President must suspend Public Protector as Parliament contemplates her removal

The DA calls on President Jacob Zuma to suspend Adv. Busisiwe Mkhwebane from her position as Public Protector pending Parliament’s inquiry into her fitness to hold office.
President Zuma is empowered to suspend Adv. Mkhwebane now that the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services has agreed to our request to initiate proceedings to remove her, as per Section 2(1)(c) of the Public Protector Act (No. 23 of 1994). According to Section 194(3)(a) of the Constitution:
(3) The President—
(a) may suspend a person from office at any time after the start of the proceedings of a committee of the                       National Assembly for the removal of that person;
Adv.  Mkhwebane has demonstrated numerous times that she is not fit to hold the office of the Public Protector and the DA has opposed her appointment from the start. The most glaring examples of her alleged misconduct include:

  • A failure to provide sound reasoning for her findings in several matters, most notably the ABSA/CIEX case, where she fails to provide transparency and impartiality;
  • Disregard for Constitutional and legal parameters with her apparent willingness to receive submissions from President Zuma and the State Security Agency without offering other affected parties opportunity to comment;
  • Troubling actions in the ABSA/Bankorp “life-boat” report, including ignoring requests from the Minister of Finance for documents, using a select few documents’ misrepresenting having considered interviews which she did not conduct and cannot provide the minutes for, and failing to demonstrate why she believes that large sums of money are recoverable;
  • Misconduct in several cases, including hiding submissions received from Black First Land First Group and failing to ensure a transparent record of her decision in the matter of the Bapo ba Mogale community’s trust;
  • Failing to provide timeous reports on, among others, the Vrede Dairy Farm case, phase 2 of the State Capture inquiry, and the awarding of Presidential Protection Services to Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma.

The fractures in the ANC Caucus has once again come to the fore with their Members serving on the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services voting in favour of an inquiry into Adv. Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office only for a subsequent press release to slam it. Once again the work of Parliament is undermined by ANC infighting.
The Office of the Public Protector is a crucial institution in the fight against injustice and the rot of State Capture, and Adv. Mkhwebane is not the person to lead it.

DA welcomes Parliament’s decision to proceed with Public Protector’s removal proceedings

The DA welcomes the decision by the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services to hold an inquiry into the Public Protector’s fitness to hold office. Removal proceedings against Adv. Busisiwe Mkhwebane were initiated by ourselves on 20 September 2017.
We now call on the committee to proceed with the inquiry with the urgency and seriousness it demands.
Today’s decision by the committee adds credence to the DA’s contention that Adv. Mkhwebane is not fit to occupy the position of Public Protector. In less than a year since her appointment, Adv. Mkhwebane has demonstrated what the DA knew already: that she is unsuitable for the position of Public Protector and only undermines the important work done by the Office.
The work of her predecessor, Adv. Thuli Madonsela, greatly strengthened our democracy and provided a bulwark against state corruption. However, the inept and discredited work done by Adv. Mkhwebane threatens to undermine public confidence in the Public Protector’s Office, precisely at a time when South Africa needs it most.
The DA opposed Mkhwebane’s appointment as Public Protector. Yet South Africa does not need to tolerate a compromised figure seeking to undermine the Public Protector’s Office. Adv. Mkhwebane can and will be removed, in terms of Section 194 of the Constitution, and we look forward to making our case for her removal in committee.

Parliament to push ahead with removal of Public Protector proceedings

The DA notes that our request for Parliament to initiate proceedings to remove the Public Protector, Adv. Busisiwe Mkhwebane, in terms of Section 194 of the Constitution, has been tabled and referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services for consideration.
We now call on the Minister of Finance, Malusi Gigaba, and the Governor of the South African Reserve Bank (SARB), Lesetja Kganyago, to appear before the committee to detail their objections to the Public Protector’s deeply flawed ABSA/Bankorp report.
An affidavit filed by Gigaba, in the North Gauteng High Court this week, describes the report as “manifestly lacking in logic” and notes that Mkhwebane “reached conclusions of fact and law without any proper appreciation and sound analysis of the documents that were before her.” Kganyago previously noted, in the SARB court application to have the report’s recommendations set aside, that “[t]he only explanation that the Public Protector has offered for her clearly unlawful conduct exposes her own lack of competency.”
The DA contends that the conduct of Adv. Mkhwebane over the past ten months has demonstrated that she is not fit to occupy the important position of Public Protector. Her conduct includes but is certainly not limited to:

