1. BRIEFING TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE
Introduction: Lt Gen (Ret) T.T. Matanzima (Military Ombud)
Presenter: Mr S.H. Njikela
Date: 3 November 2017

2. AIM
To brief the Joint Standing Committee on Defence (JSCD) on the operational independence, progress made, action plan and challenges encountered by the Office of the Military Ombud.

3. SCOPE Introduction Vision and Mission Strategic Objectives Context
Organisational Structure
Performance Report
Operational Independence
Institutional Independence
Milestones to Date
Challenges
Establishment of a Joint Task Team
Outcomes of the Joint Task Team
Engagement with GTAC
Conclusion

4. INTRODUCTION
This is the 5th year of the establishment of the Office of the Military Ombud.
Core Business:
Ensure that complaints by current and former members of South African National Defence Force (SANDF), as well as complaints from members of the public are resolved in a fair, economical and expeditious manner.
If the Military Ombud upholds the complaint, the Military Ombud must recommend the appropriate relief for implementation to the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans.

5. VISION AND MISSION
Vision: A world leading independent and impartial Military Ombud Institution.
Mission: To provide an independent, impartial and expeditious complaints resolution process for serving and former members of the SANDF and the public to promote good governance.

6. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
Strategic Objective 1
To ensure strategic direction to the Office of the Military Ombud in-line with Government’s intent and expectations
Strategic Objective 2
To enhance and maintain corporate operations within the Office of the Military Ombud
Strategic Objective 3
To administrate Military Ombud resources as prescribe in the regulatory framework

7. CONTEXT
Section 6(4) states that the “Ombud must investigate a complaint fairly and expeditiously without fear, favour or prejudice”.
The Act prescribes that the “Ombud and staff members must serve independently and impartially and must perform their functions in good faith and without fear, favour, bias or prejudice, subject to the Constitution and the law.” (S 8(1)).
The Minister is required to afford the Ombud such assistance as may be reasonably required for the protection of the independence, impartiality and dignity of the Ombud.
No person may hinder or obstruct the Ombud or members of his or her staff in the performance of his or her or their functions.
NB: These provisions of the Act speak to operational and institutional independence of the Office.

8. CONTEXT (continue)
Expenditure in connection with the administration of the Office must be funded from monies appropriated by Parliament for that purpose, as part of the budget vote of the Department. (Section 10(1)).
The Military Ombud is required to account for all monies received or paid by the Office and cause the required accounting and other records to be kept.
In terms of Section 9 and 10 of the Act the Military Ombud is personally responsible for management of resources (human resources, financial and material).
NB: These provisions of the Act speak to financial independence of the Office.

9. CONTEXT….(continue)
Section 11 of the Act provides for reporting and states that the Ombud must submit an annual report to the Minister on the activities of the Office at the end of a financial year.
It goes on to add that the Ombud must report to the Minister on the activities of the office as and when required to do so by the Minister.
The reporting envisaged in section 11 is not restricted to financial reporting but also includes reporting on the activities of the Office during the previous financial year.
The budget of the Military Ombud is appropriated by Parliament and the Military Ombud is required to account, for all monies received and to keep accounting records.

10. ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE
Total number of posts as approved by the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans during June 2012 is 89
Office of the Military Ombud
Office of the Deputy Military Ombud
Corporate Operations
Corporate Support
Operations
Intake & Analysis
Investigations
Research & Development
Legal Support
Communication
Policy, Strategy & Planning
Human Resources
Logistics
Finance
Information, Communication & Technology
Facility, Security & Reception Management

11. ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE
Total number of approved posts within the Executive Office (including the Deputy Military Ombud Office) is 9
Office of the Military Ombud
Office of the Deputy Military Ombud
Corporate Operations
Corporate Support
Operations
Intake & Analysis
Investigations
Research & Development
Legal Support
Communication
Policy, Strategy & Planning
Human Resources
Logistics
Finance
Information, Communication & Technology
Facility, Security & Reception Management

12. ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE (continue)
Office of the Military Ombud
Office of the Deputy Military Ombud
Corporate Operations
Corporate Support
Operations
Intake & Analysis
Investigations
Research & Development
Legal Support
Communication
Policy, Strategy & Planning
Human Resources
Logistics
Finance
Information, Communication & Technology
Facility, Security & Reception Management
Total number of approved posts within Corporate Operations is 59

13. ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE (continue)
Office of the Military Ombud
Office of the Deputy Military Ombud
Corporate Operations
Corporate Support
Operations
Intake & Analysis
Investigations
Research & Development
Legal Support
Communication
Policy, Strategy & Planning
Human Resources
Logistics
Finance
Information, Communication & Technology
Facility, Security & Reception Management
Total number of approved posts within Corporate Support is 21

14. TOTAL CARRIED OVER CASES TOTAL CASES RECEIVED IN FY
PERFORMANCE REPORT
Five Year Statistical Overview
FINANCIAL YEAR
TOTAL CARRIED OVER CASES
TOTAL CASES RECEIVED IN FY
TOTAL RECEIVED
TOTAL FINALISED
ACTIVE CASES AT FY END a. b. c. d. e. f.
FY2012/13
307
117
190
FY2013/14
301
491
219
272
FY2014/15
279
551
318
233
FY2015/16
250
483
365
118
FY2016/17
310
428
236
192
Number of Reports not Implemented:
FY12/13 – 2; FY13/14 – 0; FY14/15 – 1;
FY15/16 – 5; FY16/17 - 1
Over the past 5 years a total number of 1447 complaints have been registered

15. FINALISED IN YEAR RECEIVED
PERFORMANCE REPORT
Performance Information Per Complaints Category
CATEGORY
CARRIED OVER FORM FY2015/16
RECEIVED IN FY2016/17
TOTAL RECEIVED
FINALISED IN YEAR RECEIVED
TOTAL FINALISED
CARRIED OVER TO FY2017/18 a. b. c. d. e. f. g.
Promotion, Demotion and Career Intervention 28 55 83 21 44 39
Utilisation & Placement 6 50 11 16 34
Service Benefits & Working Environment 26 74
100 37 60 40
Education, Training & Development 1 7 8 5 2
Remuneration 12 27 19 20
Grievance/Discipline Procedures 17
Service Termination 75
109 38 65
Other 10
Official Conduct Of Member Of SANDF 4
TOTAL
118
310
428
135
236
192

16. OPERATIONAL INDEPENDENCE
Section 6(7)(b) of the Act states that after investigating a complaint the Ombud must recommend an alternate resolution to the Minister.
The recommendations route taken in the Act leaves the Military Ombud powerless with regard to enforcing his recommendations.
This is proving to be an obstacle in the effectiveness of the Military Ombud as, once approved by the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, the perception exists that implementation of recommendations are negotiable.
This poses a reputational risk for the Office in its effort to establish itself as a credible and independent Institution.
No mechanism exists to have the Department of Defence account for the non-implementation of recommendations.

17. OPERATIONAL INDEPENDENCE (continue)
Another mechanism that may enhance independence of the Office is the capacity to undertake investigations under own initiative which is currently not provided for by the Act.
“Own initiative investigations” would allow the Military Ombud to be proactive more especially on systemic issues within the SANDF.

18. INSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE (continue)
Section 2 of the Military Ombud Act provides for the establishment of the Office but does not explicitly indicate the legal nature of the Office.
Currently the Office is funded through the budget of the DOD. The Accounting Officer of the DOD is solely responsible for the defence vote.
This creates several difficulties as the Office has limited control of its budget as the budget is not appropriated in parliament as specified in the Military Ombud Act (Section 10 (1)).
Therefore funds cannot be managed independently from the DOD.
The Military Ombud accounts to the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans as can be seen from section 11 (2).
The Military Ombud must be expressly designated as the Accounting Officer or an official under his direct control must be designated as such.

19. INSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE (continue)
Parliament’s Analysis of the Military Ombuds Bill of 2011, as compiled by the Research Unit in July 2011, indicated that section 9 places an onerous obligation on the Military Ombud, and as a result a suitably qualified and experienced person as Chief Executive Officer of the Military Ombud should be appointed to assist the Ombud subject to his or her direction and supervision in the performance of all financial and administrative functions in terms of the Act.
These significant suggestions speaking to the independence of the Ombud were however not all taken further.
As a result of the difficulties experienced as far as the institutional independence of the Ombud is concerned, steps have been embarked on to address the organisational and other requirements for the transition of the office to a Schedule 3 Entity or any other appropriate model.

20. INSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE (continue)
The Military Ombud Act must be amended to expressly confer on the Military Ombud or a Chief Executive Officer, the power to act as the Accounting Officer for the Office.
In addition, the legal status of the Office must be clearly defined to align with the definition of a national public entity and its requirements in the PFMA as the Military Ombud must report in terms thereof.

21. MILESTONES TO DATE Ser No ACTION TAKEN DATE OUTCOME a. b. c. 1.
Submission of Military Ombud Rationale.
Dec 2012
Meeting with National Treasury to discuss rationale submitted. – Oct 2013. 2.
Conducting of research, benchmarking and discussions.
Benchmarking with schedule 3 entities to discuss requirements (FAIS Ombud, CCB, Pension Fund Adjudicator, Public Protector)
Drafting of Staff papers on way-forward. 3.
Drafting of the Military Ombud Conditions of Service and Staff Conditions of Service
Jun 2015
Submission to the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans for approval – 30 Oct 2015. 4.
Presentation to the Council on Defence.
4 Sept 2015
Briefing not specific to Schedule 3 5.
Drafting and submission of the Military Ombud Regulations.
6 Nov 2015
Approved and published by the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans. 6.
Request for Assistance from the Government Technical Advisory Centre (GTAC) to support the Office of the Military Ombud.
9 Nov 2015
Discussion and submission of proposed project charter.

22. MILESTONES TO DATE Ser No ACTION TAKEN DATE OUTCOME a. b. c. 7.
Auditor General (AG) SA Letter – Compliance with the Military Ombud Act.
15 Feb 2016
Requesting clarity on the status of the Office from National Treasury as the Office according to Section 10 and 11 of the Military Ombud Act 4 of 2012 complies with the definition of a public entity. 8.
Letter to the Office of SecDef requesting a workgroup to be created based on the COD minutes and the AGSA letter.
Mar 2016
Meeting took place and the workgroup was established. 9.
Outreach presentation to the members of the Military Command Council
April 2016
10.
Request for Assistance from the Government Technical Advisory Centre (GTAC) to support the Office of the Military Ombud.
9 Nov 2015
Discussions and submission of proposed project charter.

23. MILESTONES TO DATE Ser No ACTION TAKEN DATE OUTCOME a. b. c. 11.
Established a workgroup with members of DPSA to assist wrt the compilation of a business case as well as restructuring of the Office.
Workgroup was established and information/knowledge sharing took place.
12.
Presentation to the Joint Standing Committee on Defence.
Sept 2016
Presentation given to the Joint Standing Committee on Defence orientating the Committee members on the status of the Office.
13.
Number of Meetings with National Treasury (GTAC)
Office in process of discussing the way-forward with National Treasury (GTAC).
14.
A visit to the Office by the Deputy Minister of Defence and Military Veterans
30 Jan 2017
Successful bilateral which will yield fruits such as; joint outreaches to military veterans
15.
Presentation to the Defence Secretariat Council
6 Feb 2017
The Secretary for Defence (SecDef) indicated his support to the Office and instructed his environment to investigate the matter and draft a report which will then be presented to the MOD by the Military Ombud and SecDef.

24. MILESTONES TO DATE Ser No ACTION TAKEN DATE OUTCOME a. b. c. 16.
Submission to MOD&MV: Repositioning of the Office of the Military Ombud as a Schedule 3 Entity
9 May
SecDef recommended that the matter must be tabled at the COD.
MOD&MV requested a meeting to discuss the matter as it has serious implications for the DOD.
17.
Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Defence.
23 May 2017
Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports No The Office presented the 2017/18 APP. The PCD supported the Office and recommended that the MOD&MV briefs the Committee on the status of the ring-fencing of funds of the Military Ombud and the potential for the Office of the Military Ombud to be established as a Schedule 3 Public Entity.
18.
Presentation to the COD
19 July 2017
Presentation to COD requesting approval for the utilisation of GTAC to conduct a feasibility study on the most appropriate institutional form for the Office of the Military Ombud. The MOD&MV requested that an additional meeting be arranged wrt the outcome of the Joint Task Team created.

25. Challenges….
The budget for the Office is not being appropriated by Parliament but appears to form part of an allocation made to the Office. The funds for the office may not necessarily be ring fenced as the Office, although required to operate independently, is handled as though it is a service or division of the Department.
This seriously compromises the independence of the Office which independence is guaranteed by legislation.
The Military Ombud is also not in a position to comply with the PFMA financial reporting as he cannot compile financial statements or keep financial records. The Ombud is required to compile an annual report, however, the annual report does not contain any financial statements or records as required by the PFMA.
The Accounting Officer for the Department (the Secretary for Defence) is solely responsible for the budget vote of the Department and the Ombud is accountable to him for the manner in which funds required by the Office are administered.

