Prevention and Combating of Trafficking in Persons Bill & Superior Courts Bill: adoption

Meeting report

Superior Courts Bill [B7B – 2011]: Adoption of Bill and Committee Report
Mr L Nzimande (Kwa Zulu Natal, ANC) reported briefly on the Bill to the Committee. He noted that after the Bill had been forwarded to the NCOP, it was deliberated upon. There was consensus in relation to the approach taken to transformation of judicial structures. Essentially this Bill served as a framework for the transformation of the magistrates’ courts and other specialised courts having equal status to the High Courts.  The courts addressed issues relating to access to justice, particularly for people in Limpopo and Mpumalanga. He requested that the Content Advisor remind Members of the contents of the Bill if necessary. However, noting that the Bill was transformative in nature, he proposed that it be adopted.

Mr M Mokgobi (Limpopo, ANC) said the contents of the Bill were clear and not complex. He seconded the motion to adopt the Bill, without any amendments.

Mr Irvin Kinnes, Content Adviser to the Select Committee, noted the agreement of Members to adopt the Bill.

He then read out the Committee Report, which was to the effect that, having considered the subject of the Superior Courts Bill [B7B – 2011], and having reported and referred to it, the Committee agreed to the Bill without proposed amendments.

Prevention and Combating of Trafficking in Persons Bill
The Content Adviser said this Bill was very important for the country, which had ratified the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking In Persons, in particular the trafficking in women and children, in February 2004. As part of its obligations it must then pass domestic legislation to support its commitment. This was the reason for the urgency of enactment of specific legislation to make trafficking in persons and related matters statutory criminal offences, and in order to assist victims. He also noted that the 1996 Constitution guaranteed that South Africa would not allow maltreatment of trafficked persons. Currently, there was no domestic legislation in place, so this Bill sought to give effect to the UN Convention.

Trafficking in persons was generally organised crime, that was a profitable business and was estimated to generate in excess of US$32 billion. There were few risks attached to it. South Africa ratified protocol to prevent trafficking In Feb. 2004. South Africa must pass domestic legislation to criminalise and assist victims. 1996 constitution ensures the guarantees from maltreatment on tracking. There is no legislation in place to combat trafficking; bill seeks to give effect to UN convention.

The Content Adviser read out the Preamble to the Bill, as an overview of what the Bill contained. He noted that the Committee had been concerned that some definitions on the concept of human trafficking had been unclear and changes to the definitions had been effected. The essential offences that were now criminalised in the Bill included the delivery of trafficked persons, leasing and using accommodation for the purpose of trafficking, adoptive and forced marriages, bondage, concealment, use of services and media for purposes of aiding trafficking.

He emphasised that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must report suspected addresses of persons involved in trafficking to South African Police Services (SAPS). He added that ISPs had complained against specific inclusion of ISPs in the bill, and had maintained that the ISP Association (ISPA) already had a robust framework for monitoring and safeguarding children’s rights. Other content providers were under an obligation also to report suspected traffickers. He said this matter had been thoroughly debated and presented by Ms Engela Steyn, Senior State Law Adviser from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.

Mr Kinnes noted the disinclination of the Department of Home Affairs to change the immigration status of victims of trafficking, and had been unwilling to introduce extra permits for visitors who were victims of trafficking.

He noted the contents of Chapter 3 of the Bill.

He also emphasised the clauses providing immunity from prosecution to victims, for offences committed as a direct result of their being trafficked.

He noted that clauses 20 and 21 of the Bill contained a reference to section 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
 
He also noted that a specific clause was inserted, after a proposal that those convicted should be penalised and fined R100 million. The Department had carefully answered questions addressed to this issue.

Discussion
Mr Nzimande asked the State Law Adviser to comment on clause 19(5), which provided for police officials to whom reports had been made, under various other clauses (clause 19(1), 19(2), 8(1)(b) or 8(2)(b)(i) or 9(2)) in respect of an adult person whom the official knew or ought to have known had been a victim of trafficking. This person may, despite the proviso contained in section 26 of the Criminal Procedure Act, enter premises without a warrant. He wanted to ensure that this clause had been properly weighed up and brought in line with other legislation dealing with the issuing of warrants of arrest, lest this portion of the Bill be unfeasible.

Ms Noluthando Mpikashe, Senior State Law Adviser, Office of the Chief State Law Advisor, responded that the Department was satisfied on the point. It had made a careful study of and ensured that this Bill was indeed aligned with jurisprudence around police warrants and entry to premises. She emphasised that there were circumstances where the urgency of entering the premises to apprehend offenders or rescue victims would be severely compromised if warrants had to be obtained, and in these cases it was considered that entry without warrants was permissible.

Mr D Bloem (Free State, COPE) said that careful consideration must be given to costs that the provinces may incur. Clause 49 dealt with services to victims of trafficking. The Minister of Social Development may continue to operate and provide such services after the commencement of this Bill.

Mr Bloem was, however, of the view that this Bill needed to be adopted urgently, because of the prevalence of domestic abuse cases and trafficking in Durban and other areas. He formally proposed adoption of the Bill.

Mr B Nesi (Eastern Cape, ANC), seconded this motion.

Members of the Committee resolved to adopt the Bill and the Committee’s Report.

The meeting was adjourned.