The Committee met to go through the whole of Draft 2 of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) Bill, which contained the changes already agreed to by the Committee, up to clause 7, and to finalise which options for the remainder of the clauses they wished to use. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development took Members through every clause, and there was mostly very brief discussion before Members decided on which optional wording they preferred.
In summary, the following changes had already been agreed to: the Long Title made it clear that the existing SAHRC Act was being repealed. The seat of the Commission was noted as being “in Gauteng”. Where wording was already provided for in the Constitution, around independence and impartiality, the Members did not believe that it had to be repeated, and this applied to clauses 4 and 13. Commissioners were now obliged to disclose interests, by a new clause 4(6), and Members decided this would be automatic, not on request, but that the SAHRC could determine how it would make that information public. The Committee agreed to providing for eight commissioners, six full time, whilst two could be part-time, and the wording relating to disqualification of those with a criminal offence was tightened to provide that a person convicted of certain offences would not qualify, and, in addition, that anyone who was an office bearer, staff member or on a party list, would also not qualify. Any vacancies would be filled for the unexpired portion of the term, by recommendation of the National Assembly. Acting appointments no longer applied. It was decided that the National Assembly, not the President, should deal with election of the Chair and Deputy Chair. Members debated whether specific provisions were required around the meetings of committees of the SAHRC, and did not think that this was required. The original clause 12 was approved, as it did not make sense for the SAHRC not to be able to confer exercise of its functions to a committee. The original clause 13 was deleted, and in its place was a new clause on powers and functions, although the Committee did not think it was necessary to set out everything already covered in the Constitution. The original wording had restricted the SAHRC to monitoring, but the SAHRC had said that it wanted to encourage the ratification or accession to human rights instruments. Members pointed out that it could already do that, and preferred not to write it into legislation. Members, after discussion, decided not to limit the SAHRC’s investigation into policy documents to those that related to “ executive organs of state” only; one Member pointed out that the number of policies affecting human rights were likely to be limited.
Under clause 15, Members noted that the SAHRC had requested a change, but not motivated for the inclusion of “or public enquiry” and believed that the investigation would cover an enquiry also. Members noted the SAHRC’s motivation for including a new subclause 15(10), at the instance of the UN Human Rights Commission, but did not believe it was appropriate for this Bill, as the SAHRC had to report to the NA primarily. Under clause 15(2)(b) there was inclusion of a reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but the words “advocate or attorney” were replaced with a reference to a “legal representative”. The requirement to publish in the Government Gazette, under clause 15(7) was deleted, merely referring to “publicly known”. Members held some discussion over the disclosure requirements, and decided to use the option 2 for clause 15(9). Members noted their preference for deleting subclause 16(8)(b), using the option on page 18. Under clause 17, subclauses (1) and (3) were deleted. Clause 18(1) remained as it was originally drafted. The reference to 30 days was replaced with a reference to 60 days, however, and the Commission would have to indicate whether it was intending to take steps, as the option indicated. Members reiterated, in respect of clause 19, that they were not in favour of having any staff members seconded from departments and preferred the option. They were aware that similar provisions remained in other Acts relating to Chapter 9 institutions, but would see that those too were amended over time. The option for subclause (3) was rejected as the SAHRC already had to comply with the PFMA, and the requirement to consult with the Minister was removed from subclause 19(7). Clause 20 was amended by deletion of subclauses (2) and (3). Technical changes were made to clause 21, and clause 22(d) was rejected. Under clause 23, it was decided that, although it may not be fully desirable for the Minister to make regulations, it was at least preferable to the President doing so, and the SAHRC had not objected to that. Changes were made to require regulations to be published, then tabled to Parliament. The Bill would be finalised on the following Monday.
South African Human Rights Commission Bill: Draft 2: 7 November 2013
Mr Johan Labuschagne, Principal State Law Adviser, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, tabled a new draft of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) Bill and an A-list of proposed amendments.
Ms M Smuts (DA) asked if Members could go through the Bill from clause 1, to check the proposed amendments.
Mr Labuschagne reminded Members that there had been no detailed discussion and finalization from clause 8.
Mr Labuschagne said that the Long Title now made it clear that this Bill would repeal the existing SAHRC Act.
Only technical issues had been addressed in the Preamble.
Definitions clause 1
Ms Smuts suggested this should be left to the end of the deliberations.
Clause 3: Seat of Commission
This was now noted as being in Gauteng.
Clause 4: Independence and Impartiality
The Chairperson noted that this was already provided for in the Constitution.
Mr Labuschagne said that Members had indicated earlier that they did not believe this wording was necessary.
He pointed out that member had been substituted throughout by “commissioner”.
A new subclause (6) was inserted into clause 4: to provide an obligation on commissioners to disclose their interests. Most of the existing legislation related to disclosure on a particular matter, but this was a more general obligation so that commissioners would need to disclose financial and other interests as determined by the Chief Executive Officer. Some existing legislation went as far as disclosure of interests of spouses and close family members, and he wondered if it was necessary to expand even further.
Ms Smuts questioned why the Chief Executive Office should determine the manner, as that person was a functionary. This should be left to the SAHRC itself. She wondered if it should be only on request, or automatically accessible to the public.
The Chairperson agreed that immediate accessibility was needed.
Ms Smuts also wondered if it should not be left to the Commission itself to determine whether spouses’ interests should be disclosed.
Ms C Pilane-Majake (ANC) thought that disclosure could be left to the internal policy document of the SAHRC.
Mr Labuschagne said that MPs disclosed to the Speaker, and that was placed on the website. He wondered if that could be stated here.
Members thought that it could; but did not have to be specified. They deleted “Upon request” and agreed that the reference to the Chief Executive Officer should be replaced by “Commission”
Ms Silkstone wondered whether, in Clause 4(7) the reference to (1)(b) or (4) would cover everything that was also mentioned in the Constitution, in section 194, which stated the circumstances of removal from office for misconduct, incapacity or incompetence.
Mr Labuschagne noted that the existing Act contained the same wording.
Members thought it should therefore be left as it read at present.
Clause 5: Composition of Commission
Mr Labuschagne said that the clause now provided for eight commissioners, six to be full-time and two of whom could be part-time.
Clause 5(1)(b) was a decision of this Committee, to set out those who would not qualify to become commissioners.
Ms Smuts asked, in (iv), why exception was being made for those who may want to go on appeal against a criminal conviction. As she had stated during discussions on the Legal Practice Bill, she felt strongly that a person should not be eligible if sentenced to more than 12 months imprisonment without the option of a fine.
The Chairperson stressed that if any candidates appeared who were convicted of an offence, that person would not be selected.
Ms Smuts suggested that everything after “Republic” in (iv) should be removed, including the Proviso. She thought that the earlier discussions on this point, during the Legal Practice Bill, were merely misguided, and that eventually that wording had been removed from the Legal Practice Bill too.
Mr Labuschagne said that (v) now included the words “or who is on a candidate list for any of those positions”. Previously, only an office bearer or staff member of any political party was included.
Ms Pilane-Majake noted that she fully supported this; there had been a matter causing difficulty in the past, with someone on a candidate list.
In relation to clause 5(2) the words ‘on the recommendation of the National Assembly” had been inserted. However, the Committee wanted to mention a fixed term.
Ms Smuts said that the President could not decide on that.
Mr Labuschagne asked if then that should be mentioned in the Bill.
The Chairperson said that the NA would determine the term, in the same way that it recommended to the President.
Ms Smuts wondered why each time there should be a term mentioned.
The Chairperson noted that the Committee had to decide whether the successor would be appointed for the unexpired portion of the term.
Ms Smuts pointed out that (3) deal with the unexpired portion, but then she noted that this related to the part-time appointments.
Mr Labuschagne confirmed that the word “the President” would be replaced with “the National Assembly”, with the remainder to stay as it was currently worded.
Mr Labuschagne pointed out the changes to subclause (4), which inserted “on the recommendation of the National Assembly and in consultation with the Commission”.
Ms Smuts thought this should only be on the recommendation of the NA and suggested, supported by the Chairperson, that the reference to “in consultation with the Commission” should be deleted.
Mr Labuschagne pointed out that subclauses (5) to (7) had been deleted, because they had originally dealt with acting appointments, which no longer applied.
Ms G Borman (ANC) (sitting as ad hoc member) wondered if the acceptance of nomination was correct.
The Chairperson agreed that this was specifically put in; a person deciding to be a politician could not simultaneously say that he or she wanted to be a member of a Chapter 9 institution.
Ms Pilane-Majake said that political alignment should not be seen in commissioners.
