Department of Justice & Constitutional Development Strategic Framework & Budget 2010

Meeting report

Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) 2010/11-2014/15: briefing
Ms Nonkululeko Msomi, Director-General: DOJ & CD, spoke about the Department’s planning process in a modified presentation. It had been modified as the Minister was due to speak but had been unable to attend. It therefore took on a more technical angle that focused on the MTSF strategy which had been drafted in the context of the President’s speech on the new outcomes based model of managing performance. The presentation dealt with the Department’s vision and mission before delving straight into the objectives of programmes and expected outputs. This included enhancing the governance framework, improving internal control systems, strengthening the Department’s mandate and reconfiguring the organisational structure, capacitating the Justice Crime Prevention and Security cluster components, and improving strategy planning and monitoring and evaluation processes.

The Department was committed to a transformed and accessible justice system that conformed to Batho Pele requirements, upheld ubuntu to promote tolerance and diversity. Several programme outputs related to improvement of corporate governance to comply with the Public Finance Management Act; the management of priority projects to improve internal control systems; sound management of state resources; expanding justice to townships and rural areas; leading the JCPS cluster and strengthening its oversight mandate; increasing public understanding of justice issues; intervening to protect victims from the impact of Apartheid and crime; improving the delivery of services to comply with Batho Pele; and protection of the rights of vulnerable groups.

Department’s 2010 Estimates of National Expenditure: briefing
Mr Johan Johnson, Chief Director: Budgets DOJ & CD, remarked at the reduced budget allocations that were nonetheless expected to absorb inflationary pressures and expand services. The Department was committed to government’s vision of doing more with less by identifying savings through reduced spending on non-core functions and activities; rationalisation of public entities and agencies to save money and improve accountability; procurement systems reform to weed out corruption; and the transformation of the public service’s organisational culture to reduce waste and to prevent extravagant spending, shoddy work and corruption.

The DOJ had five programmes with a total budget of just over R10 billion for the 2010/11 financial year. These were: Administration, Court Services, State Legal Services, the National Prosecuting Authority, Auxiliary and Associated Services. Budget growth was essentially in the Court Services programme and the budget as a whole had increased at a rate of 6.9% in terms of year on year growth. The major area of growth was the compensation budget as a result of the employment of more personnel for the implementation of various pieces of legislation. There was therefore a growth in the compensation budget in contrast to the operations budget that essentially remained the same. This meant that the Department needed to do more with less.

Discussion
Mr Makhubela (COPE, Limpopo) commended the Director General for a comprehensive strategy to deal with problems in the Department since taking the reigns as Director General.

Mr Makhubela asked with respect to the Department’s readiness for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, how many magistrates, prosecutors and Special Courts were available to deal with cases.

Ms Msomi responded about the Department’s capacity for the FIFA World Cup, saying it was a misnomer that there were specific courts that would deal with all World Cup cases. There were 56 courtrooms that had been set aside with extended hours of operation allowing for World Cup related matters. Foreign language interpreters had been put in place as well as additional security personnel.

Mr Makhubela recommended, with respect to “Batho Pele”, that achievement awards had to be given to officials to motivate them. He expressed concern that the intolerance shown by some magistrates in Pretoria as reported in the press showed disregard for the spirit of “ubuntu”.

Ms Msomi responded that with respect to complaints about lack of tolerance, there were structures such as the Magistrates Commission, chaired at a senior level, to deal with this. Members had to refer such matters to the Department so that they could be dealt with by the Commission. The Department’s management committee had agreed for Batho Pele to be built in as part of performance agreements and employment contracts.

Mr Makhubela asked for clarity on the migration of the High Court to Polokwane. He wanted to know if this migration meant that the High Court would now be at Polokwane or would it operate as a circuit court. He asked the Department to indicate how the relationship between prosecutor and investigator could be strengthened as part of reforms for expedient justice delivery and to reduce backlog in the criminal justice system.

Ms Msomi responded that there had been no coordination in the relationship between prosecutor/investigator in the past. There had to be some level of pre-screening of cases to reduce the backlog. The real test was whether this worked in practice and much would also depend on the outcome of the automation of the information technology infrastructure for record-keeping in an integrated justice system.

Mr Makhubela asked how the Department defined non-core functions. If something was budgeted was it not definitely a core function.

Ms Msomi replied that sometimes as the Department they were not aware of why a function had been regarded as a core function in the past. This was a way of revisiting these categorisations and rationalising these functions to see whether they were worth retaining or if they could be discarded.

Mr Makhubela asked when the re-demarcation of court magisterial jurisdiction would be finalised as there were communities in his constituency who did not have easy access to courts. He commented that he failed to see how they would be able to fund the re-demarcation if there was no allocation.

Mr Mokgobi (ANC, Limpopo) asked how far the Traditional Courts Bill had progressed and whether it was a section 75 or section 76 Bill.

Mr Jacob Skhosana, Chief Director: Policy DOJ & CD, responded that the Traditional Courts Bill was with the Portfolio Committee and in their report they had recommended that the task team include the NCOP.

Mr Mokgobi asked if the re-alignment of the Magistrates Court with municipal boundaries would solve problems about accessibility at the local level.

Mr Skhosana replied to the question of municipal boundaries and magisterial districts together with the question on the migration of the High Court to Polokwane. He explained how a circuit court worked and the fact that matters were dealt with at the discretion of the judge. The Bill sought to de-link the Polokwane circuit court from Pretoria so that it would operate independently and in its own right. Prior to 1994 SA had been demarcated into magisterial districts. The newly demarcated municipalities came after 1994. The Constitution now provided for municipal areas to determine a magisterial district. There was therefore a current drive to re-align municipal boundaries with magisterial districts to improve access to justice in rural areas and townships.

Mr Mokgobi asked if employment equity in the Department was feasible at the highest levels in the judiciary for instance. He pointed out that the current delegation had only one woman present, that is, the Director-General

Mr Mokgobi asked how the Department was going to assist asylum seekers. What plan did they have to tackle that? In Musina there was a great influx of people crossing into the country from Zimbabwe and Mozambique. The fact that the National Defence Force had been deployed to secure the country’s borders was not enough and there had to be other measures that the Department could take.

Ms Msomi responded on the matter of asylum seekers, saying the Department was assisted by non-government organisations such as the Human Rights Foundation which provided the type of support that they needed. Jurisdictionally this was a matter that rested with the Department of Home Affairs. The number of asylum seekers seeking assistance far exceeded the Department’s capacity to offer legal assistance.

Mr Mokgobi commented that they had come across stories that showed that there were problems in the TRC process as shown by a case where some people had been wrongly imprisoned for more than 17 years when they were innocent of any wrongdoing. This had been as a result of the application of the ‘doctrine of common purpose’. He referred to Mokoena and Mofokeng who could not be pardoned because they did not admit to the offences. This was something that needed to be addressed by the Department.

Mr Skhosana responded about the ‘doctrine of common purpose’ saying that had been very common during the apartheid era. Mokoena and Mofokeng did not make a full disclosure as required by the TRC process so that they could be pardoned. The effect of a Presidential pardon was to exonerate a person and since the petitioners denied having committed an offence this route had not worked either. They could only apply for parole after 25 years and the only remaining option was that they could approach the Minister of Correctional Services for an early parole.

Mr B Nesi (ANC, Eastern Cape) commented about transformation and engendering the Department. He was concerned that the Department had not demonstrated much progress and expressed his doubts about the Department’s ability to lead the nation in this.

Mr Nesi asked where persons with disabilities were catered for in the strategic plan and budget and how the Department was addressing changing a male-dominated department.

Ms Msomi responded that although she could not promise that in the following year their delegation would be reflecting demographics in terms of gender equality, the filling of new vacancies would reflect that balance.

Mr Nesi asked what technical support would be provided to SADC and other African countries and if they were doing things for the rest of Africa that they would not be doing for South Africa.

Ms Msomi responded that the issues that put a responsibility to SADC were not their own design. They came from bilateral forums such as NEPAD. The Department was currently assisting the Congolese for example with setting up infrastructure related to the court system there. The Department would pay for technical experts to go there and assist judges and magistrates with basic equipment such as laptops and other technology. The Department received funding for these initiatives and was involved for the sole purpose of building capacity in African countries using their know-how and expertise.

The meeting was adjourned.