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