Military Veterans Bill [B1-2011]: public hearings (day 3)

This premium content has been made freely available

Defence and Military Veterans

29 March 2011
Chairperson: Mr M Motimele (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

On the third day of public hearings on the Military Veterans Bill, the Committee received submissions from the Institute of Security Studies, the Khulumani Support Group, the Underpressure Agency, the International Center of Transitional Justice, a group of medical practitioners working with military veterans and Mr Deon Du Preez, a former member of the Cape Corps.

The Institute for Security Studies recommended that the Bill acknowledged the contribution made by non-military participants in the democratisation of South Africa.  The benefits provided to military veterans had to be in sync with the benefits available to non-military combatants.  The definition of ‘military veteran’ should include a list of the applicable veteran organisations.  A definition of ‘business opportunities’ should be included in the Bill.  The powers and duties of the Department of Military Veterans should be clarified.  Gender representation should be taken into consideration in the selection of members of the Advisory Council.

The Institute was critical of the report of the Ministerial Task Team on Military Veterans, which informed the Bill.  The report excluded information on the research methodology followed, no baseline data on military veterans was provided it could not be established if the research sample was representative and only three documents were referenced despite the availability of a wide range of research reports on military veterans.  It was not clear if the Task Team had consulted the definitive Integrated Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration Standards developed by the United Nations.  The Institute recommended that the Committee requested additional information on the research methodology followed by the Task Team and appointed a reference group to review the report.

Members observed that it would be difficult to define non-military participants.  Members asked for comment on the issue of young veterans and the preferential awarding of tenders to veterans.  Members agreed that the data contained in the Task Team report had to be credible and complete.

The Khulumani Support Group had a membership of 65,000 victims and survivors of human rights violations.  Khulumani advocated that the Bill was not limited to military veterans and that provision was made to include all victims of gross human rights violations.  The main focus of the submission was on the need to provide assistance to victims.  The proposed legislation should not be perceived to favour only military veterans and the potential for litigation should be avoided.  In addition to the benefits provided for in the Bill, Khulumani recommended a monthly grant of R2,000 per person for a period of five years for each qualifying veteran or victim.  The estimated cost to the National Treasury would be R2 billion per annum for five years.  The organisation suggested that the President’s Fund was utilised to provide seed capital to veterans and victims to start their own businesses.

Members queried the inclusion of all victims of human rights violations and asked how a victim would be defined.  Questions were asked about the composition of the membership of Khulumani and the reasons provided for rejecting applications for special pensions.  The organisation was requested to forward a written submission that made specific reference to the Bill to the Committee by 12 April 2011.

The Underpressure Agency was involved in socio-economic development through heritage, which included museum and heritage site development and a pilot project was started in Gauteng to train military veterans in heritage tourism.  The submission was focused on the implementation of the Bill and challenged the assumptions that the various Departments and organs of State responsible for providing the benefits would cooperate with the responsible Department and would have the necessary resources available.  The Agency took the opportunity to highlight the current unsatisfactory state of affairs in the heritage and training sectors.

The National Heritage Resources Act included provisions for utilising heritage resources for the socio-economic development of veterans and for the graves of combatants.  The Agency suggested that veterans were serviced by the Sector Education and Training Authority system, despite the current challenges of inadequate funding and the appropriateness of qualifications.  Skills development opportunities were identified in the construction, philosophy, political management and research, mechanical engineering, agriculture, food security and eco-tourism, creative industries and indigenous knowledge systems sectors.  The Agency suggested that ownership was taken of the heritage of military veterans, that the areas of responsibility were clearly identified, that clear policies and procedures were developed, that the inter-departmental relationship was properly managed and that adequate financial resources were provided. 

Members queried the establishment of the Agency and suggested that the concerns over the heritage sector were referred to the appropriate Parliamentary Committees.  The Agency was asked to submit specific recommendations that could be considered for inclusion in the Bill.

The International Center for Transitional Justice recommended that the Bill was expanded to include victims of human rights violations.  Only those veterans who had endured gross human rights violations were entitled to reparations. The granting of reparations to only military veterans would undermine national unity and reconciliation and would be considered to be discriminatory.  The benefits provided to veterans should match the reparations for other victims.  It was incorrect to consider compensation for disabilities suffered by veterans as reparation.  The Center recommended that the number of members of the Advisory Council was specified, that the majority of members were independent from Government, that the term of office was limited, that a rotation system was applied and that more than one member had legal training.  The needs of veterans should be determined in a consultative manner and take cognisance of the needs of veterans who had suffered human rights abuse.  The Advisory Council and the Ministry should be accountable to veterans and the public and the procedures should be transparent.

Members pointed out that the Bill intended to provide benefits to military veterans and that it would be difficult to identify all the victims of human rights violations.

A group of seven medical practitioners had recognised the need to provide specialist medical care to military veterans.  The group assisted veterans to apply for military pensions and had assisted 2,000 veterans to date.  The group advocated specialised health care for military veterans and had found that substance abuse was a major problem in this sector of society.  Veterans should not be considered as recipients of charity but should be regarded as a unique sector of society.

The group recommended that the Bill was applied retrospectively and included persons who had applied for military pensions.  The composition of the Advisory Council should be multi-disciplinary and not necessarily composed of veterans.  A clear distinction should be made between the powers and duties of the Director-General of the Department of Military Veterans and the Advisory Council to avoid potential areas of conflict.  A medical appeal board should be established.  Veterans suffered from a wide range of mental and physical conditions and provision need to be made to assess the degree of impairment of individual veterans.  The benefits should include neuro-psychiatric services and provision had to be made to repatriate the bodies of veterans who had died in other countries.  It was acknowledged that children had been involved in the conflict and deserved as much care and support as the older veterans.

Members queried the availability of the services offered by the group in other parts of the country.  Members commented that many veterans distrusted the military health care facilities and preferred to access care from other practitioners or facilities.

Mr Deon Du Preez was a former member of the South African Cape Corps and presented the submission on behalf of other former members of the Corps who were not members of veteran organisations.  The definition of ‘military veteran’ included the former members of the Cape Corps, which was considered to be a part of the SANDF.  The provision in the Bill for a means test was welcomed but priority should be given to the neediest veterans, regardless of which military organisation they had served in.  Recognition should be given to the different categories of members of the Cape Corps, i.e. members of the permanent force, members on contract and members of the voluntary services and the benefits envisaged in the Bill should be available to all three categories.

The Committee acknowledged that the former members of the Cape Corps had to be included in the Bill and that not all the members were represented by the Cape Corps Foundation.


Meeting report

Submission from the Institute of Security Studies (ISS)
Mr Guy Lamb, Senior Research Fellow, ISS presented the submission from the ISS to the Committee (see attached documents).

The ISS commented that the Bill did not appear to recognise the non-military contributions to achieve democracy in South Africa.  It was necessary to balance the benefits prescribed to military veterans with the benefits provided to other sectors of society who had made sacrifices and contributed significantly to the democratisation of the country.

The ISS recommended that a list of former and existing military veteran organisations were included in the definition of ‘military veteran’; that ‘business opportunities’ was defined; that the powers and duties of the Department of Military Veterans (DMV) described in clause 7 was clarified and that gender representation was taken into consideration in the selection of members of the Advisory Council in clause 13.

The recommendations made by the Ministerial Task Team on Military Veterans informed the Bill.  However, the ISS listed several concerns over the report issued by the Task Team.  The report was silent on the research design and methodology applied and only three documents were referenced.  Extensive literature and detailed research reports on military veterans were available but it was unclear if the Task Team had consulted these documents before formulating its recommendations.  There was no indication that the Integrated Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration Standards (IDDRS) developed by the United Nations had been consulted.  The IDDRS was generally regarded as the international standard on reintegration support for former combatants and military veterans.  Information on the research sample was lacking and it could not be determined if the sample was representative of all the views, needs and concerns of military veterans in South Africa.

The Task Team report excluded any baseline data on military veterans.  Effective policy on military veterans can not be designed and implemented if data on the number, gender and age distribution of veterans, the number of dependants of veterans, current benefits provided to veterans and the existing training opportunities available to veterans were not known.

The ISS recommended that the Committee requested the Task Team to provide further details of the research methodology used and appointed a reference group to review the report.

Discussion
Mr L Mpaphele (PAC) understood that redress for non-military activists and other victims of human rights abuses was covered elsewhere, for example the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) had awarded financial compensation and special pensions were provided.  It was difficult to define a victim of human rights abuses as some people were victimised by Government forces whilst others had suffered abuse from liberation forces.  A person could conceivably be a victim of human rights abuse as well as a military veteran.

Mr M Nhanha (COPE) requested clarity on the recognition of non-military contributions to the liberation struggle.  The recommendations of the Task Team informed the Bill and he agreed that the research data had to be credible and complete.  He asked what recommendations were made by the ISS in this regard.  He asked for comment on the issue of the age criteria applicable to military veterans, given that many young persons were involved in South Africa’s liberation war.  He asked for comment on the proposal that tenders were reserved for military veterans or veteran organisations.

Mr D Maynier (DA) said that the Task Team report was produced at a cost of R850,000.  He was concerned over the credibility of the report, on which the Bill was based.  He asked if the preferential awarding of tenders was in line with international best practice.

Mr J Maake (ANC), Chairperson of the Joint Standing Committee on Defence noted that the ISS had found the report of the Task Team lacked information on the research methodology that was used.  He asked what particular recommendations were made by the ISS in this regard.  It would be difficult to define the non-military participants as people had participated in protest action in varying degrees.  He agreed that the research data on military veterans had to be credible and extensive.

Ms P Daniels (ANC) asked for more information on the IDDRS standards.  She asked what the ISS recommended with regard to the young veterans.

Mr Lamb replied that the Committee was responsible for formulating the legislation on military veterans but the Bill should include an acknowledgement of the contribution made by non-military combatants.  Such acknowledgement could be included in the Preamble to the Bill.  He suggested that the Committee consulted with other Parliamentary Committees and with the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development on the issue.  The benefits provided to veterans should not be out of sync with the benefits provided to non-military combatants.

Mr Lamb explained that the IDDRS standards were developed by the United Nations for the purpose of assisting countries to provide short and medium term support for military veterans.  The IDDRS specified the applicable criteria and defined combatants.  The experience of other countries differed from the South African experience, for example, the conflict in the central African region had involved a number of countries.  The extent of support depended on the financial capacity of the country concerned but the World Bank had made financial assistance available in certain instances.  Financial compensation had been paid to South African victims in the 1990’s but it was questionable how sustainable the ventures that were started for victims had been.

Mr Lamb acknowledged that the use of child soldiers and the abuse of girls as sex slaves for soldiers was a common feature of conflicts in Africa.  Special programmes for children involved in the fighting had been developed in Central Africa.  The IDDRS provided no guidance on the issue of the age of combatants.

Mr Lamb said that the ISS recommended that ‘business opportunities’ was defined in the Bill.  Small ventures were susceptible to failure, mainly because of a lack of support mechanisms.  Provision had to be made to provide veterans with the necessary support, seed capital and business training.  Preferential tenders were not common international practice.  Only the United States of America had a system in place where certain Department of Defence tenders were awarded to veterans.

Mr Lamb advised that the credibility of the Task Team report could result in legal challenges and objections to the Bill.  Extensive research on military veterans had been conducted and the research reports were in the public domain and readily available.  Members of the non-statutory forces were considered to be more vulnerable and studies had found that two-thirds of this category of veterans was unemployed.

Mr Maynier asked for a list of the research documents on military veterans to be made available to the Committee.

Submission from Khulumani Support Group
Ms Marjorie Jobson, National Director, Khulumani Support Group presented the submission to the Committee (see attached documents).

The Khulumani Support Group was a civil society organisation with a membership of 65,000 victims and survivors of human rights violations and military veterans.  Approximately 78% of members were unemployed.  Khulumani was a member of the South African Coalition for Transitional Justice.

The presentation included an overview of the mission, present status and profile of membership of the Khulumani Support Group.  Eight organisations had collaborated in preparing the submission.  Descriptions of the roles played by non-military participants in the liberation struggle were provided.  Khulumani recommended that provision was made to meet the needs of all participants and stressed the need to re-build communities and re-empower victims.  Benefits should not be limited to military veterans and the potential for litigation over the unfair and discriminatory provision of benefits to certain sectors only had to be avoided.  An example was the litigation contesting the granting of special pensions.

In addition to the benefits provided for in clause 5 of the Bill, Khulumani recommended the provision of a monthly grant of R2,000 per person for a period of five years for each qualifying veteran or victim.  The estimated cost to the National Treasury would be R2 billion per annum.  The organisation suggested that the President’s Fund was utilised to provide seed capital to veterans and victims to start their own businesses.  The balance in the Fund currently exceeded R900 million and no disbursements had been made for some time.

Discussion
Mr Mlambo commented on the practicality of dealing with individual military veterans rather than with veteran organisations.

Mr Maake observed that the submission did not directly address the Bill.  He appreciated the content of the submission but it would be difficult to include all the victims of human rights abuses in the proposed legislation.

Ms N Mabedla (ANC) asked for more information on the 65,000 members of Khulumani.  She asked what reasons were given for the rejection of applications for special pensions.

Mr Mphahlele asked how victims would be defined as all South Africans could be considered to be victims of apartheid.  He was aware that the Khulumani Support Group had taken out an injunction to prevent the President from releasing certain prisoners.

Ms Jobson replied that all human rights activists should be included in the Bill.  Khulumani worked with people who had suffered human rights abuse.  Members included people who had made submissions to the TRC, the members of 1,500 families with missing relatives, approximately 500 victims of torture and 120,000 other victims requiring remedy.  Members included military veterans.  The recommendation was that the definition of ‘victim’ was limited to persons who had suffered serious human rights abuse.  No reason was provided for rejecting applications for special pensions.  She was concerned over the lack of co-ordination between Government Departments responsible for providing benefits and social assistance.

The Chairperson requested a written submission from Khulumani that specifically referred to the Bill by 12 April 2011.

Submission from the Underpressure Agency
Ms Giselle Baillie, Director, Underpressure Agency presented the submission to the Committee (see attached documents).

The Underpressure Agency was involved in socio-economic development through heritage, which included museum and heritage site development.  The Agency had a pilot project in Gauteng that provided opportunities and training to military veterans in heritage tourism initiatives.

The Agency was mainly concerned with the implementation of the Bill.  The assumption was made that the various Departments and organs of State responsible for providing the benefits in terms of clause 5 of the Bill would cooperate with the DMV and would have the necessary resources available.  The Agency drew on its own experience in the heritage and skills training arena to challenge these assumptions.  The submission included detailed comment on the challenges resulting from the inability to implement legislation, the lack of coordination and inadequate funding that had been identified by the Agency.

Clause 5 (1) (c) made provision for ‘honouring and memorialising fallen military veterans’.  The National Heritage Resources Act defined ‘graves of fallen heroes’ and included provisions for utilising heritage resources for socio-economic development.  The Act was however misinterpreted and had not been effectively implemented.

Clause 5 (1) (d) made provision for education, training and skills development.  The Agency suggested that veterans were serviced by the Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA) system.  There were however challenges with inadequate funding for skills development programmes and the appropriateness and recognition of qualifications.  Skills development opportunities were identified in the construction, philosophy, political management and research, mechanical engineering, agriculture, food security and eco-tourism, creative industries and indigenous knowledge systems sectors.

In conclusion, the Agency suggested that ownership was taken of the heritage of military veterans, that the areas of responsibility were clearly identified, that clear policies and procedures were developed, that the inter-departmental relationship was properly managed and that adequate financial resources were provided.

Discussion
Mr Mlangeni asked for an explanation of the name of the Underpressure Agency.  He found the tone of the submission to be negative and pessimistic.

Ms Daniels thought that many of the comments made by the Agency were valid.  She would have preferred suggestions on how the current challenges could be addressed and specific proposals that could be included in the Bill.

Mr Maake agreed that there was little understanding of heritage.  Heritage was a complex area and generally considered as a peripheral issue.  He asked how heritage and the involvement of military veterans could be accommodated in the Bill.

Mr Mphahlele wanted to know more about the establishment of the Agency.  He observed that the submission covered a broad perspective and dealt with many issues that were beyond the scope of the Bill.  He suggested that the Portfolio Committees on Trade and Industry or Arts and Culture were more appropriate forums to discuss the issues that were raised by the Agency.  He asked the Agency to provide a revised submission that specifically focused on the Bill.

Ms Baillie explained that the name Underpressure Agency reflected the fact that there was a great deal of work that had to be done.  She disagreed that the submission was pessimistic.  The heritage sector had a good legislative framework but the implementation of the legislation was problematic.  There was a need for broad consultation within the sector.  The heritage sector could play a significant role in providing the education, skills development and training benefits provided for in clause 5 of the Bill.  However, the Minister had annulled the MAPPSETA and the heritage sector no longer featured in the SETA programmes.

Ms Baillie said that the existing problems in the sector needed to be addressed before more demands were placed on it by the Bill.  The heritage sector was a key driver in socio-economic development.  However, the various arts and culture initiatives were fragmented and ineffective.  The Agency was a platform that could be used to lobby the sector and the SETA’s to include military veterans in education and training programmes and to review the qualifications that were issued.  The Underpressure Agency was a closed corporation that was established for the purpose of deriving economic growth from heritage opportunities,

The Chairperson stated that the Committee welcomed all submissions on the Bill.  He asked the Underpressure Agency to submit a written submission that focused specifically on the Bill to the Committee by 12 April 2011.

Submission from the International Centre of Transitional Justice (ICTJ)
Mr Howard Varney, Acting Director, ICTJ presented the submission to the Committee (see attached document).

The ICTJ used the experienced gained during the TRC process to assist countries pursuing accountability for past atrocities and worked to prevent and redress human rights violations.  Many military veterans and activists had suffered gross violations of human rights and continued to endure physical and mental trauma.  The Bill was an opportunity to fulfill the promises made to veterans regarding reparations.

The Center recommended that the Bill was expanded to include victims of human rights violations.  Victims and veterans should be treated equally and their needs addressed in a coordinated manner.  The Center maintained that only those veterans who had endured gross human rights violations were entitled to reparations and suggested that the Bill distinguished between such victims and veterans who had not suffered human rights abuse.  The granting of reparations to only military veterans would undermine national unity and reconciliation and would be considered to be discriminatory. 

The benefits provided to veterans who had suffered human rights violations should match the reparations for other victims.  Clause 3 (1) (b) regarded compensation for disabilities suffered by veterans as reparation, which was erroneous.  The Center suggested that identical benefits were available to all who had suffered gross violation of human rights.

The Center recommended that the number of members of the Advisory Council was specified, that the majority of members were independent from Government, that the term of office was limited and that a rotation system was used.  More than one member should have legal training to avoid the situation that the opinion of a single member dominated the proceedings.  The needs of veterans should be determined in a consultative manner and take cognisance of the needs of veterans who had suffered human rights abuse.  The Advisory Council and the Ministry should be accountable to veterans and the public and the procedures should be transparent.

Discussion
Mr Mpahlele asked for information on the role of the ICTJ.  He said that the money paid to victims by the TRC process was intended as compensation rather than reparation.

Mr Mlangeni said that military veterans were identified by the various veteran organisations but it was not clear how the victims of human rights violations would be identified.

Mr Maake pointed out that the South African liberation struggle had been recognised by the United Nations as a war and was not merely protest action.  The military veterans were bona fide soldiers who had put their lives on the line and should not be considered to be equal to protestors and other victims of human rights abuses.  The Bill dealt only with military veterans.  The Advisory Board had to protect the interests of veterans and this would be best achieved by the veterans themselves.

Mr Varney explained that the ICTJ applied the experience gained over the preceding twenty years.  The organisation had developed a multi-pronged approach to address human rights abuses that had occurred during past conflicts.  The approach included the legal prosecution of transgressors, the establishment of bodies such as the TRC, the vetting of victims, reform and providing advice to countries emerging from internal conflict.  The main objective was to prevent recurrence of conflict in future.

Mr Varney agreed that the TRC once-off compensation of R30,000 per victim was inadequate.  There was a difference between reparation, which included measures intended as redress and (usually inadequate) financial assistance intended to assist the recipient to recover, and compensation, which was a component of reparations.  The extent of compensation was subject to affordability in the country concerned.  He conceded that it was easier to identify military veterans than victims of gross human rights violations but this was not impossible.  The information of approximately 20,000 victims was currently on record.  The Center acknowledged that the fiscus could not afford to pay all victims adequate compensation and suggested that the criteria to identify beneficiaries and the extent of reparations were clearly specified.  The Center agreed that the benefits provided to veterans should be in line with the benefits available to the members of the statutory forces but disagreed that there should be a distinction between the military combatants and non-military activists.  All participants had made equal sacrifices and it would be discriminatory if benefits were only available to members of a military group.

Mr Maake pointed out that the Bill provided free medical care at military hospitals to veterans.  It was acknowledged that a large section of the population had suffered but it was not possible to provide free transport and health care to all.

Submission from a Group of Medical Practitioners
Dr David Phofa and Dr Thabo Rangaka presented the submission form a group of seven medical practitioners to the Committee (see attached documents).

The group realised the need to provide dedicated medical services to military veterans in 2010 and initiated a program to assist veterans to access military pensions.  The application process was complex and many veterans were illiterate. To date, assistance had been provided to 2,000 veterans.  The group provided medical and counseling services to veterans and had found that there was a major problem with substance abuse in this sector of society.

The group recommended that the Bill was applied retrospectively and included persons who had applied for military pensions.  The composition of the Advisory Council should be multi-disciplinary as the Council would have to deal with different social and economic issues.  The group disagreed that all the members of the Council should be veterans.

The Bill made no clear distinction between the powers and duties of the Director-General of the DMV and the Advisory Council, which was a potential area of conflict.  As many of the issues affecting veterans were health-related, the group suggested that a medical appeal board was established.  Veterans suffered from a wide range of mental and physical conditions and provision need to be made to assess the degree of impairment of individual veterans.  The group suggested that military veterans were considered as a separate sector of society and recommended that the health services developed specialised health care services for veterans.  The group suggested that the benefits provided in the Bill included neuro-psychiatric services and the repatriation of veterans who had died in other countries.  It was acknowledged that children had been involved in the conflict and these young people required as much care and support as the older veterans.

The Bill was an opportunity to include military veterans in the development of the country.  Veterans should not be regarded as recipients of charity but should receive recognition in their own right.

Discussion
Ms Daniels asked if the group had discussed the functioning of the Advisory Council with veterans.

Mr Mphahlele agreed that the members of the Advisory Council should be multi-disciplinary.  He pointed out that many veterans had the necessary skills and expertise to serve on the Council.  He said that many veterans distrusted the military health facilities and the provision of health care at non-military facilities would be less stressful.  He asked what the difference was between a patient and a client.

Mr Nhanha had been unaware of the services provided by this group of medical practitioners.  There were many veterans in need of such services in the Eastern Cape and he wondered if the group was represented in other areas of the country.

The Chairperson explained that not all the comments made by Members required a response.

Dr Phofa explained that the group comprised seven medical practitioners, of which four worked in the public sector.  The practitioners were based in Durban and Gauteng and additional resources were required to extend the service to other parts of the country.  Medical practitioners needed specialist training to deal with military veterans.

Dr Rangaka suggested that SANMVA advised veterans to seek assistance from registered medical practitioners and that those veterans were referred to specialist practitioners if necessary.  He agreed that most veterans distrusted military health care facilities.  He explained that a client was a person who seeked help from a doctor and a patient was a client that suffered from an illness.

Mr Maziya said that a number of doctors had provided assistance to the liberation forces during the struggle and could be requested to provide services to veterans.

Submission from Mr Deon du Preez
Mr Du Preez was a former member of the South African Cape Corps (SACC) and presented the submission on behalf of other former members of the Corps who could not afford the membership fee of veteran organisations.

The definition of ‘military veteran’ included the members of the SACC.  However, the report of the Ministerial Task Team stated that there was ambiguity concerning the integration of the SACC into the SANDF.  In his opinion, the SACC was a part of the statutory forces and former members should be eligible for the benefits provided in the Bill.

Mr Du Preez welcomed the provision in the Bill for a means test and suggested that the neediest veterans were given priority to receive the proposed benefits.  No distinction should be made between the members of former military organisations.  Recognition should be given to the different categories of members of the SACC, i.e. members of the permanent SACC force, members on contract and members of the voluntary services.  Members of the latter two categories in particular found themselves in dire straights and in desperate need of assistance.  He suggested that cognisance was given to the fact that there were different categories of members in certain forces and that the Bill made provision for benefits to be available to contract and volunteer categories as well.

Discussion
Mr Maziya welcomed the submission from Mr Du Preez.  The Cape Corps Foundation had presented a submission to the Committee on 29 March 2011, which indicated that the former members of the Cape Corps had been excluded from previous initiatives to address the iniquities between the statutory and non-statutory forces.  It was apparent that not all former members of the Corps were members of the Foundation.  He requested the DMV to ensure that the Bill included the former members of the Cape Corps.

The Chairperson advised that the public hearings on the Bill were concluded.  He thanked the presenters for the submissions.

Mr Wiseman Mashego, Assistant Director: Legislative Drafting and Memoranda of Understanding, Department of Defence requested that the additional submissions requested by the Committee during the hearings were received by 10 April 2011 as the Department would need time to prepare its response.

The Chairperson advised that the Committee’s schedule could be changed to allow the Department sufficient time to prepare the briefing on the response to the submissions.

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: