Department of Justice and Constitutional Development on its 2015 Strategic and Annual plans in presence of Minister and Deputy Minister

NCOP Security and Justice

20 May 2015
Chairperson: Mr D Ximbi (ANC, Western Cape)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (the Department) briefed the Committee on its Strategic Plan 2015/16-2019/20 and Annual Performance Plan (APP). The Minister and the Deputy Minster both attended the meeting. The Deputy Minister highlighted that there had been a new Department created, namely the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ), headed by the Secretary-General, which was now dealing with the administration of the Superior Courts. He noted that the Chief Justice, as Head of the judiciary, was responsible for matters affecting the judiciary, and the process for appointments had changed, so that the Minister now appointed in consultation with the Head of the Court concerned. The Deputy Minister also touched on the rationalisation process that was currently under way, seeking to align magisterial districts with municipal boundaries, especially in towns in former homelands. The Legal Process Act and the Protection of Personal Information Act were shortly become effective, with the appointment of the new Regulator pending. Other key pieces of legislation to be implemented in this financial year would include the Constitution 17th Amendment Act and the Superior Courts Act.

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development amplified on the administrative and practical issues around the changes, noting that from 1 April 2015 all the judiciary and around 224 support staff would be reporting to the OCJ. The budget of around R1.6 billion, primarily from the Court Services programme, had been re-directed but the Department had absorbed the budget cuts to ensure that sufficient funding was transferred to effectively re-engineer the operations. The Department would be following up on and pushing hard for speedy implementation of the Legal Practice Act. It would also be pushing for implementation of the transformation of State Legal Services, including the newly revamped Office of the State Attorney. There was a need to improve the administration of justice across all state departments, to minimise issues around prescription of claims, default judgments and lack of monitoring over the work of attorneys and advocates.

Topical risks that might affect the delivery of the strategic plans included the susceptibility of state of the courts and other facilities to fires and other interruptions, service delivery protests, damage to property, and dependencies on other departments and entities in the delivery of objectives such as reducing court case backlogs, implementing the key performance indicators for the Integrated Justice System and infrastructure development and ICT. The Department indicated that it would continue to implement many of the initiatives and legislative mandates outlined in previous presentations. It would continue to make concerted efforts to ensure discipline in the Department and to fight fraud and corruption.

The Department spoke to particular highlights of the Strategic Plan. These included the focus on youth employment, which included the Department's use of internships and learnerships, and 1 074 youth had been provided with work-training, and similar opportunities would be offered to 800 more in the current year. The Department would continue to align with government programmes to reduce fraud and corruption. It was focused also on increasing access to justice services by historically marginalised communities, and mention was made in particular of the plan to roll out small claims courts to disadvantaged communities, as well as greater efficiency in default judgments and taxations of costs. The Department planned to increase efficiency in all Masters Offices, re-integrate petty offenders into the socio-economic environment by expunging relevant offences, improve litigation conducted by the state, and give quality advisory service and legislation that could withstand constitutional challenges. The rollout of the Integrated Case Management Systems would mitigate against fraud and produce better audit trails. The programme would get a R108 million allocation over three years. Its translation unit was working hard to ensure that legislation was readily accessible in all languages. It was also ensuring that international reports would be tabled timeously. It was working on legislation to achieve cyber-security.

The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development also highlighted some areas for the Committee. He conceded that there were instances where the public was taking the law into their own hands because they felt the justice system was not addressing crime and the Department, fully conscious of the risks was engaging in multi-sectoral initiatives to review the entire value chain. He spoke further on the independence of the judiciary and the debates around accountability and responsibility for the judicial functions and administration, and noted that a constitutional amendment may be necessary. He also noted that, in conjunction with looking at crime prevention strategies, the Department would be looking at the whole value chain and whether it provided sufficient safety and security to South Africans, and he raised issues around Traditional and Community and Small Claims Courts. In addition to bringing justice to the people, the Department would look at the legal profession to ensure that services were provided at a reasonable price, and access into the profession was widened. The need to address transformation of the professions remained.

