Department of Justice and Constitutional Development Strategic & Annual Performance Plans 2013

NCOP Security and Justice

24 April 2013
Chairperson: Mr T Mofokeng (Free State, ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) tabled and took Members through the general Strategic Plan and targets, and then concentrated on a more detailed presentation on the Programme 1. The Department had been affected last year by the changes effected by the Superior Courts and Constitutional Amendment Bills, and the creation of the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ). The DoJ&CD had not changed its vision of mission, but it was continuously working on professionalism and recognised that it was still far from the achievement. The effect of the Constitutional amendments to the mandate of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD or the Department) were summarized, particularly the changes to Chapter 8 of the Constitution. The position of Secretary General had been filled, although Dr De Wee, Chief Operations Officer of DoJ&CD was still offering support. The South African Judicial Education Institute would be transferred to the OCJ. The administration of the Superior Courts would be moved to the OCJ, with fully functional internal controls and accounting systems set up. It was noted that the DoJ&CD still retained responsibility for other legislative mandates. There had been engagement with the Office of the Public Protector (OPP) to coordinate matters from the OPP and other Chapter 9 institutions, to try to prepare proper responses or re-direct to appropriate institutions.

The DoJ&CD had also aligned its plans with the National Development Plan, and all Cluster departments would continue with the implementation of the recommendations emanating from the Criminal Justice System (CJS) Review, to try to ensure uniform results. Coordination had improved. The initiatives to improve access to justice were described, and it was noted that 90 branch offices would be converted to full-service courts, and seven new Small Claims Courts would be set up. The DoJ&CD was aiming to have one court in each of the 387 magisterial districts and new models were being developed. The integration of the criminal justice system was progressing. There were processes to ensure better management of state litigation and proper use of resources, including the possible establishment of the Office of Solicitor-General. The DoJ&CD also highlighted the work that it was doing to protect vulnerable groups, and noted that the National Policy Framework on the Management of Sexual Offences was being gazetted. Research into re-establishment of dedicated Sexual Offences Courts had been completed and was being interrogated internally, and criteria were set for what must be done before dedicated courts were designated, whilst work continued to update the Register on Sexual Offenders. A One-Stop Child Centre was established and the viability of establishing more centres was being investigated. An Intersectoral Frontline Service Guide on Managing Human Trafficking and Related Matters had been developed to guide the process and a Flow Chart had been established, outlining the various services provided. The DoJ&CD had been assessing the impact of the decisions made in the Constitutional Courts and Supreme Court of Appeal.

The Strategic Goals were then outlined in more detail. It was stressed, in particular, that DoJ&CD was trying to achieve better organisational performance and to facilitate the effective and efficient resolution of criminal civil and family law disputes, particularly by giving more support to the Office of the Family Advocate, which was struggling to deal with the volume of work. Advocacy issues were being pursued with partners. The DoJ&CD had adopted a people-centred approach and took into account the availability of resources when setting its targets. There had been increased allocations in some areas but budget cuts in others and directives from Occupation Specific Dispensation and the Department of Public Service and Administration had quite an impact on the DoJ&CD’s staffing. There were on-going problems around rising municipal charges and the continued dependence on the Department of Public Works for the major capital and maintenance projects. The additional allocation was R535 million, rising to R1 billion over the MTEF, and the total allocation was R16.7 billion. The DoJ&CD had made substantial improvements in the accounting systems and ICT systems and was hoping for an improved audit outcome.

In the discussions that followed, Member asked questions relating to the role of the DoJ&CD in transformation and the enhancement of the interests of vulnerable groups and people with disabilities, the reduction of the vacancy rate within the Department, the incorporation of lawyers and graduates who were interested in working with the DoJ&CD. Questions were also asked about the reason and the actions taken by the DoJ&CD to improve the performance of small claims courts and the appointment of black females within the judiciary.

The Committee also investigated the complaints about the Department of Public Works and the impact of shortcomings within the Department of Public Works on the building of courts around the country. The Department was asked what it planned to do about the huge backlog in the addressing of court cases in the country.

The Chairperson asked the DoJ&CD to tell the Committee what it suggested could be done with the several complaints which were being given about the Department of Public Works.
 

Meeting report

Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) Strategic and Annual Plan 2013
Mr Lester Basson, Chief Master, DoJ&CD, tabled an apology on behalf of the Director-General (DG). The DG was engaged in a prior commitment and could not make it to the meeting. He also apologised for the Chief Operations Officer, Dr Khotso De Wee who had problems with his flight and was running late.

