What concerns you most about the decisions that were taken? Because the DA argues that more than R760 million of pensioners' money was invested in this Efora Energy over several years.

Right.

So the original investment appears to have had some irregularities to do with it.

It was only a R70 million investment or R75 thereabouts.

Then the PIC contributed a further $300 million when the company seemed to be in financial trouble.

Then there were more problems that emerged.

And again, the company was not performing.

What impact do investment failures of this nature have on public confidence in state institutions and public investment vehicles? And beyond Afora, are there other investments that Parliament should be scrutinising more closely?

And your incubator directing researchers to other potential sources of funding that the NIHR might provide.

Yeah.

And not just the NIHR, but, but primarily the NIHR.

And, and so there's now a research program for social care.

There's different, uh ...

There's a growing ...

When the NIHR was renamed, it used to just be the National Institute for Health Research and was renamed a number of years ago now to the National Institute of Health and Care Research to emphasize the point that care settings are a very important part of the research, uh, landscape that is needed, uh, but very much needs developing.

It's great.

But does appointing a new board deal with the governance issues that have been raised?

That's such an important question, Mugiwe, and I'm very glad that you asked that.

I think a new board obviously is the short-term thing that needs to be done to get the company functioning again.

But the most important thing is to reform how the board is appointed.

And what has happened is the Empati Commission looked into the problems of the PIC in a lot of detail.

and they identified what the root causes of the problems were.

And you can sum that up by saying it's weak governance and political interference.

When you look at that matter, were those questions answered for you? But also, secondly, what do you then do, you know, from a parliamentary basis and when it comes to oversight to deal with some of what we are seeing play out in the public domain?

So on what legal basis do you believe it is withholding these reports?

So the PIC is a public institution.

And these are reports that are held by the PIC, created in the course of a public function.

And there's no lawful ground for withholding the information.

And there's a very strong public interest in disclosure, in the sense that the PIC is managing about R3 trillion of public sector pension assets, It has the GEPF, the Government Employees Pension Fund, has 1.2 million members, over half a million pensioners and beneficiaries.

So there's an overwhelming public interest to know that the party commission recommendations have been implemented, that there has been proper accountability.

and for transparency.

could you repeat the first part of the question? Why are these two reports so critical for public accountability?