Members wanted more clarity on the new Department led by the OCJ and further details were provided. They asked about the type of training offered to the interns and asked how many of them were likely to be absorbed into the Department on completion of their contracts. One Member asked what progress there had been in vetting of Senior Management Staff (SMS) and asked if collaboration on this had been requested. Members asked for an indication of the budget allocations to the Public Protector, and whether these were considered acceptable, but the Department indicated that it was unable to comment on this. They asked for progress reports on the Cyber-Security Bill, which was long overdue and progress reports also on the Traditional Courts Bill. Members were worried about the level of consultancy and asked what strategy was in place to reduce this. Given the Department's important role in national building and social cohesion, they asked what it was doing in relation to the xenophobic attacks. They also asked whether the Department was ready to fully implement the Prevention and Combatting of Trafficking in Persons Act. Members also asked questions on hate speech, sexual offences courts and indicated their concern over the failure to address the growing backlogs.

The majority of Members adopted the Committee Report on the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development Budget Vote 21 with reservations from the DA and EFF.

Meeting report

Deputy Minister's opening remarks
Mr John Jeffery, Deputy Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, welcomed everyone and appreciated the opportunity to present the strategic and annual plans. He noted that there was a new development, with a new Department, headed by a Secretary-General, in the form of the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ), which was dealing with the administration of the Superior Courts. The Chief Justice is the Head of the Judiciary and responsible for judiciary matters, which will include matters such as the allocation of the judges, and ultimately magistrates, to particular cases, case flow management and how to ensure that the justice system operates smoothly. He explained that whilst administrative matters used to be the sole responsibility of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJCD), but now staff members would be appointed to the courts in consultation with the Head of the Courts, as effected by the Superior Courts Act. Effectively, the system applied in the Constitutional Court was being rolled out to all other superior courts.

The Deputy Minister highlighted that there was a shared arrangement relating to the administration of courts, and the Minister was currently talking about the Justice Colloquium that will be held later this year and commissioning the best research for the administration of the courts. There were views, particularly from the Chief Justice, that the Ministry should not be responsible for administration of courts at all, but this raised questions about how accountability would be ensured and where the general public would be able to direct any complaints. The Constitution clearly referred to a member of the Cabinet responsible for the administration of justice. There were issues to be considered, such as what would happen if there was a labour dispute when appointments had been made by the Head of the Judiciary, the Chief Justice; currently, the Minister would be cited as the party to these proceedings. There were other concerns around accountability. He added that the judiciary was independent and this was underpinned by security of tenure, salaries and other issues.

The Deputy Minister added that there was a rationalisation process currently under way, which was long overdue. This was intended to align, as far as possible, magisterial districts and municipal boundaries, especially in towns in former homelands. This process was being completed in North West and Gauteng and would be implemented later this year, in both Limpopo and Mpumalanga, followed by Eastern Cape and KwaZulu Natal, and subsequently Western Cape and Northern Cape. There had been the establishment of the Limpopo High Court, which would be proclaimed and become operational later this year, whilst the Mpumalanga High Court is still under construction. A forum had been established to look at outstanding issues around legal process. The Protection of Personal Information Act would shortly become effective, and the National Assembly was soon going to be starting on the process of appointing the Regulator.

Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJCD) briefing
Ms Nonkululeko Sindane, Director-General, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, tabled the strategic goals of the Department (also referred to as DoJCD). Strategic Goal 1 focused on the creation of an efficient, effective and development-oriented administration. The Department had reallocated an additional R48 million to improve internal audit, risk management and vetting, for the 2015/16 financial year.

Strategic Goal 2 prioritised improving administration support to the Justice System, so as to enable to efficiently resolve the cases, and these included civil, family law and criminal cases. An additional R74.5 million had been reallocated to address rural capacitation of courts for the current financial year.

Strategic Goal 3 focused on the provision of quality legal services that strengthened the capacity of the State with a particular emphasis on the re-engineering of the State Legal Services, which required an investment of an additional R34.1 million for 2015/16. A total of R108 million had been allocated over the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) period.

Strategic Goal 4 focused on promotion of constitutionalism and social justice to contribute to social cohesion. The Department had allocated R73 million to this crucial focus area to ensure awareness of the relevance of constitutional democracy and the rights and obligation of citizens.

