Political Party Funding Act
Political Party Funding Act Draft Regulations
Regulations for Political Party Funding Act: IEC Public Hearings Day 1
Regulations for Political Party Funding Act: IEC Public Hearings Day 2
My Vote Counts NPC v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (CCT249/17)  ZACC 17; 2018 (8) BCLR 893 (CC); 2018 (5) SA 380 (CC) (21 June 2018)
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services concluded the public hearings on the
Promotion of Access to Information Amendment Bill at the end of the second day. The Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) was being amended subsequent to the proclamation of the Political Parties Funding Act and a court judgement which had determined that the Act had to be amended to provide for access to information about political parties.
The threshold of R100 000 remained a concern for presenters but the day’s presentation offered fairly wide-ranging commentary on shortcomings in the Amendments to the Promotion of Access to Information Act.
My Vote Counts was the organisation that had gone to court in respect of the access to information on the funding of political parties. My Vote Counts expressed concern about Clause 52B of the Amendment Bill, pertaining to “Recording, preservation and disclosure of records on the private funding of political parties,” as the creation and keeping of records was limited to amounts above R100 000. The R100 000 drastically exceeded what the average person in South Africa earned or could afford to donate. The concern was that donations allowed wealthy South Africans to access influence that ordinary South Africans could not access. There was existing evidence to show that donations under R100 000 could “buy” influence and exclusive access to senior public officials and/or party leaders. There were also various ways in which a donor could avoid the threshold.
Members asked whether My Vote Counts had done any research and looked at various examples of anyone who had donated less than R100 000 but had not been given access or opportunities. What was the concern about political parties being given too much freedom as to how to present information? Had MVC considered the capacity required to keep the information available, especially as others had called for retention longer than five years?
Media Monitoring Africa informed the Committee that disclosure on political advertising was a concern around the world and proposed that the Bill be amended to include specific provisions for disclosures in this area, including online advertising. The Promotion of Access to Information Act was time-consuming and expensive and information became outdated and irrelevant by the time that the requested information became available. To address that concern Media Monitoring Africa formally offered its support in updating the Promotion of Access to Information Act to bring it in line with the current digital era.
Members asked if Media Monitoring Africa had a suggestion for a definition of a donation-in-kind in mind. What would be an appropriate sanction for non-compliance with the Act? Concerning the sponsorship register for advertisements, why did MMA feel that it should be an additional obligation? Was there a specific reason for advertisements be reported on separately?
COSATU welcomed and supported the Promotion of Access to Information Amendment Bill in principle. COSATU reminded the public representatives that they should be following their moral compasses and should not require the courts to give an instruction regarding the Amendment to the Act. The current Amendment Bill was essential. Workers had lost jobs as a result of corruption and there had been a loss of confidence in the state. COSATU’s concerns were not with the Bill itself but with the Political Party Funding Act because the Bill was linked to section 9 of that Act. The R100 000 threshold was a fundamental flaw in the Act and provided a large loophole. The Committee should be bold and have the courage to seek a revised mandate from the National Assembly to amend the Political Party Funding Act and remove the R100 000 threshold in section 9.
Members asked whether COSATU believed access to information alone would be enough to prevent corruption.
The Helen Suzman Foundation’s submission was limited to two areas in which the Bill had to do more to create certainty around information requests in two ways. Firstly, the Bill had to make explicit the duty on the accounting officers of political parties to comply with requests for information made in terms of the Act on the private funding of political parties and independent candidates, under the specified threshold. Secondly, the Bill had to create an explicit duty on accounting officers to record and preserve information on private funding of political parties and independent candidates, under the specified threshold. There was already a duty to supply information to the public.
Members asked the Foundation if it did not think that the suggestion of providing information on every donation would be very onerous and would require a vast amount of people to do that.
The Information Regulator welcomed the Bill. It was recommended that the definition of “private bodies” under Section 1 of the Act be extended to include political parties and independent candidates. That extension of the definition would effectively cure the deficiencies highlighted by the Constitutional Court. It would, most importantly, ensure that the Act was applicable to political parties and independent candidates.
The definition of “head” in section 1 of the Act should also be extended to include the head of a political party and independent candidates.
Members understood that the Information Regulator would be the enforcement officer of the Bill. What enforcement measures were available to the Information Regulator, as the Bill stood at that moment?
The South African Human Rights Commission suggested that it was necessary to include political parties in the definitions. President Ramaphosa had urged Parliament to consider regulating internal party contests as the public had a right to know about the funding of those contests as well. The Commission recommended that the burden on requesters of information be relieved. Section 32 had to be amended to show specific grounds for denying requests for information. The HRC recommended that sections 22, 25 and 26 be amended to clearly reflect that the 30-day time period could not be deviated from in any circumstances. In addition, it was recommended that shorter time periods be introduced for instances where access to information was vital to safeguarding the liberty of people.
Members asked how one could equate the rights of political party members with the request for information by members of the public who had chosen not to become members of that party?
The Committee planned to consider the Bill after the recess break and the completion of budgetary processes so that the Bill could be tabled in the House before the National Assembly rose at the end of the year.
The Chairperson welcomed everyone.
He informed presenters that they had 15 minutes, which should not be exceeded.
Briefing by My Vote Counts (MVC)
Ms Zahira Grimwood, Researcher, MVC, indicated that My Vote Counts had gone to court to seek the reasonable disclosure of information on the private funding of political parties and independent candidates. She provided a brief explanation of the process that had led to the Promotion of Access to Information Amendment Bill.
My Vote Counts expressed concern about Clause 52B of the Amendment Bill, pertaining to “Recording, preservation and disclosure of records on the private funding of political parties,” as the creation and keeping of records was limited to amounts above R100 000. The R100 000 drastically exceeded what the average person earned or could afford to donate. The concern was that donations allowed wealthy SAs to access influence that ordinary SAs could not access. R100 000 threshold was an arbitrary figure and did not relate to the wage or donation of an average South African. There was existing evidence to show that donations under R100 000 could “buy” influence and exclusive access to senior public officials and/or party leaders. There were also various ways in which a donor could avoid the threshold by avoiding donations in a single year or by donating via other persons.
Requests for political party funding information should not be limited to information made available through the PPFA, otherwise the Amendment Bill risked not fully giving effect to the making of political choices and to participate in elections, as ordered in Paragraph 1.1 of the judgement.
My Vote Counts stated that “Donation” should be given a wider definition to cover any form of private funding so as to cover the recordal and access to information of all means by which a benefit, economic or otherwise, was allocated to a political party. The biggest concern was that the means of indirect giving could be concealed if the definition of private funding was not broadened in the Amendment Bill to go beyond the definition of a donation included in the PPFA.
Political parties should be obliged to load the information on their websites plus make hard copies of information available. The information should be made available as soon as possible at the end of each quarter.
The Chairperson thanked MVC for completing on time.
Mr W Horn (DA) referred to the comment made by My Vote Counts (MVC) in paragraph 2.7 about the R100 000 threshold which was then linked to how much the average voter earned or could afford to donate. In the next paragraph, there was a reference to reducing the unfair advantage that donors had. MVC seemed to work from the position that all donations sought to influence political parties. If that was the case, it was a problem. He wondered if MVC had empirical evidence that it was the case. MVC seemed to believe that no one donated to a political party simply in support of the party or because they supported constitutional democracy. That would be problematic.
In paragraph 5.3, MVC proposed a wider definition of donation. He suggested to the Chairperson that submissions should make suggestions about changes to definitions, the presenter should provide some indication of what he or she wished to see in the definition.
Mr Q Dyantyi (ANC) agreed with Mr Horn’s points. He also asked for more detail about MVC’s research and the example that it had shared of the ANC’s Progressive Business Forum (PBF) where making a donation of under R100 000 gave access to markets and opportunities and relied on the fact that those people had donated in order to get those opportunities. Had MVC done any research and looked at another example of anyone who had donated less than R100 000 but had not been given access or opportunities? He hoped that the ANC research was not the only research undertaken because MVC could not use the example of the ANC to judge other parties. He wanted Ms Grimwood to go to town with explaining the evidence-based research to him and to share another example from any other party so that the Committee could see the rationale in her statement.
Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) was covered by the previous speakers but reading from page 4 where MVC spoke of an accounting officer and went into details of what it wanted, she got a feeling that the presenters wanted to scare the people who wanted to make donations. Perhaps MVC wanted people to get the feeling that it would follow anyone who donated to find out why the person had donated.
She also asked for clarity on the concern about political parties being given too much freedom as to how to present information. Concerning access to records, MVC suggested that records had to be available in a reasonable number of hard copies in government offices, but it was hard for all government offices to keep that information available for five years. Had MVC considered the capacity required to keep the information available, especially as others had called for retention longer than five years?
The Chairperson advised MVC that it did not have to give the requested proposal for wording immediately. It could be emailed before the Committee finalised the clause-by-clause review of the Bill.
Ms Grimwood replied that MVC supported private funding in support of democracy as it was aware that democracy was expensive and there was limited state funding available. If political parties did not have anything to hide, they should not be afraid to disclose donor information.
She explained that the example that she had given of the PBF was to show what influence could be exercised by donating an amount below R100 000. Evidence-based research was hampered by the fact that information about political party funding was not available but the PBF was advertising for donors and representatives of PBF had said that 4 000 people had benefited from donating to the Forum. The party was open about the fact that donations allowed access to foreign trade delegations and access to Ministers and the higher the donation, the more exclusive the access. The ANC was open about that but without more evidence, it was not possible to show exactly how much influence people had. The information was simply not available. Buying of influence was not a problem unique to SA but one should not be naïve and think that all donations were in support of multi-party democracy. MVC supported the idea that political parties should be funded but conversely, political parties should show how they were funded and that there was nothing to hide.
Ms Grimwood stated that for other political parties, MVC had to rely on investigative journalism. MVC had a report on what was known about political party funding on its website. Five parties were named in the report: ANC, EFF, DA, IFP, UDM. At least one case of corrupt donations had been made to each of those parties. There was the example of the IFP and the KZN Gambling Board. Any party that had access to government and state resources would attract attention from funders who wanted to establish elite networks and to influence policies. It was a global phenomenon. She assured Members that the intention was not to undermine the donations because election campaigns were very expensive.
On hard copies, she thought that they could be made available at local government offices and party offices, particularly where there was no, or limited, internet access. Cost was not more important than the rights of South Africans to be fully informed when voting.
The Chairperson said Members needed to agree on rules going forward. If the Committee did not complete the work before the sitting at 2pm, Members would have to come back after the House sitting to complete the public hearings.
Mr Dyantyi said that he had worked for an NGO when he had first started work so he had been in Ms Grimwood’s space. NGOs were donor-funded and what the NGOs did was linked to what the donor wanted. Were donations to NGO completely innocent? He did not know who funded MVC but did she have a problem with what it was that the donors wanted from MVC?
Ms Grimwood stated that MVC was open about all donors and that information was available on the website. MVC had a policy not to accept any donations from foreign governments and large corporations. Donors did not make demands on MVC. The organisation determined what it wanted to do and then approached people, companies, foundations, etc. to support those programmes. MVC was completely dependent on donor funding and the Members were welcome to look at the website to see who supported MVC and they were also welcome to visit MVC offices. MVC was completely open and transparent about donations.
The Chairperson thanked MVC and invited Media Monitoring Africa to present.
Btiefing by Media Monitoring Africa (MMA)
Ms Thandi Smith, Head: Policy Programme, MMA, presented on behalf of the organisation.
Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) asked if the speakers could slow down for the sake of the sign language interpreters, particularly if they were reading.
The Chairperson repeated Ms Newhoudt-Druchen’s request.
Ms Smith provided a brief background of MMA. She provided assumptions about the purpose of PAIA and the Constitution.
One of MMA’s concerns was the fact that the definition of “political party” in the draft Bill did not align with the definition in the Political Party Funding Act 6 of 2018 (PPFA) and thus the word “and” in the definition should be amended to “or”. Neither PAIA nor the Bill contained a definition of “donation” and MMA was prepared to provide a suggested definition.
Disclosure regarding political advertising was a concern around the world and MMA proposed that the Bill be amended to include specific provisions for disclosures regarding political advertising, including political advertising online. Ms Smith suggested that “any advertisement and or paid for content, advocating for or against the election of a party or candidate or outcome, that was published directly or indirectly as part of an election campaign” would suffice as a definition.
Whistle-blowers required protection as in Article 11 of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) Guidelines on Access to Information in Elections. The inclusion in PAIA of a cross-reference to the Protected Disclosures Act of 2000 would ensure clear protection within the access to information framework.
PAIA was time-consuming and expensive and information became outdated and irrelevant by the time that requested information became available. Therefore, MMA formally offered its support in updating PAIA in line with the current digital era.
Adv G Breytenbach (DA) noted that MMA had stated that there was no definition of a donation-in-kind. Did Ms Smith have a definition in mind? She had also mentioned that the sanction for non-compliance in section 52.1(b) was not adequate. What would be an appropriate sanction for non-compliance?
Mr Horn referred to the difference in the definition of a political party between the draft Bill and the PPFA. Was he correct in understanding that the objection turned on the fact that only political parties at national, provincial and local legislatures and councils would be obliged to preserve and make available information and that that obligation did not rest with parties not represented in any government structures?
Concerning the sponsorship register for advertisements, why did MMA feel that it should be an additional obligation? Section 52B (5) required a record of any sponsorships. Was there a specific reason for advertisements be reported on separately?
Regarding the suggestion based on the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) Guidelines that the Bill be expanded to include other structures, functions, powers and processes of political parties, he felt that the question should be about where one could strike a balance between political parties and the public interest. Current case law indicated that only members of a party had a propriety interest in the affairs of the party. Should political parties make available records of decision-making in respect of candidates lists or, going to the extreme, after every federal committee meeting of DA, the minutes should be made available? According to current case law, there was a contract between the party and members of the party who had a propriety interest.
Ms Smith indicated that MMA would like to have the opportunity to provide suggested wording for an in-kind donation. She did not have specific examples of what appropriate sanctions for non-compliance would be but certain sanctions for non-compliance would fall under the Information Officer in terms of PAIA. She would also welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter with the MMA legal team and to provide suggestions about what kind of sanctions would be appropriate. The definition of political parties in the draft Bill was a good definition and the definition in the PPFA should be updated to align with draft Bill.
Concerning advertising, the point was that in traditional media such as radio, television and the print media, it had to be disclosed upfront that it was political party advertising, but that did not apply to online advertising on social media. Political parties did not have to disclose paid-for content on social media. MMA was asking that the requirement for disclosure by traditional media apply to advertising or paid-for content on social media.
Regarding the alignment with ACHPR and striking the balance, Ms Smith could give some ideas but she would prefer an opportunity to provide a written response which could quote current case law.
Briefing by COSATU
Mr Tony Ehrenreich, Western Cape Regional Secretary, COSATU, submitted an apology on behalf of Matthew Parks, the Parliamentary Coordinator. He did not have a separate oral presentation.
COSATU welcomed and supported the PAIA Amendment Bill in principle. He reminded the public representatives that they should be following their moral compasses and should not require the courts to give an instruction regarding the Amendment to PAIA. In light of the corruption in the system, the PPFA and the current PAIA Amendment Bill were essential. Workers had lost jobs as a result of corruption and there had been a loss of confidence in the state.
COSATU supported the Bill in principle and supported the various provisions. Its concerns were not with the Bill itself but with the PPFA because the Bill linked to section 9 of the PPFA. The R100 000 threshold was a fundamental flaw in the Act and provided a large loophole. It undermined the progressive spirit of the Act and provided a loophole so large that it would likely collapse all the positive anti-corruption objectives of both the Act and the Amendment Bill. Thieves had shown that they could be cheaply bought. It would be simple for donors to circumvent the R100 000 threshold and avoid the corruption checks.
COSATU believed that the Committee should be bold and have the courage to seek a revised mandate from the National Assembly to amend the PPFA and remove the R100 000 threshold in section 9. It would be a betrayal not to remove it. Members in the current House had been elected to clean up the system and should not fail in that historic task.
Mr Horn noted that the Bill turned on access to information but the further background had been referred to and now there was a specific reference to corruption. The saying was that power corrupts. He asked COSATU, as part of the governing alliance, whether COSATU believed access to information alone would be enough to prevent corruption.
If one looked at the definitions in the Bill, Mr Horn assumed that COSATU would be identified as an entity that supported a political party, that is, the ANC. Currently entities did not need to make membership donations publicly available. He asked COSATU whether the definition should be expanded to say that if entities used membership subscriptions to support political parties in the run-up to elections, that the Bill should require those entities to inform the members of the support offered and to publish and provide a list of names of members.
Mr Ehrenreich stated that the point was to curtail the influence of those individuals with a vested interest in the political process. Funds were better invested in those parties in power but currently most of the major parties were in power at some level of government. Clearly the access to information was not sufficient to deter corruption. The Chinese had some useful instruction in respect of dealing with corruption. Once SA held public representatives and leaders in business and civil society to the moral codes of the country and showed that the responses to unacceptable behaviour in society were serious, there would be a decline in corruption. COSATU believed that politicians and others got away with corruption much too easily. Access to information was a step in the right direction of ensuring greater accountability. COSATU supported the democratisation of society and how it should be achieved
Mr Ehrenreich explained that because COSATU was in an alliance with ANC, members knew that the Union supported the ANC. Funding used for political purposes could be make available. COSATU was happy to make that information available about funding used to support the ANC as it believed that every organisation that used its funds in support of a political agenda should make that information available to the public. Democracy meant being open and transparent. In 1994, the changes were not ideal but did set conditions for society to transform in a progressive manner. COSATU was not happy to see that political parties had been reluctant to disclose where they were getting their funding. To say that the governing party put pressure on people was not correct because there were a number of laws to protect one from undue political pressure, so there were other ways to deal with that concern.
Briefing by the Helen Suzman Foundation
The Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) was represented by two Legal Researchers at the Foundation, Ms Cherese Thakur and Ms Kimera Chetty.
Ms Chetty stated that the HSF supported previous presentations made during the public hearing. The HSF submission was limited to two areas in which the Bill had to do more to create certainty around information requests. Firstly, the Bill had to make explicit the duty on the accounting officers of political parties to comply with requests for information made in terms of PAIA on the private funding of political parties and independent candidates under the specified threshold. Secondly, the Bill had to create an explicit duty on accounting officers to record and preserve information on private funding of political parties and independent candidates under the specified threshold. There was already a duty to supply information to the public.
Ms Thakur stated that the Bill did not go far enough in addressing concerns about non-compliance with the Bill. The Bill placed a high requirement on the pre-emptive disclosure of information but the Committee was also the custodian of the PAIA. PAIA could not just link to PPFA but had to be true to the pre-emptive disclosures of political parties without compromising information requests about monies that lay below the threshold. The Committee had to safeguard the information below the threshold of R100 000. If the information did not exist, it could not be requested.
Ms Thakur stated that the HSF technical suggestions did not add any new legal obligations but sought to ensure a synthesis between PAIA and PPFA. The duty of accounting officers to create and keep records should stand independently of the threshold of R100 000. HSF proposed that the Bill be amended so that the threshold did not apply to the recording and preservation of information relating to political party funding.
Finally, Ms Thakur added that, in addition, the accounting officer should not be able to refuse a request on the basis of not holding the record. That would close a loophole. Disclosure should take place at the end of each quarter and two months prior to an election.
Adv Breytenbach asked if the HSF did not think that the suggestion of providing information on every donation would be very onerous and would require a vast amount of people to do that. It seemed to be a self-defeating exercise. She still had trouble, despite two days of hearings, in understanding why there was a need for miniscule donations. No one could object to disclosing the information but it certainly would not help in dealing with corruption and was incredibly burdensome.
Ms Chetty referred to the difference between pre-emptive disclosure and requested information because that information should be made without even asking for information. The Committee had imposed the dual disclosure on accounting officers, which was good, but it seemed to be hesitant about compelling compliance. If the information existed, and a request was made under section 23 of PAIA, that information could not be withheld unless there was a bone fide reason that the accounting officer could not provide such information. That was the remedy in PAIA. It was amounts under the threshold that HSF was seeking to have covered by the PAIA requirements. For example, an investigative reporter might need to know miniscule amounts as investigations were about joining the dots.
The Chairperson thanked the presenters.
He welcomed students from a school in the Eastern Cape who were seated in the public gallery and explained the process of public hearings.
Briefing by the Information Regulator (IR)
Ms Lebogang Stroom-Nzama, Full-time Member, IR, apologised for the absence of Adv Pansy Tlakula, the Information Regulator, who had broken her arm and could not be at the hearing.
The IR welcomed the Bill. The issue of political parties had not been addressed in PAIA. PAIA applied to juristic persons and therefore PAIA applied to those parties that were juristic persons but there might be some parties that were not juristic persons and so the amendment was needed to include political parties that were not juristic persons.
The IR believed that the Bill met the narrow decision of the Constitutional Court but PAIA in its entirety should apply to political parties and therefore the definition of private bodies in PAIA had a gap and needed to be amended. It was recommended that the definition of “private bodies” under Section 1 of PAIA be extended to include political parties and independent candidates. That extension of the definition would effectively cure the deficiencies highlighted by the Constitutional Court. It would, most importantly, ensure that PAIA was applicable to political parties and independent candidates.
The definition of “head” in section 1 of PAIA should also be extended to include the head of a political party and independent candidates.
Ms Stroom-Nzama stated that if those amendments were not made, then one could not request political party funding information via PAIA.
Mr Horn asked a question on something not in the briefing. He understood that the IR would be the enforcement officer of the Bill. What enforcement measures were available to the IR, as the Bill stood at that moment?
Ms Stroom-Nzama explained that the IR had a dual mandate as custodian of both PAIA and the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA). Certain sections of PAIA were not enforced because certain sections of POPIA had not been enacted. The two Acts were interdependent. There would be an enforcement committee once all sections in POPIA came into force.
Briefing by South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC)
Ms Fadlah Adams, Senior Researcher, SAHRC, apologised for the absence of the Prof Majola, the SAHRC Commissioner, who had another engagement that day. She confirmed that the SAHRC was handing over POPIA to the IR that month.
Dr Shanelle van der Berg, Senior Researcher, SAHRC, explained that notwithstanding the enactment of the PAIA, South Africans still struggled to exercise their rights in respect of information requests to private and public bodies alike. In the circumstances, the current focus on political party funding provided South Africa a valuable opportunity to consider the broader principles of transparency, and accountability in the context of rights such as access to information and responsibilities of business to uphold human rights. Compliance with PAIA had dropped, and Chapter Nine institutions and local government were endemic in not complying with or responding to requests. The Draft Bill was an opportunity to amend PAIA more fully as the HRC had requested over the years by making more detailed amendments.
Areas where amendments were necessary included definitions to include political parties. President Ramaphosa had urged Parliament to consider regulating internal party contests as the public had a right to know about the funding of those contests as well. The Commission recommended that the use of the word ‘and’ between subsection (a) and (b) of section 46 (Public Interest Override) be replaced with the word ‘or’ to lessen the burden on requesters who wished to rely on the provision. Section 32 had to be amended to show specific grounds for denying requests for information. The SAHRC recommended that sections 22, 25 and 26 be amended to clearly reflect that the 30-day time period could not be deviated from in any circumstances. In addition, it was recommended that shorter time periods be introduced where access to information was vital to safeguarding the liberty of people.
Mr Horn asked whether other information about political parties should be accessible to the public. Case law said that a person had to become a member of the private voluntary association to have a propriety interest and to become involved in decision-making. How did one strike the balance between a private voluntary association and a political party attempting to gain the seat of government through elections? How could one equate that right of members with the request for information by members of the public who had chosen not to become members of that party?
Dr van den Berg replied that the Constitution was founded on the values of transparency and openness, responsiveness and accountability. That skewed the balance in favour of the free flow of information and transparency. Private bodies could wield real power and have a real impact on people’s lives and for that reason, it was not dependent on membership for one to have the right to information of a private body if that information was necessary for one of the defined purposes. The information might persuade a person to join the party or to vote for another party. Also, once the party did attain power, the public needed to know if there was any nefarious activity going on.
The Constitutional Court had recognised that political parties were vital to SA society and had a role to play in society as a democratic constitutional order. They were instrumental in realising the right to vote in making sure that the public was informed about policies.
The Chairperson stated that the public hearings had come to the end. The Committee would process the Bill after its return from the constituency period and the completion of the Budget Review and Recommendations Reports (BRRR). The intention was to have the Bill passed before the adjournment of Parliament at the end of the year.
The Chairperson informed Committee Members of an invitation from the Chief Justice to the Committee to attend the presentation of the Annual Report presentation of the Chief Justice on 3 October 2019.
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.