Institution of Legal Proceedings against Organs of State Bill; Extradition & Corruption Protocols; North West Maintenance Courts

NCOP Security and Justice

21 August 2002
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE

SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
21 August 2002
INSTITUTION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ORGANS OF STATE BILL; EUROPEAN CONVENTION PROTOCOL ON EXTRADITION; SADC PROTOCOL AGAINST CORRUPTION; COMMITTEE REPORT: NORTH WEST MAINTENANCE COURT VISITS


Chairperson: Kgoshi LM Mokoena

Documents handed out:
Proposed amendments: Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Bill (see Appendix 1)
European Convention Protocol on Extradition
Additional European Convention Protocol on Extradition
Second Additional European Convention Protocol on Extradition
SADC Protocol Against Corruption
Committee Report on North West Maintenance Court Visits (email
[email protected] for document)

Department of Justice officials present: Mr Labuschagne and Mr Allers

SUMMARY
The Institution of Legal Proceedings against Organs of State Bill with amendments was finalised. The protocols were adopted after a lengthy discussion on the powers and functions of the NCOP with regard to international protocols ratified by Parliament. A workshop on this issue was suggested.

MINUTES
Finalisation of Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Bill
The Chair read the motion of desirability and the Committee accepted the Bill with the proposed amendments. [These NCOP proposed amendments were compiled by the Justice Portfolio Committee]. The Bill will be debated on 17 September 2002.

SADC Protocol Against Corruption
The Chairperson opened the floor to any queries or clarification regarding the procedures to adopt the protocol and the content of the protocol.

In reply to Ms Kgoali (ANC) wanting to know if the Committee had any power to amend the protocols, the Chairperson explained that the State President was the only person who could propose amendments to other signatories of the international treaties or protocols. He added that such amendments were unlikely to happen. Mr Allers advised that Parliament could make a declaration to amend protocols, but Mr Lever (DP) was not convinced about the declaration because he believed there was no such provision.

Mr. Matthee (NNP) commented that he saw no point of endorsing treaties if it could not amend them. Mr Lever (DP) reminded Mr Matthee that it was a constitutional requirement that both houses of Parliament should endorse international protocols.

Mr. Mkhalipi (ANC) suggested that the Committee should be given a chance to have submissions before the State President could sign protocols and treaties. Ms Kgoali (ANC) agreed with Mr. Mkhalipi. She added that the Committee needed to review all protocols that it had agreed to so that it could evaluate if they were still serving the interests of South Africa. Mr. Lever (DP) agreed too and added that the problem with adopting protocols was that there was no engagement with provinces.

Mr. Mkhalipi (ANC) moved that the Committee adopt the protocols and deal with the issue of amendment powers at a separate meeting with the Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr. Maloyi (ANC) agreed with Mr Mkhalipi.

Mr. Matthee (NNP) disagreed with Mr Mkhalipi and suggested that the committee needed to delay the process (if the protocols were not urgent) while it determined the correct procedure for adopting protocols. He was not sure whether committee members moved for the adoption of protocols as party representatives or as provincial representatives. Ms Lubidla (ANC) agreed with Mr. Matthee's suggestion. Mr. Mkhalipi reiterated his position to clarify his argument.

The Chairperson asked the Department of Justice representatives what they thought about the matter. Mr. Allers suggested that the two House of Parliament should decide. He added that it was imperative though that the protocols be adopted by the Committee. Mr. Labuschagne said that he could not give substantive advice because he had no knowledge of dealing with protocols and no knowledge of the rules governing the NCOP. However, he agreed that the Committee needed to hold a workshop on the issue.

The Chairperson moved that the protocols be adopted because the delay would make no difference to the contents of the protocols. Mr Lever agreed and added that protocols were a presidential prerogative and he suggested that the issue should be raised with the Rules Committee. Finally the Committee recommended that the NCOP approve the protocol.

European Convention Protocol on Extradition
The Committee recommended that the NCOP approve the protocol.

Additional European Convention Protocol on Extradition
The Committee recommended that the NCOP approve the protocol.

Second Additional European Convention Protocol on Extradition
The Committee recommended that the NCOP approve the protocol.

Consideration of Committee Report on North West Maintenance Court Visits
The Chairperson moved that the report be adopted as read if there were no issues that committee member wanted to raise.