Ms Sindane stated that the Department was planning to implement key legislation for the current financial year. This included the implementation of the Constitution 17th Amendment Act and the Superior Courts Act, to make the Chief Justice the Head of a fully-independent Judiciary. From 1 April 2015, the Judiciary and identified support staff (approximately 224 in number) formally reported to the Office of the Chief Justice. The budget of R1.6 billion, primarily from the Court Services, became the responsibility of the OCJ. The Department continued to support the OCJ with operational matters as they arose, so as to ensure the seamless achievement of objectives. The budgetary cuts related to the activities of the OCJ were absorbed by the Department, and not passed on to the OCJ when the functions were transferred, in order to ensure that the new Office would have full capacity to re-engineer its envisaged operations.

The Department would be encouraging the speedy implementation of the Legal Practice Act, whose key objective was to rationalise various pre-1994 statutes which regulated the legal profession in different parts of the country. The Act not only would enhance access to the legal profession for aspirant lawyers, but would also enhance access to legal services by the public, impacting positively on access to justice overall. The National Forum will investigate and put processes in place for the implementation of the Act and this will be a key area of implementation for the Department during the 2015-2020 Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) period.

Ms Sindane added that the Department would continue to push for implementation of transformation of State Legal Services, as this formed part of on-going initiatives aimed at broadly transforming the administration of justice. This was particularly aimed at addressing the apparent lack of effective coordination of legal services that had led to a number of operational challenges across government, which included prescription of claims involving government, default judgements granted against government and lack of monitoring systems over the work and outputs of attorneys and advocates. The Cabinet had approved a Framework for the transformation of State Legal Services to address the main challenges. The State Attorney Amendment Act of 2014 provided for the establishment of a Solicitor-General, who will focus the efforts on coordinating litigation on behalf of the State and improve the overall management within the various Offices of the State Attorneys. 

Ms Sindane said that, owing to the current economic climate, the Department had received a below-inflation increase in the budget. This had followed on from a cut in the previous MTEF. She indicated the figures as follows: Remuneration R74 million, goods and services R95.2 million, capital R29 million and departmental agencies R70.5 million for the current financial year. The Department therefore reprioritised within the existing baseline, to fund its new programmes and priorities. The areas of spending pressures during the 2014 budget process included maintenance of security infrastructure in the departmental services, introduction of paralegals in regional and district courts and the Smalls Claims Courts Re-engineering Programme. The other additional areas of spending for the budget comprised of introduction of mediators, according to the Draft Rules on Mediation in the Magistrate's Court Act, getting technical capacity within the Department to fast-track projects to be implemented by the Department of Public Works (DPW), and the roll-out of the Protection of Personal Information Regulator.

Ms Sindane noted that she wanted to speak to a few of the Department's strategic objectives. Strategic objective 2 in Programme 1: Administration was focused on the implementation of programmes aimed at creating employment opportunities for the youth. This objective directly spoke to the Department’s initiatives towards reducing the level of unemployment among youth in the country, through the intensification of the use of learnerships and internships in areas of the Department where capacity was most needed. For the 2013/14 and 2014/15 financial years, 1 074 youth were provided with work training, by way of learnerships and internships, in areas of law, Information Communication and Technology (ICT) and public management. For 2015/16, 800 youth would be taking part in learnership and internship opportunities.

Strategic objective 3 was focused on reduction of fraud and corruption in the Department, as this was one of government's priorities as articulated in Chapter 14 of the National Development Plan (Promoting accountability and fighting corruption). The Department would continue to align with government programmes on the matter, including, amongst others, participation in the Anti-Corruption Task Team (ACTT) and implementation of the required procedures and initiatives.

Ms Sindane highlighted that strategic objective 8 in Programme 2: Court services prioritised increasing access to justice services by historically marginalised communities. The Department would continue to implement programmes that increased access to the justice system, particularly for disadvantaged communities. These initiatives included the roll-out of the Small Claims Court to every municipality in the country, and alignment of magisterial districts with municipal boundaries. The Department would also place more emphasis on the improvement of quasi-judicial functions, particularly within the civil functions of the courts, like the timeous finalisations of default judgement and taxation following conclusion of civil cases. 

She took the Committee through the strategic objectives of programme 3: State Legal Services, and noted that these included:

  • Increased efficiency in the provision of Masters services to all the beneficiaries
  • Improved management of litigation on behalf of the state, to reduce litigation costs and transform the legal system
  • Enhanced re-integration of petty offenders into the socio-economic environment
  • Provision of quality advisory services which passed constitutional muster
  • Fulfilment of international obligations by the Department
  • Development of legislative instruments that were able to withstand constitutional challenges
  • Promotion of broad-based knowledge and support for values of equality, human dignity and fundamental human rights
  • Implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) recommendations, as approved by Parliament, for purposes of contributing to healing the wounds of the past and restoring human dignity 

Strategic objective 10 in Programme 3 was aligned to Chapter 11 (Social Protection) in the National Development Plan (NDP). The Masters of the High Courts had embarked on projects to improve efficiencies in document processing and to improve turnaround times in services provided to the public. The Department would be prioritising the paperless processing, through implementation of the Integrated Case Management System (ICMS). She pointed out that such electronic processing achieves a better audit trail, to mitigate against fraud and corruption, provides effective monitoring and better access to services by the clients. The programme would be allocated R108 million over three years, starting from the 2015/16 financial year, and R34 million for the 2015/26 financial year. This would fund the Office of the Solicitor-General in filling the newly established posts, and training interventions.

Speaking to strategic objective 12, she explained that the Department was planning to reintegrate about 70 000 offenders into the socio-economic environment, by the end of five years. This would be done by ensuring that over 80% of applications for expungement were finalised within three months of receipt. The strategic objective 13 focused on the provision of quality legal advisory services which passed constitutional muster.

Ms Sindane explained the mandate of the Office of Chief State Law Advisor (OCSLA), which was to give advice to government on matters such as international agreements, legislation and legal instruments. The objective for the Department was to give advice that could withstand constitutional challenge, while at the same time sticking to stipulated timelines. The Department had a Translation Unit with the OCSLA ,established in recognition of section 6 of the Constitution, which required all official languages to receive equal esteem. All official languages were promoted through translating all legislation and other legal documents, in accordance with Chapter 15 of the NDP (Transforming society and uniting the country). The turnaround times for finalising translations would continue to be monitored.

Strategic objective 14 in Programme 3 required more attention to be given to the fulfilment of international obligations by the Department. The tabling of reports in time remained crucially important. 12 country reports and 5 ratifications were planned to be finalised in the next five years. In addition, the Department intended to finalise extradition cases and mutual legal assistance matters within stipulated timeframes.

Ms Sindane mentioned that strategic objective 15 in Programme 3 focused on the development of legislative instruments that could withstand constitutional challenges. The Department aimed to develop legislation that passed the constitutionality and other legal tests. Some of the legislation to be developed was aligned to sub-outcome 4: achieving secure cyber-space and sub-outcome 7: reduction of corruption in the public sector.

Strategic objective 18 in Programme 5: Auxiliary Services suggested that more attention must be paid to the establishment of an integrated electronic Criminal Justice System (CJS), for modernisation of the criminal justice information. The purpose of Programme 5 was to provide transfer funding for entities, and to fund a number of auxiliary services. Justice Modernisation was funded within this programme. The objectives under this programme were aligned with Chapter 12 of the NDP and sub-outcome 2 of Government Outcome 3: An efficient and effective Criminal Justice System. Within the initiatives driven by the Department, completion of the 28 Key Performance Indicators (KPI) project and implementation of audio-visual remand systems will be implemented. 

During the 2014/15 financial year, the Integrated Justice System (IJS)  Programme Management Office had been established, within the Department, to ensure effective implementation of this programme. During the same period, 14 of the 28 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) on the Integrated Criminal Justice System were completed. The remaining KPIs were targeted for completion by 2017/18. It was important to highlight that, although other risks did exist, some had been highlighted as particularly critical as they might affect the delivery of the strategic plan. These included:

  • The state of the courts and other facilities, which were susceptible to fires and other interruptions
  • Service delivery protests remained a risk, particularly when property was damaged
  • Dependencies on partner departments and entities in the delivery of objectives, such as decreasing cases on the backlog roll, implementing the 28 KPI project for IJS and Infrastructural Development, including ICT.

The Department had made many changes in the new plans. She noted that these included the alignment of the Strategic plan and Annual Performance Plan (APP) with the National Development Plan (NDP) and Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTSF).  SMART indicators had been formulated for these strategic objectives, to enable their evaluation at the end of the MTSF period. The budget had been made available to perform against the plan, and in some instances allocations had been increased substantially through reprioritisation of activities.

The Department would broadly continue with its former legislative mandates, but the specific areas of emphasis included implementing a plan to improve the Offices of State Attorneys , building capacity in the form of people and systems, to improve service delivery, and a particular emphasis on youth. The Department would also ensure that there was discipline within the Department, and continue to fight fraud and corruption. 

Discussion

The Chairperson appreciated the presentation by the Department but wanted to get clarity on the new Department which was led by the OCJ, and how it would operate and account, as this was not quite clear in the presentation.

Ms T Wana (ANC, Eastern Cape) also wanted further clarity on the issue of the new Department, and wondered if the answer could not be found in the Constitution. She wondered if there were other countries that were following a similar model, and asked how the judiciary should account to the State.

The Deputy Minister responded that this was a separate department which had been established and it was headed by a Secretary-General. That person would account to the Minster, but also must have an interaction with the Chief Justice. The separate department would be dealing with the administration of the Superior Courts, such as the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Appeal, High Court and Labour and other specialist Courts. The framework, set out in the Superior Courts Act,  said that the Minister would appoint the staff of those courts, but must do so in consultation with the Head of Court concerned. The Minister had delegated that consultation function to the Secretary-General. This was a shared model that seemed to be working. The Minister had spoken about the need for more research and public debate on the matter. Some people were of the view that the Minister should not be involved at all in the administration of courts. Should this view be accepted, then a Constitutional amendment would be required, because the Constitution clearly referred to a member of the Cabinet responsible for the administration of justice.

The Deputy Minister added that there were some further problems that would also need to be considered if the present model was to be changed. He elaborated on the example he had given earlier. If the appointments were to be made only by the Head of the Judiciary, the Chief Justice, that raised the question of what would happen if there was a labour dispute. Currently, in such a dispute, the Minster would be cited as the opposing party. It was undesirable that the Chief Justice should be cited in litigation and this also raised questions of accountability. There was still also another debate as to whether it would be appropriate for the Chief Justice to account to Parliament in the same way as the Auditor-General (AG) and the Public Protector.


Ms Wana said that there was still lack of clarity on the restructuring and rationalisation of the courts, as there were still courts in the former homelands to be considered. There had been a signal from the Department that the High Court in Mthatha was to be closed and relocated to Grahamstown. The Department had said nothing on the performance or strategy to prioritise transformation, especially when dealing with the issue of awaiting trials in the provinces.

Mr J Julius (DA, Gauteng) asked whether the 1 074 youth that had been provided with training through learnerships and internships in area of law, ICT and public management had been trained in both the financial years. He wondered also what precise forms of training were provided.
Mr Julius also asked about the  progress that had been made in vetting of Senior Management Staff (SMS), and wondered whether there was a possibility of collaborating with other departments, like the Department of Public Services and Administration (DPSA), as it seemed that the DoJCD had a serious challenge of capacity. It was important to ascertain whether the 23 additional courts to be set up in the next two financial years would also include the Sexual Offences Courts. If that was so, then the Department would need to be commended for listening to the plight of the people. Finally, he wanted to know what budget had been allocated for the Public Protector and whether this amount would allow that office to operate efficiently.

Mr M Mhlanga (ANC, Mpumalanga) wanted the Department to elaborate more on the Criminal Justice System Business Plan, and how this would improve integration across the Criminal Justice sector. He asked for an indication of the progress in the drafting of the Cyber-Security Bill, as the Bill was long overdue. He also wanted to know how far the Department had moved on developing a bill specifically to deal with hate-speech and unfair discrimination. Finally, he wanted to know if the Department was still monitoring the administration of the Traditional Courts, and whether it was still being managed under the 1929 legislation.

Ms T Mokwele (EFF, North West) welcomed the presentation by the Department and commended the sterling work that had been done thus far. She asked whether there was any system in place to deal with cases where it had been discovered that an employee had an undisclosed criminal offence, after the appointment. She asked for more detail on how litigation processes were handled by the Department. She also said it was important for the Committee to know whether the Department had any strategy or plans in place to absorb young people into the Department after the completion of their internships and learnerships. She expressed concern that there some slides had been tabled during the presentation, but were not included in the pack that was available to the Members.

Mr M Mohapi (ANC, Free State) indicated that the Department needed to reduce the reliance on consultancy, as the President had made it very clear that government departments needed to rely on internal capacity. He asked if there were any clear capacity constraints in the Department which would explain the utilisation of consultancy? What is the rate of default judgement that had been granted against government and what the main causes and consequences of these had been. He also wanted to hear more on the impact, functions and monitoring of the new Office of Chief Justice.

Mr Mohapi wondered the state of readiness of the Department to implement the Prevention and Combatting of Trafficking in Persons Act No.7 of 2013. He also pointed out that this Department played a critical role in nation building and social cohesion, and wanted thus to know what it had done to promote these aspects, particularly in the wake of the recent surge of xenophobic attacks. He asked whether there were any chances of coalitions within the relevant departments to deal with the issue of escapees, as this presented a danger to the communities.  

The Chairperson said that if the Department did not have answers right now, it could respond to some of the questions in writing; the Committee would prefer to get full and detailed responses.

The Deputy Minister responded to questions around shared responsibility. Different countries used different systems for the administration of their courts. For instance, in the USA, a Judge was specifically assigned with responsibility for the courts, rather than the Chief Justice. The USA system also differed in the sense that some judges were elected, after approval by Parliament. Namibia had recently passed a constitutional amendment providing for administration by the Chief Justice, but there was more controversy over the fact that this constitutional amendment had also extended the size of the Cabinet in that country. The process of rationalisation of the courts was not about closing courts. In fact, most municipalities would end up with more than one court, to ensure that the areas of jurisdiction were largely the areas around the particular courts. For instance, Umzimkulu was still under the province of Eastern Cape, and Maluti and Matatiele were still under KwaZulu Natal. There had never been talks of closing the court in Mthatha, but the issue was rather whether the Mthatha Court should deal with full-bench appeals. It had already been resolved, and the decision taken that it would in future deal with these matters.

In relation to questions around the budget, Mr Jeffery responded that the Public Protector applied directly to the National Treasury (NT) for funding through the DoJCD. Every department seemed to be asking for more funding but this presented a dilemma, as the only option seemed to be to increase taxes. The Public Protector accounted to the National Assembly (NA). The question on whether the budget that had been allocated for the Public Protector was adequate could not be answered by the Department, but must be asked directly of the Public Protector.

The Deputy Minister reported that the Cyber-Crime Bill was with Cabinet at the moment and the request from the Cabinet was to publish the Bill for public comment. It was a very thick and complicated Bill which dealt with issues of security, and hopefully this Bill would soon go out into the public domain. The public process would be conducted through the Department, and the draft Bill would thereafter be returned to the Cabinet before being tabled in Parliament.

He noted that the issue of hate-speech and unfair discrimination was already covered in the Promotion of Equality and Unfair Discrimination Act,and if there were any complaints regarding unfair discrimination or hate-speech then the matter could be taken to the Equality Court for a ruling. There were no specific crimes in terms of this Act. However, the Department was looking at a hate-crime policy; the problem with this was the possible implications around freedom of speech. There had been discussion around looking at a specific piece of legislation to cover hate-crimes, rather than having a policy. However, doing so would merely elevate the nature of what was already an offence. In one sense, the courts were already dealing with this, imposing harsher sentences where it appeared that the motivating factor was a hate-crime.


Mr Jeffery noted that the Department would be re-introducing the legislation on Traditional Courts after consultation with the stakeholders.

In relation to human trafficking, he stated that the main problem was that there had been a number of departments who were involved in the implementation of the Bill and this had been causing major delays. Sexual offences and trafficking of children were already crimes on their own, and labour trafficking was another aspect to be covered. There were at the moment two main delays. Firstly the Department of Social Development (DSD) still needed to formulate regulations, which had been published in March for public comment, but the Minister of Social Development still needed to approve those before the new Bill was tabled in Parliament. The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) also needed to draw regulations related to foreign victims of trafficking. The Department would in the meantime be implementing the Act with the exception of trafficking of foreign victims. It would continue to work with the two other departments to speed up finalisation of the legislation.

Ms Sindane replied that there were already 34 dedicated court rooms to deal with cases of sexual offences, and 12 more court rooms would be built this year. The Department had been experiencing challenges around infrastructure, but there was now a process established between the DoJCD and the Department of Public Works, with certain rules and regulations to be followed. 

Ms Sindane confirmed that there was a system in place for the vetting of newly recruited senior management staff and this was also a process of inspecting issues such as default judgement and criminal records, especially for people to be appointed in units like finance and law enforcement. The Department would deal with people who had failed to disclose their criminal convictions, and if already disclosed, the Human Resources panel would make a decision on the suitability of that candidate. The country was facing a crisis of high unemployment and therefore it was critically important to integrate those who had been convicted back into the labour market and communities, without compromising the integrity of the Justice System.

Ms Sindane noted that the main priority of internship programmes and learnerships was to offer young people experience, training and mentorship, to make them more readily employable in the future. It was virtually impossible to give permanent employment to all who had been offered an internship or learnership programme, but some had ended up being appointed to the Department because of their work ethics and reliability. The absorption process followed a different route, as the job had first to be advertised. The Committee would be provided with a breakdown of the number of interns that had ended up being absorbed within the Department.

She reported that the Department currently had a case backlog of 4 000 cases, and this was a huge number considering that backlogs grew every year. The fire at the Polokwane Magistrate Court resulted in a huge backlog that had not been planned for. The Department was doing an age analysis of court cases and prioritising all cases older than six months, for finalisation within a set period. It was unfortunate that the Department generated new backlogs every year, for a variety of reasons including illness of the presiding officer, lack of witnesses, or sickness or death of a person involved in the case.

Ms Sindane gave an indication of the Department's business model. It would try to ensure that there was an integrated system that created norms and standards on the investigation of cases, order of arrest, summons and all other processes in the Justice system. It also covered the building of the Information Technology (IT) system and the training of prosecutors, Investigative Officers and other staff. An IJS was mostly focused on integration at IT level to ensure that cases came to court.

Ms Sindane noted that the preliminary presentation had been sent to the Members, but the extra slides covered questions that the Department anticipated might be asked, which she would provide.

The Chairperson interrupted to indicate that the Minister needed to leave, and should be given the opportunity to address the Committee.

Minister's briefing
Adv Michael Masutha, Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, noted his apologies for arriving late, as he had a pre-scheduled media briefing on the budget presentation. He noted that the pivotal points made by Members related to the effectiveness of the country’s justice system in discharging its mandate of making South Africans be and feel safe and restore public confidence. He noted many instances where people had been taking the law into their own hands, because they felt that the Justice System was not responding adequately to the challenge of addressing crime. There had been complaints in some communities that dangerous criminals were arrested but immediately released on bail, with no consideration being given to the safety of community members. This had necessitated the Department's engagement in multi-sectoral initiatives to review the entire value-chain of the Justice system, detect any missing links and find ways to address those challenges. It was also important to review the bail system to check whether it was responding to concerns of many communities. The Department would focus on strategies to integrate those who had been released from correctional centres, back into their communities.

The Minister added that the issue of the independence of the judiciary had also become very topical. The Department had established the independent administrative systems, where courts would be working closely under the direction of the OCJ, to ensure that administration for courts was brought back to the courts themselves.  Reference was made to the presiding officers in those courts, under the leadership of the Chief Justice and respective heads of courts. The judiciary, under the Constitution and the Superior Courts Act, was now responsible for judicial functions, as defined in law, which essentially related to adjudication and processing of matters in order to ensure efficiency and speed in finalising matters. This was the rationale behind establishing a separate administrative machinery, as explained by the Deputy Minister. It was important because it linked directly to the understanding of the independence of the Judiciary. One difficulty, as pointed out by the Department, was that control over public resources carried with it accountability for the use of those resources. It was important to consider the risks also, such as accountability. Currently, Chapter 8 of the Constitution made no reference to the judiciary having direct control over those resources, and being accountable for their utilisation, and a constitutional amendment would be needed to change that; even the Constitution 17th Amendment Bill did not go far enough.

He also agreed that the Department needed to work on crime prevention strategies and involve communities at the centre of those, to collaborate in the fight against crime.

The Minister highlighted that the Department would also need to look at the value-chain system as a whole, and check whether it was adequate to ensure that South Africans were safe and secure. This would talk to the issue of Traditional Courts. The idea of Community Courts had been proposed. Rationalisation referred not only to making the justice system physically accessible, but also to making it economically accessible through legal aid and expansion of the Small Claims Courts system to achieve full national coverage. All these endeavours aimed to ensure that the justice system was a system for the people, and stress that not only the wealthy would be able to benefit from the system.

The Department would also be looking at the legal profession to ensure that it assisted the poor to access services; exorbitant fees had been raised as a concern and there was now a concerted effort to ensure that legal services were more affordable to ordinary people, and access into the profession was widened. There had been a challenge in racial and gender transformation. There were over 400 advocates in the Western Cape, but only 60 were black, and only 21 were black Africans. The number of women, black and white, remained low. This was a difficult issue and required a collaborative process to integrate women and the previously disadvantaged, and the Department could not assume that the "boys' club" would transform itself.

Responses continued
Ms Sindane continued to answer the questions, and indicated that most of those in learnerships had been deployed in the Court Connected Mediation, running the pilot programme, now being piloted in the courts. Few were involved in litigation. Many of those absorbed after their internship had been brought into the ICT unit.

Ms Sindane noted that since the DoJCD was part of the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster (JCPS), the interventions into xenophobic attacks had been made through the Cluster. The Department had provided courts with foreign language interpreters where any prosecutions were taking place, and assisted with other logistics. It had held consultation with civil society to try to stabilise areas affected. Some of the recommendations of the findings of the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) after the 2008 xenophobic attacks had been implemented, with documentary proof.

She noted that the Department had already developed a policy to deal with the issue of hate-speech and hate-crimes, as already indicated by the Deputy Minister. Social cohesion was indeed part of the strategy of the Department and this would also integrate the recent xenophobic attacks and part of the Outcome 14 reporting, with quarterly reports that could be provided to the Committee.

Mr Tsietsi Malema, Acting-Deputy Director General: Court Services, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, responded that the responsibility for security in cells and bringing in prisoners lay with the South African Police Service (SAPS) but the two departments would work with people in the courts, including private security. Investigations would always follow any escape, and disciplinary steps would be taken. There were regular meetings with the security companies to continue to assess the state of the security in courts and ensure that any gaps were closed. There was also collaboration with other departments to prevent recurrence of escapes from courts.

He noted that the Sexual Offences Courts were not only used for sexual related offences, but sexual offences were often given a priority.

Mr Malema noted that the Chief Justice had established the National Efficiency Enhancement Committees (NEEC) and Provincial Efficiency Enhancement Committees (PEEEC) to deal with the issue of awaiting trial prisoners and overcrowding in the cells. At the provincial level, these committees were chaired by the relevant Judge President of the High Court, and all lower courts were required to present their own statistics on case flows, including statistics on the awaiting trial prisoners. The report would have to include the reasons for the particular numbers of awaiting trial prisoners and the action to be taken to deal with these numbers.  

Ms G Manopole (ANC, Northern Cape) requested the breakdown of the Council, in terms of race and gender. It was a serious concern that the Department had been under-spending for two years in reduction of backlogs, as the DPW inefficiencies on courts had already caused backlogs. She suggested that the DoJCD should recommend, to the Select Committee on Finance, that functions be shifted away from the DPW to either the Department of Police or Department of Correctional Services.  There was a huge backlog of cases affecting women in sexual offences cases, and there was a perception that the Department was failing the majority of people, which would raise concerns that the public may see mob violence as the only option to achieve justice for communities. Bail was another issue needing serious legislative reform.

The Chairperson thanked the Department for the presentation and reminded the delegates to send the written responses
 that had been requested by the Members. He indicated that the Committee must now adopt the report on the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development Budget Vote 21.

Committee Report on adoption of budget vote 21 for Department of Justice and Constitutional Development
The Report was tabled and considered.

Mr G Michalakis (DA, Free State) indicated that the DA reserved its position on the Report.

Ms Mokwele also indicated that the EFF reserved its position on the Report.

The report was adopted, with reservations noted. 

The meeting was adjourned.

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: