DISCUSSION

Appointment founding documents and application of regulatory framework:

Part of the documents furnished to our hospital functionaries yesterday by Ms Sibongile Dladla for purposes of

processing the appointment in issue were incorrect and could have led to irregularity in the appointment of the

CEO. The classical example is the founding document for application, the Z83 as furnished to us [herein attached

as CHBAHl].

The aforementioned Z83 application form evinces proof that the applicant applied for the post of the CEO at

George Mukhari Academic Hospital not CHBAH. However, this morning [08 March 2024], we were furnished with

the different Z83 application form again which is presumed to be relevant to CHBAH though the citation of the

institution does not march the acronym normally used for CHBAH.

It is prudent to indicate that the online application lifespan for the post in issue was the 14 April 2023 [closing

date] whereas the application form furnished to our functionaries after enquiries proves that she applied outside

the prescribed timelines of 05 May 2023 as afore indicated [impossibility exist that the system would have

enabled her to apply unless the different form of application process was applied]. Notwithstanding, the

preceding statement the closing date of the newspaper advert coincides with the date of signature of her

application which makes the application to be reasonably presumed as having been processed not outside the

closing date.

Despite the foregoing analysis, when contrasting the documents [Z83 application form on experience, she has

only three (03) years-experience as a Senior Manager] furnished to us by Ms Sibongile Dladla with the service

record on PERSAL, it appears that the recommended candidate is not eligible for the appointed [our emphasis].

Cognisance should be taken on the necessary attributes required for the post in issue [herein we enclosed the

advert marked as CHBAH2 and DPSA guidelines marked as CHBAH3].

PROCESSING OF THE APPOINTMENT OF CHBAH CEO-DR N.M. MAKGANA

Both CHBAH2 and CHBAH3 set the minimum experience of eight years (08) at senior management level [our

emphasis] for any candidate to be considered for selection. All candidates that have less years of required

experience ought not to have progressed to the interview level [ought to have been eliminated at the shortlisting

level].

Unless the controrv exist. the irrebuttable facts available at our disposal is that the candidate in issue has less

than three /031 years -experience at senior management level [our emphasis] as she was an acting CEO of

Pholosong Regional Hospital

Furthermore. we took notice that she has approximately three years (03[ experience at middle management

level in a capacity of being a Clinical manager which experience is not relevant to the post requirements in issue.

Unless the contrary exists to the presumed facts herein advanced, we request to be furnished with any

evidentiary documents proving the contrary. The documents may not only be useful for processing the

appointment but for the future referencing in the event the employer is put to test to prove compliance and or

whether it upheld the rule of law when appointing the CEO in issue.

If the facts available at our disposal remain unrebutted, then the issue of processing the appointment will be

irregular and unlawful.

Neither the exemption recommended and approved by DPSA can make the appointment in issue regular and or

lawful. The doctrine of exemption does not apply at the tail end of the competitive process after other candidates

were excluded for not meeting the requirements.

Notwithstanding the foreign paragraph, if the candidate in issue was head hunted and the employer intended to

lower and or relax the minimum requirement, the employer was enjoined to seek and obtain approval from DPSA

to relax and or to lower the minimum experience required.

PROCESSING OF THE APPOINTMENT OF CHBAH CEO-DR N.M. MAKGANA

The exemption recommendation ought to have come from the Premier and approved by MDPSA. No documents

furnished to us enunciating the process followed [if exemption applies] for the preferred candidate to be

appointed. May we be furnished with such document [If available] so that we cannot only use them for

processing the appointment but also for future accounting purposes should there be an audit or enquiries by the

oversight bodies.

The foregoing paragraph shall assist us lest we may be seen to be complacent and failures to help the

department/employer not to misconduct itself.

It is further observed that the information completed presumably by Ms Sibongile Dladla relating to SMS

Minimum Entry Requirements from E-gov, contains misrepresents facts. It is not entirely correct that the

preferred candidate has five [OS] years of relevant experience. The preferred candidate does not have five [OS]

years at Senior Management level but less than three [03] of relevant experience when taking cognisance, the

duration of acting in the capacity of the CEO at Pholosong Regional Hospital.

Misrepresentation of facts:

The necessary attribute [minimum qualification] from the advert required a candidate with Master's in public

Health or Management. Whereas the candidate in issue at the time of applying and even now seem not to meet

the prerequisites requirement [qualification in issue].

On close scrutiny of her application form [herein marked as CHBAH4], the preferred applied for the post in issue

on the OS May 2023 if cognisance is taken of the date of sigrnature but under part E of the CHBAH2 [Z83

application form] she avers to have obtained MBA in Health Management almost a year later [in 2024]. This is

misrepresentation of facts. Again, when scrutinizing CHBAH4 against the CV, it is clear that the information

relating to the institution of study does not correlate and it does contradict each other. On CHBAH4 she avers

that she is currently studying for the qualification mentioned in the foregone paragraph with Regent whereas in

her CV she avers to be studying for the same quatilication with Regenesys.

PROCESSING OF THE APPOINTMENT OF CHBAH CEO-DR N.M. MAKGANA

Once more, when scrutinizing CHBAH4, under part E, the preferred candidate submitted contradicting versions

wherein she avers that she was still studying for MBA Health Management whereas on the same breath under

the same part E, she avers that she obtained the qualification in year 2024 [impossible to apply during 2023 May

but obtained qualification during the year still to come].

Despite these contradictions and or misrepresentation of qualifications, the preferred candidate did not meet

the requirements as set out in the advert and DPSA guidelines [our emphasis]. Therefore, the preferred candidate

is not eligible to be appointed. The appointment may be regarded to have been influenced by invidious reasons

not competencies.

Furthermore, the preferred candidate misrepresented her experience when she avers to have more than four

years-experience in Hospital Management whilst she has no more than four years [our emphasis].

All the facts stated herein are axiomatic and incontrovertible. They describe the serious miscreants

[misrepresentation of attributes and lacks probity] committed.

Provisions of CHBAH4 are peremptory. Considering the reverse side of CHBAH4 under the declaration, it requires

the candidate to provide a complete and correct information. The legal duty to the Executive Authority [MEC]

arises to disqualify the candidate should it be established that the candidate misrepresented and or provided

false information and if the candidate is appointed then the disciplinary action ought to be instituted.

Application of the statutory provisions:

As earlier stated, that all the facts stated herein are axiomatic and incontrovertible. Section 11 subsection 2 of

the Public Service Act enjoins the appointing person to appoint persons who "applied and who qualify" for the

appointment [our emphasis]. A person who qualifies is that person who meets necessary attributes of the post

as enunciated in the advert and DPSA guidelines. Any conduct that is inconsistent with this provision of the law

will be irregular and unlawful.

PROCESSING OF THE APPOINTMENT OF CHBAH CEO-DR N.M. MAKGANA

The National Qualification Framework Amendment Act 12 of 2019, assented by honourable President Cyril

Ramaphosa, means prospective students or job seekers [our emphasis] could face up a jail term or a fine if found

to have misrepresented their qualifications. In simply terms, the law prescribed that it is an offence for any

person to claim falsely or fraudulently to hold a qualification that is registered on the NQF or awarded by a

recognised and accredited institution and if convicted in a court of law, the offender could face a fine and

imprisonment of up to five years, or both.

Furthermore, in terms of the National Qualification Framework Amendment Act 12 of 2019, if a prospective

employee is caught lying about his/her credentials, he/she will be recorded in SAQA's register- and that is serious

as there is a clear distinct line between showing yourself in the best possible light, and deliberate

misrepresentation.

Again, the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act no 12 of 2004 makes it a criminal offence to

indirectly and or directly offer gratification in a form of unlawful employment contract.

Considering the above legal framework, we advise the authorities to review their position regarding the

appointment in issue unless the contrary exist.

The legal duty of the Executive authority to correct and or retract irregular and or unlawful appointment finds

its expression in the following provisions of the legal framework:

Section 195 of the Constitution of the Republic obliges the MEC, in the public interest, to avoid and eliminate

illegalities in public administration.

It follows that the functionary after being enlightened of potential irregularities, a compelling basis for the

founding of a duty on the functionary to investigate and, if need be, to correct any unlawfulness through

appropriate avenues becomes peremptory. Now that the matter is before me [in the capacity of an Acting

Director of HR at CH BAH], I am no exception as a functionary to this legal duty.

PROCESSING OF THE APPOINTMENT OF CHBAH CEO-DR N.M. MAKGANA

Therefore, the consequence of the foregoing provisions and or section requires a government official to admit,

without qualification that a decision was wrongly taken and thereafter make appropriate intervention within the

purview of the law.

In the context of Public Service employment, section 195 of the Constitution of the Republic as enunciated above,

is fortified by section 5(7) (a) of the Public Service Act which provides inter-o/io;

["A functionary shall correct any action or omission purportedly made in terms of this Act by that functionary,

if the action or omission was based on error offact or law or fraud and it is in the public interest to correct the

action or omission"].

Appointments in Public Service relates to public purse and therefore public has direct interest in employment

practices in Public Service. The post in issue relates to the head of institution serving the public interest.

RECOMMENDATIONS

851t is recommended that the:

DOG: Corporate Services assist the institution by facilitating the discovery of any additional information including

the rational and reasonable justification regarding the lowering of the requirements contrary to the advert and

the DPSA guidelines.

In the absence of any rational, reasonable, and justifiable basis to appoint CHBAH CEO, the DDG: Corporate

Services should advise the AHOD and the Executive Authority [MEC] that the appointment cannot pass muster

the legality test and thus will be irregular and unlawful.

DATE: elf/�..>/d<fi�
PROCESSING OF THE APPOINTMENT OF CHBAH CEO-OR N.M. MAKGANA