  • Grossly over-reaching her powers by recommending that the Constitution be amended to alter the mandate of the SARB;
  • Grossly over-reaching her powers by dictating to Parliament how and when legislation should be amended;
  • Showing a poor understanding both of the law as well as her own powers in relation thereto; and
  • Sacrificing her independence and impartiality by consulting with the Presidency and the State Security Agency on remedial action to be recommended in her report

Indeed, the North Gauteng High Court found, on 15 August 2017, that the Public protector had “unconstitutionally and irrationally” intruded on Parliament’s exclusive authority and that she had gone about crafting her recommendations in the ABSA/Bankorp report in a “procedurally unfair” manner.
The DA was the only party that opposed Mkhwebane’s appointment as Public Protector. We hope that this time around the ANC and other opposition parties will listen carefully to our reasons for having her removed.

Parliament must do the right thing and fire Busisiwe Mkhwebane

The affidavit filed by Finance Minister, Malusi Gigaba, shows exactly why the DA has asked Parliament to initiate proceedings for the removal of the Public Protector, Busisiwe Mkhwebane.
We, therefore, believe the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services, Dr Mathole Motshekga, should schedule a meeting at the earliest possible convenience to ensure that the process begins.
It has been over two weeks since we have written to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Baleka Mbete, requesting exactly this and South Africa can no longer be subjected to a Public Protector who has proved repeatedly that she clearly has no grasp of her mandate.
Among other things, the Minister states that she has failed to respond to his request for documents, and he makes the point that, in compiling her report on the Bankorp/ABSA “life-boat”, Mkhwebane:

  • made use of only selected documents before her and failed to consider other relevant documents, such as three reports on the matter by CIEX and the final report of the Heath Commission;
  • misrepresented having considered interviews which she did not conduct personally (as they were done by her predecessor) and for which she can’t produce any transcript or minutes;
  • failed to demonstrate why she believes that large amounts of the money are in fact recoverable

Mkhwebane has also failed to exercise impartiality in her role as Public Protector. This is an inexcusable shortcoming for someone who holds such an important post.
Papers filed by Barclays Africa allege that Mkhwebane went out of her way to hide the fact that she received submissions from Black First Land First. She also failed to provide full records of her investigation to the South African Reserve Bank and ABSA. This is unacceptable conduct as her office should be transparent.
Her report on the irregular handling of the Bapo ba Mogale community’s trust money is also being challenged, and in this matter too it seems that the Public Protector was not being cooperative in providing a full record of her decision-making.
Citizens cannot feel secure if they do not have trust in their Public Protector and Mkhwebane has clearly let down the people she has been appointed to serve. It is time for her to step down and Parliament has the power to ensure this happens.

BOKAMOSO | State capture: SA must build a culture of individual accountability

Strong institutions require individual accountability, and they require strong individuals who can effect accountability. Ask KPMG, which is now under heavy fire for enabling and benefitting from state capture. They’ve learnt this lesson, but it may be too late. Their formal systems were slow to hold individual decision makers responsible, and now the entire organisation is at risk. At best it will suffer major reputational damage. At worst, an outraged (and accountability-hungry) public will mete out an inappropriately severe punishment, forcing clients to dump KPMG, causing the entire organisation to collapse like the Gupta’s PR firm, Bell Pottinger, did last week.
Without doubt, all those decision makers at KPMG who were responsible for enabling or turning a blind eye to Zupta state capture must be held to account and criminal charges should be pursued against them. And KPMG must accede to Gordhan’s request for full disclosure of KPMG’s role. But to shut down the whole company is to wield a blunt instrument that is unlikely to achieve real justice. The fact is, when leaders are able to evade accountability, it puts their whole organisation or institution at risk. And this is exactly what is playing out in our democracy. We have failed to hold individual political leaders responsible.
All evidence – and there is plenty to go by in former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s report State of Capture and in the 200 000 GuptaLeaks emails – points to Zuma, his son Duduzane, the Guptas and cabinet ministers Malusi Gigaba, Mosebenzi Zwane, and Lynne Brown as the main state capture players. And yet not a single prosecution has been launched.
The DA has laid criminal charges against all the main state capture players, but SAPS, the Hawks, and the NPA have done nothing at all. If the DA were in power, a Special Investigating Unit would have been launched. Above all others, the duty to bring these perpetrators to book rests with NPA head Shaun Abrahams, who is nowhere to be seen. He has failed us immeasurably.
And the National Assembly has failed in its constitutional duty to hold these individuals to account. The ANC rejected the DA’s request for an ad hoc committee to investigate all the allegations. Instead, in June 2017, four Parliamentary Portfolio Committees – Public Enterprises, Home Affairs, Public Service and Administration and Mineral Resources – were tasked with “urgently” probing allegations. These have proceeded at a snail’s pace. Only the Public Enterprises Committee has begun to hold hearings. Lynne Brown stated in that committee that there was nothing untoward between Trillian and Eskom. And yet since then, much incriminating evidence has come to light. We have referred Brown to the Ethics Committee for misleading the public.
Three months have passed, yet the other three committees have failed to summon a single minister. Not even Malusi Gigaba who, as Minister of Home Affairs, used his personal discretion to grant naturalised citizenship to the Guptas, enabling them to classify as BEE recipients and access tenders. Bizarrely, the Director General has been suspended for this decision, even though he opposed it.
This is a massive indictment on Parliament, and an indication of just how weak the institution has become – because the ANC believes it is untouchable electorally. Section 92 of the Constitution states that: Members of the Cabinet are accountable collectively and individually to Parliament for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions. Parliament needs to find and use its teeth. It must establish a properly resourced ad hoc committee to undertake a thorough, holistic investigation. And then it must advise the President that these ministers are unfit to hold office.
Last week, the DA was in court to try to force the President to abide by former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s instruction to him to establish a judicial inquiry into state capture, led by a judge appointed by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng. The DA was also in court last week to try to force the NPA to prosecute the President on 783 counts of corruption. We await rulings on both these cases. Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane is failing South Africa too. Her investigation of these ministers should be an urgent priority for her office.
The DA believes strongly in individual accountability. (We have just fired a councillor in Johannesburg, for wrongdoing.) The ANC eschews individual responsibility in favour of the collective. They have consistently protected guilty individuals and so they, as a collective, must take responsibility. The entire organisation deserves to be rejected by the electorate. Whereas the majority of KPMG’s employees played no part whatsoever in enabling Zupta state capture, the same cannot be said of the ANC. Dr Makhosi Khoza, who resigned from the ANC yesterday, said in her resignation speech:
If we were to prosecute all known corrupt cases including those implicated in the Gupta e-mails‚ almost 80–90% of the ANC leadership at all levels of government would have to replace their shiny tailored suites and pretty dresses with orange overalls.
Corruption is not a victimless crime as our President would have us believe. On the contrary, it is a crime against every single South African, and we are all very much the poorer for it. Many will be poorer still if the Zuptas succeed in capturing their next target for corruption: the Public Investment Corporation (PIC), which manages the Government Employees’ Pension Fund. This week, Zupta cronies tried unsuccessfully to remove PIC chief executive, Dan Matjila. They will not give up easily. And nor should South Africans. As the KPMG affair has shown: ultimately, the power lies with the people. We must use it wisely.

BOKAMOSO | SA needs a Public Protector, not a Zupta Protector

This week, the DA took the decision to motivate for the removal of Busisiwe Mkhwebane as Public Protector. We believe this is in the best interests of the people of South Africa who, more than ever before in our democracy, need protection from a highly corrupt state. Sadly, Mkhwebane has chosen to side with, rather than fight, corruption.

On Monday, the South African Reserve Bank filed an affidavit revealing that Mkhwebane conspired with the Presidency and the State Security Agency (SSA) to achieve a Constitutional amendment to the mandate of the Reserve Bank. The Constitution envisages an independent Reserve Bank mandated to protect the value of the currency. Mkhwebane and her Zupta co-conspirators would apparently prefer a State Bank able to print money.

This attack on the Reserve Bank’s independence may be in retaliation for the Bank’s role in the closure of Zupta bank accounts. Ostensibly, it is to enable the bank to achieve “socio-economic transformation”, but more likely, it is to fund various nefarious Zupta activities. Whatever the reason, it is clear that Mkhwebane has an ulterior motive. And it is clear she is not acting independently.

In the Nkandla judgement, the Constitutional Court went to great pains to establish the central role of the Public Protector in strengthening our constitutional democracy. The Public Protector’s role is to counterbalance the power of the executive; to stand with the people when the government turns on them and abuses its considerable power.

“The Public Protector is therefore one of the most invaluable constitutional gifts to our nation in the fight against corruption, unlawful enrichment, prejudice and impropriety in State affairs and for the betterment of good governance. The tentacles of poverty run deep in our nation. Litigation is prohibitively expensive and therefore not an easy option for the average citizen.  For this reason our Constitution conceived of a way to give a voice especially to the poor and marginalised, and teeth that would bite corruption and abuse effectively. And that is the Public Protector. She is the embodiment of a biblical David, who fights the most powerful and very well-resourced Goliath. The Public Protector is one of the true crusaders and champions of anti-corruption and clean governance.”

The Court stressed that this crucial objective demanded two defining characteristics for the institution: authority and independence. It established the power of the Public Protector to hold the executive accountable, ruling that the Public Protector’s findings are binding.  But it also emphasized that to be effective, the Public Protector has to be independent – able to act without fear, favour or prejudice.  Reading the judgement, Chief Mogoeng Mogoeng could not have made it clearer:

“Her investigative powers are not supposed to bow down to anybody, not even at the door of the highest chambers of raw state power.”

And yet that is exactly what Busisiwe Mkhwebane has done; she has allowed her office to become a pawn of the corrupt criminal syndicate that has captured our state and many of our institutions.

Furthermore, in ordering a Constitutional amendment – a finding that is so clearly not within her powers to make – she is forcing the court to rule that this remedial action is not legally binding. This contradicts the Nkandla ruling that the Public Protector’s remedial action is binding, giving the President reason not to comply.

Mkhwebane has chosen to act on matters beyond her mandate, while reports such a that into the Vrede Dairy Farm scandal – a clear case of Gupta state capture – gather dust on her desk.

In August last year, the DA opposed Mkhwebane’s nomination to the office, first and foremost because she was simply not the best candidate for the position – based on her qualifications and experience. But also because she was closely connected to the State Security Agency (SSA), which itself we knew to be captured by the Zuptas. In fact, we concluded she was on their payroll, and said as much at the time.

This week’s revelations of Mkhwebane’s partiality vindicates our opposition to her nomination, and compels us to initiate proceedings against her. If Parliament makes a finding of “misconduct, incapacity, or incompetence”, she can be removed from office through a resolution of the National Assembly, requiring a two thirds majority.

South Africa needs an independent Public Protector, especially since all other institutions with an investigative capacity have already been captured, bar the Judiciary. At essence, this is a tug of war between those who respect the Constitution and those who don’t. This is why we South Africans need to unite behind shared values, and why we need to do it while we still have something to protect.

DA to begin removal proceedings against Public Protector

The revelations that Public Protector, Busisiwe Mkhwebane, first consulted President Jacob Zuma’s legal advisors and discussed further recommendations not included in her initial report into the ABSA/Bankorp bailout, casts serious doubt as to her independence.
This information has been revealed in annexures to the supplementary affidavit filed by the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) and clearly demonstrates that Mkhwebane does not operate in an impartial manner but rather seems to take her orders from the Union Buildings.
The DA will, therefore, write to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Baleka Mbete, to request that this matter is dealt with by the relevant Portfolio Committee, in terms of Rule 337 and 338 of the National Assembly Rules.
Specifically, the DA in the Committee will call for removal proceedings to be initiated urgently. In terms of Section 194 of the Constitution, the Portfolio Committee has the power to make a finding of “misconduct, incapacity, or incompetence” against the Public Protector. Thereafter, the National Assembly must adopt a resolution calling for removal, which requires a two-thirds majority.
The DA has, from the get go, had serious doubts as to Mkhwebane’s suitability for the vital role of Public Protector. She has confirmed these doubts numerous times, including:

  • When she failed to act when President Jacob Zuma was trying to interdict the release of the State Capture report last year, which gave the first inkling of her bias;
  • When she jumped to the defence of the President by laying criminal charges against former Public Protector, Advocate Thuli Madonsela, for releasing the transcript of her interview with the President;
  • When she has been sitting on key Gupta-related investigations for months; and
  • When she admitted to stepping outside of her mandate by recommending changing the Constitution regarding the mandate of the SARB, showing that she has very poor understanding of her own powers and the limits thereof.

The Public Protector is Constitutionally mandated to investigate misconduct by government departments and entities and to protect the public’s interest. Clearly, Mkhwebane is acting in the interest of the already captured Number 1 and must be removed before she is allowed to compromise the once proud office any further.

Public Protector threatens DA instead of taking action against State Capture or lying ministers

It is with concern that I take note of the Public Protector, Adv. Busisiwe Mkhwebane, threatening to take action against me, the person who reported a minister for lying to Parliament, precisely as she declines to take action against the liar himself.
It is profoundly disappointing that the Office of the Public Protector has the time to threaten me with criminal proceedings when not a single person has been charged in connection with State Capture. This despite the extraordinary work done by Adv. Mkhwebane’s predecessor in exposing corruption at the highest level, as detailed in the State of Capture report. Instead, we are witness to near-daily revelations of corruption and looting by the political elite and their criminal associates who operate with complete impunity.
The Public Protector’s priorities are indeed skewed and I can only urge her to commit her time and resources to tackling the threat of State Capture. Indeed, if Adv. Mkhwebane insists on instituting criminal proceedings, she should consider following up with the relevant authorities on this observation from the State of Capture report:
12 (j) The Public Protector, in terms of section 6 (4) (c) (i) of the Public Protector Act, brings to the notice of the National Prosecuting Authority and the DPCI those matters identified in this report where it appears crimes have been committed.
I fear that Adv. Mkhwebane is taking aim at the DA because we were are essentially low-hanging fruit for her. She will not act against the Minister of State Security, David Mahlobo, but is happy to pursue frivolous charges against an MP trying to hold the Executive to account.
The DA reported Mahlobo for lying to Parliament because there is a developing trend of members of the Executive misleading the Legislature, as well as concomitant efforts to shield the perpetrators. This was illustrated dramatically in recent months when a report identifying those who misled or lied to the SABC Ad Hoc Committee, completed by Parliament’s Legal Services Unit, was kept under wraps by the Speaker to the National Assembly for months.
We cannot allow Parliament’s oversight mandate to be undermined by an Executive that simply lies or obfuscates when confronted with difficult questions, seemingly without consequence. We had hoped the Public Protector would recognise the important role her Office could play in combating this trend. Sadly, we have been left disappointed. The DA will not be deterred. No amount of scaremongering will distract us from our core function.

Public Protector gives David Mahlobo a pass for lying to Parliament

The DA is deeply disappointed that the Public Protector, Adv. Busisiwe Mkhwebane, has chosen to absolve the Minister of State Security, David Mahlobo, despite unequivocal evidence that he lied to Parliament.
We do not accept this attempt to explain away Mahlobo’s blatant lies and his deliberate attempt to mislead the Legislature. We look forward to pursuing this matter further in the Powers and Privileges Committee to which this matter has also been referred.
I had reported Mahlobo to the Public Protector on 18 November 2016 for violating the Executive Members Ethics Act by deliberately misleading Parliament about his relationship with #feesmustfall student leader, Mcebo Dlamini. It has taken a staggering nine and a half months for the Public Protector’s Office to complete its report, despite the Executive Members Ethics Act stating it must do so “within 30 days of receipt of the complaint”.
On 16 November 2016, Mahlobo told a bald-faced lie in the National Assembly when, responding to an oral question from DA MP, Prof Belinda Bozzoli, he stated that “Mcebo Dlamini has not been to my house”. Yet only two days prior he himself revealed his relationship with Dlamini when, participating in a panel discussion hosted by the Institute for Security Studies, he declared: “[A]nd I happen to know Mcebo [Dlamini]. He has been to my house several times.”
The Public Protector has unthinkingly accepted Mahlobo’s excuse that the “context” and the “gist” of Prof Bozzoli’s question “sought to suggest that Mr Mcebo Dlamini met with him at his residence to discuss the student protests”. The question was clear. The lie was clear. The intention to mislead Parliament was clear.
It is disturbing how disposed the Public Protector is to accepting Mahlobo’s vapid explanation. We can only hope that this is not a portent of things to come.
Mkhwebane’s predecessor, Thuli Madonsela, was instrumental in holding the Executive to account and would not have accepted Mahlobo’s nonsense defence. Sadly, it seems the incumbent Public Protector does not have the same appetite for holding errand ministers accountable and is all too willing to let liars off the hook.
The DA will not allow Mahlobo or any other minister to escape censure for misleading the legislature.

DA requests Public Protector to probe R1,3 billion Set-Top Box tender

The DA has lodged a request with the Public Protector, Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane, to investigate possible corruption in the process undertaken by the Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa (USAASA) to procure 1,5 million government-sponsored Set-Top Boxes (STBs), satellite dishes and antennae at a cost of R1,3 billion.
Depending on the Public Protector’s findings, our request also asks for Mkhwebane to recommend that the entire procurement process be cancelled and to suggest possible criminal investigations.
The STB orders, placed with six companies in August 2015, were part of the first share in government’s plan to give 5 million STBs, satellite dishes and antennae to qualifying indigent households at a cost – estimated in 2015 – of R4,3 billion in 2015.
In 2015, in response to my concerns about the procurement process, former Minister of Communications Faith Muthambi requested National Treasury to investigate the process and this report was delivered to her, as the custodian of the Broadcasting Digital Migration (BDM) programme in April 2016.
Ms Muthambi passed on the report to the Telecommunications and Postal Services Minister, Dr Siyanbonga Cwele, as he has executive responsibility for the entities charged with delivering digital migration, in this case, the Universal Service Access Agency of South Africa (USAASA).
Last September, the DA asked for a copy of the report, in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), from Cwele. It was ignored.
Our request to the Public Protector was prompted by repeated refusals by the Communications and Telecommunications and Postal Services Ministers to take ownership of this forensic investigation into STB procurement. Repeated requests to the Chairpersons of both the Communications and Telecommunications and Postal Services Parliamentary Portfolio Committees have also come to naught.
In responding to Parliamentary Questions, both Ministers have passed on the buck to each other when asked what action was being taken based on the National Treasury’s report.
Based on portions of the report contained in a document Ms Muthambi posted on the Department of Communications website last year, the report revealed significant irregular, and possibly criminal, actions in the appointment of the bid managers, procurement adjudicators and the bid evaluation committee; changing tender specifications after closing date and delays that increased the costs. It also found that the cost of the STBs was adjusted upwards to be at least 37% higher than retail cost.
Production of these orders was suspended by USAASA on 15 June 2016, because of legal challenges to the much revised BDM policy, that was ruled on by the Constitutional Court on 8 June 2017.
At yesterday’s meeting of the Parliamentary Telecommunications and Postal Services Portfolio Committee, USAASA CEO, Lumko Mtimde, said the National Treasury report had not been dealt with because it was marked as a ‘draft’.
Instead, USAASA had worked with the Auditor General’s 2016 report on the entity to investigate the irregularities and take internal disciplinary actions. He was uncertain whether any criminal investigations would follow.
USAASA has, on 10 August 2017, approached the Gauteng High Court to set aside the STB procurement process while condoning USAASA’s payments made to date, and to condone a request for the original orders – at the inflated cost – be completed. I assume USAASA has taken this approach to ‘settle’ the legal challenges from those companies whose orders were suspended last June.
While the Court has still to hear USAASA’s application, which the DA welcomes, we believe there may be more corruption that warrants investigation by the Public Protector and we trust that she will agree to investigate in the interest of rooting out all corruption in public procurement processes.
The action lodged by USAASA speaks volumes about the process that was suspect from the start. Hopefully Ms Mkhwebane’s report will reveal what went wrong with the process, who was responsible and recommend consequences for those who knowingly participated in, and benefitted, from the corrupt process.