Subclause (5)(b)(ii) was amended by the insertion of “is elected” and by the deletion of (iii).
Subclause (10)(b) had been deleted because it was already provided for in the Constitution and did not have to be repeated. This was an amendment suggested by the Committee.
Clause 6: Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of Commission
Mr Labuschagne indicated that the words “if it becomes necessary and on the recommendation of the National Assembly” had been inserted. From a practical point of view, he was not sure whether the NA needed to be seized with these kinds of issues.
Ms Smuts said that presently the SAHRC elected its own Chair, but other Chapter 9 institutions and boards did not. She believed that this was correct; the NA, and not the President should decide on the issue.
Ms Bongiwe Lufundo, State Law Adviser, Office of the Chief State Law Adviser, questioned why the wording “if it becomes necessary” was included.
Ms Smuts agreed; she thought that the discussion had taken a bit of a side-track. ”She proposed, and other Members agreed that the phrase “if it become necessary and” would be deleted.
Clause 7: Powers and functions of Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, and other Members
Mr Labuschagne noted the change of “delegate” because a Chairperson could not confer powers.
Clause 8: Vacancies in Commission
Ms Smuts asked why it was necessary to write into the law that the vacancy must be filled as soon as practicable. NA Members knew of the problems and would surely do this.
Mr A Williams (ANC, sitting as ad hoc Member of this Committee) responded that it would need to be written in. Although it could be assumed that people would act properly, it was a safeguard to ensure that this would be done in future.
The Chairperson sand Ms Smuts preferred Option 2, and this was also supported by other Members.
Clause 9: Remuneration and allowances of commissioners
The Chairperson said that he had heard Mr Labuschagne’s concerns about the effect should the Remuneration of Office Bearers Bill be passed sooner than this, but wanted to leave the wording here. The Bill, once passed as an Act, could be amended later.
Clause 10: Meetings of Commission
Members had no objections to the clause.
Clause 11: Committees of Commission
Mr Labuschagne confirmed, in answer to a query from the Chairperson, that the Committee had asked that it be made clear what the purpose of a specific committee was. The committee must investigate and then advise the SAHRC of the outcome.
Members decided to use the option for subclause (1).
Ms Pilane-Majake said that all committees must be headed by a commissioner.
The Chairperson confirmed that this was in the option for (3).
Mr Labuschagne confirmed that subclause (7) had been deleted, but his concern was that the effect would be that was no provision regulating the procedures to be followed by committees of the SAHRC at their meetings.
The Chairperson said that he did not see the need for the words “with the necessary changes”.
Ms Smuts pointed out that a committee could be comprised in a number of ways. Perhaps changes to usual procedures and quorums may be required. The SAHRC leaned quite heavily on section 5 committees for their work, and she thought that (7) should be retained, unless there was another provision saying that the Commission could set its own procedures.
The Chairperson confirmed that this was in clause 10(5).
Ms Pilane-Majake said that sub-committees may also be meeting outside the provinces.
The Chairperson did not think that this was a problem. The Commission could also meet anywhere – at times and places to be determined by the Commission.
Members decided to remove (7) altogether.
Ms Lufundo asked if that meant that the Commission could determine its own procedures, and Members confirmed again that they did not see a problem.
Clause 12: Conferment of powers and assignment of functions
Mr Labuschagne noted an option to delete clause 12(1)(c). If that was deleted, the SAHRC could not confer the exercise of its functions to a committee.
The Chairperson thought that this was illogical. He did not like the option, and suggested that the original clause remain, and the option be deleted. Other Members were in agreement.
Deletion of existing clause 13
Mr Labuschagne pointed out that Members had thought that the original clause 13 was unnecessary and must be deleted.
New Clause 13: Powers and functions
Mr Labuschagne explained that the options arose out of long discussions in the Committee. The words “in addition to” were being replaces by “in order to exercise its powers”.
Ms Christine Silkstone, Content Advisor, highlighted that the reference to section 184 referred to socio-economic matters.
The Chairperson noted that the Commission itself was proposing option 2 under clause 13(1)(a).
Ms Lufundo noted that the wording in the options could create confusion. She had suggested that the words “in addition to” were clearer, otherwise it would appear that the following additional functions would cause the functions to be performed. She would prefer the original wording of clause 13(1).
Members agreed to use the original wording in relation to clause 13(1), with the addition also of a reference to section 184(3).
For the remainder, Mr Labuschagne noted that the view was expressed that all the issues were covered in the Constitution already and it was not necessary to repeat them here.
The Chairperson thought that there was no need to include them.
Members indicated that they preferred option 1 for subclause (a)
Mr Labuschagne mentioned that under subclause (b)(v) the words “and may make recommendations relating to human rights” was being added.
The Chairperson noted an option for (vii) and (viii), linked with “and” and the option to delete (ix).
Mr Labuschagne explained that this was being done, because it was now being included in clause 13(3), under a new paragraph (b). The Committee believed that this provision did not fit well within the previous clause.
Members agreed to option 1, on page 11.
Option 2 on page 12 related to subclause (vi). Mr Labuschagne indicated that this had been inserted to indicate the difference to (vi) alone. The original wording restricted the SAHRC to monitoring, but the SAHRC had said that it wanted to encourage the ratification or accession to human rights instruments.
Ms Silkstone pointed out that the SAHRC could do that already; it did not have to be stated in law.
Members preferred to delete option 2 for (vi).
There was a further option under subclause 13(3), and Mr Labuschagne pointed out that this related to the bringing of proceedings.
Members agreed to use the option for 13(3).
Under subclause (4), there were also two options. Ms Smuts wanted a reference to all executive organs of state”. Mr Labuschagne explained that the view was held that the SAHRC would not have the capacity to look at all policy documents. Limiting the organs of state to “executive organs of state” would again address the capacity issues.
Ms Silkstone asked why this was necessary; it might involve something like a board. The obligation was surely on the executive organ of state. The Constitution referred to “organs of state”, whom the SAHRC was to assist and protect.
Mr Williams thought that “organs of state” also covered “executive organs”.
Mr Labuschagne explained that Ms Smuts (not present at this time) had proposed a limitation, because there were so many organs of state who may make major policy matters.
Mr Williams thought that policies affecting human rights would be limited in number, and he thought that using “organs of state” would give the SAHRC greater scope.
Members voted to accept option 1.
There was only a numbering change in this clause.
Clause 15: Investigations by Commission
Mr Labuschagne said that the insertion of “or public enquiry” had been suggested by the SAHRC, after a debate as to the difference between a public enquiry and an investigation.
The Chairperson asked what exactly a “public enquiry” would comprise – and if it was something like the Marikana Commission that would call witnesses and adduce evidence.
Mr Labuschagne said that no motivation was given by the Commission for this insertion. He was not sure what the difference was between them. He would have thought that an investigation could entail a public enquiry where witnesses were asked to give evidence.
The Chairperson argued that in that case, perhaps leaving the words there would not do harm.
Ms Lufundo noted the option under clause 15(10) which set out what a public enquiry would be.
The Chairperson said that this was apparently suggested by the UN Human Rights Committee, who put the SAHRC under some pressure, and he had some problem with this.
Mr Williams thought that an investigation could take the form of a public enquiry. However, if the option for (10) was included, it would rule the option under 15(1)(a).
Mr Labuschagne said that he could not express a view from the side of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (the Department).
The Chairperson said that the countries without human rights commissions or bodies were not being put under the same kind of pressure and he was inclined not to include this.
Mr J Sibanyoni (ANC) made the point that it was uncertain exactly what was involved and he too would be inclined not to include the words.
Members decided not to use the option for (a). They also decided to remove the option on page 16, for 15(10).
Mr Labuschagne pointed out that there were consequential amendments. However, for clause 2(b) there was an option for “in consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions” which was accepted.
At the top of page 15, he noted the replacement of the reference to “advocate or attorney” with legal practitioner.
Ms Lufundo asked if “legal representative” should not perhaps be used; it was a widely understood term.
The Chairperson agreed; the person concerned may decide not to be represented by an attorney.
Mr Labuschagne pointed out two options for (4), in addition to the change of “advocate or an attorney”.
The Chairperson liked the option referring to “any relevant documents” although he was not sure that there was much of a difference between options 1 and 2 for that subclause.
Members decided to follow option 1, with the change of “legal practitioner” to “legal representative”.
Mr Labuschagne noted that it had been decided, in respect of subclause (7), that there should not be a requirement for the Government Gazette publication, only that it be made “publicly” known.
Under subclause 15(9), the term “practitioner” would again need to be replaced with “representative”. Option 1 referred to a legal representative.
Ms Lufundo said that the problem with option 1 was the reference to “no person may disclose to any other person”. She thought that the “legal representative” would be covered by “any other person” and there was specification, in option 2, of a member of staff or the commissioner not being permitted to disclose. The purpose of subclause (9) was to prohibit disclosure, and there was no need, in her view, to specify the legal representative.
The Chairperson wondered if there was a need to specify “a person outside the Commission”.
Ms Silkstone wondered if this would cover someone like an expert.
Mr Labuschagne pondered if the two should be combined. A staff member or commissioner should not disclose, and it would not be necessary for them to disclose to a legal representative. However, the person may disclose to his or her legal representative.
The Chairperson said that a person may be called in as a witness, to whom a certain document was made available, but when he was permitted to leave the room, he might leave with the document. That person should not be able to make it available. He said he fully agreed with the points on members and staff of the SAHRC.
Ms Lufundo said that the subclause was referring to the content of the document, not necessarily the physical document. The proposal from the Committee was that it be limited to the members of the SAHRC.
Members decided to use option 2, for clause 15(9).
The option for clause 15(10) was rejected. Ms Smuts noted that it was international language and did not sit well within this Bill.
The Chairperson understood that the SAHRC was placed under pressure, but made the point that the SAHRC was accountable to Parliament under the constitutional democracy.
Clause 16: Entering and search of premises and attachment and removal of articles
Mr Labuschagne pointed out the option on page 18, for clause 16(8)(b). He noted that the Committee had had a long discussion and no firm decision was taken. It was the SAHRC option to remove (b).
Ms Smuts pointed out that the Committee was wondering whether the SARHC needed the powers at all. The Committee had tended to the view that police investigative powers should not be given. She would prefer to delete (b), thus using the Option on page 18.
Clause 17: Compensation for certain expenses and damage
An option for this clause was set out on page 20. This would delete (1), and (3), but retain subclause (2).
Ms Lufundo noted that the heading would need to be changed and the phrase “and damage” would need to come out.
The Chairperson asked what the status was of a heading.
Ms Lufundo confirmed that it was only a guide to what appeared in the clause.
Members agreed to use the option, and remove (1) and (3), and then change the heading to read “Compensation for expenses”.
Clause 18: Reports by Commission
Ms Smuts noted that there was an idea mooted of having a special joint committee, to whom all Chapter 9 committees should report, as noted in footnote 14.
Ms Smuts thought that the option for (1) meant that the public accounts should go to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA). However, she was not sure that this was needed.
The Chairperson noted that the SAHRC already had to report to Parliament. This spoke of annual public accounts, but he thought that was already a given in terms of the Public Finance Management Act.
The option for (1) was rejected.
Members were happy with subclause (2).
Members indicated that they preferred the option for subclause (3).
The Chairperson pointed out that when a Chapter 9 institution had previously appeared before the Committee, concerns were expressed that a departmental staff member in a far-flung office had been investigated, and this resulted in the removed member of staff being reinstated, without the Director General having been told. This option would avoid any recurrence of that in the future.
Mr Labuschagne pointed out that there was a view that 30 days was too short, and 60 days was preferable, in the option for subclause (4). The Commission would have to indicate whether it intended to take any steps (as opposed to using wording of advising on “the steps that it has taken”).
Ms Smuts said that the rulings of the Chapter 9 institutions were not binding, so it made sense to go with the “whether” wording. 60 days was preferable.
Members agreed to accept the option.
Clause 19: Staff of Commission
Members preferred the option, as they reiterated that they were not in favour of any staff members being seconded to the Chapter 9 institutions, from departments.
In respect of subclause (2), they also preferred that the option should be used, because it deleted the reference to a five-year term, in (2)(a), and would use only (b) and (c).
The Chairperson asked if this would then amount to a normal contract, and other Members agreed.
Mr Labuschagne received confirmation that subclauses (1) and (2) would be kept separate, not combined. The numbering would be changed.
The Chairperson asked why the option for subclause (3) was needed.
Mr Labuschagne confirmed that the Commission already had to comply with the PFMA.
Members decided to reject the option for that subclause.
There was another option for clause 19(3)(iii). The option reflected secondment having been deleted.
The Chairperson wondered why it was done in this way, because the original (iii) did not refer to secondment.
Mr Labuschagne explained that the option to subclause (5) was included because the Committee had questioned why the salaries of staff members needed to be tabled in the NA.
Members agreed that they did not want this to be included, and decided to use the option, which would not refer to secondment.
Mr Labuschagne pointed out that the Public Protector Act and Commission for Gender Equality Act had similar provisions.
The Chairperson recognised that, but said that amendments to these Acts would need to be dealt with at a later stage.
Mr Labuschagne noted that subclause (6) again related to secondment.
Ms Smuts did not think that there was any place for this in an independent institution. Although the other Chapter 9 bodies still had similar provisions, she thought that there was no place for them, and would like to delete all such provisions, in time.
Other Members agreed, and agreed to the option, which was removing subclause (6) altogether.
The option to remove the need for consultation with the Minister was accepted, in respect of subclause (7).
Clause 20: Accountability, expenditure and finances
The Chairperson questioned why all the information was needed in the option.
Ms Smuts agreed and thought that there was no need to be as specific as the option suggested.
Members agreed to reject the option for subclause(1).
Ms Smuts explained that presently the Chapter 9 institutions received their money from the government departments so there was no point in saying that they would get their money “in the same manner” as government departments. In time, that may be changed, but she did not think that subclause (2) was needed at all, although she quite liked the wording for subclause (2)(b). However, she was not sure that this needed to be changed or addressed, for the moment. She did not think it necessary for legislation to set out where the money for a Chapter 9 institution came from. Essentially, Parliament voted the funds, but the Department was the conduit.
Mr Williams wondered whether clause 20(1) should then be retained at all.
Ms Smuts thought that it did no harm, because the Bill also contained an explanation of who the accounting officer and executive officer were. This had something of a history behind it.
The Chairperson noted that if these subclauses were deleted, the heading must change, to refer only to “Accountability”.
Members agreed to keep only clause 20(1), but to delete (2) and (3).
Clause 21: Legal proceedings against the Commission
The Chairperson noted that the option would delete the phrase “with the necessary changes”. He asked what difference it made whether the words remained or were removed.
Members decided to reject the option and leave in the words “with the necessary changes”.
Clause 22 Offences and penalties
Members agreed to use the option, to delete clause 22(d).
Clause 23: Regulations
Mr Labuschagne pointed out that the regulations dealt with the staff of the Commission only – they referred to medical schemes and societies. He said that the present Act provided that the President must make those regulations.
The Chairperson confirmed that this was not desirable.
Mr Labuschagne confirmed that this was then substituted with “the Minister” and there was a proposal that this should be done in consultation with the Minister of Public Service and Administration. However, the SAHRC had asked that the clause be amended, to benchmark the salaries against public servants. However, the Committee had pointed out that they were not public servants.
The Chairperson understood what the Commission was saying but the implications of a requirement to consult with another Minister were quite substantial.
Members agreed that they did not wish to do that.
Ms Smuts was not convinced that the Minister needed to make regulations, but the SAHRC was not opposed to that, and she thought it would do no harm. However, she was not opposed to the clause remaining as it was.
Ms Silkstone referred to (2)(b) which required the regulations to be made in consultation with the Minister of Finance, then submitted to the NA, before being published. She said that there were no time limits on this.
Mr Esser Allers, Director, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, noted that the Interpretation Act specified 14 days after the NA had sat, if it was in session.
Ms Silkstone agreed, when regulations had already been published, but this was stated as ‘before publication”.
The Chairperson thought that once the regulations were submitted, the publication would be deemed to be done.
Clause 20(2)(b) was changed to “must, after publication in the Gazette, be submitted to the NA”.
Mr Labuschagne pointed out that this would be for information purposes only.
The Chairperson agreed, but said that it was necessary to specify it anyway. He asked if Members wanted to approve the regulations.
Members agreed that they did not want any references to “approval by the NA”- the clause could stay as it was.
Clause 24: Repeal of Law and transitional arrangements
There were no changes.
Clause 25: Short title and commencement
There was nothing to be changed.
The Chairperson noted that the Deputy Minister proposed a briefing on amendments to the State Atttorney Act on the following Wednesday.
He noted that the Committee would meet to finalise the SAHRC Bill on the following Monday and it would be debated on Wednesday.
The meeting was adjourned.
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting