Judicial Matters Third Amendment Bill: final mandates

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson noted that there were two items on the agenda, and that Ms H Boshoff (Mpumalanga, DA) had requested that a discussion on minority views also be added on the agenda.

He noted that the agenda item dealing with the Legal Practice Bill consideration would need to be postponed, pending the receipt of the final mandate from the Eastern Cape. Members agreed.

Judicial Matters Third Amendment Bill: Presentation of final mandates
The Chairperson said that the Committee had to proceed with the mandates that had been presented. He summarised that five mandates were needed from the provinces to agree to the Bill. Those provinces who indicated their agreement were Northern Cape, Western Cape, Gauteng, Mpumalanga and Limpopo.

Committee Report on Judicial Matters Third Amendment Bill
The Chairperson read the Committee Report, which noted that the Committee had agreed to the Bill without further amendments.

Discussion on minority views
The Chairperson repeated that Ms H Boshoff (Mpumalanga, DA) had requested a discussion on minority views.

Ms M Boroto (Mpumalanga, ANC) said that she had some problem, because the Members of Select Committees were sitting as representatives of their provinces rather than of their parties. She suggested that the Committee should consider Ms Boshoff’s proposals, but not waste too much time, as it was the mandates of the provinces and not the views of the parties that were of prime importance to this Committee.

Mr B Nesi (Eastern Cape, ANC) agreed with Ms Boroto, and said that this Committee was dealing with provinces rather than parties.

The Chairperson emphasised that this agenda item had been discussed earlier in the morning session, and it was in regards to section 74 that the DA was proposing the minority views.

Mr Gurshwyn Dixon, Committee Secretary, read out the proposal by the DA, which related to the NCOP Rule 211 2d (i) (ii).
Mr M Mokgobi (Limpopo, ANC) asked if “minority” meant the DA as a party.

The Chairperson asked the Committee not to make an issue about something that was clearly set out in the Rules.

Mr Nesi agreed with Mr Mokgobi. He reiterated that Members of this Select Committee represented provinces, and asked if Ms Boshoff’s proposals related to the DA as a party, or the province she represented. His problem was not the use of the DA reference. He thought that “minority” referred to one or two persons disagreeing as opposed to the majority agreeing. Mr Nesi emphasised his point by questioning whether a person not being heard in the Committee would result in that person having to raise the points later, but then whether this would be done on behalf of their party or province.

Mr J Bekker (Western Cape, DA) said that the Bill referred to by Ms Boshoff was a section 75 Bill and asked the Committee to take note of that.

The Chairperson asked that Committee Members’ judgments not be clouded by the election mood.

Mr A Matila (Gauteng, ANC) said that the proposal had not been signed, but the Chairperson reported that the DA representatives did hold a signed copy.

Mr M Mokgobi said that the word “minority” should be replaced. This was pertaining to the minority views proposal that was made by the Bill.  

The Chairperson agreed.

Legal Practice Bill:
Mr Gurshwyn Dixon, Committee Secretary, noted that Gauteng`s final mandate for the Legal Practice Bill contained an error, as it referred to the B instead of the D version of the Bill. An amendment was needed to that mandate.

The Chairperson said that there was a slight problem with the submission of the Eastern Cape mandate and that the Committee had to meet tomorrow at 10 to finalise the Legal Practice Bill amendments.

The meeting was adjourned.