- Mr. Lever suggested that the report should have a recommendation regarding the problems that it reflected.
- Mr. Maloyi (ANC) suggested that because the problems were administrative, it would be wise to meet and discuss these with the Department of Justice officials and then only to discuss them with the Minister of Justice. Prince Zulu (ANC) agreed.
- Ms. Kgoali (ANC) was not in favour of inviting the Department officials. She wanted the issues to be debated in the NCOP Chamber.
Eventually Mr Maloyi's suggestion was agreed to by the Committee. The committee report was adopted and will be discussed further with the Department officials.

The meeting was adjourned.

Appendix:
SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT

DRAFT 1

(30/05/2002)

Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the Institution of Legal Proceedings against Organs of State Bill [B 65B—99] (National Assembly—sec 75), dated .....2002:

The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having considered the subject of the Institution of Legal Proceedings against Organs of State Bill [B 65B—99] (National Assembly—sec 75), referred to it, reports the Bill with proposed amendments, as follows:

NEW PREAMBLE

1. On page 2, after the fourth line, to insert the following new Preamble:

PREAMBLE

RECOGNISING THAT certain provisions of existing laws provide for—

* different notice periods for the institution of legal proceedings against certain organs of state in respect of the recovery of a debt;

* different prescription periods in respect of such debts;

AND RECOGNISING THAT—

* the Prescription Act, 1969 (Act No. 68 of 1969), consolidated and amended the laws relating to prescription and that that Act is the cornerstone of the laws regulating the extinction of debts by prescription;

* some of the provisions of existing laws which provide for different prescription periods in respect of certain debts are inconsistent with the periods of prescription prescribed by the Prescription Act, 1969;

AND BEARING IN MIND THAT—

* South Africa has moved from a parliamentary sovereign state to a democratic constitutional sovereign state;

* the Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of democracy in South Africa and that the State must respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights;

* section 34 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum;

* the right of access to courts may be limited to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom as contemplated in section 36 of the Constitution;

AND RECOGNISING the need to harmonize and create uniformity in respect of the provisions of existing laws which provide for—

* different notice periods for the institution of legal proceedings against certain organs of state for the recovery of a debt, by substituting them with a uniform notice period which will apply in respect of the institution of legal proceedings against certain organs of state for the recovery of a debt;

* different prescription periods, by making the provisions of Chapter III of the Prescription Act, 1969, applicable to all debts;

AND RECOGNISING the need to provide for transitional arrangements to ensure a smooth transition between the various existing statutory provisions regulating notice periods for the institution of legal proceedings against certain organs of state in respect of the recovery of a debt and the prescription periods of such debt, and the provisions of this Act;

AND BEARING IN MIND the limited need, for legal or practical purposes, to retain certain provisions of existing laws which provide for—

* notice periods that differ from the envisaged uniform notice period;

* prescription periods that differ from the periods of prescription prescribed by Chapter III of the Prescription Act, 1969,

ENACTING CLAUSE

1. On page 2, in line 1, after "IT" to insert "THEREFORE".

CLAUSE 1

1. On page 2, from line 11, to omit paragraph (iii) and to substitute:

(iii) "debt" means any debt arising from any cause of action—

(a) which arises from delictual, contractual or any other liability, including a cause of action which relates to or arises from any—

(i) act performed under or in terms of any law; or

(ii) omission to do anything which should have been done under or in terms of any law; and

(b) for which an organ of state is liable for payment of damages,

whether such debt became due before or after the fixed date;

2. On page 2, from line 29, to omit paragraph (d).

3. On page 3, in line 3, to omit "(e)" and to substitute "(d)".

4. On page 3, in line 6, to omit "(f)" and to substitute "(e)".

5. On page 3, in line 9, to omit "(g)" and to substitute "(f)".

6. On page 3, in line 10, to omit "(f)" and to substitute "(e)".

7. On page 3, after line 15, to insert the following subclauses:

(2) This Act does not apply to any debt—

(a) which has been extinguished by prescription before the fixed date; or

(b) which has not been extinguished by prescription before the fixed date and in respect of which any legal proceedings were instituted before the fixed date.

(3) Any legal proceedings referred to in subsection (2)(b) must be continued and concluded as if this Act had not been passed.

8. On page 3, in line 16, to omit "(2)" and to substitute "(4)".

NEW HEADING

1. On page 3, after line 17, to insert the following new heading:

Part 1

CLAUSE 2

1. Clause rejected

NEW CLAUSE

1. That the following be a new Clause:

Prescription of debts, and amendment or repeal of laws and transitional arrangements relating to prescription of debts

2. (1) The laws referred to in the Schedule are, as from the fixed date, amended or repealed to the extent set out in the third column of the Schedule.

(2) Subject to section 3 and subsections (3) and (4), a debt which became due—

(a) before the fixed date, which has not been extinguished by prescription and in respect of which legal proceedings were not instituted before that date; or

(b) after the fixed date,

will be extinguished by prescription as contemplated in Chapter III of the Prescription Act, 1969 (Act No. 68 of 1969), read with the provisions of that Act relating thereto.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), any period of prescription which was applicable to any debt referred to in subsection (2)(a), before the fixed date, will no longer be applicable to such debt after the fixed date.

(4) (a) The expired portion of any period of prescription applicable to a debt referred to in subsection (2)(a), must be deducted from the said period of prescription contemplated in Chapter III of the Prescription Act, 1969, read with the provisions of that Act relating thereto, and the balance of the period of prescription so arrived at will constitute the new unexpired portion of prescription for such debt, applicable as from the fixed date.

(b) If the unexpired portion of the period of prescription of a debt referred to in paragraph (a) will be completed within 12 months after the fixed date, that period of prescription must only be regarded as having been completed 12 months after the fixed date.

NEW HEADING

1. On page 3, after line 38, to insert the following new heading:

Part 2

CLAUSE 3

1. On page 3, from line 44, to omit paragraph (b) and to substitute:

(b) the organ of state in question has consented in writing to the institution of that legal proceedings—

(i) without such notice; or

(ii) upon receipt of a notice which does not comply with all the requirements set out in subsection (2).

2. On page 3, from line 59, to omit paragraph (b) and to substitute:

(b) a debt referred to in section 2(2)(a), must be regarded as having become due on the fixed date.

CLAUSE 4

1. On page 4, from line 31, to omit paragraph (d).

2. On page 4, in line 34, to omit "(e)" and to substitute "(d)".

3. On page 4, in line 37, to omit "(f)" and to substitute "(e)".

4. On page 4, in line 41, to omit the first "(g)" and to substitute "(f)".

5. On page 4, in line 41, to omit the second "(g)" and to substitute "(f)".

CLAUSE 5

1. On page 5, in line 2, to omit "in terms of" and to substitute "by".

2. On page 5, in line 4, to omit "in respect of" and to substitute "for".

3. On page 5, in line 5, to omit "in terms of" and to substitute "by".

4. On page 5, from line 7, to omit "Deputy President, in respect of anything done pursuant to the Intelligence Services Act, 1994 (Act No. 38 of 1994), or the".

5. On page 5, in line 12, to omit "of" and to substitute "for".

6. On page 5, in line 22, to omit "appointed under section 3(3)" and to substitute" as defined in section 1".

7. On page 5, in line 24, after "Commissioner" to insert "of Correctional Services".

CLAUSE 6

1. On page 5, in line 34, after "against" to insert "certain".

2. On page 5, in line 34, to omit "2000" and to substitute "2002".

SCHEDULE

1. On page 6, to omit the item relating to "Act No. 91 of 1964".

2. On page 6, in the third column of the item relating to "Act No. 68 of 1995" to omit "The repeal of section 57." and to substitute:

1. The repeal of section 57.

2. The amendment of section 64I—

(a) by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection:

"(1) Any legal proceedings against a municipal police service or member of a municipal police service [in respect of any alleged act performed under or in terms of this Act or any other law, or an alleged failure to do anything which should have been done in terms of this Act or any other law] for the recovery of a debt as defined in the Institution of Legal Proceedings against certain Organs of State Act, 2002, shall be instituted against the municipal council in question."; and

(b) by the deletion of subsection (2).

3. On page 7, after the item relating to "Act No. 111 of 1998" to insert the following item: Act No. 32 of 2000 Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 The amendment of section 109 by the deletion of subsection (1).

LONG TITLE

1. On page 2, in the first line, after "prescription" to insert "and to harmonise the prescription periods".

2. On page 2, in the first line, to omit the first "certain".

3. On page 2, in the third line, to omit "certain debts" and to substitute "the recovery of debt".

Audio

No related

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: