Shakespearean parallel extended: Parliament should not play Horatio, digitization is not the only answer.
Read the opinion piece in full as published on Business Day.
[Some extract below]
In his opening statement at the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs in Parliament of Tuesday 20 August, once again Minister Schreiber showcased his PR skills as the coalition Minister as he touched on ‘hot’ topics trying to maintain a balance to appease all sides. Whilst on the surface everyone can easily agree with his statements and overall objectives, it appears that sometimes the Minister is second-hand drawing on the identification of the core issues and solutions rather than conjuring original, considered and effective strategies.
In promoting digitization Schreiber said: “For as long as we fail to use technology to make up for the capacity shortfall and close the gaps for human discretion, it is not a question of ‘if’ abuses will be exposed. It is only a matter of ‘when’.”
Whilst the digitization of certain systems and processes relating to civic services rendered by the DHA is indeed much needed, digitization is not necessarily key to the resolution of immigration related matters and issues relating to national security. The intrinsic complexity of the processing of applications made in terms of the Immigration Act and the weight that the adjudication process carries for each decision cannot be simply resolved by digitization within the South African landscape with its hereditary shortfalls.
The risks of unlawful discretion can only be managed with appropriate legal training. The failure to adequately train bureaucrats in the values and principles of constitutional governance remains central to all internal displacements within the Department and this cannot be magically resolved by digitization.
Capacity shortfall within the Department has been a long-standing issue which was aggravated with the lockdown and can only be resolved with a careful recruitment and upskilling plan which needs to have long-term objectives and not be aimed at instant gratification or to fulfil personal political ambitions.
Security issues, leak of personal data and corruption are not going to be rooted out by digitization, this belief would be naïve to say the least unless Schreiber intends handing over entirely the Department to AI adaptive learning systems, throwing in the towel on South African’s integrity, skills and education as a non-achievable goal.
Assuming this not to be the intent, the creation, access and use of digitized systems would still predominantly rely on a human factor which when corrupt or faulty can spread its negative ripple effect wider. Even the most advanced AI adaptive systems rely on high quality human-produced data on which AI models are trained. Considering the xenophobic sentiments across the nation, perhaps this vision of a possible future will force South Africans to revisit their position on foreign labour and skills as less threatening and damaging than being replaced by AI systems likely trained abroad.
Schreiber’s statement to Parliament is partially welcome and was necessary in light of the recent scandals which have made international headlines, yet it remains highly inadequate in terms of real accountability.
According to Schreiber the study visas which the deported Libyan militants were found in possession of were handwritten to the extent that “frankly even a child could forge [them]…and were processed even if they did not contain all the requisite documentation”. Schreiber’s emphasis on the handwritten aspect whilst being beneficial to his digitization campaign fails to address the fact that visa labels are the end-product of the Government Printing Works (GPW). Whether, following the legitimate processing of an application, these visas are completed by pen, crayon or typed it should make no difference at all.
GPW prints labels in batches, identified by serial numbers and followed by a sequence control number unique to each label and a unique machine readable barcode . The batches are printed on highly securitized feature paper and thereafter are released to the DHA and DIRCO through equally securitized systems and a very strict chain of custody. These security features are visible under blue light exposure and the labels’ barcodes are scanned at ports of entry. Shifting Schreiber’s perspective, distinguishing between a forged visa label and a GPW issued label should be child’s play.
In the same sitting, the Director-General of the DHA, Tommy Makhode, also addressed Parliament and confirmed that – as we had suspected – the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) in Tunis, Tunisia, was responsible for the issuance of the 95 study visas and that a failure of due process occurred. This admission should remain the real point of concern and of focus of any further investigation.
Breach of the chain of custody of GPW visa label batches within the DHA have been recurrent over the years. Foreigners are declared “prohibited persons” on the grounds of being found in possession of fraudulent visas [ito s 29(1)(f) of the Immigration Act] later identified – through the judicial process – to be legitimate visa labels that were derailed once received by the DHA. In Court papers we have in the past directed the Minister’s Office to investigate the possible existence of a criminal enterprise within the DHA’s institutional ranks that may be unlawfully alienating visa labels into the public domain for the very purposes of fraud.
The rot in Tunis is not unique to that office, the underlying issue that needs to be rooted out remains institutional in nature and Parliament should press for tangible difficult answers rather than giving complacent Horatian ears to each succeeding Minister inheriting these mountains to climb and lamenting the same issues with no tangible progress over time. The Minister has a mammoth task ahead of him and will need determination coupled with knowledge to make real progress.
by Claudia Pizzocri | CEO at Eisenberg & Associates Inc.