Deputy Minister & Department of Justice & Constitutional Development 2014 Strategic Plan briefing

Meeting report

Chairperson’s Opening Remarks
The Chairperson asked the Committee to observe a moment of silence in memory of the former Chief Whip.

He welcomed the Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJ&CD or the Department) to their first meeting with this Committee. He noted some apologies, and noted that he himself would need to leave early. He encouraged the Committee to work together for the common good of South Africa, irrespective of their different political parties and backgrounds.

Deputy Minister’s Overview of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development 2014 Strategic Plans
Mr John Jeffery, Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, thanked the Committee and apologised for the absence of the Minister, who was leading the audit debate in the National Assembly. He highlighted that the focus of the present Strategic plan was aimed at intensifying the fight against corruption, reinforcing measures aimed at enhancing the protection of the vulnerable sectors in the society as well as enhancing access to justice, paying particular note to the establishment of the Office of the Chief Justice, which would be an independent Department that would help maximise the Department’s programmes.

He stated that the main function of the National Developmental Plan (NDP) was to ensure the functioning of the justice system, as would be seen from the detailed presentation.

Mr Jeffery also highlighted issues relating to the different provinces, informing the Committee that the Chief Justice had established the National Efficiency Enhancement Committee (NEEC) and that had in turn decided to create one NEEC in each of the nine provinces. The offices were launched in November and December 2013, with the aim of enhancing cooperation and commitment of all relevant stakeholders in an efficient and effective adjudication and resolution of disputes in the court, as well as proper implementation of norms and standards.

In relation to the Superior Court Act, the Deputy Minister informed the Committee that the Department intended establishing one high court in each of the nine provinces. Courts were currently being built in Limpopo and Mpumalanga and would be proclaimed separate jurisdictions on completion. The aim of this was to realign magisterial districts with local government demarcations; at present, the jurisdictions were still based on the pre-1994 apartheid divisions. Marikana was a prime example as people living there had to travel to courts further away because Marikana did not fall under the jurisdiction of Rustenburg, which was only a few kilometres away.

Mr Jeffery referred to the media interest, as well as comments published by the media made by a Member of the Committee, in regard to the Public Protector, and said that this was a non-provincial issue, but one that would have to be addressed. One of the main problems was insufficient funding. The Chapter 9 institutions (including the Public Protector and South African Human Rights Commission) had very broad functions and tasks. There had been a substantial increase in the investigative staff capacity of the Public Protector, and consequently an increase in the budget. He urged that the Portfolio and Select Committees and indeed the Houses should work in a more coordinated way, in ensuring that recommendations and suggestions were taken up, while the Committee must also monitor implementation by the Department.

The Deputy Minister also highlighted the issue of the Small Claims Court, stating that the aim of the Department was to have one Small Claims Court per magisterial district. This had been successfully achieved in Gauteng and Mpumalanga, and to an extent in Free State and KwaZulu Natal (KZN), but not so much in the Eastern Cape and Western Cape. In the Eastern Cape, the main problem in Eastern Cape was the inability to get people to be presiding officers, as well as the Eastern Cape attorneys’ disagreement with the concept of having Small Claims Courts set up in certain districts as they believed it would have an adverse influence on their income.

The Deputy Minister listed the legislation that was being introduced into the National Assembly for amendment. The amendment to the Attorneys Act was intended to allow attorneys admitted in Botswana to have their qualifications recognised within the South African legal framework, until the Legal Practice Bill came into force. A revised Traditional Courts Bill would address the concerns raised by interest groups. He reminded the Committee that traditional courts had been in existence since 1927, thus pre-dated the apartheid government, and there was a need to allow traditional courts to exist within the South African legal framework.

Department of Justice and Constitutional Development 2014/15 Annual Performance Plan
Ms Nonkululeko Sindane, Director General, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, presented the Annual Performance Plan and the Department’s Strategic plan. The Strategic Plan was anchored on national policies such as the National Development Plan 2030 (NDP), which spoke to issues such as social protection, service turnaround in maintenance services, service turnaround in the Master’s branch and services offered through the Office of the Chief Family Advocate (CFA). Other focus areas of the NDP that directly impacted on the work of the DOJ&CD were building safer communities, as well as building a capable state through the development of its staff, youth development and development of management systems.

The Department also focused heavily on promoting accountability and fighting corruption, transforming the society and uniting the country. She informed the Committee that this would be done through the implementation of Human Rights legislation, such as the Promotion of Equality and the Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA), the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission findings and payments, and the promotion of all official languages.

Some of the main priorities set out in the Department’s Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) were that the Department must achieve:
- reduced levels of contact crime
- efficient and effective criminal justice system
- securing of cyber space
- reduction of corruption in the public sector.
    
She gave an update on existing policies and related initiatives, explaining, amongst others,  the transformation of the State’s legal systems and the transformation of the judicial system, the role of the judiciary in the developmental South Africa, the blueprint for the transformation of the lower courts and court administration, the Legal Practice Bill and amendments to Insolvency Law policy (see attached presentation for full details). She also highlighted a number of amendments that had recently been effected, including the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedure) Amendment Act, and the amendments to the Schedule of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act of 1992.

Ms Sindane informed the Committee of the Department’s National Action Plan on crimes against the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) community and its National Action Plan to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
 
She highlighted some of the Department’s achievements in the last year. It had, amongst others:
- attained a average vacancy rate of 10%
- was committed to gender equality, and had recently filled two vacant executive positions with women
- finalised 65% of misconduct cases and 85% of grievance cases by the end of 2013/14 financial year
- resolved 85% of the Presidential Hotline cases
- managed to reduce backlog cases by 11.18% of backlog cases
- exceeded its targets of training 5000 people for the 2013/14 financial year, by training 5 358 people
- Paid a number of 16 837 Truth and Reconciliation Commission identified beneficiaries, whilst 12 were still being processed.

A significant achievement had been the Department’s establishment of seven new Family Advocate Offices in Welkom, Palm Springs, Sibasa, Vosman, Upington, Rustenburg and Mitchell’s Plain. It was particularly significant in helping provinces like Limpopo, which had previously had only one office to service the whole province. The Department converted 29 branch courts into full service courts. It also proclaimed and established 293 Small Claims Courts from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014. It had launched the use of Audio Visual (AV) remand system in 47 magistrates courts, linked to 21 correctional facilities.

She explained that in a bid to protect the vulnerable groups of the society, the Department engaged in public education sessions on maintenance services, and significant numbers of people were reached in each province. In addition, the turnaround time of service delivery improved through the use of electronic payment systems.

The DOJ&CD was still experiencing a number of challenges, which included:
- funding constraints in security service points and offices
- the need to increase the number of facilities to improve access to justice
- infrastructure support for the Department and other stakeholders
- the need to establish more lower courts
- the need to enhance capacity in the State legal services and other areas, and to improve legal capacity within courts and Office of the State Attorney
- large amount spent on property leasing due to delays in building of courts
- increased spending on Commissions of Inquiry

The Department also recorded an under spending of R475 million (excluding statutory appropriation) at the end of the 2013/14 financial year, which was due to a number of factors noted in the presentation (see attached document for more detail). National Treasury had been asked to roll back the surplus amounts for capital expenditure into the 2014/15 financial year.

Ms Nonkululeko briefly presented the key priorities in achieving the vision of the National Action Plan (NAP) and also listed the focus of the Department the next Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) cycle, as well as the Departmental strategic outcome-oriented goals (see attached presentation for full details).

Discussion
The Chairperson noted that he would have to leave at this point, and Ms Manolope (ANC, Northern Cape) was nominated Acting Chairperson. She asked Members firstly to ask any questions of the Deputy Minister who would also have to leave early.

Mr G Michalakis (DA, Free State) asked if the Deputy Minister was aware of the frozen Third Party accounts with FNB and asked what the Department was doing to unfreeze them.

The Deputy Minister explained that the freezing of the accounts was done as part of security measures taken by the Department and FNB, pertaining to the electronic funds transfers.

Mr Michalakis also noted that the presentation emphasised the Department’s efforts in raising public awareness of human rights and tolerance towards the LGBTI community, but said the actions of the South Africa government were contradictory to this aim. He accused South Africa of deliberately voting to exclude the LGBTI family in many instances, and also cited the South African government’s silence on Uganda’s anti gay law, which did not give him confidence that either public awareness or policy would be favourable to this community.

The Deputy Minister explained that the vote at the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council was taken out of context by a media article, which was also not accurate. The result was that there was a mutual resolution taken there not to define “the family” because Saudi Arabia had proposed an amendment that would define the family as “marriage between a man and a woman”. This suggestion was not supported. Another amendment defining the family in broader terms was also presented, but it was also not accepted as it had no restrictive resolution. There was in fact nothing contradictory between the South African delegate decision and the policy on LGBTI. He suggested it would be useful for the Committee to get a briefing from the Department of International Relations on why the second resolution was not supported, but he called the whole issue “a storm in a tea cup”.

Speaking to why South Africa had not entered the fray when Uganda passed its “anti-gay” legislation, the Deputy Minister noted that South Africa would not, as a matter of policy, intervene into other countries’ laws. It should be noted that Uganda was not the only country with such laws and there was no basis for addressing Uganda’s proposals whilst not dealing with other countries. Even if the South African government had expressed a view, it would not have had any real impact. The right time to take such issues further was at the Human Rights Council Regional Workshop for the African region.

In regard to policy issues, the Deputy Minister replied that the policy had been released at the Regional Court earlier in the year and would be distributed to the Members. Although the Cabinet had recommended the need for a broader debate on hate speech and hate crime, he explained that putting restrictions or laws on hate speech would impact freedom of speech. There was, however, recognition that hate crimes were important and direct laws were needed to address such crimes, as there were none at present.

He reiterated that the Department’s position on the LGBTI community was clear. The country had one of the best legal systems as regards same sex marriage and adoptions, and South Africa was more advanced in LGBTI issues than most countries that claimed to be more progressive. He would greatly appreciate it if the South African government’s efforts were acknowledged rather than criticised.

Mr Michalakis explained that he did not intend to criticise the government, and agreed that the South Africa legislation on LGBTI community was ahead of that of most of the rest of the world, but he expressed his concern about the stance of the other government departments. He also wanted to point out that other countries did not keep quiet and had expressed their concern about apartheid in South Africa, and suggested that South Africa, because it was taking the opposite stance, should similarly have expressed its own concern about the Ugandan approach.

The Deputy Minister responded that people had different personal views about the LGBTI matter, and there might be such individuals in government departments, so he challenged the Members to take any genuine issues of perceived homophobic tendencies of any official to the Equality Court where appropriate, rather than making generalised statements.

He disagreed with the comparison made by Mr Michalakis of pre 1994 South Africa and a democratic Uganda. The context had been different; at the time, South Africa was not a democratic nation, as millions were deprived of their right to vote, whereas Uganda was a democratic nation, and whatever the sentiments of outsiders or minorities may be, the opinion polls revealed that the majority of Ugandans agreed with the laws passed by their Parliament. He advised that the issue of sovereignty be discarded and engagement with the people should be embraced.

Mr L Nzimande (ANC, KwaZulu Natal) asked that the Deputy Minister address the issue of extraditions and treaties signed by the Committee, and emphasised that there had been tension in the past when Members had to ratify laws recommended by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, especially when these involved countries that employed the death penalty.

Mr Jeffery responded that South Africa may have signed treaties with countries that had the death penalty, but the domestic laws of South Africa, as defined by the  Constitutional Court, stated that people at risk of being executed were not to be extradited to such countries, and in addition, some countries had signed agreements that there would be no execution allowed if a person was extradited.
 
Mr Nzimande also wanted the issue of Commission of Inquiries to be addressed, as these had been identified as a challenge to the Department’s budget, since the Department was expected to cut funds from other projects to fund the Commissions, which were demanded by the executive or politicians.

Mr Jeffery explained that the decision to set up Commissions of Inquiry was taken by the President, due to the fact that commissions would be established on very important national issues, such as Marikana, and to this end the commissions could not be cancelled by the Department. The Department was sometimes a conduit for funding provided by National Treasury provides the funds, although at other times the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development was asked to raise the funding, although it had not included in the Department’s budget.

The Deputy Minister pleaded with Mr Nzimande to help out with the Small Claims Court in his constituency, which was in need of a Commissioner because the magistrate there had refused to take up the offer and he could not be forced to do so.

Mr Nzimande (ANC) asked if there was funding for the Office of the Commissioner of the Small Claims Court.

The Deputy Minister replied that the position had no economic basis; therefore the commissioners’ services would be rendered for free, although travelling expenses would be reimbursed. He also appealed to other members to help find out if there was a need for Small Claims Courts in their constituencies.

The Deputy Minister noted, to Mr M Chetty (DA, KwaZulu Natal) that the latter had not engaged with him on the issues he wrote about in the newspapers, and he promised to engage with him through the pages of the same newspaper.

The Acting Chairman thanked the Deputy Minister and excused him from the meeting at this point.

Department of Justice and Constitutional Development 2014 Estimates of National Expenditure.
Ms Lorraine Rossouw, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, presented the Department’s budget for 2014.

She explained that the revenue was stable at around 29% of the GDP, while the revenue generated by the Department for the year 2014 was projected at  R4.8 million. She noted that the non interest expenditure declined from 30.2% of the GDP in 2013/14, to 28.8% of GDP in 2016/17.

She noted that there was an improvement in the economic growth since the spending estimates had stayed the same, leading to a decline in the budget deficit from 4% to 2.8% by 2016/17.  She explained that cost had to be contained to achieve fiscal sustainability. The cost containment was being achieved without significant impact on service delivery, by savings of, on average, 40% on the costs of consultants, and savings of 10% on travel and subsistence between 2009/10 to 2013/14.

She listed the funds available to the Department and the programmes. In the 2013/14 year, the budget allocation was R11.1 billion whilst the expenditure was R10.6 billion. The under-spending of R475 million was mainly due to delays in implementation of certain projects.
 
The total budget allocation for 2014/5 was R17.9 billion, and the overall annual average growth was 6%.

Discussion
Mr Michalakis asked for more clarity on the frozen FNB accounts.

Ms Rossouw replied that all banks had systems in place to secure their Electronic Funds Transfer systems (EFTs) and the recent freeze on the FNB account was done to allow the Bank to update its computer software and systems to guard against corrupt practices. In addition, the National Treasury had instructed that the utilisation of EFT payments be stopped.

Mr Michalakis asked what the effects of building new courts had on backlogs that already existed, which were largely due to lack of capacity in the Department. Furthermore, he asked if the Department of Justice  had engaged with the Department of Public Works about the poor condition of the courts, since many were in a deplorable state. He cited the High Court in Bloemfontein as an example of a court without air conditioners.

Ms Rossouw also explained that the courts being built were already delivering service in other places; hence the new court buildings would have no impact on capacity to handle cases as such.

Mr Khotso De Wee, Chief Operations Officer, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, assured the Members that there was active engagement with the Department of Public Works on the issue of old court buildings and lack of relevant facilities. He explained that the current Minister was in the process of setting up a meeting with the Minister of Public Works.

Mr Michalakis noted the references to vacant positions of the Deputy Court Manager and Registrar, and whilst he acknowledged the reluctance of people in applying for the post of Registrar, he wanted to know what the Department was doing to try to fill thee posts.

Mr De Wee said that the Department was looking further into the advertisement for the posts of Registrar and Deputy Court Managers.

The Acting Chairperson asked if the Department had gone to the rural areas to recruit students who could later be posted back to their communities in the rural areas, after graduation, to address the challenge mentioned by the Deputy Minister about employees being reluctant to work in rural areas.

Mr De Wee explained that the Department made use of the national footprints of its regional offices and tried, through its workers, to reach all rural provinces, He however reassured the Committee that concerted efforts would be made to reach out to the rural areas specifically.

Ms Sindane explained that the DOJ&CD had, for the past four years, paid particular attention to rural areas and townships through other community engagements, since newspaper advertisements might not reach some certain areas, to ask what the communities expected from the Department and to disseminate information on available opportunities, such as bursaries, learnerships and internships in the Department.

The Acting Chairperson noted that the Northern Cape did not have a Small Claims Court and the presentation had not outlined any plans to address it in the nearest future. She also mentioned that Offices of the Family Advocate had been opened but wanted to know the plans to take this further to other districts such as the Northern Cape, due to the pressing need for these offices in view of the severe prevalence of domestic violence cases.

Ms Sindane responded that the Department wanted to establish Offices of the Family Advocate in all the provincial areas but there were certain constraints imposed by the legislation in 2011, as all High Courts, including the newly built ones were provided with services of Family Advocates. Other delegates from the Department more conversant with the exact situation in the Northern Cape Province would be able to give more details specific to the Northern Cape.  Overall, there was an improvement in capacity although the Department could not claim absolute coverage.

The Acting Chairperson accused the Director General and Chief Financial Officer of having made some contradictory statements in their respective presentations , pertaining to the funds provided for Truth Commission enquiries, and asked that the Director General clarify the contradictions.

Ms Sindane responded to the suggestion that there had been contradictory reports pertaining to funding of the Commissions of Inquiry, by explaining that these commissions were not budgeted for separately when they were set up, and moreover there was no specific legislative directive as to the departments that would bear the cost of the Commissions. The word “under-funded” meant that the Department had had to cut funds intended for other projects to fund the Commission, when the need occurred. She added that the National Treasury occasionally gave funds, but these were quite insufficient.

The Acting Chairperson asked if there had been any submissions made to the National Treasury on Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD), noting that several departments had reported it as an issue.

Mr De Wee responded that the OSD was a general issue that affected diverse departments and to this end the Department of Public Service and Administration had promised to hold productive engagements, with, amongst others, legal organisations to address the identified issues. He reiterated that the OSD matter was an important one as it had adverse effects on the DOJ&CD budget. He promised that the Department would do a follow up.

The Acting Chairperson asked why the issue of OSD was included in the presentation as if the Department needed more funding to address the issue, since it had been identified as a multi-departmental issue that was not peculiar to the DOJ&CD.

Ms Sindane replied that the reason for the inclusion of OSD challenges in the presentation was because this was not only related to funding but it was also as a performance issue. She noted that there were problems around filling senior managerial positions at levels 9 and 10, because of OSD issues. Secondly, staff cost with OSD was higher for these two levels, despite the fact that the output from these levels (which were defined in specific manners) was not commensurate with the output of other directors that were not specialists as defined under OSD. Thirdly, she complained that the OSD positions were not budgeted for and each time there was an appointment, the Department would have to raise funds for that purpose as, although National Treasury did provide some funding, it was usually insufficient. All of these issues had an impact on both performance and managerial lines.

Ms T Wana (ANC, Eastern Cape) asked if the creation of the Office of the Chief Justice and conferring of powers upon it would not make it too powerful, and wanted to know what the implication of this would be.

Ms Sindane clarified that the Judiciary was independent, and must comply with the principles of separation of powers. The Office of the Chief Justice was not going to be made any more powerful than it already was. The 294 judges, 2 000 magistrates and 3 000 vacant posts to be filled would all reside under the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ). This meant that although the total population and oversight responsibilities of the OCJ would increase, they were the same responsibilities that it was already handling. Some of the Department’s existing responsibilities in respect of judicial officers would henceforth be transferred to the OCJ.

Ms Sindane also informed the Committee that there would be a complete overhaul of the Magistrates Courts Act. The Department would develop a blueprint to transform the magistrates into a cohort that responded to the National Development Plan. She explained that the whole process would take a reasonable amount of time over the whole MTSF period.

Ms Wana suggested that the Insolvency Act of 1936 needed to be repealed as it encouraged corrupt practices, such as contractors declaring themselves insolvent without having completing their contracts, and asked if there could not be something done about this trend.

Ms Sindane agreed with the concern expressed over the insolvency procedures, stating that several problematic areas had been experienced by the Department. To this end the Department was in the process of developing a policy to address the identified shortfalls, although there was presently no legislative drafts on the table.

Ms Wana asked what research had been done in South Africa in relation to the proposed cyber-security legislation. She wanted to know what the challenges were around corrupt practices and whether other countries had been successful in passing similar legislation.

Ms Sindane mentioned that the research done on cyber crime was carried out by the State Security Agency and the information gathered revealed evidence of insecurity in the cyber space, as seen in the case of the FNB frozen accounts, the development of a policy and plans on developing legislation to address cyber security. She suggested that the Department of State Security should be contacted for the details, and promised that the DOJ&CD would follow up with the Department of State Security.

Mr Pieter Du Rand, Acting Deputy Director General: Court Services, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, added that there were several policies already, but the new initiative intended to combine all electronic-related legislation into a new Cyber-Security Bill. The DOJ&CD had started engaging with other departments and other countries such as Russia and China, to incorporate best practices from other countries. (He made some other inaudible comments).

Ms Wana also asked what criteria there were for establishing Small Claims Courts. There were few in the Eastern Cape, particularly Mthatha, despite the fact that there was someone on the ground who was eager to take on the role of Commissioner.

Mr Pieter Du Rand, Acting Deputy Director General: Court Services, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, informed the Committee that 35 Small Claims Courts had been established, and there was need for 92 commissioners. The Department was shortly to embark on an action plan, going through provinces to ask what needed to be done for a Small Claims Court to be established. He reiterated that the Department was focused on establishing the Small Claims Courts in the rural areas, although it was faced with a challenge of lack of commissioners. There had been positive responses from some areas, such as Kwazulu Natal where there were already seven responses for the twelve posts. The Department had exceeded its target for the first 100 days of the year, in respect of creation of Small Claims Courts, having achieved 12 new courts, as opposed to the target of 10.

Ms Wana asked if the Traditional Courts Bill mentioned in the presentation would be started from scratch, and she cautioned the Department to remember that the traditional courts process was quite different that the “formal” court system. She asked if the DOJ&CD would be consulting with people on ground before embarking on the draft.

Mr Jacob Skosana, Deputy Chief State Law Advisor: Policy Development, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, responded that the history of traditional courts dated back to pre-apartheid South Africa, and the Act under which the traditional courts were in operation was drafted in 1927. It contained several sections that were unacceptable in the present South African society, for instance, making reference to segregation. There had been two attempts previously to draft a new Act to replace that legislation, which had lapsed in the last Parliament. However, the process followed had given the Department much insight and experience, which would now be used in achieving a successful process in this Parliament. The previous draft by the South African Law Commission, which had engaged in a great deal of consultation, had caused a lot of tension during the public hearings, and it was recommended that there should be further and broader consultations with people in the rural areas. A new Bill would be drafted. The Minister was eager for the process to unfold to avoid this Bill, like the previous one, lapsing.

The Acting Chairperson said the presentation from the Department illustrated that this Bill was work in progress and she hoped there would be no issues with the process this time around.

The Acting Chairperson commended the Department on its successful implementation of gender transformation, as she noticed that there were more women in managerial positions in the department.

Adoption of Minutes
The Committee adopted the Committee’s minutes of 15 June 2014.

Committee Programme
The Committee Secretary outlined the next engagements on the Committee programme, as follows:
22 July 2014 - presentation by the Department
23 July 2014 - Adoption of Departmental reports, which would include a brief summary and Members’ comment for the NCOP, followed by an introduction of the Magistrates Commission. The Ministry of Justice had not yet tabled reports given to it by the Magistrates Commission on the list of magistrates to be suspended.

Mr Nzimande asked the Secretary to explain why the meetings should run late into the afternoons. He suggested that the Committee should stick to the Wednesday slot given to it, pointing out that late afternoons were meant for study groups.

The Committee Secretary responded that the decision was made to leave Friday free, so meetings originally intended for that day were instead moved to Tuesday afternoon.

Ms Wana confirmed that the decision was a collective one made by the Committee, and pleaded with Mr Nzimande to be flexible.

The Acting Chairperson agreed with Mr Nzimande that it was important for Members to be able to attend study groups and suggested that the Committee Secretary attempt to find another time slot.

The Committee Secretary said that the debate had been scheduled for 29 July 2014, as the Department had asked for it to be prioritised, and then suggested that the Tuesday meeting be moved to Friday.

Mr Nzimande reiterated that the Committee should follow the structured slots allocated to it, as Friday was meant for joint Committees. He would not support changing of slots.

Ms T Mokwele (EFF, North West) said that whilst she took Mr Nzimande’s point, the Committee was faced with time pressures at the moment and should make itself available to work longer hours.

The majority of Members adopted the revised programme.

The meeting was adjourned.