Mr Basson tabled the Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan for 2013/14. He indicated what the Plan would cover and noted that the Department had done work last year on the vision and mission, arising from the changes effected by the Superior Courts and Constitutional Seventeenth Amendment Bills. The setting up of the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) had been done.

The vision had not changed. The DoJ&CD aimed to achieve a transformed and accessible justice system that promoted and protected social justice and the rule of law, whilst its mission was to provide transparent, responsible and accountable justice services for all. This was not merely a “rehash” because the Department was continuously working on professionalism and recognised that it was still far from the achievement.

The effects of the Constitutional amendments to the mandate of the Department were summarised. The Department derived its mandate around the administration of justice from Chapter 8 of the Constitution. The Constitution 17th Amendment Act had introduced some significant amendments to that Chapter, including the new section 165(6) which affirmed that the Chief Justice (CJ) was the head of the judiciary, and assigned to that person the responsibility to oversee the development and monitoring of norms and standards for the performance of all courts. The Superior Courts Bill had been passed, giving effect to the new Constitution section 165(6), which dealt with the migration of the administration of the superior courts to the Office of the Chief Justice and the assignment of some functions (see attached presentation for full details). The initiatives under way to create capacity at the Office of the Chief Justice were summarised. The position of Secretary General had been filled. The administration of the Constitutional Court and Judicial Service Commission by OCJ was being taken over, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding. The secondment of Dr De Wee, Chief Operations Officer, DoJ&CD, had been terminated because of the permanent appointment but the relationships and guidance would remain.

In relation to the coordination of judicial education programmes by the South Africa Judicial Education Institute (SAJEI), 1 098 officers had been trained by end of December 2012. Authority was sought from the OCJ to allow training to happen. This was to ensure accountability for training, as it was important to train prosecutors and other support staff as well as the judiciary.

Following discussions with the OCJ, the administration of the Superior Courts would be moved to the OCJ, with fully functional internal controls and accounting systems set up. A lot of work had gone into this already. The separate budget vote was created, and National Treasury had made significant progress on this. The governance structures for SAJEI would be strengthened. Although SAJEI still fell under the Accounting Officer for DoJ&CD, the legislation would be changed.

Other legislative mandates falling under the responsibility of the DoJ&CD were also described (see attached presentation for full details) which included the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), Special Investigating Unit (SIU), Master's Office and others. He noted that there had been some discussion in the last year about the performance under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA). He thanked the Committee for assisting with the Sheriff's Act in the previous year. There had been engagement with the Office of the Public Protector (OPP) to coordinate matters from the OPP and other Chapter 9 institutions, to try to prepare proper responses or re-direct to appropriate institutions.

The DoJ&CD was guided by a number of new policies and related initiatives under the National Development Plan (NDP). Mr Basson noted some of the key deliverables, whilst noting also that a Chapter of the NDP was dedicated to the fight against crime and corruption. The DoJ&CD had aligned its plans with the NDP, although it had not been possible for the infrastructure programme to be fed into the plan, as a Cluster. This would be done in future. All departments would continue with the implementation of the recommendations emanating from the Criminal Justice System (CJS) Review, to try to ensure uniform results. Coordination had improved. There were also a number of initiatives to improve access to justice, including the conversion of 90 branch courts to full-service courts, of which 24 had been completed. This would continue in line with availability of funding. The project to align all magisterial districts and municipal boundaries was progressing well. Another seven new Small Claims Courts would be added, to bring the total to 275 and the additional places of sitting to 73. The DoJ&CD was aiming to have one court in each of the 387 magisterial districts and new models were being developed. The DoJ&CD was monitoring and coordinating overall implementation of the cluster strategies and activities. Although it had not managed yet to achieve the full integration of the criminal justice system, this was progressing. There were processes to transform legal services in the context of private and state legal services, to ensure better management of state litigation and proper use of resources. In the past, the State Attorney had received very limited investment. Investigations were under way to establish a post of Solicitor-General, who would have full Accounting Officer responsibility, project-manage and be accountable for the immediate deliverables to the end user of the State, and address performance, including setting of norms and standards.

Mr Basson expanded on promotion of vulnerable groups, noting that South Africa had made commitments to comply with a number of conventions. He highlighted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and noted the concerns around violence against children, although he stressed that this was a societal issue in which the DoJ&CD played a part only. There were still problems with the lack of infrastructure to eliminate discrimination against those with disabilities, although substantial work had been done. Discrimination against women persisted in society, and the DoJ&CD addressed this through its advocacy programmes partnerships. The National Policy Framework on the Management of Sexual Offences was tabled in Parliament, but then withdrawn because the Commission on Gender Equality requested that it be re-drafted, which was done. The DoJ&CD was now gazetting the policy. There had been considerable work between the DoJ&CD and other sector members, and there were monthly meetings. However, there remained a concern that the parties still did not manage to deal with the issues quickly enough on the ground, and he pointed out that no amount of improvement in the courts would address that issue. The research into re-establishment of dedicated Sexual Offences Courts had been completed and was being interrogated internally, and criteria were set for what must be done before dedicated courts were designated. The fundamental issue was that all matters must be investigated and brought to a court. The National Register for Sexual Offences was continuing to capture information, and there were 3 048 registered offenders by end February 2013. It had adopted a slightly different approach with South African Police Services (SAPS) as, although the officials were cooperative, it was difficult to ensure that the information being given was reliable. In relation to children, he noted that the Matlosana Child and Youth Care Centre had been designed as a One Stop Child Centre and was fully operational. The Intersectoral Committee would continue to investigate the viability of establishing more centres. An Intersectoral Frontline Service Guide on Managing Human Trafficking and Related Matters had been developed to guide the process and a Flow Chart had been established, outlining the various services provided.

A lot of attention had been directed last year to assess the impact of the decisions made in the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, on society. The aim of this was to enable the country to take stock of the progress in advancing the values of the Constitution. There had been a re-evaluation and re-draft, but the DoJ&CD was convinced that no different results would have been achieved in the redraft. The project must be understood in the context of the 20-year review of what had been happening in the country. A review of the Civil Justice System had been agreed upon, but it had moved slowly because the level of work and time required had been under-estimated initially. The governance structure had been agreed upon between the Minister and Chief Justice. He outlined what had been achieved to date (see attached document).

Strategic Goals in detail
Mr Basson then proceeded to outline the Strategic Goals. Goal 1 was to achieve enhanced organisational performance to meet the needs of key stakeholders. The Annual Report last year had noted low performance, because the DoJ&CD was trying to get its house in order, which had affected the performance reports because of time invested in getting systems going. In the new year, attention would continue to be focused on performance. There were still some areas where performance was not yet up to scratch.

Strategic Goal 2 was to facilitate the effective and efficient resolution of criminal civil and family law disputes by providing accessible, efficient and quality administrative support to the courts. In the past, there had been low performance by the Office of the Family Advocate. Expansion of jurisdiction in 2010 had given additional responsibility to the Office and it was re-prioritising. It was struggling to deal with the sheer volume of work.

Strategic Goal 3 was to provide effective and efficient state legal services, and he had already expanded on this. Strategic Goal 4 was the effective coordination of the JCPS cluster in delivery of Outcome 3, and Strategic Goal 5 was the promotion of the Constitution and its values. There was a specific branch to deal with this, and there were some staff pushing the advocacy issues around Constitutional matters, and issues resulting from the advocacy programmes.

During the revision of the Strategic Plan, the DoJ&CD had considered the policy guidance from the Minister and Deputy Minister, and took into account the centrality of the public as consumers and the availability of resources. He was grateful that National Treasury had decided to fund some areas, although the funding was still insufficient. There was a dedicated focus on improved organisational performance. The needs of other partners such as Legal Aid, NPA, and OPP were also taken into account. Other stakeholders had also given guidance.

Certain risks were also taken into account. These included the budget cuts, which forced the DoJ&CD to reconsider its performance targets. The impact on staff cuts as a result of Department of Public Service and Administration directives on lower level employees, and pressure to include staff not covered by the directive, remained an area of financial uncertainty. Mr Basson explained that employees at Level 4 received a determination that increased their level to Level 5. This would affect the DoJ&CD to the tune of about R150 million and it was decided to phase it in over a period of time. There were also Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD) processes that remained unresolved. The migration of some functions to the OCJ would have an impact on operations, but any uncertainty here should be resolved through ongoing communication. Increases in rates and service charges would have a negative impact, and there were ongoing problems arising from the dependence of the DoJ&CD on the Department of Public Works (DPW), both in terms of completion times and inflation of costs.

