CSOS ADJUDICATION PROCESS FAILED ME.

The Practice Directive on Dispute Resolutions, 2019, was amended as follows by the acting Chief Ombudsman on 23 June 2020: -Respondent or affected person to submit a response to the Ombudsman within seven days. Paragraph 14.2 which provides that the applicant has 10(ten) days to inspect the respondent’s submission or to provide a written response to the issues raised in the submission, was amended to five (5) days. Furthermore, “Adjudications will be conducted telephonically or virtually(which never happened)…”Once the Adjudicator receives the adjudication file, he or she will notify the parties of receipt of the matter and request confirmation that they are in receipt of the other’s submissions”. This never happened with my adjudication process.

On 11 August 2021 I registered an application for dispute resolution with CSOS. On 12 August 2021 I received an email from CSOS, confirming that my application was sent for assessment. I then received an email from the Regional Ombudsman, KZN, FS, and MP, on 6 September 2021, informing me that "the respondent of affected person failed to provide a response to the CSOS notice in terms of section 43". I was furthermore informed that "Accordingly the dispute is therefore referred directly to Adjudication in terms of section 48 of the CSOS Act read with Clause 21.5.7 of the Practice Directive on Dispute Resolution".

On 9 September 2021, I was cc'ed in an email sent to CSOS by the respondent, stating that she did not receive any formal notices regarding the matter at hand, and on 16 September 2021 was informed that the respondent requested an extension. Which she certainly was entitled to. Without any further correspondence received, the Adjudicator ruled on my application and a copy sent to me on 18 October 2021. My application was dismissed.

In the adjudication order, it was mentioned that the evidence of the respondent was not disputed by me. How was I supposed to dispute evidence if the respondent’s submission was never made available to me? If the respondent’s submission was availed to me, it would have been easy to refute the respondent’s submissions and explained the true state of affairs.

On 20 October 2021 I sent an email to the offices of the Ombudsman, KZN, FS and MP, informing them of what transpired and enquired to what the road forward entails. On 25 October 2021 I once again requested feedback on my previous email. The only reply I received was “An appeal is the way going forward” . I sent a further email, stating the fact that it is very unfair to expect me to approach a High Court – something that only a handful of people can afford and that I am negatively affected because of an administrative requirement that was not adhered to. I am still waiting for a reply.

The fact that I have not been granted the opportunity to respond to the respondent's submission, and refute it and put it in perspective, has negatively impacted my right to dispute the evidence of the respondent. I never received the respondent's submission and therefore was not granted an opportunity to query the allegations of the Respondent - due to the fact that the respondent's evidence was never made available to me.

Although this was not a ******** trial, I wish to conclude with the following: The right to cros****amine (have access to a respondent’s submission) is an expression of the Audi alterem partem rule. The audi alterem partem principle is part and parcel of the right to a fair trial. In order for an accused (party to a dispute process with the CSOS) to present his/her case effectively, he/she must, inter alia, have access to statements of state witnesses (have access to the respondent’s submission) so that he can adduce and challenge evidence effectively. The right to present one’s case (submission to the CSOS) is also linked to the other rights mentioned in section 35 of the Constitution.

I am disillusioned and extremely disappointed.