Read on Twitter
Public Protector secures R1.8 million payout for a military veteran as Department agrees to pay
A Gauteng complainant is relieved after the Public Protector helped him get a 1.8 million compensation he has been waiting for from the Department of Defence and Military Veterans
The complainant retired from service in 2003 due to ill-health caused by an injury while he was a member of Umkhonto we Sizwe(MK).
The complainant approached the Public Protector alleging an undue delay by the Department in the implementation of a revised Non-Statutory Forces Pension Dispensation that was approved by cabinet in 2009
From 2009 he had been approaching the institutions involved, including the Dept, NT, GPAA to obtain information on the status of implementation process as he stood to benefit financially in terms of the recalculation of his pension benefits.
In a desperation he approached the then Minister of Defence and Military Veterans to advise her that he was in serious financial trouble as a result of the deductions from his pension benefits and that FNB was in the process of repossessing his house
He argued the cancellation of the monthly deductions, as well as the delay in the payment of the benefits owed to him, was therefore causing him severe prejudice.
The Department intervened and undertook to take certain steps to assist the complainant which included approaching the bank to prevent or reverse any action threatening the sale of his property.
The Department also undertook to provide interim financial assistance to the complainant pending payment of the outstanding benefits and make arrangements for accommodation for the him if attempts to prevent the sale of his house are unsuccessful.
Years passed without the revised dispensation being implemented and the complainant& #39;s benefits had not been paid as promised by the Department
The bank sold the house arguing it had repeatedly cancelled the sale based on the Department’s undertaking to expedite the payment of the complainant’s proceed which did not materialize.
The bank (FNB) told the department it was no longer prepared to accept any undertakings taking into consideration the indulgences that were already afforded and it went ahead and sold the property.
In the investigation the PP found the Dept and Treasury did not fulfill its responsibilities in relation to implementation of revised NSF Pension Dispensation without undue delay or with maximum effort to ensure compliance with Sec 26, 27, 33, 195 and 237 of the Constitution
PP also found that the manner in which the Dept responded and committed to the complainant, FNB and office (PPs office) cannot be characterized as mere acts of grace, courtesy or compassion
According to the PP the commitment meant the Department accepted responsibility to protect the complainant’s private interests from the consequences of the challenges experienced with implementation of the revised NSF dispensation
This the PP found, created a situation where the complainant’s ability to meet his obligation or take alternative steps to protect his assets was ancillary and derivative from the Depts guarantees for payments on specific dates, which it communicated directly to the bank.
Dept did not discharge its obligations, duties with due diligence, fairness, good faith as required by common law, fairness, reasonableness in terms of right to just admin action as per Sec 33 of the Constitution, PAJA & duty to be responsive as per Sec 195 of the Constitution.
The PP found that the Dept did not provide the complainant with clear, complete, consistent or accurate information, carelessly misled the complainant into false sense of security, denying him an opportunity to protect his property and chance to consider other courses of action.
The PP ordered the Dept to in collaboration with GPAA take urgent steps to ensure any outstanding issues, including cancellations of monthly deductions from the pension, proper reconciliation of the debt that was recovered from & repaid to the complainant is attended immediately
PP further directed the minister of Defence and Military veterans together with their Depts to take immediate action to honour commitments made to PP regarding alternative accommodation for the complainant since the attempts to prevent sale of house was not successful
This action must include reimbursing the complainant the expenditure incurred since the loss of his house to rent alternative accommodation.
The Department must also assist the complainant to obtain alternative accommodation as far as reasonably as possible, matches the accommodation that he occupied prior to the repossession of his house.
The dept must also take urgent steps to deal with plight of military veterans and NSF members in a collective manner and urgently identify, address systemic impediments to the Department meeting its obligations to these veterans.
Earlier this month, the complaint confirmed that the Department has paid an amount of R1.800 000.00 into his personal account
The complaint said: "...letter to the office of the PP regarding appreciation of the great work done by the office of the Public Protector on the above matter will be written during the course of the week."
This intervention is one of the many where the Public Protector stepped in on behalf of members of the public who had been wronged by various organs of state.
The interventions (e.g. Mr Moroka, Mr Nkome etc) seek to place complainants closer to where they would have been had it not been for the prejudice suffered at the hands of the state.
