100 Eskom managers 'don't want to be vetted' - State Security Agency

[Jopie Fourie]

The State Security Agency (SSA) stopped short of telling Parliament's standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) that its hands were tied when it comes to repercussions against individuals in the public service who refuse to be vetted.

Appearing before the committee on Tuesday, the agency's acting deputy director-general for counterintelligence, Sipho Blose, revealed there were "senior people in the government who don't want to be vetted".

He added 100 senior employees out of 121 at Eskom have also not co-operated with the agency's vetting processes.

"Chair, there are 121 senior management officials at Eskom who were meant to be vetted, but only 21 complied," Blose told the committee. "It's important that we vet these officials for Eskom to turn things around."

The response by Blose prompted committee members to question what recourse there was in the event that officials do not co-operate.

According to State Security Minister Ayanda Dlodlo, there was no recourse to enforce it.

100 Eskom managers 'don't want to be vetted' - State Security Agency | News24

Some government employees do not want to be vetted, including at state-owned enterprises, the State Security Agency told Parliament.

www.news24.com

 

[Jopie Fourie]

Why the f**k is this in the news? Why are all 100 of them not yet fired and assets seized and forced to repay all their salaries? Why are there no recourse drafted? Useless government!

 

[Thor]

Throw them in jail.

 

[ToxicBunny]

2 questions... 1) why the fsck do they need to be vetted... And 2) surely if they need to be vetted and they refuse its a material issue to their continued employment and they should be released.

 

[ponder]

Wtf should the ssa vet employees in the first place? This is not russia or china, sounds like a violation of basic constitutional rights. I would not submit to the ssa.

The ssa is also still pretty much infected with zuma spies, they are still entrenched within the ssa to this day. fsck the ssa.

 

[Jopie Fourie]

I am pretty sure Eskom deals with classified as well as secret documents when it comes to providing energy to some aspects related to the State.

In this case they do need to be vetted which is the only legal avenue for them to work with these documents. For many years the SSA has been the only instirution that does the vetting, even when it comes to SAPS members.

 

[ForceFate]

2 questions... 1) why the fsck do they need to be vetted... And 2) surely if they need to be vetted and they refuse its a material issue to their continued employment and they should be released.

Maybe to check criminal history or if they're not foreign spies, etc? I don't know.

 

[ponder]

I am pretty sure Eskom deals with classified as well as secret documents when it comes to providing energy to some aspects related to the State.

In this case they do need to be vetted which is the only legal avenue for them to work with these documents. For many years the SSA has been the only instirution that does the vetting, even when it comes to SAPS members.

Outside contractors probably know more about eskoms infrastructure than eskom themselves, it's a load of bs.

 

[Jopie Fourie]

Maybe to check criminal history or if they're not foreign spies, etc? I don't know.

The vetting process by the SSA is much more than a criminal background check. It often involves a lie detector test, financial background check, bank account audits, lifestyle audits and more.

 

[Milano]

This despite the fact that the government approved the national vetting strategy in 2006 which aimed to, among others, capacitate all organs of state with personnel suitability checks as well as to establish vetting fieldwork units at 17 identified organs of state.

Sums up the circus perfectly. Thirteen years later nobody has even the vaguest clue about anything related to the vetting process. If only there was a government we tasked with this type of thing. No surprises Eskom is in the shape it is in. They still do not realise they are the problem. Comical.

 

[TheChamp]

Maybe to check criminal history or if they're not foreign spies, etc? I don't know.

It just looks like SSA don't have a leg to stand on in legally enforcing these checks. If that is the case then the employees are well within their rights to tell then to f-off.

 

[ForceFate]

It just looks like SSA don't have a leg to stand on in legally enforcing these checks. If that is the case then the employees are well within their rights to tell then to f-off.

Request appears to come from Eskom and government, in which case SSA are just agents.

 

[TheChamp]

Request appears to come from Eskom and government, in which case SSA are just agents.

Okay, so Eskom should go to parliament and account for their employees behavior, it just sounds odd that SSA is being asked all these questions about Eskom employees when it is just a neutral party in the whole thing.

 

[Jopie Fourie]

Okay, so Eskom should go to parliament and account for their employees behavior, it just sounds odd that SSA is being asked all these questions about Eskom employees when it is just a neutral party in the whole thing.

I do not think they are neutral. They have been instructed to do this. They dont just pitch up and do these things.

By the way, back then, I do not know today, no police officer was vetted. Only when you came to a certain part of you career where you needed to deal with secret or classified documents, only then did you also need to be vetted before security clearance was given. If you failed the vetting process, you would not have been working with any such documents and this had serious consequences.

It think this is what these people fear.

 

[ponder]

Request appears to come from Eskom and government, in which case SSA are just agents.

Either way they can all go and get fscked.

 

[3WA]

Good thing senior Eskom staff are vetted. We wouldn’t want them to steal all the operating budget and run the utility into the ground.

 

[John Tempus]

Any ordinary person applying for a silly job need to be vetted even at basic level.

Refusing to be vetted is just confirmation that you are not suitable for the job and you are trying to avoid getting official confirmation during vetting process that would go on some record and thus you would not be able to just swing around claiming to be capable of said job.

 

[The_Mowgs]

Okay, so Eskom should go to parliament and account for their employees behavior, it just sounds odd that SSA is being asked all these questions about Eskom employees when it is just a neutral party in the whole thing.

The SSA MUST do it. Its not just a birthday party which they were invited to, its part of their counter intelligence mandate to provide a profile to the SSA DG which states whether that person is fit to be employed or hold his or her employment in that position.

What I dont understand is how they can say there is no recourse. The SSA gives you a physical certificate which states that you now hold Confidential, Secret or Top Secret clearance.

If you don't have that clearance you are not allowed to be in possession of any documents classified under any of those categories so if these managers dont comply but they are still handling or in possession of classified material they are committing a crime.

 

[daveza]

And they are still employed because ?

 

[Moosedrool]

2 questions... 1) why the fsck do they need to be vetted... And 2) surely if they need to be vetted and they refuse its a material issue to their continued employment and they should be released.

Exactly non-compliance for examination is failing compliance.