings on the MOU entered into with the Heritage Foundation  
Findings
Progress
The former CEO Ms Van Damme was authorised to conclude the MOU entered into between SAHRA and The Heritage Foundation.
SAHRA to provide progress
The omission by SAHRA to ensure that the MOU included specific provisions with regards to budgets, duration, project specifics and addendums, has disadvantaged SAHRA’s rights to dispute any of the expenditure incurred by The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation had latitude to act at their own discretion and had unconditional authority over the MOU.
SAHRA accepts liability for the MOU that was entered into between the respective parties and considers this matter as finalised.

8. Findings on the MOU entered into with the Heritage Foundation  
Findings
Progress
The R that was paid to The Heritage Foundation was for the restoration, conservation, and management of identified burial and memorial sites.
SAHRA to provide progress
Approximately 90 (ninety) percent of the expenditure incurred was for operational needs and 10 (percent) was expenditure incurred for the restoration, maintenance and material.
SAHRA had an obligation to provide continuous monitoring of the utilisation of funds by The Heritage Foundation and determine “value for money

9. Findings on the MOU entered into with the Heritage Foundation  
Findings
Progress
No corrective action may be taken against Ms Van Damme, Ms M Ramagoshi or Mr T Phili as they are no longer in the employment of SAHRA
SAHRA to provide progress
The implementation of any corrective action against Mr Sibayi may be futile as his former superiors would have to first be held accountable for any negligence in the performance of their duty during the course of the Project.

10. THANK YOU