The Department had received a very different budget, with an additional allocation approved to the total of R535 million, rising to R1 billion over the MTEF. However, there were also budget cuts totalling R610 million. He reminded the Committee that last year there was some relationship between budget cuts and accruals, although there was a dispensation given at the end of last year. The cuts would impact on how the DoJ&CD managed its cash flow. Planning had improved at the DoJ&CD. The total budget allocation amounted to R16.7 billion. There were various areas severely affected, which included security in service points and offices, the ability to increase the number of facilities and infrastructure support, including accommodation, ICT, Library and additional security and rentals. The cuts would impact negatively on enhancing capacity in the State Legal Services, the Master's Office, third party funds, personnel and risk management. Previously, there had not been a policy framework for ICT, but there had been much work on this, and the DoJ&CD was hoping for an improved audit outcome.

Description of goals per programme
Mr Basson noted that the DoJ&CD continued to focus on better administration to achieve an unqualified audit. It was focusing on fighting fraud and corruption, improving safety and security of service points, implementing ICT projects, improving HR management and development, coordination of the Cluster, finalising the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) recommendations and implementing the Service Charter. Much work had been done with the Auditor-General (AG), including addressing the controls. Mr Basson hoped that the DoJ&CD would obtain an unqualified audit. The Audit Committee was very active and knowledgeable, and it was working to improve the performance information. The DoJ&CD had also increased its compliance with prescripts for good governance. It had addressed some Third Party Funds (TPF) challenges, although there were still other challenges, which would be detailed under Maintenance Services for Programme 2. DoJ&CD was strengthening its capacity and skills to manage the Vote Account. It had established a Compliance Unit which was mandated to identify laws, regulations and internal controls with which the Department must comply.

In relation to fighting fraud and corruption, the DoJ&CD intended to continue with a three-pronged strategy. It had completed awareness and training sessions. Complaints and referrals came from the Public Service Hotline. It was aiming to improve finalisation of forensic investigations and vetting of key staff. In 2011/12 the forensic capacity was thin and DoJ&CD had done investigations, and had had to dismiss some members. The DoJ&CD had received 133 cases and had finalised 102, as well as finalising all 41 old cases. It had paid particular attention to the longer ongoing cases. The vetting was not going as well as hoped, as the preliminary checks were not telling the Department much about the quality of the people being hired, although this was not unique to DoJ&CD. The Cluster and Department were addressing this issue and hopefully there would be improvements.

In relation to ICT, Mr Basson stressed that the DoJ&CD needed a strategic system to deliver, almost in real time. It had made R100 million investment in the previous year and for the following two years, R110 million and R115 million had been allocated. This had also enabled the DoJ&CD to address some of the needs of the past, and it was ensuring that the investment was consistent with future demands. A full plan was drawn for the spending, which would cover the lower courts, in the civil courts, where insufficient attention was paid in the past, as well as the Master's Deceased Estates system, where there had been improvements effected through a more specific focus over the last few years, and in Third Party Funds. The Department had taken a decision to run with a system that would take it forward into the future and be able to accommodate State Attorney bonds and the like. The off-site storage project had been deployed in seven courts, following a template developed and working in the Western Cape.

Slides were tabled detailing the ICT renewal projects, addressing the servers, networks, computers and laptops (see attached presentation for full details). He stressed that this project differed from the Integrated Criminal Justice System (ICJS) as it was an internal project, although there would be links to the transversal hub of the ICJS.

The DoJ&CD had maintained its average vacancy rate at around 10% but it still had some problems with a 17% vacancy rate at senior management level. This was not for want of trying to improve, and the interviewing process would continue. The budget cuts were not necessarily directly in the recruitment of staff, but there were links because some of the offices countrywide simply did not have space for additional people, and could not afford to move in order to take on more staff. He described a problem with the Office of the Family Advocate in Bloemfontein, where the DoJ&CD was being prosecuted for failure to produce electrical compliance certificates and noted that some offices were facing closure because of infrastructure problems.

291 (64% of the total) of misconduct cases had been finalised, and 171 were not finalised. About 176, or 60% resulted in dismissals, final warnings and suspensions. A target of 55% finalisation had been set for the 2013/14 financial year and this lower target was directly linked to availability of resources. There had been many grievances lodged in the past years, and by February 2013, 236 cases were finalised and 266 were not, representing 46% of the total. 427 of the 512 grievances related to performance assessment, salary and unfair labour practices. This number would reduce because of the adjustment of the Level 4 / 5 staff. It had targeted finalising 40% of cases in the 2013/14 year.

The DoJ&CD had been training through the Justice College, but there had been a lull because of uncertainty as to what Justice College would handle in the future. In relation to administration, it would continue to train, with a target of reaching 5 000 personnel. By December 2012, the SAJEI had trained 1 098 people.