26. Challenges….
Therefore, funds cannot be managed independently from the Department as there is no transfer payment to the Office to guarantee financial independence while still remaining accountable in terms of the PFMA.
This creates several difficulties as the Office is not in complete control of its budget as it has to comply with and be accountable through the departmental processes structures for all resource requirements. The effect is that the Ombud, with a staff complement of 69, is regarded as a division or service of the Department. This compromises the independence and integrity of the Office apart from the obstacles encountered in fulfilling its mandate.
Section 6(7)(b) of the Act states that after investigating a complaint the Ombud must recommend an alternate resolution to the Minister.
The recommendations route taken in the Act leaves the Military Ombud powerless with regard to enforcing his recommendations.

27. Challenges….
This is proving to be an obstacle in the effectiveness of the Military Ombud as, once approved by the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, the perception exists that implementation of recommendations are negotiable.
This poses a reputational risk for the Office in its effort to establish itself as a credible and independent Institution.
No mechanism exists to have the Department of Defence account for the non-implementation of recommendations.
Another mechanism that may enhance the independence of the Office is the capacity to undertake investigations under own initiative which is currently not provided for by the Act.

28. Challenges….
“Own initiative investigations” would allow the Military Ombud to be proactive more especially on systemic issues within the SANDF. Thus further fulfilling its mandate in respect of maintaining the morale of members and former members and contributing to the good administration of the Department.
Parliament’s Analysis of the Military Ombuds Bill of 2011, as compiled by the Research Unit in July 2011, acknowledged that section 10 placed an onerous obligation on the Military Ombud, and as a result recommended that a suitably qualified and experienced person should be appointed as Chief Executive Officer to assist the Ombud, subject to his or her direction and supervision, in the performance of all financial and administrative functions in terms of the Act.
These significant suggestions speaking to the independence of the Ombud were however not all taken further.

29. ESTABLISHMENT OF A JOINT TASK TEAM
The DOD/MO Task Team was established between the two Offices by letters dd 24 May 2016 (Sec Def) and 06 June 2016 (MO) respectively.
The composition of the Joint Task Team was as follows:
DOD Representatives
Chief Defence Materiel: Mr K.P. Lebelo;
Chief of Human Resources: Maj Gen M. Sitshongaye;
Chief of Logistics: Ms S. Mkhwanazi;
Chief Financial Officer: Mr L. Nagel;
Chief Defence Legal Services: Ms A.A. Prinsloo & Lt Col C.M. van den Berg.
Chief Audit Executive: Mr B.A. Smith.
Military Ombud Representatives
Chief Director Operations: Mr S.H. Njikela;
Chief Corporate Services: Mr M. Makhalemele;
Director Legal Services: Ms C.N. Pillay;
Manager Human Resources: Ms N. Ntloedibe;
Budget Manager: Mr R. Imrith;
Assistant Director Logistics: Mr T. Makgari

30. OUTCOMES FROM THE JOINT TASK TEAM
9 June 2016: Two workgroups were established:
A benchmarking workgroup to conduct research on institutional forms; and
A legal workgroup to conduct legal research and review of the Military Ombud Act.
19 July 2016: A full day session was recommended to workshop all inputs from the two work groups, considering the benchmarking on institutional forms and legislative challenges.
5 August 2016: The workgroups must research further on other existing models that are similar to the Military Ombud including international benchmark and share the information with the entire task team including relevant legislation and organisational structures.
2 March 2017: Joint Task Team recommended that :
GTAC be engaged.
The Project Charter drafted by GTAC must be used as the way forward.

31. ENGAGEMENT WITH GTAC
The Joint Task Team recommended that GTAC be engaged to develop a project charter that will include milestones for the project. The project charter will address the following:
Phase 1 –Feasibility study
Phase 2 – Business case
Phase 3 – Transition/Implementation plan
Financial Implications (GTAC Project costs)
The estimated cost of R serves as a guideline for the costs to be incurred.

32. CONCLUSION
The Military Ombud is dependent on the JSCD to fulfil its mandate and objectives as envisaged by the Military Ombud Act.
The Institutional Independence of the Office can only be achieved through such meaningful engagement.

33. THANK YOU

34. QUESTIONS