By Akani Nkuna
Public Protector Advocate Kholeka Gcaleka has found that allegations of irregularities in the recruitment and selection process that led to Leonard Lekgetho’s appointment as Special Investigating Unit (SIU) Chief Operations Officer were not substantiated.
Lekgetho has since been appointed Head of the SIU, taking up the permanent position on 1 September.
Gcaleka released the findings during a media briefing in Pretoria on Thursday, alongside reports on several other investigations.
“Having regard to the evidence, the regulatory framework determining the standards that the functionaries of the SIU should have complied with, we find that the allegation that there were irregularities in the recruitment and selection process followed by the functionaries of the SIU in the appointment of Mr Lekgetho as COO is not substantiated,” she said.
The finding follows a complaint lodged by Pranesh Maharaj on 19 July 2024, in which he alleged that the SIU’s recruitment process was significantly flawed and that Lekgetho did not meet one of the advertised minimum requirements for the post.
According to the Public Protector, the job profile and advertisement required an LLB or equivalent NQF Level 8 qualification, as well as a relevant postgraduate qualification in management or equivalent.
Maharaj’s complaint centred on the second requirement. He argued that Lekgetho did not hold a relevant postgraduate qualification in management or equivalent and should therefore not have been shortlisted.
Maharaj was one of three applicants shortlisted for the post and was interviewed on 9 June 2023. At the end of the interview, he was told that the next stage would involve vetting of the successful candidate by the SIU’s Internal Integrity Unit.
In June 2023, he was informed that he had met the selection threshold and would proceed to further assessments to evaluate his skills and suitability for the role, including an opportunity to make a presentation.
Maharaj said this came as a surprise because he had not been advised, nor did the advertisement state, that there would be additional stages in the recruitment process. After he raised his concerns, an SIU official told him that selection panels were permitted to introduce additional assessments if they deemed them necessary.
He was later informed in September 2023 that he had again met the selection threshold and would undergo a psychometric assessment, which he completed.
In March 2024, Maharaj was informed that he had been unsuccessful and that Lekgetho had been appointed as COO. On the same day, then-SIU head Adv Andy Mothibi announced Lekgetho’s appointment.
Maharaj subsequently raised his concerns with Mothibi in a memorandum dated 15 March 2024. Mothibi responded in April, rejecting the contention that Lekgetho did not qualify for consideration or appointment to the position.
At the time, Lekgetho held an LLB, BA Education degree, BSc Honours in Geographical Information Systems, a Postgraduate Diploma in Cyber Law and a Diploma in Criminal Justice and Forensic Audit.
The Public Protector found that the requirement for a relevant postgraduate management qualification expressly allowed for an equivalent qualification and that this provision had been lawfully and consistently applied to all candidates during the shortlisting process.
Gcaleka also found that Lekgetho’s shortlisting complied with paragraph 9.8 of the SIU’s Acquisition Procedures and was consistent with the Recruitment and Selection Policy of 2013.
The implementation of a business case assessment was also found to be consistent with the objectives of the SIU’s Talent Acquisition Policy, which seeks to identify candidates with the required potential, skills, experience and qualifications.
“The SIU’s decision to appoint Mr Lekgetho was lawful, rational, procedurally fair, and properly exercised within the discretion conferred by law and policy,” Gcaleka said.
“Accordingly, the conduct of the functionaries of the SIU does not amount to improper conduct under section 182(1)(a) of the Constitution or maladministration under section 6(5)(a) of the Public Protector Act.”
INSIDE POLITICS