In relation to modernisation of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) there were five integration priorities, packaged into three major programme streams, relating to implementation of case-related integration, Cluster business intelligence capabilities and management of people. Pilot projects between South African Police Services (SAPS) and the Integrated Case Management System (ICMS) of the DoJ&CD had been completed, and the DoJ&CD was now able to get information real-time from identified courts. Similar processes had been completed in the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), to allow for direct links between SAPS and NPA. The Legal Aid Notification Process was supposed to apply, when a person was arrested, and although it was not available everywhere it was running in some areas. The integrated framework for effective management of people was intended to cut down on the different numbering wherever a person went through the system – at SAPS police stations, at holding cells at Correctional Service Centres, before the prosecutor, and where applicable at the Department of Correctional Services (DCS). Video arraignment was deployed to 47 magistrate's courts linked to 22 Department of Correctional Service (DCS) facilities. The DoJ&CD had decided not to grow the project further at this stage, until it had investigated why so many prosecutors were reluctant to make use of the system.

In 2013/14 the DoJ&CD would be implementing the NPA's Electronic Case Management System (ECMS) in 20 high volume courts, served by around 100 police stations. Nine of the key performance indicators had been tested, and they would go live in this year. The audit of the Integrated Justice System (IJS) was pending, as required by the Portfolio Committee. The audit had been requested to take place at a different time from the regular audits. It would be looking at systems rather than value for money at this stage.

Mr Basson described the developments in relation to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. At the beginning of the 2012 financial year, there were 440 outstanding beneficiaries to be traced and paid. Since then, 400 had been traced, and 310 had been paid individual reparations. Seven were living abroad, the addresses of two were unknown, and 31 must still be traced and paid in the 2013/14 year. During the 2013/14 year, the DoJ&CD would shift its focus to finalising and implementing the regulations to implement the outstanding TRC recommendations. The DoJ&CD had formally engaged with Independent Development Trust to conduct a needs analysis and assist with project management for community rehabilitation, and this process had started at Mamelodi and Alexandra. All costs associated with the development of the regulations were to be funded through the Vote Fund, not the President's Fund. The DoJ&CD had been trying to get everyone to move in the same direction, but there were problems around expectations. The DoJ&CD had to check the intentions behind the rehabilitation.

The Service Charter and Standards were approved and most of the work on this would happen in this financial year. It would be training officials to facilitate the implementation of standards, and would continue to measure and improve performance through a lean management programme. The Public Service Commission had undertaken a study on the performance of some courts, and had found them wanting, which was both an embarrassment and of assistance to the Department.

84% of cases reported to the Presidential Hotline had been completed. The new target for 2013 was 85%. Many of the cases reported related to services rendered by the DoJ&CD.

DoJ&CD 2013 Estimate of National Expenditure
Mr Johan Johnson, Acting Chief Financial Officer, DoJ&CD, outlined the budget of the Department for 2013.
Mr Johnson said that the expenditure of the DoJ&CD had increased at an average annual rate of 10.5% between 2009/10 and 2012/13. This increase was mainly due to improved conditions of service, additional capacity, capital funding for buildings and capital equipment. The budget was going to increase at an average of 6.8% between 2012/13 and 2015/16.

The total budget allocation of the DoJ&CD for the 2012/13 financial year stood at R15.4 billion and was expected to be R18.6 billion during the 2015/16 financial year.

Mr Johnson further outlined the budget allocations per programmes and economic classification.

Discussion
Mr L Nzimande (ANC; KZN) asked what the DoJ&CD was doing about transformation and the protection and promotion of the interests of vulnerable groups. He was of the opinion that not much was being done by the Department and there was not enough collaboration done with the civil society and NGOs in this sector. The DoJ&CD was also failing to develop jurisprudence for the judiciary in this regard. On the issue of maintaining vacancies at 11%, he was worried as there was the need to reduce the vacancies as much as possible. The DoJ&CD had to do more in terms of job creation.
What was the Department doing to integrate the many lawyers and graduates who were unemployed and wanted to work with the Department. On the moving of the Office Bearers Fund to the Department of Home Affairs, what had been done with regards to bringing magistrates to par in terms of their compensations? What was the role of the DoJ&CD with regards to the fleet of cars owned by the courts? Was the DoJ&CD involved in the setting of mandates of state law advisers within other government services and department or were the various government departments on their own and set these mandates individually? There were issues about gender inequalities within the judiciary. Women were above 50 % in terms of qualifications but the judiciary was still not transformed enough to allow women to adequately participate. What was the DoJ&CD doing in this regard? Why was the CFO of the Department acting and not permanently employed? What was the DoJ&CD doing to improve the performance of small claims courts?

Dr De Wee first addressed the question on how the Department accommodated people with disabilities. The DoJ&CD was exploring the databases of organisations for disabled persons to seek to enhance the numbers of disabled people in the Department.

In terms of vacancies, the DoJ&CD wanted to hire more people but the problem was related to budget cuts and worse-still, there were directives for the increasing of salaries. The salary bill was increasing and that was affecting the Department's ability to hire more staff.

The post of CFO was advertised and the Department was hoping to get the post filled permanently by the end of May.

The issue with the DPW related to the finalisation of procurement issues and the DoJ&CD could not cut out the DPW as national norms, policies and legislation required cooperation with that department.

On state law advisers, most government departments sourced their own law advisers but the DoJ&CD tried as much as possible to advise these departments. The DoJ&CD was however in the process of appointing a Solicitor General, a post which would guide how government dealt with litigation and how government sought legal advice and opinion.

Mr Tsietsi Malema, Acting DDG: Court Services, DoJ&CD, admitted that there was still much to be done with regards to people with disabilities. The DoJ&CD was going to update the Committee on its progress in this regard.

Mr Malema said that the DoJ&CD had the intention to ensure that all district courts had small claims court. The profiles of these small claims courts had to be raised. Unfortunately, these small claims courts required experienced people as they had to make serious and heavy decisions. The DoJ&CD was looking at expanding the network to bring in more people and to maintain the integrity of the small claims courts.

On gender equality, Dr De Wee replied that there was a huge backlog with regards to the transformation and gender equality and there was a need to take robust action in this regard. The new legal practice bill was going to address the issue. The whole system of articles of clerkship and pupillage had to be overhauled. The issue of gender equality cuts across the whole legal fraternity.

Mr Jacob Skosana, Deputy Chief State Law Adviser, DoJ&CD, said that the cars referred to were the vehicles for judges. The law provided that judges had to be given vehicles for official and private use. Every judge appointed had to get a new motor vehicle. Linking this arrangement to magistrates, magistrates got an allowance. These were the concerns raised by magistrates because this discrepancy also applied to medical aid and pension. Magistrates were advocating for a single judiciary.

Mr J Bekker (DA, Western Cape) asked what the DoJ&CD was planning to do about the reduction of the backlog in the courts.

Mr Malema said that it was a hard issue because for as long as the output was not equal to the input of cases, there would continue to be a backlog. A major issue which was to be monitored was the seating hours of the courts. This was an issue which the judiciary had to intervene in. Other challenges related to the development of infrastructure and the building of courts and better courtrooms. Another issue was the need for the use of foreign language interpreters. This was also one major issue which contributed to the building of the backlog.

Mr V Manzini (DA, Mpumalanga) asked what the problems were which the DoJ&CD had with the Department of Public Works (DPW) with regards to infrastructure. What did the DoJ&CD propose should be done to the DPW?

The Chairperson said that every Department was complaining about the DPW. Why did the DoJ&CD not just work independently of the DPW?

Dr De Wee replied that there was a new Director-General in the DPW and there was hope that things would improve in that department. The two departments had met and concerns were raised. The DoJ&CD then resorted to using the Independent Development Trust (IDT) for the construction of courts. Even though the law holds DPW as the custodian of government constructions, the work with the IDT did not contradict that law.

The Chairperson asked how the Committee could help to enhance the interactions with the DPW.

Mr Malema said that the DoJ&CD was concerned about the processes of the DPW. It had said and done everything which it had to do. The DoJ&CD was interested in indicating to the DPW that matters which we being handled by the courts were very important and dealt with the lives of people so the DPW had to roll up its sleeves. The Committee could interrogate the DPW to ask what their plans were because many departments and entities were complaining. The plan of the DPW to improve its performance scheme had to be interrogated.

Mr Nzimande said that the Committee had heard that many government departments owed municipalities. What was the position of the DoJ&CD in this regard?

Mr Johnson replied that the substantial backlog to municipalities owed by the DoJ&CD was paid in the previous financial year. The DPW had to pay the outstanding amounts and thereafter claim from the DoJ&CD. As at now, the DoJ&CD did not owe any money to municipalities.

The meeting was adjourned.
 

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: